Wisdom for Life: Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert S. J. on the Occasion [Multilingual ed.] 3110301628, 9783110301625

Table of contents :
Preface
Proverbs
A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs
Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes
Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3) und von “Not” und “Not wendender Kraft” (Spr 24,10.11–12)
The Words of Agur (Prov 30:1–9) and the Book of Proverbs: Some Historico-Anthropological Considerations
Job
Job et la main de Dieu
Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1
Ein Phönix in Ijob 29,18?
The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31)
Qoheleth
Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?
Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets
Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison
The Snowball and the Cord of Three Stands: Qoh 4:12b in the Rabbinic Tradition
Ben Sira
Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom in Tobit 4:3–19
Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse
A Reareading of the Primeval Narratives: Ben Sira 40:1–17 and 16:26–17:4
“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward” (SirG 51:30). Some Observations on the Use of ?????/ hf,[]m; in the Book of Ben Sira
Wisdom of Solomon
The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit” (?????? and e?e??et??) in the Book of Wisdom
The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3)
Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8)
L’?p?e??e?a divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27
Psalms
Quand la structure révèle un sens: Les Psaumes “quasi-alphabétiques” 33 et 103
Melchisedek in Psalm 110:4
The Structure of Psalm 111
PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers
Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)
List of Abbreviations
Index of Authors
Index of References

Citation preview

Wisdom for Life

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Edited by John Barton, Reinhard G. Kratz and Markus Witte

Volume 445

Wisdom for Life

Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday

Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages

DE GRUYTER

ISBN 978-3-11-030162-5 e-ISBN 978-3-11-030164-9 ISSN 0934-2575 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ

Preface Almost fifteen years have passed since 28 July 1998 when I had the pleasure of presenting at the University of Louvain Treasures of Wisdom, the first Festschrift dedicated to Prof. Maurice Gilbert on the occasion of his 65th birthday. It was a simple celebration, but a very special one because at the time he participated in the XLVIIIth «Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense» and was completely taken by surprise. For that occasion, Cardinal Carlo M. Martini had written a letter to unite himself with the celebration and this letter was later published in the said volume. From it I choose some passages that were and still are especially significant: “you have made a decisive contribution to our knowledge of the Wisdom texts and poetry of Israel. Your true concern, however, has been not only to deepen our scientific knowledge of the biblical pages, but also to open them up to the knowledge and use of the faithful […] When one reads your writings, one perceives that the basis of your searching is the search for the Lord, for his Wisdom and for his will. This is what is most important from an entire life devoted to Scripture and to the brethren, that grace which unites us even when our places and paths are different. It is in this sense that I greet you from afar”. The good wishes of Cardinal Martini have been fulfilled, and, 12 March 2014, Prof. Gilbert will celebrate his 80th birthday, his life marked by the search for and spreading of Wisdom. The contributors to this Festschrift are among a great number of people (friends, colleagues, students…) who have learned from and with him. That is why they wish to express their friendship and gratitude with the publication of the present volume, which is, in fact, the third Festschrift dedicated to him. The first Festschrift is devoted exclusively to Sirach and Wisdom (Nuria Calduch-Benages – Jacques Vermeylen, eds., Treasures of Wisdom. Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert [BETL 143], Leuven: University Press – Peeters, 1999). The second has a much broader range (Françoise Mies, ed., Toute la sagesse du monde – Hommage à Maurice Gilbert, pour le 65e anniversaire de l’exégète et du recteur [Le livre et le rouleau 7], Brussels: Lessius, 1999). This third Festschrift concentrates on all the books of the so-called “Sapiential Pentateuch” (Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth, Sirach and Wisdom) plus the Psalms. Thanks are due to all the authors who have contributed with their articles. Many, although sincerely wishing to, have not been able to contribute in writing on account of work, personal commitments or health. Special thanks go to those who have helped with the translation of texts into English, the revision of the translations, the successive corrections of the drafts and so many other details: Prof. Leo Arnold, Dr. Jeremy Corley, Mgr. Dr. Jan Liesen, Dr. Michael Tait and Mr. Carlo Valentino, General Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Last but

viii 

 Preface

not least, I acknowledge the help of Dr. Albrecht Döhnert, Editorial Director of the publishing house Walter de Gruyter, who, right from the beginning, has encouraged and supported me in this project and has made possible the publication of this work in the prestigious series BZAW. Dear Prof. Gilbert, our good wish for you, for those who have written, and for all those who will profit by reading, is: may the Word of God bring you Wisdom for Life. Nuria Calduch-Benages Rome, 8th September 2013

Table of Contents Preface 

 vii

Proverbs Michael V. Fox A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 3

Jean Louis Ska Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes 

 18

Hans-Winfried Jüngling Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3) und von “Not” und “Not wendender Kraft” (Spr 24,10.11–12)   30 Angelo Passaro The Words of Agur (Prov 30:1–9) and the Book of Proverbs: Some HistoricoAnthropological Considerations   50

Job Françoise Mies Job et la main de Dieu 

 61

Darius Iwanski Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1  Renate Egger-Wenzel Ein Phönix in Ijob 29,18? 

 84

 96

Sebastiano Pinto The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31) 

 105

x 

 Table of Contents

Qoheleth James L. Crenshaw Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?  Jesús M. Asurmendi Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets 

 132

Jeremy Corley Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison 

 145

 119

Krzysztof Bardski The Snowball and the Cord of Three Stands: Qoh 4:12b in the Rabbinic Tradition   156

Ben Sira Alexander A. Di Lella Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom in Tobit 4:3–19  Nuria Calduch-Benages Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

 171

 186

Pancratius C. Beentjes A Reareading of the Primeval Narratives: Ben Sira 40:1–17 and 16:26–17:4   201 Maria Carmela Palmisano “Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward” (SirG 51:30). Some Observations on the Use of ἔργον/ hf,[]m; in the Book of Ben Sira   218

Wisdom of Solomon Luca Mazzinghi The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit” (κολάζω and εὐεργετέω) in the Book of Wisdom   237

Table of Contents 

Marco Nobile The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3)  Michelangelo Priotto Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) 

 250

 260

Alexis Leproux L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

Psalms Jacques Vermeylen Quand la structure révèle un sens: Les Psaumes “quasi-alphabétiques” 33 et 103   293 Ambrogio Spreafico Melchisedek in Psalm 110:4  Gianni Barbiero The Structure of Psalm 111 

 309

 321

Renato De Zan PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers 

Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)  List of Abbreviations   360 Index of Authors   364 Index of References  370

 353

 340

 272

 xi

Proverbs

Michael V. Fox 

A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs¹ Michael V. Fox: University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

1 Introduction Given the paucity of extant Hebrew variants for the book of Proverbs², the Septuagint (G) is by far the most valuable resource for the text critical study of the book. But it is very hard to control, for it not only diverges often from the apparent literal sense of the Hebrew, but also does so in a variety of ways, so that it is difficult to describe its translation techniques. The present essay seeks to draw a profile of this translation, which is a book of Wisdom in its own right. It is appropriate that the essay is dedicated to a great scholar of Wisdom Literature, Maurice Gilbert, whose work I have used and esteemed for some four decades. As my working edition of G-Proverbs I use, faute de mieux, Rahlfs’s Septuaginta. Though there numerous inner-Greek variants, they do not significantly impinge on the examples used in this essay. I set aside known Hexaplaric variants, since my concern is with the OG³. As for unmarked and unrecognized Hexaplaric variants, the inability to identify some of them may camouflage true variants by moving them closer to M but probably would not create false ones.

2 The Character of the Translation Whether G-Proverbs should, as Johann Cook says, “principally be seen as an exegetical writing”⁴ depends on one’s purposes. It can indeed be approached as

1 In referring to additional verses in G, Rahlfs uses added letters, e.g., 9:12a. To distinguish these additions from verse components of M or G, I put Rahlfs’ letters in italics. For example, 9:12a is the first G addition after 9:12, whereas 9:12a is the first half of M 9:12 and 9:12aa is the first half of G 9:12a. It should be noted that the chapter-verse numbering is quite different in Greek manuscripts. The modern practice is to apply M’s numbering to G, though this does not always fit G’s order. NETS, helpfully, organizes the translation in G’s proper order. 2 4QProva (= 4Q102) and 4QProvb (= 4Q103) hold about thirteen substantive (non orthographic) variants. 3 The Hexaplaric variants are listed and discussed by Fritsch, The Treatment of the Hexaplaric Signs, 169–181. 4 Cook, Septuagint, 12, emphasis in original.

4 

 Michael V. Fox  

exegesis, and G-Proverbs certainly has a place in the history of interpretation of the book of Proverbs. But for text critical purposes, G-Proverbs must be taken seriously as a translation that aims at representing the message of the Hebrew and is best understood in terms of that goal. Of course, all translations, except perhaps the most mindless, are based on exegesis, though this tends to be noticeable only when one disagrees with the interpretation. But the category “exegetical” is too broad to help us explain most differences from the Hebrew of M-Proverbs. “Exegetical” is more usefully reserved to describe added words, phrases, or lines that are intended to clarify another component of the translation. Cook’s main thesis, developed in The Septuagint of Proverbs and numerous articles, is that G-Proverbs is a Jewish Hellenistic document that is both interpretive and religiously conservative. By this he means that it states and promotes specifically Jewish doctrines, above all the centrality of the Law of Moses, and does not introduce foreign ideas to any significant degree. I largely agree with this assessment (though I do not think that the Law is central in this translation). I am also persuaded by Michael Dick’s arguments that G-Proverbs does not promote Hellenistic doctrines, but at most vaguely reflects some notions common in the translator’s environment⁵. At the same time, I would not deny many of d’Hamonville’s observations on the impress of Greek literature and thought on the translation⁶. We can also accept that the translation was influenced (but not governed) by Greek stylistic choices, such as the desire to enhance alliteration, parallelism, antithesis, and occasional Greek metrical patterns⁷. These views of the translations’ character can coexist because of the variety of approaches the translator embraces. It is only to be expected that an Alexandrian Jew (as the translator presumably was) would imbibe tropes, prosodic patterns, and ideas borne by his environment as well as his ancestral traditions. I only claim that these qualities do not entirely obscure the underlying Hebrew text or preclude the recovery of variants. “Free”, as G-Proverbs is typically called⁸, is too vague a term to be very useful, because there are too many kinds of freedom. Also, a translator may diverge from a strict “literal” rendering not because of a sense of “freedom” – a feeling that he can do to the text whatever he wishes – but because he feels compelled to represent the meaning of his Hebrew source correctly. I prefer to describe the translation technique of G-Proverbs as “flexible”. By this I mean that the translator uses

5 Dick, Ethics, 2. 6 D’Hammonville, Proverbes, passim. 7 As argued by Gerleman, Proverbs, 11–35 and d’Hamonville, Proverbes, 92–99. 8 E.g., Cook, Septuagint, 316 and passim.

 A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 5

a variety of techniques as the need arises. Sometimes he maps his source closely, sometimes paraphrases, sometimes expands the quantitative representation of Hebrew words, sometimes reduces it, and sometimes just guesses at the meaning. This flexibility makes it almost impossible to characterize the translation as a whole in quantifiable terms. When the translator chooses a broad mapping in one verse, grasping the meaning of a Hebrew proverb in a Greek sentence that does not align neatly with the components of the source, this proves little about his approach elsewhere. At most it is suggestive of the kinds of things the translator can do. It is no more justifiable to extrapolate from the broadly mapped verses to the translator’s overall technique and call it “free” than to deduce from the (numerous) narrowly mapped ones that it is “literal”. We have to proceed verseby-verse and decide each case on its own. When we allow for the translator’s flexibility, G-Proverbs proves to be an honest rendering of a Hebrew original as the translator understood it. Three principles are important in evaluating a translation: (1) However interpretive or paraphrastic the translator may be in translating the Hebrew, he is not necessarily translating a text identical to M. (2) A variant in the translator’s source may be wrong. One cannot disprove the existence of a variant by showing it to be bad Hebrew or inappropriate to context. (3) If we cannot determine what text underlay G, we must default to ignorance, not to M.

3 Features and Practices G-Proverbs has a set of characteristic features, both large-scale and small. These represent not so much “techniques” (for they are not necessarily deliberate) as practices. These are not unique to G-Proverbs, but taken together they do give a sense of its particular character. These features come from three phrases in the development of the book: the Hebrew source-text used by the translator⁹, the OG translator’s own activity, and the subsequent inner-Greek transmission. It is often difficult to determine in which phase a particular instance arose. If scholars have tended to ascribe most M-G differences to the translator, this may be due to an inclination to assume that what one sees in translation originated in translation. This is Cook’s assump-

9 For ways of identifying variants in G-Proverbs, see Fox, LXX-Proverbs, 95–128. Though the suggested criteria cannot catch all the variants, they can provide firm arguments for retroversions in many cases.

6 

 Michael V. Fox  

tion when he says that a determination that the translator handled his text freely “could naturally lend support to a view that would ascribe deviations from the M to the translator”¹⁰. (“Inevitably” might be a more fitting adverb). But this reasoning is circular. Cook’s assessment of the degree of the translator’s “freedom” rests in large measure on the assumption that the translator is working from M. In any case, translational freedom, if that’s what it is, may obscure variants without thereby supporting M. Though we cannot always determine how a particular variant arose, we should note that all the types of variation found in G other than languagedependent ones are well-attested in single-language redaction and transmission. The appendix to my article “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource” (95–128) provides examples from Ben Sira and Ptahhotep¹¹. The following examples are mostly the translator’s work, though I cannot claim this with certainty. In the discussion of the examples, I try to recreate the thoughts and motives that led to the translator’s choices. In my forthcoming Oxford Hebrew Bible commentary, I discuss further examples of these practices and apply them to text-criticism¹². The categories below often overlap. Thus “resolving metaphor” may be a way of enhancing the tone, and so on. They are separated below for purposes of illustration.

3.1 Mimesis Though scholars most often notice the translator’s divergences from M, the most frequent technique in G-Proverbs is in fact mimetic translation, which is a precise and rigid mapping of components of the source text into the target language¹³. Here are three examples out of scores:

10 Cook, Septuagint, 31. 11 Fox, LXX-Proverbs, 121–128. This is currently slated to appear in the Oxford Hebrew Bible, but the publication details are not yet final. 12 Fox, OHB Proverbs, ad loc. 13 The term “mimetic” comes from the translation theorist J.S. Holmes, Translated, 25–28, who describes translation in terms of mapping theory. Mimetic translation attempts to map the maximal number of linguistic features of the source onto the receptor text and aims at consistency in correspondences between the vocabulary of the source and the target. See further my Translation and Mimesis, 207–220.

 A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 7

10:2 l’ yw‘ylw ʼwṣrwt rš‘ wṣdqh tṣyl mmwt οὐκ ὠφελήσουσιν θησαυροὶ ἀνόμους, δικαιοσύνη δὲ ῥύσεται ἐκ θανάτου. 10:9 hwlk btm ylk bṭḥ, wm‘qš drkyw ὃς πορεύεται ἁπλῶς, πορεύεται πεποιθώς, ὁ δὲ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ ywd‘ γνωσθήσεται. 9:1 ḥkmwt bnth byth ḥṣbh ‘mwdyh šb‘h ἡ σοφία ᾠκοδόμησεν ἑαυτῇ οἶκον, καὶ ὑπήρεισεν στύλους ἑπτά. The last verse too is an exact mimetic translation, but of a different Hebrew, with ‫ הצבה‬for M’s ‫חצבה‬. Divergences from M due to variants in the source text have nothing to do with translational freedom. Of course, it is necessary to tease the variants out of the translation before evaluating the way the translation maps its source.

3.2 Heightening Moral Clarity M-Proverbs is, to say the least, already a heavily moralizing book, classifying behaviors as good or bad, rarely with ethical shadings. G-Proverbs only enhances this moralism. Where a saying in M might be read as utilitarian, G usually makes sure that it is not. Here are a few examples of many: M 2:11 promises that “Shrewdness (‫ )מזמה‬will watch over you, good sense (‫ )תבונה‬protect you.” Both of these faculties are in some cases utilitarian. The former can even be negative (e.g., Prov 12:2; 14:7; 24:8). G defines the effective qualities as βουλὴ καλὴ “good counsel” and ἔννοια ὁσία “pious understanding” to make it clear that only moral and religious virtues provide protection. M 3:9 advises making offerings to God. G stipulates that one must give only what was honestly earned. M 6:30 says “People don’t despise a thief if he steals to fill his belly when starving”. G has “It is not surprising if one who steals is caught, for he steals in order to fill his appetite, when he hungers”. M acknowledges degrees of culpability and consequences. G, however, does not want to allow for the possibility that a thief could ever avoid capture and disgrace. He adds the notion of the thief’s

8 

 Michael V. Fox  

being caught and changes the public’s lack of contempt into lack of surprise at the arrest. M 9:17, at the end of Folly’s invitation, reads, “Stolen water is sweet, and secret food a delight”. It is not clear whether it is Folly or the teacher now speaking. Lest one think it is the teacher and imagine that he is really affirming the goodness of the illicit pleasures, G places the sentence unambiguously in Folly’s mouth. This makes it a continuation of her deceitful solicitation and is undoubtedly to be rejected. The Hebrew is much subtler, allowing that the enticements of folly, though deadly, really are (momentarily and deceitfully) pleasurable. The Greek does not want you to think this even for a moment. M 19:22b, “better a poor man than a deceitful one”. G has “better a righteous poor man than a rich deceiver”. M does not provide a clear antithesis between the two persons being contrasted. M’s formulation might also lead one to imagine that every poor man is honest. G sharpens the antithesis and prevents the error by adding two additional adjectives. There is a certain finesse in the way that the translator infers the notion of righteousness and poverty by reversal of their antonyms “deceitful” and “rich”. In fact, he is probably construing the sentence correctly. M 21:22 praises the strategic power of wisdom by declaring that a wise man can take down a fortress. G explains that such a fortress was one “on which the impious relied”. After all, why else would the wise man attack it, and why would the city fall if it did not deserve it? M 28:20b warns that “he who hastens to get rich will not go unpunished”. Since hastening for wealth is not in itself a crime, G converts the ambitious man into an evil one: “but the evil man will not go unpunished”. Not all moralizing additions in G originated with the translator. The following was present in his Hebrew source-text: M 18:22a says, “He who finds a wife finds something good”. This might be thought to mean that any wife is a blessing. G begins, “He who has found a good wife has found happiness”, to make it clear that only marriage with a good woman brings good fortune. This verse was cited with ‫ טובה‬in some Hebrew sources as well (b. Ber. 8a; b. Yeb. 63b; Midrash Shoḥer Tov 151ab). This shows that we cannot automatically assign heightened moralism to the translator. The following addition entered subsequent to OG: G 22:16 reads “He who lays false charges against the wretched increases his own [sc. wealth]”, an expression of indignation. Some manuscripts, including GA and GSc enhance moral clarity by adding κακά, hence “increases his own troubles”¹⁴.

14 Examples of moral and/or religious emphasis are 1:4, 1:17, 1:19, 3:9, 3:18, 3:21–35, 3:30, 6:30, 9:12, 9:17, 10:4, 10:6, 10:18, 10:22, 10:15, 11:1, 11:16, 12:5, 12:24, 13:2, 13:11, 13:19, 13:23, 14:24, 15:14,

 A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 9

3.3 Enhancing Dignity Sometimes the concern that shapes G’s translation is not so much morality as tonality. The translator seeks to make certain actions and persons seem more proper and dignified. M 3:34 says that God mocks mockers. G says that he opposes them – a less vivid but more dignified behavior. M 6:3 urges the reader who has given surety to “go and grovel” to his neighbor to get released from the obligation. G converts this into a more dignified “Go without being lax”. M 9:1 says that Wisdom sends forth her maidservants. G uses the masculine δούλους (“manservants”), on the assumption that it would be unseemly to send maidservants to bring in male guests; cf. Matt 22:3. M 18:18 says that lot-casting helps resolve conflict. G, who is less affirmative about lots (see 16:33), says that the silent man stops conflicts. M 22:3a observes that “The shrewd man sees trouble and hides” – a behavior that might not seem particularly noble. By giving a different sense to ‫ רעה‬and deriving ‫ ויסתר‬from ‫יסר‬, G pictures a different situation: “When a clever man sees a bad man being punished severely, he takes instruction”. M 28:25 says that the man who trusts in the Lord ‫ידשן‬, literally: “will be made fat”. G’s ἐν ἐπιμελείᾳ (“in care” = be cared for) has a more edifying tone; likewise in 13:4¹⁵.

3.4 Improving the Logic The translator sometimes makes a verse more logical or, more precisely, brings out the logic that he considers implicit in it. The logic in question is of course the translator’s own, insofar as this can be deduced from the choices he has made. This category overlaps with resolving metaphor (§ 3.5) and disambiguation (§ 3.6). M 5:9 warns that an adulterer could leave his “glory” (‫ )הודו‬in a foreigner’s house. It is not immediately evident how one can leave his “glory” somewhere.

15:15, 15:16, 15:28, 16:26, 18:22a, 19:6, 19:7, 19:22, 19:24, 21:22, 21:30, 22:3, 22:14a, 23:31, 24:22, 26:11, 21:16, 27:6, 28:20, 30:16. With + ἀγαθός 5:2, 13:12; + ἀληθής 1:3; + δίκαιος: 3:9, 10:17, 10:22, 16:9 [G 15:29b], 16:11, 17:4, 19:22, 20:8; + κακός 1:3, 1:18, 1:28, 2:11, 3:9, 3:31, 5:2, 6:11, 10:17, 13:10, 14:25, 15:23, 16:7 (=G 15:28a), 16:28, 17:12, 17:26, 18:3, 19:22, 20:8, 21:22, 21:26, 22:1, 22:16, 27:21a, 28:20, 30:11–14; + καλός 2:10, 2:11, 22:1, 22:17, 24:14, 31:11; + ὁσίος 2:11. A valuable assessment of the place of moralism in G-Proverbs is the essay by Dick, Ethics, esp. 21–26. 15 Examples of improvement of tone are 3:34, 6:3, 9:1, 18:18, 22:3, and 28:25.

10 

 Michael V. Fox  

G helps out by construing ‫ הוד‬as life. The fool will leave his life there, by getting himself killed. This is the expected consequence of his behavior, as explained in verse 23. M 9:13a calls personified folly ‫פתיות‬, “folly”, “silliness”. The translator mistakenly equates ‫ פתיות‬with ‫“( פת‬morsel”) and then must add “lacking” to make sense of the sentence. The foolish woman is said to “lack (even) a morsel”, which might seem a fitting punishment. M 10:18a reads: “Deceitful lips cover up hatred”. This means that dishonest people speak flattery while concealing the hatred they feel. But G is puzzled that covering up hatred should be wrong and goes so far as to reverse the apparent meaning of its source by making “righteous lips” (χείλη δίκαια) do the covering-up. This is close to a correction of the source-text, making it mean what it somehow must mean. M 12:23a says that the shrewd man “covers up (‫ )כסה‬knowledge”. A failure to understand why one would “cover up” knowledge is probably what prompted the translator to render ‫( כסה‬a word he knew) as if it were ‫“ ִכּ ֵסּא‬throne”; hence: “The intelligent man is a throne of knowledge”. M 16:12a, “The doing of evil is the abomination of kings”, might be thought to mean that kings inevitably shun evildoing, which is of course wrong. G’s “An abomination to the king is he who does evil” precludes this reading by ascribing the hated actions to another person. This construal of the Hebrew is grammatically feasible but probably wrong. M 26:7 and 9 speak of proverbs in the mouth of fools. But since proverbs are the domain of the wise (1:6), G avoids ascribing proverbs of any sort to fools by translating ‫ משל‬as “transgression” in v. 7 and “bondage” in v. 9. M 30:3 declares, “and I have not learned wisdom”. But Solomon, as the author is believed to be, could hardly say such a thing. By reading ‫ ולא‬as if it were ‫ ואל‬and ignoring the grammatical form of ‫למדתי‬, G has him say the obvious: “God taught me knowledge”. M 31:10 says that the excellent woman’s “price” is beyond precious stones. G avoids the metaphor of “price”, with its possibly indelicate implications, by substituting “her sort” (ἡ τοιαύτη)¹⁶.

16 Examples of adjustments for the sake of presumptive logic are 1:24, 4:4, 4:19, 4:25, 4:27a, 5:4, 5:6, 5:9, 5:16, 6:6, 6:12, 6:13, 6:30, 6:31, 7:10, 9:3, 9:9, 9:12, 9:13, 10:1, 10:12, 11:21, 11:30, 11:31, 12:3, 12:6, 12:9, 12:23, 13:8, 14:3, 14:6, 14:16, 14:33, 15:21, 15:28, 15:30, 17:7, 17:17, 18:1, 18:20, 19:12, 19:21, 19:22, 22:21, 23:2, 23:33, 24:2, 24:7, 26:7, 26:9, 26:19, 27:19, 27:23, 28:2, 28:3, 29:15, 29:19, 30:3, 31:6, 31:30, 31:31.

 A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 11

3.5 Resolving and Explicating Metaphors A translator can resolve figurative language into its literal sense or explicate the figures for the sake of greater logic and transparency. M 12:6a says that “The words of the wicked are an ambush for blood”. Lest the reader wonder how words can be an ambush, G substitutes the more predictable “deceits”. M 14:11a promises that the tents of the righteous “will flourish”. Yet while tents may stand or fall, they don’t really flourish, so G provides the more obvious “will stand”. M 23:2a uses a vivid metaphor for self-control at a meal: “put a knife to your throat”. G substitutes an expansive, non-metaphorical sentence affirming the propriety of eating what is given you: “And lay your hand [sc. on what is placed before you], knowing that it is right for you to prepare such things”. M 27:24 reads “For wealth [‫ ]חסן‬is not forever, nor does a crown endure generation after generation”. The metaphor of a crown has puzzled commentators. G explains it: “For power and strength do not belong to a man forever, (b) nor does he transmit [them] from generation to generation”. The translator assumed, reasonably, that “crown” was equivalent to the parallel ‫חסן‬, which can mean power. In this category we can include G’s tendency to avoid literal translation of body parts and other concrete symbols, either by leaving them untranslated or by replacing them with more abstract terms. For example, in G 8:2–3, “head”, “hand”, and “mouth” are left untranslated, and in G 1:24, “stretch out hand” becomes “stretch out words”¹⁷. Occasionally G introduces a metaphor of its own. In 16:28 G adds the vivid image of a troublemaker kindling a “torch of deceits”. In 23:31, G warns that a drunkard will become “naked as a pestle”. But such metaphorical rewritings are rare¹⁸.

17 See Martin – Kraus, Septuaginta Deutsch, 1957. 18 Examples of resolving and explicating metaphor are resolving and explicating metaphors are 1:17, 3:26, 4:27a, 5:6, 5:15, 6:12, 10:5, 12:6, 12:18, 14:11, 17:28; 18:3, 21:4; 21:9, 22:2, 23:2, 24:2, 25:13, 25:14, 25:20, 25:23, 26:7, 26:11, 26:23, 27:22, 27:24, 30:20, 31:10, 31:17.

12 

 Michael V. Fox  

3.6 Disambiguation In a sense, all the practices listed here are forms of disambiguation. But a particular form worth noting is the paraphrasing of an ambiguously worded verse rather than leaving it to the reader to work out the intended sense. M 5:4a says of the seductress that “her end is as bitter as gall”. This might be thought to mean that she herself will suffer a hard death, which may be true, but it is the foolish youth’s death that is relevant to context. Hence G plays on ‫ אחרית‬to produce an unambiguous, “Later you will find her more bitter than gall”. M 8:27b has God inscribing a “circuit on the abyss”. G-Proverbs clarifies this location by substituting the image of God’s demarcating “his throne upon the winds”. This is based on the idea that the circuit of the heavens is on high (Isa 40:22), which is the location of God’s throne (Isa 66:1). G 25:13 expansively explicates the terms of the analogy between “the chill of snow in harvest-time” and a “reliable messenger” by explaining that the snow “is beneficial against heat”¹⁹. This verse might belong in “over-explanation” (§ 3.8) as well.

3.7 Elaboration G has (apart from Hexaplaric incursions) numerous additions of a stich or more. Some additions were introduced in the Hebrew transmission that led to OG’s source-text; others were produced by the translator; and still others are the works of later Greek scribes. We cannot usually determine when and how the additions arose²⁰. Still, they are all similar in character and share the same ideology, except in regard to a few nuances. In describing G-Proverbs it is legitimate to bring them all into consideration. All are anchored in their context and develop its theme. The following four examples were composed, as far as I can tell, in Greek. M 4:27 admonishes the reader to make his way straight, inclining neither to the right or left. G 4:27a, following Greek notions, not Hebrew, distinguishes the path of the right as good from the path of the left as bad.

19 Examples of paraphrase are 5:4, 6:25, 7:6–17, 8:27; 10:4, 10:5, 10:24, 12:25, 16:7, 17:16a, 23:27, 24:15, 25:13, 28:17, 30:1, 30:8, 31:5. 20 I have argued that 9:12a-b was Hebrew in origin (Fox, Strange Woman, 37–39). The epigram on the bee (G 6:8a-c) was certainly composed in Greek. It is unlikely that the translator would have paused in the middle of his work to compose a new epigram in a totally different style than he has been using for the translation. Most of the other additions are of are indeterminate origin.

 A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 13

G’s proverb on the educated son (10:4a) seems to elaborate the verse that comes after it, which contrasts two kinds of son. G and M of 13:9 say that the light of the wicked will be extinguished. By itself this image could refer to misery, or to death, or to ignorance. G adds 13:9a to show that it means (or also means) the darkness of sin. G 22:9a adds a couplet observing that gifts endanger their recipients. G does not repudiate gift-giving entirely and in fact the preceding verse affirms it (though in a different sense)²¹. Some additions were probably inserted later than OG: G 6:11a is likely a later addition based on a misunderstanding of the preceding verse. It distinguishes two kinds of runner. This recalls G 4:27a. Where M uses “left” and “right” as practical synonyms, G distinguishes the moral quality of the two directions. The epigram on the bee in 6:8a-c was added in Greek as a further example of industrious creatures. The epigram in 9:18a-d that warns against close contact with foreign cultures was added to explain that the enticements of Lady Folly in the preceding verses are cultural as well as sexual. G 22:9a is a cautionary remark about gifts: though they may be helpful, they can be dangerous. Like all of G-Prov’s practices, elaboration is not invariable. Occasionally G will do the opposite, omitting words as being redundant. For example, in 25:21 “bread” and “water” are omitted because they are clearly implied by “feed” and “give drink”. A similar case is 25:28.

3.8 Over-explanation All the above features clarify the text, but sometimes the clarifications are not really necessary. One gets the impression that the translator is not confident in the reader’s ability to figure things out for himself. Some of the above examples illustrate this tendency. Further examples are: G 8:21a: “If I tell you things that happen daily, (b) I shall (also) remember to recount things of old”. It is self-evident that 8:1–20 describes the present, 8:21–36

21 Examples of elaboration are 3:28, 4:27a-27b, 6:8a-c, 6:11a, 8:21a, 9:2, 9:10a, 9:12c, 9:18a-d, 10:4a, 13:9a, 13:13a, 15:18a, 21:3, 22:9a, 22:14a, 22:21, 24:22a-22e, 25:10c-10a, 25:20a, 26:11a, 26:25, 27:20a, 27:21a, 28:10.

14 

 Michael V. Fox  

the past. Still, the translator inserts G 8:21a to distinguish the two phases, as if taking the reader by the hand through the progress of the narration. M 16:11b says that “All the weights of the purse are his [God’s] work. G explains that “honest weight-stones are his works”. This precludes the (unlikely) misunderstanding of the verse as meaning that God is responsible for dishonest weights too. M 17:28 praises the man who “shuts his lips”. G explicates this (rather unnecessarily) as “whoever makes himself silent”. G 22:13 starts with “The sluggard makes excuses and says”, to explain the sluggard’s intent, though this is obvious from the rest of the verse. In G 22:14a, after a warning about the danger of evil speech, a third stich adds a banal conclusion: “But it is necessary to turn away from a crooked and evil way”. To M 25:22b, “and the Lord will repay you”, G adds “with good”, though the repayment for the recommended behavior could hardly be otherwise. M 26:27 speaks of one “who digs a pit”, to which G adds “for his neighbor”, lest one think that the warning precludes digging legitimate holes²².

3.9 Enhancing Parallelism The translator often enhances the correspondence between the semantic or morphological components of the lines of a couplet, thereby creating parallelism or tightening it. Gerleman emphasizes that the parallelism thus created is frequently antithetical²³. Tauberschmidt identifies “secondary parallelism”, meaning parallelism created or enhanced by the translator, as a major factor in the formation of G-Proverbs²⁴. Though I find Tauberschmidt’s study defective in many ways and have criticized it in a review²⁵, it is fair to say that he has described one of this translator’s practices. However, as the following examples show, the enhancement of parallelism is often linked to other motives and causes as well. In any case, some instances of enhanced parallelism arose in Hebrew. The first set of examples, taken from Tauberschmidt, show secondary parallelism as the translator’s doing.

22 Examples of over-explanation are 8:21a, 14:20, 16:11; 17:28, 19:22; 22:13, 22:14a, 25:22, 26:27, 27:25. 23 Gerleman, Proverbs, 17–26. 24 Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism, 1. 25 Fox, review of Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism.

 A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 15

M 1:23bc: “Behold I pour out to you my spirit, // I make my words known to you”. G: “Behold, I will bring forth to you the utterance (ῥῆσιν) of my spirit, // I will teach you my word (λόγον)”. The translator adds ῥῆσιν as a parallel to λόγον²⁶. At the same time, the addition provides an explanation of the idiom “bring forth spirit”. M 1:24: “Because I called and you refused me, I stretched out my hand and no one paid heed”. G: “Because I called and you did not listen, I spoke at length and you gave no heed”. Where M has a gesture parallel to speaking, G has speaking in both sides of the parallel²⁷. M 31:6: M: “Give beer to him who is perishing, and wine to the bitter of soul”. G: “Give strong drink to those in sorrow, and wine to drink to those in grief”. G’s refers to people (pl.) suffering emotionally in both stichoi, whereas M has “him who is perishing” (sg.) in the first and “the bitter of soul” (pl.) in the second²⁸. However, G also disturbs the parallelism by adding “to drink” in the second. M 17:4: “An evil man hearkens to the lip of iniquity. // Deceit (‫ )שקר‬listens to the tongue of destruction”. G: “An evil man obeys the tongue of transgressors, // but a righteous man does not hearken to deceitful lips” (κακὸς ὑπακούει γλώσσης παρανόμων, // δίκαιος δὲ οὐ προσέχει χείλεσιν ψευδέσιν). According to Tauberschmidt, G creates antithesis by “changing” ‫ שקר‬into δίκαιος²⁹. But the addition of the negative particle is integral to the change. It is be more accurate to say that G preserves parallelism by means of converse translation. Some of the cases of secondary parallelism seen in G may have arisen in Hebrew transmission, as in the following: M 14:33: “Wisdom rests in the heart of the sensible man, but in the midst of dolts it makes itself known”. G: “In the good heart of a man there is wisdom, (b) but in the heart of fools it is not perceived (οὐ διαγινώσκεται)”. Tauberschmidt may be right that “the second colon correspond[s] to the first colon in a contrastive manner”³⁰, but this is not the translator’s doing. The negative is witnessed by Theodotion and Aquila and must have been in G’s source-text. The negative was inserted in the Hebrew transmission for the sake of logic, because the notion of wisdom being known among fools seemed outlandish. (M actually means that the wise man’s wisdom manifests itself among fools, in the form of chastisement.)

26 Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism, 33–34. 27 Ibid. 39. 28 Ibid. 8. 29 Ibid. 44. 30 Ibid. 204.

16 

 Michael V. Fox  

M 27:9: ‫ ;שמן וקטרת ישמח לב ומתק רעהו מעצת נפש‬literally, “Oil and incense make the heart rejoice, and the sweetness of his friend more than the counsel of the soul”. G: “By myrrh and wines and incense the heart is pleased, // but by misfortunes the soul is rent”. The clearer antithesis in G derives from a different Hebrew text, which ends: ‫ומתקרעה מעצבת נפש‬. Tauberschmidt knows that quite often G-Proverbs violates the parallelism found in M, and he even dedicates a chapter to explaining why this happens³¹. Though he lists almost as many verses that violate parallelism as ones that enhance it, he feels he must find motives for each violation, as if the “fondness” for parallelism were a foundational demand requiring that any departure from it have a justification (Tauberschmidt does not, in practice, include textual differences among the reasons)³². In fact, the most we can conclude is that sometimes the translator tightens the parallelism and sometimes he does not, and sometimes the parallelism was already in his source-text. This is not a useless conclusion, for it alerts the text critic to the possibility that in any particular case tighter parallelism may be the translator’s doing. This conclusion, does not, however, provide a strong heuristic principle that can claim priority over competing explanations³³.

4 Translation as Control This essay began by questioning the usefulness of the concept “free” to characterize G-Proverbs. I suggested that a better characterization of the translator’s approach is flexible, insofar as he applies a variety of means to achieve his goals. I further suggest that his main goal, evinced mostly in ways he departs from a mimetic translation, is control: control over the way the reader understands each segment of the book. The translator is trying to guide the readers to the exact intent of the text – the text he has, as he understands it. To this end he eliminates ambiguities, stabilizes indeterminacies, and draws stark moral distinctions wherever these tactics are needed to prevent misunderstandings, and often when they

31 Ibid. 109–164. 32 Tauberschmidt puts it bluntly: “The comparative study of the characteristics of parallelism in LXX Proverbs and the MT is based on the assumption that the Hebrew Vorlage or source text of the LXX did not differ extensively from the MT.” (Secondary Parallelism, 27). His assumption naturally becomes his conclusion well. 33 Examples of enhanced parallelism are 1:23bc, 2:15, 7:8, 7:17, 8:4, 8:14, 8:16, 8:20, 14:33, 15:13, 15:20, 15:22, 15:26, 17:4, 21:14, 24:11, 27:6, 27:9, 28:15, 30:23.

 A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs 

 17

are not. He is not merely making the text mean whatever he wishes it to mean. He is helping the text convey what he thinks Solomon wanted it to mean. Though he may not realize it, the translator is a participant in the creative process that transforms old wisdom into new. These observations also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the scribes who shaped and transmitted the Hebrew text that reached the translator.

Bibliography Cook, Johann, The Septuagint of Proverbs (VTS 69), Leiden: Brill, 1997. d’Hamonville, David-Marc, La Bible d’Alexandrie: Les Proverbes, Paris: Du Cerf, 2000. Dick, Michael B., The Ethics of the Old Greek Book of Proverbs: Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990) 20–50. Fox, Michael V., The Strange Woman in Septuagint Proverbs: JNSL 22 (1996) 31–44. Fox, Michael V., Translation and Mimesis, in: Frederick W. Knobloch (ed.), Biblical Translation in Context (Studies in Jewish History and Culture 10), Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2002, 207–220. Fox, Michael V., [Review of] Gerhard Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism. A Study of Translation Technique in the LXX, in Review of Biblical Literature 2004 (http://www. bookreviews.org/pdf/4192_4111.pdf). Fox, Michael V., LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource: Textus 22 (2005) 95–128. Fox, Michael V., The Book of Proverbs. A Critical Edition with Essays and Commentary (Oxford Hebrew Bible), Oxford: University Press, forthcoming. Fritsch, Charles T., The Treatment of the Hexaplaric Signs in the Syro-Hexaplar of Proverbs: JBL 72 (1953) 169–181. Gerleman, Gillis, Studies in the Septuagint. III. Proverbs (Lunds Universitets Arsskrift. NF. Adv. 1. Bd. 52. Nr. 3), Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956. Holmes, James S., Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988. Karrer, Martin – Wolfgang Kraus (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Pietersma, Albert – Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Proverbs translated by Johann Cook), Oxford: University Press, 2008. Tauberschmidt, Gerhard, Secondary Parallelism. A Study of Translation Technique in LXX Proverbs (Academia Biblica 15), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

Jean Louis Ska

Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes Jean Louis Ska: Institut Biblique Pontifical, Rome, Italie

1 Introduction Abraham, le père des croyants, a été peu à peu perçu comme un modèle de vie pour tous ses descendants. Parmi les aspects qui ont été soulignés, les auteurs signalent sa foi, son obéissance, ou son respect de la loi. Dans ces quelques pages dédiées à un maître qui a passé une grande partie de sa vie à enseigner les livres de la Sagesse et que je désire honorer spécialement pour son enseignement à la fois compétent et stimulant, je voudrais montrer qu’il a eu, sans doute sans le savoir, un précurseur en la personne d’Abraham. Le patriarche est en effet aussi présenté comme un «maître de sagesse» et un père dont une des premières tâches fut d’initier sa postérité aux principes essentiels d’une vie droite. Quelques précisions sont nécessaires avant d’aborder le sujet lui-même. Il est certain qu’Abraham a peu de points communs avec Qohélet, le Siracide ou même Salomon¹. Le livre de la Genèse ne contient aucun recueil de sentences attribué à Abraham. Il n’est jamais présenté comme un «maître d’école» ou un «scribe inspiré». Il a surtout prêché d’exemple et son premier rôle est d’être l’ancêtre du peuple d’Israël, non de divulguer un enseignement de quelque nature que ce soit. Il existe toutefois un verset qui permet de voir en Abraham, à côté d’autres aspects plus importants, également un «maître de sagesse». Il s’agit de Gn 18,19, un monologue de Dieu qui a lieu alors qu’il s’est décidé à descendre à Sodome pour prendre connaissance de la situation et décider du sort de la ville. Dieu, qui vient d’être reçu royalement par Abraham et Sara, prévient son hôte de ses intentions, surtout parce que Lot, neveu d’Abraham, s’est établi dans cette ville pécheresse. Voici le texte (Gn 18,1–15):

1 Sur la figure d’Abraham comme ancêtre, voir, parmi d’autres ouvrages récents, Segal, Abraham (2003); Mühling, Abraham (2011).

 Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes 

 19

Car j’ai voulu connaître [Abraham] afin qu’il prescrive à ses fils et à sa maison après lui d’observer la voie de Yhwh en pratiquant la justice et le droit; ainsi Yhwh réalisera pour Abraham ce qu’il lui a promis².

Le texte contient deux informations essentielles. La première est que Yhwh a choisi Abraham (wytd[y) afin qu’il enseigne à ses descendants «la voie de Yhwh» (hwhy $rd) et «la pratique du droit et de la justice» (jpvmw hqdc twf[l). La seconde précise la portée de la première: les promesses faites au patriarche s’accompliront à condition que les descendants d’Abraham suivent l’enseignement que ce dernier est censé leur impartir. Il saute aux yeux que la théologie de ce passage se différencie sensiblement de la plupart des promesses faites à Abraham³. Dans presque tous les autres cas, les promesses, en effet, sont inconditionnelles⁴. Seuls quelques textes, tous jugés tardifs, introduisent l’idée d’une promesse conditionnelle. Il s’agit de deux textes apparentés par ailleurs: Gn 22,15–18 et 26,5, qui affirment tous deux que l’accomplissement de la promesse est assuré par l’obéissance d’Abraham⁵. Le premier texte est adressé à Abraham après ce qui est communément appelé le sacrifice d’Isaac (Gn 22,1–19*) «Parce que tu as fait cela et n’as pas épargné ton fils unique, je m’engage à te bénir […]» (22,16–17); le second est adressé à Isaac au moment où il va s’établir pour un temps à Gérar: «Je ferai proliférer ta descendance autant que les étoiles du ciel, je lui donnerai toutes ces terres et, en elle, se béniront toutes les nations de la terre, parce qu’Abraham a écouté ma voix et qu’il a gardé mes observances, mes commandements, mes décrets et mes lois» (Gn 26,4–5). Il est toutefois une différence importante entre ces deux textes et celui de Gn 18,21. En Gn 22,15–18 et 26,4–5, l’obéissance d’Abraham est une garantie en

2 Je reprends les textes français à la Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible (1988), avec, de temps à autre, quelques légères modifications. 3 Le texte de Gn 18,17–19 est considéré au moins depuis Wellhausen, Composition, 26, comme un ajout tardif. Voir aussi Gunkel, Genesis, 202: (1) Le vocabulaire est deutéronomiste (cf. Dt 6,1–3). (2) Selon 18,17, Yhwh sait ce qu’il va faire, tandis que selon 18,21 il descend à Sodome pour se rendre compte de la situation. (3) Yhwh parle de lui-même à la troisième personne. (4) La promesse est conditionnelle alors qu’elle est incondionnelle ailleurs. (5) Le texte fait clairement allusion à d’autres textes, comme Gn 12,2.3, ce qui n’est pas le cas de récits plus anciens. (6) Il est certain qu’Abraham sait qu’il parle avec Yhwh, tandis que dans le récit plus ancien de Gn 18,1– 16, l’identité de Yhwh n’est pas dévoilée. Voir aussi Köckert, Vätergott, 180–183, et Schöpflin, Abrahams Unterredung mit Gott, 105–106. 4 Voir, par exemple, Gn 12,1–3; 12,7; 13,14–18; 15,4–6.18–21; 17,4–8; 18,10.14; 18,18; 21,12. 5 Sur Gn 22,15–18, voir l’article toujours fondamental de Moberly, Earliest Commentary. Sur Gn 26,5 voir Blum, Komposition, 362–363.

20 

 Jean Louis Ska 

vue de l’avenir. Les promesses seront accomplies sans défaut en raison de l’obéissance d’Abraham. Gn 18,21 fait au contraire dépendre l’accomplissement des promesses de la conduite des descendants d’Abraham. Cette théologie est connue, car elle est développée en détail dans le Deutéronome⁶. Dans un premier temps, je donnerai donc les raisons pour lesquelles, avec beaucoup d’exégètes, je pense que Gn 18,19 est un texte deutéronomique qui a pour but de faire d’Abraham un précurseur de cette théologie dans le livre de la Genèse. Dans un second temps je montrerai que l’image d’un Abraham éducateur a ses racines dans le monde de la Sagesse et en particulier dans certains passages du livre des Proverbes. Disons de suite, pour éviter toute équivoque, qu’il ne s’agit en aucune manière de montrer que le passage de la Genèse s’inspire d’un ou plusieurs textes du livre des Proverbes. Il s’agira uniquement de montrer qu’il y a un parallélisme intéressant entre le rôle du père dans le livre des Proverbes et celui qui est assigné à Abraham en Gn 18,19.

2 L’arrière-fond deutéronomique de Genèse 18,19 Il ne fait guère de doute que la formulation et la théologie de Gn 18,21 portent la marque de l’école deutéronomique/deutéronomiste. Commençons par le vocabulaire⁷. L’expression «observer la voie de Yhwh» (hwhy $rd rmv) se retrouve presque littéralement en Jg 2,22, texte deutéronomiste⁸. L’expression «pratiquer la justice et le droit» (jpvmw hkdqc hf[) n’est pas exclusivement propre au Deutéronome et aux textes apparentés. Mais elle se trouve en majorité dans des textes de Jérémie et d’Ézéchiel, toutefois dans l’ordre inverse de celui de Gn 18,19: «pratiquer le droit et la justice» au lieu de «pratiquer la justice et le droit». La plupart des textes –et ceci peut être intéressant– parlent du roi idéal dont une caractéristiques est de «pratiquer le droit et la justice»⁹. Remarquons, à ce propos, que le seul texte où nous retrouvons l’exact correspondant de l’expression présente en Gn 18,19 est

6 Voir Van Seters, Abraham, 273–274, pour qui le texte est même post-deutéronomiste. Après la rupture de l’alliance deutéronomique, l’enseignement de la loi n’est un problème de l’état ou d’une autorité publique, mais celui des parents (cf. Dt 6,6–9. Voir aussi Schmidt, «De Deo», 135–136, qui considère que le texte provient de milieux deutéronomistes et qu’il est certainement postexilique (spätnachexilisch). 7 Pour une analyse détaillée, voir surtout Blum, Vätergeschichte, 400–405, surtout 400. 8 Voir, parmi bien d’autres, Soggin, Judges, 40: «[Judg 2:6 – 3:6] has abundant terms and expressions typical of Dtr history»; Rofé, Introduzione, 195. 9 Voir 2 S 8,15 = 1 Ch 18,14 (David); 1 R 10,9 = 2 Ch 9,8 (Salomon); Jr 9,23 (Yhwh, souverain de la terre); 22,3 (exhortation adressée aux rois de Juda); 22,15 (Josias); 23,5 et 33,15 (le roi futur);

 Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes 

 21

Pr 21,3: «Pratiquer la justice et le droit est préféré par Yhwh au sacrifice»¹⁰. Nous trouvons ici une note bien connue de la piété juive d’inspiration prophétique et sapientielle: la conduite agréable au Seigneur est préférable au culte. Mais il y a plus que le vocabulaire. Le texte de la Genèse fait en effet remplir à Abraham un rôle sur lequel le Deutéronome insiste beaucoup: l’éducation des enfants. Quelques textes sont plus explicites, mais il ne fait aucun doute que le Deutéronome ait à cœur de convaincre les parents d’enseigner à leurs enfants l’essentiel du comportement exigé du peuple élu, en particulier l’observance de la Loi (Torâ). Le texte le plus clair est Dt 32,46–47¹¹: [Moïse] dit [à tout Israël]: «Prenez à cœur toutes les paroles par lesquelles je témoigne aujourd’hui contre vous, et ordonnez à vos fils de veiller à mettre en pratique toutes les paroles de cette Loi. Car il ne s’agit pas d’une parole sans importance pour vous; cette parole, c’est votre vie, et c’est par elle que vous prolongerez vos jours sur la terre dont vous allez prendre possession en passant le Jourdain.»

L’aspect qu’il importe de souligner est celui de l’autorité. Dans le Proche-Orient ancien, c’est le roi qui promulgue la loi et c’est sur son autorité qu’elle se fonde. En Assyrie, par exemple, les souverains publiaient et faisaient enseigner les nouvelles lois par les officiers de la cour¹². Ceci ressort d’une inscription datant de Sargon II (722–705): J’ai demandé à des Assyriens de naissance, experts en toutes sortes de connaissances d’habiter [parmi les peuples conquis] et j’ai envoyé des surveillants et des officiers avec des instructions pour leur enseigner à s’assimiler [?] et [leur enseigner aussi] la crainte de Dieu et du roi¹³.

«Craindre Dieu et le roi» sont deux piliers de la société antique. Nabot est condamné à mort par deux scélérats qui l’accusent d’avoir «maudit Dieu et le roi» (1 R 21,10; cf. Ex 22,27). Pour revenir au rôle du roi dans la promulga-

Ez 18,5.19.21.27 et 33,14.16.19 (la conduite du juste). Il est à remarque qu’Ézéchiel demande au juste les qualités que Jérémie requiert du roi. 10 Le Ps 33,5 affirme que Yhwh «aime la justice et le droit». Voir à ce sujet Köckert, Vätergott, 183, n. 91. 11 Sur ce texte, voir entre autres, Driver, Deuteronomy, 382, pour qui le texte insiste non seulement sur l’importance d’enseigner la Loi, mais aussi «the exhortations accompanying it». Sur le rôle des parents dans l’éducation et la littérature deutéronomique, voir Lohfink, Deuteronomistische Bewegung, 346–347 = Studien III, 103–104. 12 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 163–164. 13 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 163. Cf. Jackson, Studies, 135–139. Pour le texte de l’inscription, voir Dalley, Legacy, 27. Sur ce rôle du roi, voir Whitelam, Just King, 17–38, 207–218.

22 

 Jean Louis Ska 

tion de la loi, il est un texte qui revient souvent dans la discussion. Il s’agit de 2 Ch 17,7–9¹⁴: La troisième année de son règne, il [Josaphat] envoya ses dignitaires: Ben-Haïl, Ovadya, Zekarya, Netanel et Mikayahou pour donner un enseignement dans les villes de Juda. Avec eux se trouvaient les lévites Shemayahou, Netanyahou, Zevadyahou, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Yehonatân, Adoniyahou, Toviyahou, et Tov-Adoniya, qui étaient des lévites. Avec eux se trouvaient aussi les prêtres Elishama et Yehoram. Ils donnèrent un enseignement en Juda, en ayant avec eux le livre de la Loi du Seigneur. Ils firent le tour de toutes les villes de Juda et ils instruisirent le peuple.

Le texte est tardif et n’a sans doute pas de grande valeur historique¹⁵. Toujours est-il que même à une époque tardive, longtemps après la disparition de la monarchie, les Chroniques attribuent encore au roi l’initiative d’envoyer des dignitaires, des lévites et des prêtres pour enseigner la Loi de Yhwh à ses sujets¹⁶. La chose est bien différente dans le Deutéronome. Nulle part il le roi n’est chargé de cette tâche. Au contraire, il doit lui-même se procurer une copie de la Loi et la lire tous les jours de sa vie. Dans le Deutéronome, le roi n’est pas un maître, il est d’abord un élève. Il n’enseigne pas, il doit «apprendre» (Dt 17,18– 20)¹⁷: Et quand il sera monté sur son trône royal, il écrira pour lui-même dans un livre une copie de cette Loi, que lui transmettront les prêtres lévites. Elle restera auprès de lui, et il la lira tous les jours de sa vie, pour apprendre [dmly] à craindre le Seigneur son Dieu en gardant, pour les mettre en pratique, toutes les paroles de cette Loi, et toutes ses prescriptions, sans devenir orgueilleux devant ses frères ni s’écarter à droite ou à gauche du commandement, afin de prolonger, pour lui et ses fils, les jours de sa royauté au milieu d’Israël.

14 Sur ce texte, voir entre autres Williamson, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 282–283 qui doute de l’historicité du texte. 15 Voir Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 54, qui conteste la fameuse interprétation de von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, 41–49. Celui-ci utilisa 2 Ch 17,7–9 pour appuyer sa thèse sur l’origine lévitique du Deutéronome. Mais il n’y a pas de trace d’une telle activité dans les campagnes de Juda dans les écrits préexiliques. Cf. aussi Rofé, Introduzione, 199–200: le texte témoigne d’une démocratisation de l’enseignement de la loi réservé surtout aux prêtres à l’époque préexilique. L’étape ultérieure de cette évolution se trouve dans le traité Abbot de la Mishna selon lequel les membres de la «Grande Assemblée» recommandent «l’instruction de nombreux disciples» (m. Ab. 1,1). 16 Sur le devoir des prêtres d’enseigner la loi, voir Dt 33,10; Lv 10,11; Jr 18,18; Ml 2,7; Os 4,6; cf. 2 Ch 15,3. Les prêtres, de toute manière, sont ici comme ailleurs au service du roi. 17 Sur ce texte, voir García López, Le roi d’Israël, 277–297; Carrière, Théorie du politique, 354– 357; Rüterswörden, Der Verfassungsentwurf, 313–328; Dutcher-Walls, The Circumspection of the King, 601–616; O’Brien, Deuteronomy 16.18-18.22, 155–172.

 Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes 

 23

Dans le Deutéronome, il y a donc passage de l’autorité royale à l’autorité parentale, en particulier l’autorité paternelle. Ceci s’explique naturellement mieux si Dt 32,46 est postérieur à la disparition de la monarchie. Il convient sans doute de dire un mot des «catéchèses deutéronomiques» (Dt 6,20; Ex 12,26–27; 13,8), un élément bien connu de la théologie deutéronomique ou deutéronomiste. Encore une fois, le lieu privilégié de l’enseignement est la famille et les premiers éducateurs sont les parents. Ce n’est pas le roi qui lit la Loi, comme Josias par exemple (2 R 23,2b): «[Josias] leur fit la lecture de toutes les paroles du livre de l’alliance trouvé dans la Maison du Seigneur». Ce sont les parents qui sont chargés de cette mission. De même, ce sont les parents qui instruisent leurs enfants sur le sens des fêtes et des coutumes (Dt 6,20; Ex 12,26–27; 13,8), alors que la Pâque est proclamée par Josias selon 2 R 23,21¹⁸. Il est donc intéressant de noter qu’Abraham, selon Gn 18,19 remplit le rôle qui est confié par le Deutéronome non plus aux souverains et aux officiels de la cour, mais aux parents. Or, cet élément est propre aux livres sapientiaux, en particulier au livre des Proverbes.

3 La tâche des parents dans le Deutéronome et le livre des Proverbes Que le Deutéronome insiste sur les devoirs des parents envers leurs enfants, surtout en ce qui concerne l’enseignement de la Loi, a été relevé il y a déjà longtemps, en particulier par M. Weinfeld dans son ouvrage Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, et dans le chapitre intitulé «Didacticism» et consacré, comme le dit le titre, au style didactique du Deutéronome¹⁹. Comme chacun sait, M. Weinfeld défend la thèse d’une parenté étroite entre le Deutéronome et les milieux sapientiaux de la cour de Jérusalem. C’est là qu’il faut chercher les auteurs du cinquième livre du Pentateuque.

18 Sur les différences entre le Deutéronome et l’histoire deutéronomiste au sujet de la figure du roi, voir Knoppers, Deuteronomist, 329–346; Id., Rethinking, 393–415; Levinson, Reconceptualisation, 511–534. 19 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 298–306. Pour une exégèse récente de ce texte, voir Otto, Deuteronomium 4,44 – 11,32, 803–812.

24 

 Jean Louis Ska 

Une partie de sa démonstration sur la parenté entre Deutéronome et livres sapientiaux est basée sur le parallélisme étroit entre Dt 6,6–9; 11,18–20 et Pr 6,20– 22; 7,3; 8,34. Voici les textes qui, à notre avis, sont les plus convaincants²⁰: Deutéronome Les paroles des commandements que je te donne aujourd’hui seront présentes à ton cœur; tu les répéteras à tes fils; tu les leur diras quand tu resteras chez toi et quand tu marcheras sur la route, quand tu seras couché et quand tu seras debout; tu en feras un signe attaché à ta main, une marque placée entre tes yeux; tu les inscriras sur les montants de porte de ta maison et à l’entrée de ta ville (Dt 6,7–9; cf. 11,18–20).

Proverbes Mon fils, observe les préceptes de ton père et ne néglige pas l’enseignement de ta mère. Attache-les toujours à ton cœur, fixe-les autour de ton cou. Dans tes allées et venues ils te guideront, près de ton lit ils veilleront sur toi et à ton réveil ils dialogueront avec toi (Pr 6,20–23). Mon fils, garde mes paroles, que mes préceptes soient pour toi un trésor. Si tu veux vivre, garde mes préceptes et mon enseignement comme la prunelle de tes yeux. Attache-les à tes doigts. Écrisles sur la table de ton cœur (Pr 7,1–3).

Soulignons en passant que le livre des Proverbes insiste sur le devoir des enfants d’écouter à la fois leur père et leur mère (6,20; cf. 1,8). C’est ce qu’il faut étudier à présent.

4 L’enseignement des parents aux enfants dans le livre des Proverbes²¹ Notre but, dans ce paragraphe, est de montrer que les idées du Deutéronome se retrouvent dans le livre des Proverbes, mais avec une différence importante: le

20 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 299–300. 21 Il existe une abondante littérature sur l’éducation et l’existence possible d’écoles dans l’ancien Israël, mais il n’existe pas de consensus à ce sujet. Pour un résumé, voir Sæbø, Sprüche, 7–8 (avec bibliographie). Cf. Lemaire, Écoles, dont la théorie sur l’existence d’écoles à une époque reculée n’a pas fait l’unanimité; voir aussi Carr, Writing. Cf. la reflexion de Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 6–9: «The general situation is didactic, and this may be in the context of family or tribe, the court school, or the postexilic scribal school», cité par Sæbø, Sprüche, 7, n. 41.

 Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes 

 25

livre des Proverbes se présente comme un manuel à mettre entre les mains des enfants, invités à écouter leurs parents, alors que le Deutéronome est plutôt un précis destiné aux parents en vue de l’éducation des enfants. En deux mots, les Proverbes est le «manuel des élèves» tandis que le Deutéronome est plutôt «le livre du maître». Ce caractère propre des Proverbes ressort de certaines introductions présentes au début du recueil et qui en orientent la lecture. Une comparaison entre certains textes clés des Proverbes et du Deutéronome illustrera amplement cette différence. Commençons par le titre du recueil des Proverbes qui explicite dès le début quels sont ses destinataires (Pr 1,1–4): Proverbes de Salomon, fils de David, roi d’Israël, destinés à faire connaître la sagesse, à donner l’éducation et l’intelligence des sentences pleines de sens, à faire acquérir une éducation éclairée: justice, équité, droiture; à donner aux naïfs la prudence [~yatpl], aux jeunes [r[nl], connaissance et discernement.

Le public auquel s’adresse le livre est fait de «simples» ou «naïfs» et d’«enfants» ou «jeunes», qui, par ailleurs, est souvent interpellé directement comme «mon fils» (ynb)²². Le public du Deutéronome est bien différent de ce point de vue. Il s’agit avant tout des adultes, comme il ressort d’un texte comme celui de Dt 6,1–2²³: Voici le commandement, les lois et les coutumes que le Seigneur votre Dieu a ordonné de vous apprendre [dmll] à mettre en pratique dans le pays où vous allez passer pour en prendre possession, afin que tu craignes le Seigneur ton Dieu, toi, ton fils et ton petit-fils [$nb-!bw $nbw hta], en gardant tous les jours de ta vie toutes ses lois et ses commandements que je te donne, pour que tes jours se prolongent.

Le vrai maître est bien sûr Moïse. C’est lui qui reçoit l’ordre d’enseigner à observer le commandement, les lois et les coutumes, de sorte que parents, enfants et petits-enfants craignent le Seigneur. La crainte du Seigneur est un élément clé de la Sagesse et son principe est énoncé tout au début du recueil: «La crainte du Seigneur est le principe du savoir; sagesse et éducation, seuls les fous s’en

22 Voir, parmi bien d’autres, Sæbø, Sprüche, 7–8, 43. Le «fils» est souvent interpellé directement dans la première partie des Proverbes (1–9); voir 1,10.15; 2,1; 3,1.11.21; 4,10.20; 5,1.20; 6,1.3.20; 7,1. Ailleurs, cf. 19,27; 23,15.19.26; 24,13.21; 27,11. Cf. Sæbø, Sprüche, 45, n. 41. 23 Sur ce texte, voir Braulik, Deuteronomium I, 54–55. L’autorité de Dieu (6,1) devient celle de Moïse (6,2) et j’ajouterais qu’elle sert à définir le devoir des parents, celui de «craindre le Seigneur» et de garder la Loi.

26 

 Jean Louis Ska 

moquent» (Pr 1,7). Cette «crainte du Seigneur» qu’il faut enseigner aux enfants dans les Proverbes devient dans le Deutéronome une «matière» à enseigner à toutes les générations, à commencer par les parents. Un autre texte permettra de préciser la chose. Il s’agit de Dt 31,12–13. Le texte parle de la mise par écrit de la Loi et de sa lecture périodique, tous les sept ans. Voici le texte: Tu rassembleras le peuple, les hommes, les femmes, les enfants, et l’émigré que tu as dans tes villes, pour qu’ils entendent et pour qu’ils apprennent [wdmly], pour qu’ils craignent [waryw] le Seigneur votre Dieu et veillent à observer toutes les paroles de cette Loi. Et leurs fils, qui ne savent pas, entendront; et ils apprendront [wdmlw] à craindre [haryl] le Seigneur votre Dieu tous les jours où vous serez en vie sur la terre dont vous allez prendre possession en passant le Jourdain.

Nous retrouvons ici deux éléments importants dans le monde de la Sagesse et, en particulier, dans le Proverbes: la crainte du Seigneur (Pr 1,7) et la nécessité d’apprendre (dml). Toutefois, l’ordre dans lequel les choses dont présentées dans le texte du Deutéronome a son importance. Le premier à recevoir l’enseignement et à devoir «apprendre» est le peuple comme tel, dans son ensemble: hommes, femmes, enfants, et même les émigrés. Ensuite, Dt 31,13 mentionne explicitement les «fils» qui apprendront plus tard la même «crainte du Seigneur». Notons enfin que «craindre le Seigneur» équivaut, dans ce texte, à écouter et à observer la Loi, un phénomène qui sera observé plus tard, par exemple dans l’éloge de la Sagesse du Siracide (cf. Si 24,23). En résumé, la Loi –qui inculque la «crainte du Seigneur»– passe de Dieu à Moïse, puis de Moïse aux parents qui la retransmettent à leur tour à leurs enfants. Le Deutéronome insiste beaucoup sur le maillon de la chaîne que sont les parents. Le livre des Proverbes, par contre, s’occupe avant tout des «enfants» qui doivent apprendre, et il considère comme allant de soi que les parents soient les dépositaires du savoir et de la sagesse.

5 Conclusion: Moïse et Abraham Qui est donc Abraham selon Gn 18,19? Au terme de ce bref parcours, il me semble pouvoir dire ceci: il est père de famille, mais non pas un père de famille comme tous les autres puisqu’il est l’ancêtre du peuple d’Israël. Comme père, il lui revient d’éduquer ses enfants et il est par conséquent normal qu’il remplisse un rôle connu, entre autres, dans le livre des Proverbes. Mais ce n’est pas tout. Selon l’idée du Deutéronome, la mission des parents n’est plus seulement d’enseigner la sagesse traditionnelle. La vraie sagesse, qui s’identifie avec la «crainte du Sei-

 Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes 

 27

gneur», c’est la Loi transmise par Dieu à Moïse. C’est de cet enseignement-là qu’il s’agit d’abord. Le texte de la Genèse projette sur Abraham l’idéal de la sagesse réinterprété par la Deutéronome. Il devient un «parent idéal» selon le modèle classique des Proverbes, mais revu et corrigé par le Deutéronome. Il enseigne la Loi à ses enfants, bien avant que Moïse ne l’ait reçue et que cette Loi ait été identifiée à la sagesse et à la «crainte du Seigneur»²⁴. Nous assistons par conséquent à une triple évolution: le rôle des parents, selon les Proverbes et la sagesse traditionnelle, est tout d’abord réinterprété par le Deutéronome comme un devoir d’enseigner la Loi et, ensuite, cet idéal est projeté sur Abraham en Gn 18,19. Ajoutons une chose. Abraham, en Gn 18,19, devient un père idéal qui enseigne la Loi à ses enfants, ce qui était une prérogative des souverains: inculquer la loi à leurs sujets et pratiquer le droit et la justice. La sagesse d’Abraham est une sagesse royale remise entre les mains de tous les parents du peuple d’Israël.

Bibliographie Blum, Erhard, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984, 362–363. Braulik, Georg, Deuteronomium I (Die Neue Echter Bibel) Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Carr, David McLain, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford: University Press, 2005. Carrière, Jean-Marie, Théorie du politique dans le Deutéronome. Analyse des unités, des structures et des concepts de Dt 16,18–18,22 (ÖBS 18), Francfort sur le Main: Peter Lang, 2001. Dalley, Stéphanie M., The Legacy of Mesopotamia, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Driver, Samuel Rolles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895, 21896, 31902. Dutcher-Walls, Patricia, The Circumspection of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16–17 in Its Ancient Social Context: JBL 121 (2002) 601–616. Ego, Beate, Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels. Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahamsbildes, dans: Friedrich Avemarie – Hermann Lichtenberger (éds.), Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92) Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 25–40.

24 Pour Westermann, Genesis 2, 351–352, Gn 18,19 est un ajout postexilique qui projette la piété de cette époque sur Abraham. Abraham n’est pas le père de la foi comme en Gn 15,6, mais le père de la justice. Cf. Gn 22,15–18; 26,5. Selon Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 50, Abraham se comporte comme un père selon l’idéal du Deutéronome. Cf. Ego, Abraham als Urbild, 33: Abraham enseigne la loi avant que Moïse ne l’ait promulguée.

28 

 Jean Louis Ska 

García López, Félix, Le roi d’Israël: Dt 17,14–20, dans: Norbert Lohfink (éd.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 68) Leuven: Peeters, 1985, 277–297. Gunkel, Hermann, Genesis (GHAT 1), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31910. Jackson, Bernard, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (JSOTSS 314), Sheffield: Academic, 2000. Knoppers, Gary N., Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of the King: CBQ 63 (2001) 393–415. Knoppers, Gary N., The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of Relationship: ZAW 108 (1996) 329–346. Köckert, Matthias, Vätergott und Väterverheißungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (FRLANT 148), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Lemaire, André, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’Ancien Israël (OBO 39), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Levinson, Bernard Malcolm, The Reconceptualisation of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah: VT 51 (2001) 511–534. Lohfink, Norbert, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, dans: Walter Gross (éd.), Jeremia und die «deuteronomistische Bewegung» (BBB 98), Weinheim: Beltz Athäneum, 1995, 313–382 = Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III (SBAB 20), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995, 65–142. Moberly, Robert Walter Lambert, The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah: VT 38 (1988) 302–323. Mühling, Anke, Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels (FRLANT 236), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Murphy, Roland Edmund, Wisdom Literature. Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1981. O’Brien, Mark, Deuteronomy 16.18-18.22 : Meeting the Challenge of Towns and Nations: JSOT 33 (2008) 155–172. Otto, Eckart, Deuteronomium 1–11. 2. Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32 (HTKAT), Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2011. Rad, Gerhard von, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 58), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947, 21948. Rofé, Alexander, Introduzione alla letteratura della Bibbia ebraica. Vol. 1: Pentateuco e libri storici (Introduzione allo studio della Bibbia 48), Brescia: Paideia, 2011. Rüterswörden, Udo, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Deuteronomiums in der neueren Diskussion. Ein Überblick, dans: Peter Mommer – Winfried Thiel (éds.), Altes Testament Forschung und Wirkung. Fs H. Graf Reventlow, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994, 313–328. Sæbø, Magne, Sprüche (ATD 16.1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Schmidt, Ludwig, «De Deo». Studien zur Literarkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des Gesprächs zwischen Abraham un Jahwe in Gen 18,22  ff und Hi 1 (BZAW 143), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1976. Schöpflin, Karin, Abrahams Unterredung mit Gott und die schriftgelehrte Stilisierung der Abrahamsgestalt in Gen 18,16b-33, dans: Anselm C. Hagedorn – Henrik Pfeiffer (éds.), Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition. Fs Matthias Köckert (BZAW 400), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009, 93–113. Segal, Abraham, Abraham. Enquête sur un patriarche, Paris: Bayard, 2003. Soggin, Jan Alberto, Judges. A Commentary (OTL), London: SCM, 1981. Van Seters, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven, CT – London: Yale University Press, 1975.

 Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes 

 29

Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford: Clarendon, 1972 = Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Wellhausen, Julius, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Berlin: Georg Reimer, 31899. Wenham, Gordon J., Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1994. Westermann, Claus, Genesis 2 (BK 1,2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981. Whitelam, Keith W., The Just King. Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. Williamson, Hugh G.M., 1 & 2 Chronicles (NCB), London: Marshall – Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1982.

Hans-Winfried Jüngling

Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3) und von “Not” und “Not wendender Kraft” (Spr 24,10.11–12) Hans-Winfried Jüngling: Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

1 Hinführung Das biblische Buch der Sprüche hat es, obwohl im internationalen Schatz der Sprichwörter, wie er sich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert gebildet hat, gut vertreten, in der biblischen Theologie nicht sonderlich leicht. Sehr schnell wird es in seinem Wert herabgestuft. Die biblischen Sprichwörter vertreten einen Vergeltungsglauben, sie reden dem Tun-Ergehens-Zusammenhang das Wort. So wird gesagt. Überhaupt liegen sie weit hinter den theologischen Standards, die etwa die Bücher Ijob und Kohelet vorgeben, zurück. Solchen Thesen gegenüber soll nun nicht ein groß angelegtes Plädoyer zugunsten des biblischen Buches der Sprichwörter gehalten werden. Lediglich zwei Stellen möchte ich kurz besprechen und ihre Wirkungsgeschichte entfalten. Bei Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel und bei Dietrich Bonhoeffer finden sich meines Erachtens interessante und aufschlussreiche Verweise auf das Sprichwörterbuch. Sie können deutlich machen, dass in ihm nicht nur Triviales zur Sprache kommt. Sie können im Gegenteil deutlich machen, dass auch die Sprichwörter an der Qualität des Wortes Gottes teilhaben, von der Jeremia meinte, sie sei wie die eines “Felsen spaltenden Hammers” (Jer 23,29).

2 Die “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3) Das Wort “Zucht” (rs"+Wm) steht dreimal im Prolog der Buches der Sprichwörter (1,2.3.7). Im nächsten Vers 1,8 ist erneut von ihm die Rede. Es ist dann die Rede von der Zucht des Vaters: ^ybi_a' rs:Wm¹. Im ganzen Buch kommt das Wort “Zucht”

1 “Zucht des Vaters” auch 4,1; 13,1; 15,5.

 Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3)  

 31

30-mal vor. Die Prominenz des Wortes im Prolog des Buches ist auffallend. Das Substantiv “Weisheit” (hm'k.x)' steht in diesen Versen nur zweimal V.2 und V.7, jeweils mit “Zucht” gekoppelt². Abgesehen vom Wort “Weisheit” kommt im Prolog des Sprichwörterbuchs (Spr 1,2–7) ein Vokabular zur Geltung, das die intellektuellen Fähigkeiten des Menschen heraushebt. Es finden sich einige mit “Weisheit” in direkter Beziehung stehende Wörter: “Einsicht” (hn")ybi: 1.2), das entsprechende Verbum “einsehen” (!yb: 1,2.6) und das Adjektiv/Substantiv “Einsichtiger” (!Abn": 1,5), dann das Substantiv “Erkenntnis” (t[;D:: 1,4.7) mit dem entsprechenden Verbum “erkennen” ([dy: 1,2). Neben diese in der hebräischen Bibel häufigen Substantive und Verben treten zwei Substantive, die in den meisten biblischen Kontexten eine negative Denotation haben, hier jedoch durchaus positiv gemeint sind: “Schlauheit” (hm'_r>[': 1,4) und “Nachsinnen” (hM'(zIm: 1,4). Dazu treten noch die beiden Ausdrücke “das Angenommene” im Sinne des erworbenen Wissens (xq;l,_: 1,5) und “Steuermannskunst” (tAlBux.T:; 1,5). Der Mensch, der erzogen werden soll, soll sich seiner Intelligenz bewusst werden und diese für Gerechtigkeit, Recht und Gradheit einsetzen. In diesem auf die Intelligenz des Menschen abgestellten Kontext fällt die Prägung lKe_f.h; rs:Wm (1,3) auf, zu übersetzen ist sie mit “Zucht des Begreifens”. Sie hat in Spr 15,33 in der Fügung hm'k.x' rs;Wm noch eine interessante und wichtige Parallele. Diese Fügung wird oft übersetzt: “Zucht zur Weisheit”, doch ist offen zu lassen, ob es sich um einen Genitivus objektivus oder subjektivus handelt. Deshalb ist sie mit “Zucht der Weisheit” wiederzugeben³. Das Nachwort zu Jesus Sirach hat fast die genaue Entsprechung zum Ausdruck in Spr 1,3: Dort findet sich die Prägung: lkf rswm, von der griechischen Bibel als ( ) wiedergegeben (Sir 50,27). Der Lateiner hat: doctrinam sapientiae et disciplinae (50,29). Die Wortverbindung lKe_f.h; rs:Wm sei ein wenig näher in Augenschein genommen. Das Wort deutsche Wort “Zucht” (rs"+Wm) klingt nicht sonderlich schön. Doch auch wenn das hebräische Wort mit “Erziehung” wiedergegeben wird, behält es seinen strengen Klang. Die Erziehung eines Menschen ist immer ein schwieriges Geschäft. Der alte Orient und die klassische Antike wussten darum, dass die

2 Als Wortpaar stehen Weisheit und Zucht im Buch der Sprichwörter nur noch in 23,23. Mit dem Verbum “weise sein” steht “Zucht” noch in 8,33; 19,20. Das Adjektiv “weise” steht zusammen mit “Zucht” in Spr 13,1. Das Adjektiv /Substantiv “weise/Weiser” steht allerdings auch in Spr 1,5.6. 3 “Erziehung der Weisheit” so: Saebø, Sprüche, 210. Die LXX löst die Genitivkonstruktion auf und koordiniert:. Dagegen bewahrt der Lateiner die Genitiv-Konstruktion: timor Domini disciplina sapientiae et gloriam praecedit humilitas (Spr 15,33 Vulg).

32 

 Hans-Winfried Jüngling 

Erziehung mit Leiden verbunden ist⁴. Im Buch der Sprichwörter ist dem entsprechend vom “Stock der Zucht” (rs'Wm jb,ve: Spr 22,15) die Rede. Mit dem Stock muss dem Bildungsunwilligen gedroht werden (Spr 10,13; 26,3; 13,24). Vor Leiden aber schreckt ein Mensch zurück (3,11–12; 5,12)⁵. Aber es gilt dennoch durch das Leiden zu größerer Bildung zu kommen (23,12–13). Die Strenge, die zum Lernen führt, hat nicht nur für die Erziehung des jungen Menschen eine wichtige und unverzichtbare Rolle, sie bleibt eine Lehrmeisterin für das ganze Leben des Menschen⁶. In der klassischen griechischen Literatur gibt es die Meinung, dass ein Mensch durch Leiden lernt. So heißt es bei Aischylos ⁷. Die Rede vom Lernen durch Leiden ist auch dem Alten Testament nicht fremd. So formuliert Ps 119,71: `^yQ ta;r>yI hm'k.x' tL;xiT,. und 1,7: t[;D"_ tyviarE hw"hy> ta;r>y.I Das Hegelzitat stimmt mit keinem dieser Sätze völlig überein. Doch da “Furcht des Herrn” in Anfangsstellung steht, dürfte hier wohl doch Spr 1,7 zugrunde liegen, auch wenn statt “Wissen/Erkenntnis” im Zitat “Weisheit” steht. “Weisheit” entspricht Spr 9,10 und Ps 111,10.

 Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3)  

 35

Steht für Hegels Prägung “Anstrengung des Begriffs” das Sprüchebuch Pate? Anklänge an biblische Sprache sind in seinen Werken überall zu finden. Mir scheint: Eine Erinnerung an Spr 1,3a in der Vorrede der Phänomenologie ist nicht völlig unmöglich. Im SS 1790 hört der Freund und Kommilitone Hegels, Friedrich Hölderlin, eine Vorlesung über die Sprüche Salomos und arbeitet das Specimen mit dem Titel “Parallele zwischen Salomons Sprüchwörtern und Hesiods Werken und Tagen” aus¹⁵. Die Vorlesung von Chr. F. Schnurrer über die Sprichwörter hat aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach auch Hegel gehört¹⁶. Allerdings können wir da nicht ganz sicher sein. Bei seinem Tod am 14. November 1831 befanden sich in seinem Nachlass noch Vorlesungsnachschriften aus der Tübinger Studienzeit. Die Nachschriften könnten dem ersten Biographen Hegels, K. Rosenkranz, noch direkt vorgelegen haben. “Zufolge, der noch vorhandenen, sehr gut nachgeschriebenen Collegienhefte Hegel’s hörte er 1788–89 bei Schnurrer, der damals der Exegese einen neuen Schwung gab, Apostelgeschichte und den ersten Theil der Psalmen; im Sommersemester 1789 bei demselben den zweiten Theil der Psalmen und die katholischen Briefe; bei Flatt über Cicero de natura Deorum. Im Wintersemester 1789–90 hörte er bei Rösler Geschichte der Philosophie und im Sommer 1790 bei Flatt: Metaphysik und natürliche Theologie. Im eigentlich theologischen Cursus 1790–93 hörte er fast nur bei Storr… das Evangelium Lukas, Matthäus, Johannes, den Römerbrief und andere Briefe, außerdem aber die Dogmatik” (Rosenkranz: Hegel’s Leben 25)¹⁷.

Ob Hegel im Sommersemester 1790 wie Hölderlin auch eine Vorlesung über die Sprichwörter Salomons hörte, muss nach diesen Auskünften des Biographen verneint werden. Es gab keine Nachschrift der Proverbienvorlesung Schnurrers von der Hand Hegels¹⁸. Dem steht jedoch die verbürgte Nachricht gegenüber, dass

15 Beck, Hölderlin, 33  f. Vgl. ferner Jacobs, Zwischen Revolution und Orthodoxie?, 74: “Zu den Specimina, die auf eine Vorlesung Schnurrers zu beziehen sind, gehört das Hölderlinsche: ‘Parallele zwischen Salomons Sprüchwörtern und Hesiods Werken und Tagen’. Im Sommersemester 1790 las Schnurrer privatim Proverbia Salomonis”. 16 Sehr bestimmt Jacobs, Zwischen Revolution und Orthodoxie?, 76: “Der alttestamentliche Zyklus (scil. von Schnurrer) umfaßte Hiob, Proverbia, zwei Semester kleine Propheten, zwei Semester Esaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel und zwei Semester Psalmen. Hegel und Hölderlin hörten von den Psalmen bis zu den Proverbia. Schelling die kleinen Propheten und Esaias”. 17 So wird der Biograph K. Rosenkranz zitiert in: Hegel, Frühe Schriften I, 415. 18 Die Kollegienhefte in Hegel’s Nachlass und ihr Schicksal sind besprochen in: Hegel, Frühe Schriften I, 415. 519  f. (editorischer Bericht). 645  f. In den beiden Semestern 1788–1789 hat der Exeget Christian Friedrich Schnurrer nach dem Ordo praelectionum der Universität Tübingen die folgenden Vorlesungen gehalten: Winter 1788/89: …in publicis praelectionibus

36 

 Hans-Winfried Jüngling 

Schnurrer im Sommersemester 1790 eine Vorlesung über die Sprichwörter hielt, die zu dem erwähnten Specimen Hölderlins führte. Zu denken gibt ferner ein Stammbuchblatt Hegels für Georg Christoph Friedrich Rueff. Das Blatt ist auf den 5. September 1790 datiert und zitiert Spr 6,10–11 in der Lutherübersetzung: Ja schlaf noch ein wenig, schlummre ein wenig: schlage die Hände in einander ein wenig, daß du schlafest. So wird dich die Armuth übereilen wie ein Fußgänger: und der Mangel wie ein gewappneter Mann. Proverbiorum VIto v. 10.11 Tübingen d. 5. Sept. 1790 Symb. Und Adam war ein Gärtner!²⁰

Denk hiebei an deinen Freund C.¹⁹ Hegel

Ist diese Verwendung von Proverbia 6,10–11 etwa eine Frucht seiner Beschäftigung mit den Sprichwörtern im gerade vergangenen Sommersemester? Die Sache mit der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” hat aber eine Weiterung. Vielleicht ist dem Philosophen die Erinnerung an lKe_f.h; rs:Wm aus Spr 1,3 gerade bei den Anstrengungen für die Wissenschaft der Logik nicht aus dem Sinn gegangen. Mit der jüdischen Aufklärung, der Haskala, dürfte Hegel in Nürnberg, Heidelberg und Berlin Bekanntschaft gemacht haben. Ihr Name könnte ihn an seine Proverbienstudien und genauer an Spr 1,3 erinnert haben

Acta Apostolorum, in privatis Psalmorum partem priorem interpretabitur; Sommer 1789: …publice Epistolas catholicas, privatim partem alteram psalmorum interpretabitur… (645). Das Zitat aus dem Vorlesungsverzeichnis orientiert sich ganz an dem Bestand der “sehr gut nachgeschriebenen Collegienhefte” (415). Es bricht, was die Vorlesungen Schnurrers betrifft, mit dem Sommersemester 1789 ab. Das Zitat insinuiert aber eine Fortsetzung (“…”), in der die Sprüchevorlesung im Sommersemester 1790 vermerkt sein könnte (645). Für das Wintersemester 1789/90 und das Sommersemester 1790 waren Nachschriften der Vorlesungen von Chr. F. Roesler bzw. J. F. Flatt erhalten. Die Collegienhefte dieser und der Vorlesungen von G. Ch. Storr in den Jahren 1790–1793 sind verschollen: “Nachricht aus dem Jahre 1855, mit Bezug auf die Reduzierung von Hegels handschriftlichem Nachlaß. Immanuel Hegel an Karl Hegel: ‘…Dagegen war ich mit Dir einverstanden, daß die nachgeschriebenen Hefte der Universitätsvorlesungen von Flatt – Schnurrer etc. zu vernichten (seien)’” (Hegel, Frühe Schriften I, 415; vgl. 519  f.). 19 Das “C.” in der Unterschrift wirkt befremdlich, da es im Namen Hegels nicht vorkommt. Wofür steht “C”? Könnte es sich um eine defekte Wiedergabe eines “G” handeln? 20 Dieses Blatt, in der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart aufbewahrt, ist abgebildet und z.  T. transkribiert bei Lemcke – Hackenesch, Hegel in Tübingen, 66 und 93.

 Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3)  

 37

Die Erstausgabe der Logik aus den Jahren 1812/13 kennt in der Einleitung die Formulierung “die… Bildung und Zucht des Bewußtseyns”: Das Studium dieser Wissenschaft, der Aufenthalt und die Arbeit in diesem Schattenreich ist die absolute Bildung und Zucht des Bewusstseyns²¹.

In der zweiten Vorrede zur “Wissenschaft der Logik”, datiert auf den 7. November 1831, spricht Hegel von der “Bildung und Zucht des Denkens”. Das könnte geradezu eine Übersetzung von Spr 1,3 sein, indem er rswm als , d.  h. “Bildung“ –  ist die normale Übersetzung von rswm in der LXX – und als Zucht deutet: Aber diese Bildung und Zucht des Denkens, durch welche ein plastisches Verhalten desselben bewirkt und die Ungeduld der einfallenden Reflexion überwunden würde, wird allein durch das Weitergehen, das Studium und die Produktion der ganzen Entwicklung verschafft²².

Jedenfalls ist die Prägung bei beiden –im Sprichwörterbuch und bei Hegel in der Phänomenologie des Geistes und der Logik– sehr eigen und nachdenklich stimmend!²³ Auch das Verbum “nehmen” in der Phänomenologie gehört zum Wortbestand von Spr 1,3²⁴.

21 Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik. Erster Band. Die objektive Logik (Nürnberg 1812/1813) (Gesammelte Werke 11) 29; Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik I, Erster Teil. Die objektive Logik, Erstes Buch (Hegel Werke in 20 Bänden) Bd. 5, 55. 22 Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik. Erster Teil. Die objektive Logik. Erster Band. Die Lehre vom Sein (1832), (Gesammelte Werke 21) 19; Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik, I, Bd. 5, 33. 23 Doch kann auch Aristoteles hinter der Formulierung “Anstrengung des Begriffs” stehen. Metaphysik  1074b (12. Buch, 9) heißt es: … , “Wenn die Vernunft nicht Denken ist, sondern Vermögen, so ist es wahrscheinlich, dass ihr das ununterbrochene Denken Mühe macht”. 24 Ein literarisches Nachleben hat “die Anstrengung des Begriffs” bei Theodor W. Adorno, in der “Zueignung” der “Minima moralia”: “Die abschließenden Aphorismen jeden Teils führen auch thematisch auf die Philosophie, ohne je als abgeschlossen und definitiv sich zu behaupten: alle wollen Einsatzstellen markieren oder Modelle abgeben für kommende Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Adorno, Minima Moralia, 17).

38 

 Hans-Winfried Jüngling 

3 Von “Not” und “Not wendender Kraft” (Spr 24,10.11–12). Spr 24,10–12 bei Dietrich Bonhoeffer Spr 24,10–12 bieten nicht geringe Schwierigkeiten für das Verständnis. Sie beginnen mit der Frage, ob die V.10–12 überhaupt eine Einheit darstellen²⁵. Mit V.10 beginnt gegenüber dem unmittelbar Vorangehenden (V.7–9) die Du-Anrede. Sie ist über die drei Verse und darüber hinaus durchgehalten. In V.10 wird ein Tatbestand in der Vergangenheit benannt, V.11 beginnt mit einem Imperativ. Schon dieser Sachverhalt könnte genügen, um an der Einheit von V.10 und V.11–12 zu zweifeln. Tatsächlich halten viele Ausleger V.10 für eine eigenständige Sentenz²⁶. Nimmt man V.10 und V.11–12 jeweils für sich, bleiben vor allem in den V.11–12 sprachliche und inhaltliche Unsicherheiten. Ohne auf alle Einzelheiten eingehen zu können, seien V.10 und V.11–12 kurz besprochen. V.10 schaut auf ein Ereignis zurück. Der Vers ist bündig formuliert. Die Alliteration in der Mitte des Verses “Beengung“ – “eng” (hrc – rc) verleiht ihm den Charakter des Definitiven: Du hast dich als schlaff gezeigt am Tag der Enge – eng ist deine Kraft.

Mit der Betonung der zweiten Person am Anfang und am Ende des Verses könnte gesagt sein, dass es sich bei dem “Tag der Beengung” um eine Beengung, d.  h. eine Not, der eigenen Person handelt, nicht um einen Tag der Not eines anderen. Dies hat Fox besonders hervorgehoben und damit die Eigenständigkeit von V.10 gegenüber V.11–12 begründet, in denen es um die Not von anderen geht²⁷. Doch gibt es unter den Belegen für “Tag der Not”²⁸ auch einen, in dem von der Not des anderen die Rede ist: Stell dich nicht an der Wegkreuzung auf, um die Fliehenden niederzumachen. Liefere die Flüchtlinge nicht aus am Tag der Not (hrc ~wyb)! (Obadja 14).

25 Die V.10–12 sind als Einheit gefasst bei Meinhold, Die Sprüche II, 404  f.; Whybray, Proverbs, 346. 26 So schon Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar III, 383; McKane, Proverbs, 399  f.; Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 746. Interessant die Position von Saebø, Sprüche, 302, Anm. 68: “Während Toy 444  f.; McKane 399  f. mit Recht für die Eigenständigkeit von V.10 plädieren, wird der Vers öfter mit V.11– 12 zusammengenommen …; es dürfte aber hier darauf ankommen zwischen Eigenständigkeit und Bezogenheit recht zu balancieren”. 27 Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 746. 28 “Tag der Not” außer 24,10 noch Jer 17,17; Nah 1,7; Ps 20,2; 50,15; Spr 25,19.

 Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3)  

 39

Dieser Beleg zeigt, dass die Fügung “Tag der Not” nicht immer nur das im Satz enthaltene Subjekt betreffen muss, wie Fox meint, sondern auch das Unheil, das andere betrifft²⁹. Dennoch scheint es, dass Spr 24,10 zunächst an die Not denkt, die das angesprochene Du betrifft. Es ist noch nicht die Not, von der im nächsten Vers die Rede ist. Was soll mit dieser Maxime gesagt sein? Der Text und Sinn des einzeiligen Spruchs ist schwer zu deuten –so befindet Saebø und sieht eine Verbindung über das Stichwort “Kraft” zu Vers 5 und zugleich eine “Verzahnung” auch mit V.11–12: “Inhaltlich geht es allgemein um die physische und, vielleicht vor allem, die geistige Kraft einer Person, die sich besonders in Zeiten von Not und Bedrängnis zu bewähren hat. Zudem fällt auf, dass der Spruch trotz seiner Aussageform die Anrede –nach V.1 und 6– wieder aufnimmt; dadurch bezieht sich der Spruch wohl auch auf das Mahnungswort in V.11–12 und eine Verzahnung zwischen dem Aussageteil und dem Mahnwortteil entsteht”³⁰. Mir scheint der Satz mit der Devise “principiis obsta”, “wehre den Anfängen” zusammenzuhängen. Wenn ein Mensch sich am Tag der Not einfach gehen ließ, sich nicht zusammennahm und seine Kräfte mobilisiert hat, wird es mit seinen Kräften in der Folge immer mehr bergab gehen. Wer am Tag der Not sich bewährt, kann darauf vertrauen, dass seine Kräfte in weiteren Bewährungsproben wachsen werden. Vers 11 zeichnet sich durch eine auffällige Diktion aus. Seine Phraseologie bedarf einiger Erläuterung. Die beiden ersten Wörter des Verses sind unter der Rücksicht der Morphologie jeweils nur an dieser Stelle belegt. Das gilt für den Imperativ “rette” (lCh) ebenso wie für das Partizip passiv “die Genommenen” (~yxql). Hinzu kommt: Unter der Rücksicht der Verwendung des Imperativs ist die Stelle einzigartig: Der Imperativ Singular das Verbums lcn hip. hat in aller Regel Gott zum Subjekt. Zu den Besonderheiten des Verses gehört auch das Substantiv “Tötung” (grh). Es ist selten, es findet sich nur fünfmal in der hebräischen Bibel³¹. Die außergewöhnliche sprachliche Form bedingt die sehr unterschied— liche Deutung des Verses. Wer sind die, “die zum Tod genommen werden”? Wer sind die, “die zur Tötung wanken”? Da die Todesstrafe vom Gesetz her vorgesehen ist, könnte es scheinen, dass eine Deutung der fraglichen Ausdrücke im

29 Meinhold, Sprüche II, 404: “In V.10 wird allem Anschein nach auf das Versagen eines Menschen – aus Schwäche, Feigheit, Angst, Bequemlichkeit, Nachlässigkeit? – im Augenblick der Not eines anderen angespielt”. 30 Saebø, Sprüche, 301  f. Ähnlich schon Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar III, 383: “Wenn der Mensch sich schlaff … d.i. wankelmütig, zaghaft, widerstandsunfähig in Zeiten der Bedrängnis bewiesen, so soll er daraus die Schlußfolgerung ziehen, die der Nachsatz 10b ausspricht”. 31 Jes 27,7; 30,25; Ez 26,15; Spr 24,11; Est 9,5.

40 

 Hans-Winfried Jüngling 

Zusammenhang mit dem Gerichtswesen als Anachronismus ausgeschlossen ist³². Sind die, die zum Tode genommen werden und zur Tötung wanken, Menschen die unter die Räuber gefallen sind?³³ Demgegenüber steht die Ansicht, dass die Mahnung “die zum Tode genommenen” zu retten, sich auf die Situation bezieht, dass Unschuldige gerichtlich verurteilt wurden³⁴. Um hier zu einer gewissen Klarheit zu kommen, muss noch einmal auf den außergewöhnlichen Wortlaut geachtet werden. Der Imperativ Singular des Verbums lcn Hiphil wendet sich mit einer Ausnahme (Jes 44,17) an Gott. Die verstärkte Form mit h-adhortativum findet sich zweimal. Der Beter bittet um die Rettung seines Lebens vor dem Schwert (Ps 22,21) und vor Lüge und Betrug (Ps 120,2). Die 16 Belege für die an Gott gerichtete suffigierte Form “rette mich” (ynlych) zeigen einen Zusammenhang mit dem verfeindeten Bruder (Gen 32,11), dann überhaupt mit Feinden und Verfolgern (Ps 7,2; 25,19–20; 31,16; 59,2; 142,7; 143,9), mit Übeltätern (Ps 59,3), mit Fremden (Ps 144,11), die zugleich als “große Wasser” gekennzeichnet sind (Ps 144,7), mit Morast/Schlamm (Ps 69,15), mit Sünden (Ps 39,9) und Blutschuld (Ps 51,16) schließlich ganz allgemein ohne ausdrückliche Nennung der Gefahr, aus der gerettet werden soll, wenngleich der Gesamtkontext “Feinde” als Gefahr nahelegt (Ps 31,3; 109,21; 119,170). In Jes 44,17 richtet sich der Imperativ “rette mich” an die Götzen. Vier Belege gibt es für die suffigierte Form “rette uns” Obwohl Ri 10,15 die Gefahr nicht ausdrücklich gemacht ist, ist sie doch aus dem Zusammen-

32 Von einem Anachronismus spricht Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 747: “Almost all commentators (e.g. Delitzsch and Plöger) assume that ‘those who are taken away to death’ are being led to judicial execution. But in judicial retribution, the question of guilt and innocence is crucial. Verse 11 is not about the wrongly condemned, because their innocence could not go without mention. Nor is the verse about the treatment of the guilty, because execution for capital crimes would raise no objection. On the contrary, it should be not resisted, since it is divinely commanded in all law codes (Exod 21,12.14; Lev 24,21; Deut 19,11–13) and cannot be remitted even by monetary compensation (Num 35,30–31). The notion that one is duty-bound to intervene to prevent capital punishment is grossly anachronistic. Moreover, the phrase ‘tottering (on the brink of) slaughter’ can describe anyone in mortal peril. For these reasons, the clause ‘those who are being taken away to death’ is best understood as a reference to anyone facing death – at the hand of robbers, perhaps”. 33 Wie Fox schon Whybray, Proverbs, 346  f. und Meinhold, Proverbs II, 404: “Kann eine derartige Aufforderung (scil. zu retten) aber auch für rechtens zum Tod Verurteilte gelten? Angesichts der Unwahrscheinlichkeit dieses Falles legt es sich näher, an die Todesgefahr zu denken, die den Opfern durch Gewalttäter droht (1,10–14)”. 34 So McKane, Proverbs, 401  f.: “The terms of this verse remain puzzling, unless we accept Ringgren’s suggestion, that it refers to those who are innocent and have been unjustly condemned. This is not explicitly said, but it is a less objectionable assumption than that ‘death’ and ‘execution’ are metaphors for the oppression of the poor (Gemser, Ringgren). This assumption that the victims who are to be rescued are innocent of the crimes with which they have been charged is perhaps strengthened by the religious character of the arguments, by which the imperatives are reinforced (v.12)”. Ebenso Saebø, Sprüche, 302: “Konkret handelt es um Personen, die zum Tod verurteilt sind”.

 Von der “Anstrengung des Begriffs” (Spr 1,3)  

 41

hang durch die Feinde gegeben, wie es dann die Parallelstelle 1 Sam 12,16 bietet. Ps 69,9 bittet um Rettung und Sündenvergebung, 1 Chr 16,35 um Rettung vor den Völkern.

Aus der Übersicht geht hervor, in welch weit gespanntem Rahmen die Psalmen Gefahren benennen, aus denen Gott um Rettung angerufen wird. In Ps 59,2–3 werden die Gegner charakterisiert als “Feinde”, als “die, die gegen den Beter Aufstehenden”, als “Übeltäter” und als “Blutmänner”. Wenngleich diese Gruppen in ihren Aktionen durchaus als “Räuber” gekennzeichnet sind, so muss das Bild des gewalttätigen Raubens nicht auch die tatsächliche Not des Beters sein. Auch die Not vor Gericht durch falsche Anklage kann durch das Feind- und Verfolgerbild zur Sprache gebracht werden (Ps 7,2  f.). Es gibt nur drei Belege für den Imperativ Plural (Jer 21,12; 22,3 und Ps 82,4):

qve_A[ dY:mi lWzg" WlyCih;w> jP'v.mi rq,Bol; WnyDI qAv+[' dY:mi lWzg" WlyCih;w> hq'd"c.W jP'v.mi Wf[] `WlyCi(h; ~y[iv'r> dY:mi !Ay=b.a,w> ld:-WjL.P;

Jer 21,12 Jer 22,3 Ps 82,4

Der Zusammenhang des “Rettens” mit prozessualen Vorgängen ist in den Jeremiastellen ausdrücklich. In Ps 82,3 ist ebenfalls von dem gerichtlichen Eintreten für den Armen die Rede: WqyDI(c.h; vr"w" ynI[' ~At+y"w> ld:-Wjp.v. Die pluralischen Imperative vergegenwärtigen eine Gerichtssituation, in der Arme und Unterdrückte nur zu leicht um sein Recht gebracht werden kann. Wer so um sein Recht gebracht wird, erleidet Gewalt. Aber auch wenn ein Mensch fälschlich vom Gericht verurteilt wird, erleidet er Gewalt, die gegen ihn verübt wird. Nicht umsonst sprechen Gesetzestexte (Ex 23,1; Dtn 19,16) und Psalmen (Ps 35,11) von den Zeugen der Gewalt. In Ps 35,10 heißt es: Al*z>GOmi !Ayb.a,w> ynI['w> WNM,_mi qz"x'me ynI[' lyCim; ^Amk' ymi hw"hy>. Die Betrachtung des Imperativs Singular in Spr 24,11a führt zu dem Schluss, dass hier zur Nachahmung Gottes aufgefordert wird. Gott ist der Unvergleichliche gerade unter der Rücksicht, dass er den Armen vor dem rettet, der stärker ist als er. Der Stärkere kann der wirtschaftlich Überlegene sein, er kann auch der gewalttätig den Armen beraubende sein, er kann der Räuber sein. Gott wird nicht nur in der Gerichtssituation als Helfer angerufen, sondern tatsächlich auch in jeder Not, in der ein Mensch von der Gewalt umzingelt ist. Die pluralischen Imperative führen dagegen ausdrücklich in die Gerichtssituation, bringen aber auch die Gewalt des Räubers gegenüber dem Armen ins Spiel. Unser Spruch Spr 24,11 richtet seine Aufmerksamkeit auf die, “die zum Tod genommen werden” (twTi wd"y"w.> Le verbe étant à la 3e pers. fém. pluriel, suivre le qeré wyd"y"w>, «ses mains», avec BHS, Clines, Job 1–20, 117. 30 Cf. Dt 32,39: «Voyez maintenant que moi c’est moi, il n’y a pas de dieu à côté de moi: moi, je fais mourir et je fais vivre, je blesse et moi je guéris». La perspective est plus celle de l’affirmation de l’unicité de Dieu et de sa seigneurie. La perspective d’Éliphaz est plus proche de celle de Os 6,1: «retournons vers Yhwh, il a déchiré, il nous guérira, il a frappé, il nous pansera». 31 Seule occurrence de dy rtn (hiphil) dans la Bible hébraïque; cf. Maiberger, rtn natar, 121. Le verbe apparaît au qal en Jb 37,1 au sens de «bondir».

70 

 Françoise Mies 

désir de mort violente. Cet appel à la violence meurtrière de Dieu n’est-il pas un écho à l’appel du Satan à la violence divine: «envoie ta main…»? Job exhale alors sa déception: ses amis ont trahi sa confiance, ils ont pris peur (6,15–21), alors qu’il ne leur demandait ni de donner de l’argent (6,22) ni de risquer leur vie pour lui en le délivrant de «la main d’un adversaire» (rc dym: 6,23). Cet adversaire, ici du moins, ne semble pas être Dieu puisque le terme «adversaire» (rc) est en parallèle synonymique avec le terme pluriel «violents, oppresseurs, tyrans» (~ycyr[). Mais pour Job, Dieu est bien un adversaire. Toutefois, n’étant pas un homme comme lui (9,32), Il ne peut comparaître dans un tribunal et tout espoir d’arbitre qui puisse poser la main sur eux deux, en guise d’arbitrage ou de conciliation, est vain (9,33). 4. Vient alors un passage essentiel, au chapitre 10, où les mains de Dieu prennent place dans un contexte de création. Les 22 occurrences de «main(s) de Dieu» en contexte de création décomptées par Norin dans la Bible hébraïque sont positives³². Cinq d’entre elles figurent dans le livre de Job (10,3.8; 12,9; 14,15; 34,19). C’est Job qui mobilise ce contexte (4/5). La racine arb étant absente du livre, le terme «main(s)» (de Dieu) n’est jamais associé à arb dans ce livre –pas plus que dans la Bible hébraïque–, alors qu’il l’est à d’autres verbes exprimant la création, [gy (10,3), hX[ (10,8; 12,9 et les emplois de ~ydy hX[m en 14,15 et 34,19) et bc[ (Jb 10,8)³³. Voici le passage: 3 Est-ce bien pour toi de faire violence, De rejeter l’œuvre de tes mains [$ypk [ygy] Et de favoriser le dessein des méchants? […]. 7 Tu sais bien que je ne suis pas coupable Et que nul ne délivre de ta main [lycm $dym !yaw]. 8 Tes mains [$ydy] m’ont façonné [bc[], m’ont fait [hX[], Et tu m’avalerais tout entier! 9 Souviens-toi donc: comme l’argile tu m’as fait [hX[], Et tu me ferais retourner à la poussière! (10,3.7–9).

Job remonte au principe: Dieu n’est pas comme l’homme (9,32; 10,4–5); alors comment se fait-il qu’il se comporte comme un homme? Il remonte à son propre fondement, sa création³⁴; comment se fait-il que Dieu se comporte comme il se

32 Norin, Das Hand Gottes, 59. 33 Dans la Bible hébraïque: hX[ (Ps 119,73; 138,8); !wk (Ps 119,73); dsy (Is 48,13); etc. 34 Cf. Mies, L’être créé, 87–98.

 Job et la main de Dieu 

 71

comporte en oubliant le lien qui le lie à sa créature (10,9.13a)³⁵? L’œuvre des mains de Dieu, habituellement signifiée par l’expression neutre $ydy hX[m («ce qui est fait de tes mains»; cf. 14,15), Job l’appelle $ypk [ygy (10,3)³⁶ qui exprime plus le labeur, la peine que Dieu a prise pour créer son œuvre. «Tu sais qu’il n’y a personne qui délivre de ta main» (10,7). L’expression lcn dym (hiphil), «délivrer de la main»³⁷, est fréquente dans la Bible hébraïque (une cinquantaine d’occurrences). S’il est question de délivrance, la main doit signifier un pouvoir dont on est prisonnier, un mal dont on souffre, qu’il soit celui du châtiment ou de la violence des ennemis. C’est souvent Dieu «qui délivre de la main de» et quand l’expression se fait négative, lycm !yaw, «et il n’y a pas de sauveur» (15x), c’est Dieu qui est visé. En Jb 5,4, Éliphaz dit que pour l’insensé, «il n’y a pas de sauveur». Par trois fois dans la Bible hébraïque (Dt 32,39; Is 43,13; Jb 11,7) apparaît l’expression dym lycm !yaw, «et personne qui délivre de la main [de Dieu]». En Dt 32,39 et Is 43,13, la perspective est celle de la défense du monothéisme: Dieu affirme sa seigneurie universelle et l’impuissance des dieux étrangers, incapables de délivrer de sa main. Dieu y parle de lui-même: «personne ne délivre de ma main». Job, lui, dit à Dieu: «personne ne délivre de ta main», et en soulignant «tu sais que…»! Il n’y a pas d’autre dieu qui puisse délivrer de la main de Dieu. Il faudrait que Dieu, sauveur, délivre de sa propre main maléfique ou à tout le moins injustement punitive. Job remonte au fondement même du «personne ne délivre de ta main»: la création, et sa propre création. La succession immédiate de «personne qui délivre de ta main» et «tes mains m’ont façonné» atteste que l’expression universelle trouve ici une application singulière: «personne ne me délivre de ta main». Être créé des mains de Dieu implique que l’être créé est dans sa main: impossible de s’en échapper, comme il est impossible d’échapper à son être créé (cf. Ps 139). L’impossibilité est ontologique. Elle a un sens positif dans la Bible (cf. Ps 139)³⁸, mais elle peut revêtir un sens négatif quand on parle, comme Job, d’être délivré de la main de Dieu. En quelque sorte, il dit: «Tu ne me délivreras pas de ta main car cela n’a pas de sens: tu es mon créateur, tu m’as fait, tu sais donc que je ne suis pas coupable et que ta main n’a pas à me châtier. Tu sais! Souviens-t-en».

35 Pour la justification de l’oubli plutôt que de la perversion en 10,13–14, cf. Mies, L’espérance de Job, 532–533. 36 L’expression «œuvre des mains», avec [ygy, n’apparaît qu’en Gn 31,42; Ps 128,2; Ag 1,11; Jb 10,3, toujours avec @k. Dans les trois premières occurrences, l’expression désigne une œuvre de mains humaines. Cf. Hasel, [gy yaga‘, 390. 37 Cf. Ackroyd, dy yad, 421; Hossfeld – Kalthoff, lcn naṣal, 537. 38 Dans le Ps 139, le psalmiste, comme Job, raconte sa création par Dieu dans le sein maternel sans passer par la métaphore des mains.

72 

 Françoise Mies 

Les v. 10–11 détaillent ce labeur du $ypk [ygy: mains du potier qui moule sa créature comme l’argile (10,10a), mains du paysan qui coule son lait et le fait cailler pour former l’embryon, du tailleur qui le vêt au dehors (10,11a) et du tisserand qui le tisse au-dedans (10,11b). Don de la vie, de l’amour, sollicitude qui «veille sur son souffle» (10,12). Dieu savait ce que veut dire «veiller sur la vie de» – contrairement, se dit le lecteur, au Satan (2,6) qui n’en retenait que le sens restreint de «laisser en vie». Oui, cette action des mains de Dieu était bonne et inspirée de bonté, comme l’indique encore le parallèle doublement antithétique rejeter/favoriser, l’œuvre de tes mains/le dessein des méchants (10,3bc). Certes, «personne ne délivre de sa main» (10,7b)³⁹, mais Dieu peut-il oublier sa main créatrice et devenir un pouvoir destructeur de l’innocent (10,7a)? Pouvoir destructeur qui n’est pas signifié ici par la main, mais par les yeux de Dieu: «as-tu des yeux de chair?» (10,4). Job oppose la main créatrice de Dieu à ses yeux. Pour Job, la main créatrice est puissance d’action, mais le contexte en fait également une capacité d’expression, de bonté et d’amour. Encore faut-il que Dieu s’en souvienne! Et qu’il ne fasse pas virer son «pouvoir de» créateur, qui est aussi un «pouvoir sur» (10,7b), en puissance de destruction («avaler» [[lb]!: 10,8), décréatrice jusqu’à la poussière⁴⁰. «Est-ce bien pour toi…?» ($l bwjh: 10,3). Il rappelle Dieu à sa bonté première, créatrice. Job l’ignore, mais le lecteur sait qu’en l’avalant, Dieu prolongerait ainsi le dessein du Satan (2,3: «c’est en vain que tu m’as excité contre lui pour l’avaler [[lb]»). Et Job de se plaindre que Dieu l’ait fait sortir du sein où il l’a créé (10,18). Au chapitre 11, le discours de Ṣophar sur la transcendance divine ruine la tentative même du savoir et de l’action, la connaissance de Dieu et la relation avec lui (11,5–9). Il invite certes Job à tendre «ses mains» vers Dieu dans un geste de conversion, pour le mal qui est «en sa main» (11,13–14), mais il a par avance miné toute dynamique de connaissance de Dieu et de relation à Dieu. La transcendance s’oppose ici à l’intelligibilité et à la relation même⁴¹. 5. Et Job de revenir à la création. Il invite Ṣophar à se laisser instruire par les animaux du ciel, de la terre et des mers: 9

Qui ne sait pas, parmi eux tous, Que la main de Yhwh a fait cela [taz htf[ hwhy-dy], 10 Lui dans la main duquel [wdyb] est l’âme de tout vivant Et le souffle de toute chair d’homme (12,9–10).

39 Cf. Hossfeld – Kalthoff, lcn naṣal, 537. Dt 32,39; Is 43,13; Jb 11,7. 40 Perdue, Metaphorical Theology, 155, parle des actions schizophréniques du Créateur devenu destructeur. 41 Cf. Mies, Transcendance, 43–47.

 Job et la main de Dieu 

 73

L’expression complète «main de Dieu» intervient trois fois dans le drame, sous trois formes, dans la bouche de Job: «main de Yhwh» (12,9), main d’Éloah» (19,21), «main de El» (27,11), les deux dernières étant des hapax de la Bible hébraïque. Le tétragramme n’apparaît que dans le prologue et l’épilogue, et dans les didascalies introduisant les discours divins⁴². Phénomène qui inclinerait à se demander si le nom véritable de Dieu n’est pas comme occulté dans le drame, avant de réapparaître dans la révélation de Dieu par lui-même. Selon cette logique, l’apparition du nom de Yhwh en 12,9 est une anomalie: cinq manuscrits n’ont-ils pas Éloah⁴³? Plutôt que de modifier le TM, cherchons-en le sens. Le v. 9b cite Is 41,20⁴⁴ où Dieu dit: «que l’on sache […] que la main de Yhwh a fait cela [taz htf[ hwhy-dy], que le Saint d’Israël l’a créé [arb]». Dans l’oracle de salut, le «cela» renvoie aux arbres que Dieu fait croître dans le désert, aux sources qu’il fait jaillir, création inaugurant et signifiant la délivrance. Le référent du «cela» de Jb 12,9 est moins clair⁴⁵. Il doit viser l’ensemble du créé, représenté tant par les animaux des v. 7–9a que par les humains du v. 9b. La leçon élémentaire dont les simples animaux témoignent est que tout ce qui est, est créé par Dieu⁴⁶. Créé: le livre de Job n’use pas du verbe arb; hX[ en tient lieu. En sa main se tient tout vivant et tout humain: en sa main créatrice, puisqu’elle donne âme et souffle, mais aussi en sa main comme puissance d’action, quelle qu’elle soit, s’exerçant sur cette âme et ce souffle. Alors que l’insensé pense mettre Dieu «dans sa poche», dirions-nous aujourd’hui, «dans sa main» (wdyb: 12,6), la sagesse de tout vivant, même non humain, atteste que chacun est dans la main de Dieu (wdyb: 12,10). Cette puissance d’action fait cependant problème, assortie qu’elle est d’un discernement arbitraire: l’action de Dieu dans le monde est inintelligible (12,11– 25). Être dans la main de Dieu: pour le meilleur ou pour le pire? Il n’empêche, la mention du nom de Yhwh, de la main créatrice de Yhwh, met le lecteur en alerte: Job a intuitivement perçu quelque chose d’un mystère qui s’exprimera clairement dans la théophanie, où Yhwh, précisément, laissera parler sa création. En ce sens, cette mention furtive est une anticipation des discours de Yhwh⁴⁷.

42 Et dans une centaine de manuscrits de 28,28. Les autres ont ynda. 43 Cf. Clines, Job 1–20, 279, 294; Lévêque, Job et son Dieu, 146, 319. 44 Cf. Is 44,24. 45 Cf. DeGuglielmo, Job 12:7–9, 480. Le démonstratif féminin pour exprimer un sens général ou vague: cf. Joüon, Grammaire, § 152ab. 46 Cf. Clines, Job 1–20, 294. Pour d’autres interprétations, cf. Lévêque, Job et son Dieu, 322; Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt, 152: la création atteste la cruauté de Dieu. 47 Cf. Swanepoel, Job 12, 192–205; cf. Ps 31,10.16; Sg 3,1.

74 

 Françoise Mies 

6. Au chapitre suivant, Job veut intenter un procès contre Dieu, mais il en pose les conditions préalables: Éloigne ta main de dessus-moi [yl[m $pk], Et que ta terreur ne m’épouvante pas (13,21).

À la condition que Dieu n’impose pas un rapport de force où il pèse de tout son poids –de sa main– et terrorise, un débat sera possible (13,22–23). Job ressent la main de Dieu comme un «pouvoir sur» lui agressif. Il la situe au-dessus de lui – symbole de verticalité–, trop proche puisqu’il en demande l’éloignement. Alors qu’il souffre de la proximité oppressante de la main de Dieu, il déplore l’éloignement de sa face: «pourquoi caches-tu ta face [$ynp]?» (13,24a). Il oppose main et face divines, suggérant un dédoublement en Dieu, sa main étant défavorable et sa face favorable. 7. Après s’être lamenté sur la finitude humaine (14,1–12), Job passe soudain à l’espérance la plus forte du drame. Il imagine un shéol⁴⁸ où Dieu l’abriterait de sa colère, se souviendrait de lui, s’engagerait dans le dialogue, le désirerait: tout l’opposé de ce qu’il est en train de vivre (14,13–18): Tu appellerais et moi je te répondrais, Tu désirerais l’œuvre de tes mains [@skt $ydy hf[m]! (14,15).

Réapparaît l’expression «œuvre de tes mains», avec le substantif habituel et général de hf[m⁴⁹. Comme en 10,3 ($ypk [ygy), l’expression est positive. Des deux côtés, elle entre en conflit avec l’attitude présente de Dieu, mais en 14,15, Job, tout entier à son espérance, n’insiste plus sur la colère divine. Des deux côtés, il associe l’idée de sa création au souvenir de Dieu, dans un appel pressant («souviens-toi»: 10,9), dans un fort désir («si tu te souvenais de moi!»: 14,13). Mais ici Job va plus loin encore. Dieu désirerait l’œuvre de ses mains. Après un temps d’oubli, le Créateur aurait la nostalgie de sa créature, comme l’artisan de son œuvre. Il se souviendrait de lui, non pour le persécuter, mais pour le désirer, pour le vouloir

48 Ce shéol rêvé n’est pas le shéol habituel de la Bible, il en est l’inverse. 49 L’expression «œuvre des mains» (~ydy hf[m) s’applique généralement à l’œuvre des humains, actions en général ou idoles. Ainsi, le Satan dit à Dieu: «Tu as béni l’œuvre de ses mains» (Jb 1,10). Quand l’expression désigne une œuvre de Dieu (une quinzaine d’occurrences), elle vise l’action de Dieu en général (Ps 28,5; 92,5; Is 5,12), l’œuvre de salut (Ps 111,7; 143,5; Is 29,23 probablement, ou création des êtres humains), la création, qu’elle soit celle de l’univers (Ps 8,7; 19,2; 102,26), d’une nation (Is 19,25), du peuple (Is 60,21), des humains (Jb 14,15; 34,19; Is 64,7: création des hommes et du peuple?) ou des fidèles (Ps 138,8); + Ps 8,4: «œuvre de tes doigts». Cf. Ackroyd, dy yad, 426.

 Job et la main de Dieu 

 75

dans l’existence. Job n’est pas seulement «homme, né de la femme» (14,1), il est l’œuvre des mains de Dieu. C’est en raison de ce lien⁵⁰ primordial entre la créature et son Créateur, dont Job presse Dieu de se souvenir, qu’Il pourrait le désirer. Mais Job est rattrapé par son désespoir (14,18–22). 8. Éliphaz et Bildad dissertent sur le méchant que Dieu châtie (Jb 15 et 18), alors que Job prétend que Dieu l’a jeté «aux mains des méchants» (16,11). Au chapitre 19, il insiste sur la responsabilité de Dieu dans le mal qui le frappe⁵¹: Faites-moi grâce, faites-moi grâce, mes amis, Car la main d’Éloah m’a touché [yb h[gn hwla-dy] (19,21).

Deux fois le Satan avait exigé de Dieu qu’il envoie sa main et «touche» ([gn) Job en ses biens et en sa personne (1,11; 2,5), mais Dieu avait remis Job «dans la main» du Satan qui, selon le narrateur, l’avait alors «frappé» (2,7). Job reste ignorant de l’histoire. 9. Au chapitre 26, Job revient sur la puissance du Dieu créateur de l’univers (26,7–13): «sa main [wdy] a transpercé le serpent fuyard (26,13),

autrement dit Léviathan (cf. Is 27,1). Mais ces manifestations extérieures de la puissance divine ne sont qu’un faible écho de Sa puissance qui demeure impénétrable (26,14). Job en instruit ses amis: Je vous instruis sur la main de El [la-dy], Je ne cache pas ce qu’il en est de Shaddaï (27,11).

Mais l’attitude des amis témoigne qu’ils furent incapables d’observer cette main (27,12). Quel enseignement Job donne-t-il sur la main de Dieu? Dans ce contexte, semble-t-il, il s’agit de la main de Dieu qui frappe Job injustement, comme s’il était un méchant, telle une puissance inintelligible. On est loin du témoignage de Job sur la main de Dieu à l’œuvre pour le créer. 10. Dans son dernier discours (29–31), Job s’adresse à Dieu dans un souffle (30,20–23): Tu t’es changé en cruel à mon égard [%pEh'T]e Avec la force de ta main [$dy ~c[b] tu me hais [ynImej.f.t]i (30,21).

50 Ce ressort dans l’argumentation apparaît aussi en Ps 138,8 («ne délaisse pas les œuvres de tes mains»); Is 64,6–7. 51 Les v. 13 et 21 forment une inclusion sur ce point.

76 

 Françoise Mies 

Cette cruauté le mène à la mort (30,23). Job ne pense pas que Dieu soit par nature cruel ni qu’il l’ait été sans discontinuer à son égard. Non: «tu t’es changé» [$ph niphal), et en ton contraire! Par rapport au temps béni où Dieu veillait sur lui (29,2–6)⁵²; par rapport à sa création même. La main créatrice, bonne, qui l’avait façonné dans le sein et qui veillait avec amour (dsx) sur son souffle (10,3.8–12), a changé en son envers. Pour dire la haine de Dieu à son égard, Job utilise le verbe ~jf, de la même racine –ou voisine– du verbe !jf⁵³ (même sens), et donc du Satan. Est-ce fortuit? Eu égard à l’intention de l’auteur, la chose reste indécidable, encore qu’il mette par deux fois le verbe ~jf dans la bouche de Job pour fustiger l’attitude de Dieu à son endroit (16,9). En tout cas, le lecteur comprend que Job a le sentiment d’être poursuivi par Dieu d’une haine «satanique», que Dieu s’est changé en l’esprit de haine qu’est le Satan, une haine qui devient concrète, main qui touche à la chair, prend au collet et jette dans la boue (30,17–19). Immédiatement après, Job vise –peut-être– une dernière fois la main de Dieu, dans un verset énigmatique⁵⁴. Il vient de dire à Dieu qu’il le mène à la mort. Puis il ajoute en 30,24: `[:Wv) !h,l' AdypiB.-~ai dy"+-xl;v.yI y[ib.-al{ %a:

Ensuite, il rappelle la bienveillance qu’il a lui-même exercée à l’égard du pauvre, si bien qu’il reste tout étonné que le malheur lui soit advenu (30,25–26). On retrouve l’expression du prologue dy xlv, «envoyer la main», dans un sens hostile conforté par la préposition b. Il s’agit de ne pas envoyer sa main contre une «ruine», au sens figuré, c’est-à-dire sur ce qui est déjà détruit⁵⁵. Voici trois hypothèses, parmi d’autres: elles ont le mérite de n’apporter que peu de modifications. Il [Dieu] n’envoie sûrement pas sa main contre une ruine Si dans sa détresse elle est un cri⁵⁶ vers lui [wl]. On⁵⁷ n’envoie sûrement pas sa main contre une ruine Si dans sa détresse elle est un cri vers eux [~hl]!

52 Cf. Clines, Job 21–37, 1007. Cf. Ps 71,11: «la droite du Très Haut a changé [hnv]». 53 Le livre de Job affectionne la racine ~jf. Sur 27 occurrences du substantif dans la Bible hébraïque, 14 apparaissent dans le prologue. Pour 6 occurrences du verbe ~jf, deux sont attestées dans le livre qui n’use jamais de !jf (6 occurrences dans la Bible hébraïque). Cf. Nielsen, !jf śatan, ~jf śatam, 73–78; Lévêque, Job et son Dieu, 181. 54 Pour un panorama des solutions, cf. Clines, Job 21–37, 957–958; Rignell, Comments, 118. 55 Sans devoir modifier en ynI['b. («contre un pauvre»). 56 [:Wv. (TM): [:Wv, [:Av ou [w:v, au sens de «cri», termes rares. Même sens avec le verbe, en modifiant en [:wEv;y> («elle [la ruine] crie»). 57 Sens impersonnel de la 3e pers. sg.: cf. Joüon, Grammaire, § 155d.

 Job et la main de Dieu 

 77

Mais je n’envoie [xlva] pas ma main contre une ruine Si dans sa détresse elle est un cri vers moi [yl].

La première hypothèse ne tient pas dans le contexte, puisque Job, réduit à rien, vient de dire que telle est bien l’action de Dieu. On choisira la deuxième hypothèse si l’on rapproche le verset de ceux qui précèdent et la troisième si on le relie à celui qui suit, où Job parle de lui-même. En tout état de cause, le verset critique Dieu implicitement. Bien que Dieu le fasse, cela ne se fait pas d’envoyer sa main sur un être déjà délabré. Ou: à la différence de Dieu, moi, je n’envoie pas ma main sur quelqu’un qui est déjà détruit, et j’ai même éprouvé de la compassion pour le pauvre (30,25). De manière oblique, il semble donc que Job dise quelque chose de la main de Dieu. Le texte étant incertain, on se gardera de conclure. 11. Élihu mentionne deux fois la main de Dieu. Job n’est pas à même de condamner Dieu, lui dont dépend la vie de chacun (34,14–15), lui qui est juste et puissant (34,17), Qui n’a pas égard aux princes Et ne distingue pas le noble en présence du pauvre Car ils sont l’œuvre de ses mains [wydy hf[m], eux tous (34,19).

L’idée que les hommes sont égaux dans la mesure où ils sont également créés est partagée par Job (31,15); l’expression «œuvre des mains» de Dieu leur est commune. Mais alors que pour Job la création sert de fondement à son être même, de justification lui permettant d’interroger Dieu sur sa conduite présente, Élihu en tire argument pour justifier Dieu et miner toute remise en question: «nul ne dit: où est Dieu, mon auteur?» (35,10; cf. Is 45,9–10). Dans les discours d’Élihu, la transcendance de Dieu est telle qu’elle devient indifférente à l’homme et disqualifie toute parole humaine⁵⁸. Il est loin le «tu désirerais l’œuvre de tes mains» (14,15)! On comprend qu’Élihu parle des mains de Dieu à Job et non à Dieu: vanité! La finale d’Élihu, toute à la louange du Dieu créateur, magnifique et puissant en ses œuvres, est au service de ce Dieu pour qui l’homme n’est rien; c’est dans ce cadre qu’il faut comprendre le verset:

58 Cf. Mies, Transcendance, 59–61.

78 

 Françoise Mies 

Ses [deux] mains [~yIP;K;], il les couvre de lumière⁵⁹ Et lui [hyl[]⁶⁰ assigne une cible⁶¹ (36,32).

Le contexte permet de penser que Dieu se revêt les mains de lumière pour en faire des éclairs et frapper de sa foudre la cible qu’il lui a assignée. 12. Dieu paraît enfin. Il ne parle pas de sa main. Mais à celui qui veut casser son jugement pour assurer son droit (40,8), il parle de son bras – seule occurrence de «bras» ([wrz) de Dieu dans le livre: As-tu donc un bras comme [celui de] Dieu? [$l lak [wrz-~aw] (40,9).

La question étant rhétorique, la réponse est négative. Plus clairement que la main, le bras exprime la puissance et, en ce début du second discours, la puissance de maîtriser les forces du mal (40,11–13). Si Job disposait de ce bras, de cette puissance, Dieu lui rendrait hommage, car «ta droite [$nymy] te sauverait» (40,14). Hypothèse nulle et non avenue. Si on lit le premier discours de Yhwh, on est frappé par la récurrence de la question «qui?» (13x). Qui a fait cela? Sous-entendu: toi ou moi? La main de qui? De Job ou de Dieu? Dans l’œuvre créatrice, c’est la main plutôt que le bras qui est à l’œuvre. Job n’est pour rien dans l’œuvre créatrice. En ayant entendu la passe d’armes entre Dieu et le Satan, entre la main de l’un et celle de l’autre, on pourrait aussi penser que le Satan et sa main sont visés. Qui a fait cela? Toi, moi ou le Satan? Mais dans la rhétorique des discours divins, c’est clairement Job qui est remis en cause. Toi ou moi? Jamais Dieu ne parle de ses mains, alors que nombre de ses actions se prêteraient volontiers à la métaphore: tendre le cordeau sur la terre (38,5) et en poser la pierre angulaire (38,6), fermer les portes de la mer (38,8) et placer portes et verrous (38,10), habiller la mer de nuées (38,9), percer un canal pour l’averse (38,25), nouer les liens des Pléiades (38,31). Avec ces expressions, on imagine davantage Dieu créer par ses mains que par la parole ou la sagesse. Et pourtant, jamais Dieu ne passe par la métaphore des mains. Pas même pour dire à Job: «j’ai fait Béhémot tout comme toi» (40,15). Si l’on passe de la création à la providence, on imagine Dieu ouvrant sa main et rassasiant les animaux de la terre.

59 Accusatif désignant ce avec quoi les mains sont couvertes. Cf. Clines, Job 21–37, 832. 60 Soit rwa est exceptionnellement féminin (cf. Jr 13,16), soit on modifie en wyl[, à la suite de certains manuscrits. Cf. Clines, Job 21–37, 833. 61 Avec BHS et Clines, Job 21–37, 833, on propose de modifier le participe piel [:yGIp.m; en [G'p.mi (cf. 7,20), «cible».

 Job et la main de Dieu 

 79

Dieu ayant tout créé de sa main, tout est dans sa main. Et pourtant! La main de Dieu a disparu dans les discours divins. Elle a disparu, mais Yhwh est apparu! Du moins à Job, qui déclare non seulement avoir entendu Yhwh mais l’avoir vu, et en avoir été consolé (42,5–6). Pas seulement vu les œuvres de Dieu telles qu’Il les décrit; pas seulement les mains de Dieu dont il a parlé. Dieu lui-même. Cette vision n’est pas racontée et si le lecteur reste parfois sur sa faim au terme de l’histoire, inconsolé, c’est précisément qu’il n’a pas bénéficié de cette rencontre personnelle que dit le «voir», le «mon œil t’a vu»⁶². Les études narratologiques ont mis en exergue les différences de connaissance entre personnage et lecteur, et cette remarque reste valide pour un drame. Job en sait davantage que le lecteur au terme de l’histoire, alors qu’à son entame, la situation était inverse: le lecteur avait assisté au dialogue entre Yhwh et le Satan. Si un peintre voulait représenter la théophanie, procéderait-il comme l’artiste de la synagogue de Beth Alpha qui, pour «rendre» le non-sacrifice d’Abraham, représente une main en y joignant une parole? Certes, Job use largement de l’expression «main [de Dieu]», mais Dieu lui-même ne l’utilise pas. De plus, Job a dit «je t’ai vu» et non «j’ai vu ta main». Dieu resterait alors irreprésenté, laissé à une transcendance qu’il serait ici malvenu d’exprimer par une main, ce qui est pourtant son sens dans une large tradition iconographique. Une belle miniature de Jb 42,4–6 (ixe siècle) s’y inscrit⁶³. Dans ses illustrations du livre de Job (1806, 1821, 1826), Blake représente Dieu lui-même dans la tempête⁶⁴, quittant ainsi la place du lecteur non-voyant pour devenir, comme Job selon le drame, celui qui a vu Dieu.

3 Conclusion S. Norin note que les parmi les occurrences positives de la main de Dieu, figurent celles qui expriment l’idée de création. Cette présente étude confirme la chose pour le livre de Job, pour autant que l’on resitue l’expression dans la dynamique de l’œuvre. Norin estime que comparativement au matériel égyptien et babylonien, la main de Dieu intervient peu dans le cadre d’une religion personnelle. Pour le livre de Job, il en va tout autrement. Éliphaz (1x) et Élihu (2x) parlent

62 Pour cette interprétation de 42,5–6, cf. Mies, L’espérance de Job, 409–416; Se plaindre de Dieu, 364. 63 Vaticanus gr. 749, fol. 241, dans Papadaki-Oekland, Byzantine, 150, 323. 64 Blake, The Lord Answering Job out of the Whirlwind, dans Terrien, The Iconography of Job, 212.

80 

 Françoise Mies 

certes de la main de Dieu dans une perspective universelle, de même que Job par trois fois. Mais quand le Satan en parle (2x) et surtout Job lui-même (8 ou 9x), ils visent la main de Dieu dans son rapport tout personnel à Job. La «main de Dieu» intervient dans le cadre d’un drame; elle est donc toujours à resituer dans sa situation énonciative singulière. Cette main est d’abord le problème de Job, et il en parle surtout quand il s’adresse à Dieu. Jamais il ne la décrit, mais il évoque sa puissance d’action: elle crée –façonne et fait (10,3.8; 12,9; 14,15)–, elle détruit (6,9), elle touche pour frapper (19,21), elle transperce (26,13). Ce «pouvoir de» ou puissance d’action devient un «pouvoir sur» oppressant (13,21) dont nul ne délivre (10,7). Être dans la main de Dieu, comme tout être créé, est-ce pour un bien ou pour un mal (12,10)? La main de Dieu est aussi capacité d’expression et de relation, vécue positivement ou négativement. En tant que créatrice, et créatrice de Job, la main de Dieu est ressentie par lui comme bonne et pleine d’amour – alors que le thème du Dieu créateur est assez ambivalent pour lui⁶⁵. Mais en dehors du champ de la création, cette main est redoutable, agressive, persécutrice. Ces deux faces de la main de Dieu expriment les deux faces de la relation de Job à Dieu. Il l’évoque parfois via l’opposition entre la main bienfaisante de Dieu et ses yeux de chair (10,4), ou entre sa main défavorable et sa face favorable (13,24). Le dédoublement de Dieu et de sa main fait assez naturellement penser qu’après tout, on a deux mains, la gauche et la droite. Dans la Bible hébraïque, la main gauche (lamf) de Dieu n’est jamais évoquée, à la différence de sa droite (!ymy)⁶⁶. Certes, les mains de Dieu sont souvent nommées au pluriel-duel, ce qui suppose implicitement une main droite et une main gauche. Mais l’action de Dieu reste indivise. On affirme souvent que la droite est anthropologiquement marquée de manière positive alors que la gauche l’est négativement. Quelques exemples, assez significatifs puisqu’ils visent les mains du bien-aimé et celles de la Sagesse⁶⁷, montrent que les deux mains peuvent avoir des connotations positives. Si la main de Dieu exerce son pouvoir pour sauver Israël et défaire les Égyptiens, c’est l’action indivise du salut divin qui est soulignée. Qu’elle ait deux faces, que l’une soit négative pour les Égyptiens, importe peu, si bien que Dieu peut très bien exercer son pouvoir négatif sur les Égyptiens en usant de sa droite⁶⁸. Une théologie ultérieure, présente dans le «Poème des quatre nuits» du targum

65 Cf. Mies, L’espérance de Job, 528–535. 66 Selon Dahood, Congruity of Metaphors, 45–46, lorsque dy et !ymy apparaissent en des stiques parallèles, dy doit se comprendre comme «main gauche» (cf. Ps 89,14; 138,7). Discutable. 67 Ct 2,6 = 8,3: «Sa gauche est sous ma tête et sa droite m’étreint»; Pr 3,16. 68 Cf. Seely, The Image of the Hand of God, 38–54.

 Job et la main de Dieu 

 81

du Pentateuque (targum «fragmentaire», ms 110), dit que Dieu tuait les premiersnés de l’Égypte de sa main gauche et sauvait les premiers-nés d’Israël de sa main droite. Cette théologie sera mise en scène dans la fresque de la synagogue de Doura Europos: deux mains distinctes sont représentées, la gauche dirigée vers les Égyptiens, la droite vers les Hébreux⁶⁹. Job, en quelque sorte, est à la fois Israël et l’Égypte: il expérimente la main bienfaitrice de Dieu, essentiellement en son être créé, et la main malfaisante de Dieu. Mais il ne distingue pas la gauche de la droite. C’est la même main, le même Dieu, et ce dédoublement en Dieu pose problème, à Job, qui en souffre, et au lecteur, qui se pose des questions. Le lien que Job suggère entre les deux faces de cette main est celui du temps, que Dieu peut remonter par le souvenir. Sa main, au fil du temps, serait devenue maléfique, de bonne qu’elle était en son acte créateur. Si Dieu pouvait se souvenir de l’œuvre de ses mains! Le prologue avait émis une autre hypothèse, en distinguant non pas entre deux mains mais entre deux personnages, Dieu et le Satan, qui ont chacun leur main. Cette hypothèse sauvegarde le monothéisme, dans la mesure où le Satan n’est pas une divinité égale et rivale de Dieu mais une créature qui, certes maléfique, est limitée en son pouvoir. Elle tend à dédouaner Dieu de la responsabilité directe du mal, tout en n’évacuant pas la responsabilité ultime de Dieu qui a créé un monde dans lequel un tel mal peut arriver: énigme⁷⁰. La figure du Satan disparaît dès la fin du prologue. Néanmoins, sa voix ne s’éteint pas dans le drame. L’étude présente a montré que la question «la main de qui?» reste pertinente. Qui envoie sa main? Intervient le jeu de l’interprétation. De l’expérience indubitable d’«être affecté» ou souffrant, à la désignation de l’agent de l’affection ou à l’imputation de l’action violente, s’ouvre le drame de l’interprétation⁷¹. Pour Job, il s’agit de la main de Dieu qui le frappe, mais cette interprétation est-elle fondée? Cette main jamais décrite, jamais vue, jamais expérimentée, est imaginée. Quel rapport entre l’imagination et le réel? Certes, «Si ce n’est lui, qui donc alors?», s’est demandé Job (9,24), mais sans explorer plus loin. Et pourquoi pas le Satan? C’est l’hypothèse du prologue. Or, l’interprétation de Job ne fait que relayer l’image que le Satan se fait de Dieu: «envoie ta main…», touche, détruis. La figure du Satan, même tombée dans l’oubli dès la fin du prologue, n’est pas une fausse piste pour comprendre la souffrance de Job et sa désolation. Elle réapparaît en catimini dans l’imagination même de Job (6,9; 10,8; 13,21; 19,21; 30,21). Hormis sa face créatrice, l’image que Job s’est forgée

69 Cf. Philonenko, Main gauche, 135–140; Le Déaut, La nuit pascale, 217–218. 70 Cf. Ricœur, La symbolique du mal, 459. 71 Cf. Mies, L’espérance de Job, 457–467.

82 

 Françoise Mies 

de la main de Dieu est l’image selon le Satan. Les deux faces de la main de Dieu sont aussi les deux voix en Job, l’une clamant la bonté de Dieu, l’autre sa cruauté. Sans rien savoir du prologue au ciel, Job est partagé entre la voix du Satan et celle de Dieu créateur. Entre les deux faces de la main de Dieu que Job a imaginées, la main créatrice bienfaisante et la main malfaisante, la parole de Dieu tranchera. Effet de réel. Dieu ne parlera pas de sa main mais, se révélant tel qu’en lui-même et d’abord comme Créateur, il aura au moins montré que sa puissance ne détruit pas et ne détruit pas Job, qu’elle est don de la vie, et que l’intuition du retour au fondement, à l’être créé, était bonne. L’irruption furtive du nom de Yhwh, dans l’affirmation que la main de Yhwh a tout créé et qu’en elle se tient tout vivant (12,9–10), se révèle, in fine, dans sa pleine vérité.

Bibliographie Ackroyd, Peter R. – Wolfram Von Soden, dy yad, [wrz zerôa‘, !ymy yamîn, @p kaph, [bca ’eṣba‘, TDOT, vol. 5, 393–426. Bergman, Jan, Darstellungen und Vorstellungen von Götterhänden im Alten Ägypten, dans: René Kieffer – Jan Bergman (éds), La main de Dieu. Die Hand Gottes (WUNT 94), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 1–18. Bœspflug, François, Dieu et ses images. Une histoire de l’Éternel dans l’art, Paris: Bayard, 2008. Clines, David J. A., Job 1–20 (WBC 17), Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989. Clines, David J. A., Job 21–37 (WBC 18A), Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006. Dahood, Mitchell J., Congruity of Metaphors, dans: Hebräische Wortforschung. Fs Walter Baumgartner (VTS 16) Leiden: Brill, 1967, 40–49. DeGuglielmo, A., Job 12:7–9 and the Knowability of God: CBQ 6 (1944) 476–482. Delcor, Mathias, Two Special Meanings of the Word dy in Biblical Hebrew, dans: Id., Religion d’Israël et Proche Orient ancien: des Phéniciens aux Esséniens, Leiden: Brill, 1976, 139–149. Dhorme, Paul, L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien, Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1963. Fitzgerald, Aloysius, Hebrew yd = ‘Love’ and ‘Beloved’: CBQ 29 (1967) 368–374. Gordis, Robert, A Note on Yad: JBL 62 (1943) 341–344. Habel, Norman C., The Book of Job. A Commentary (OTL), Londres: SCM, 1985. Hasel, Gerhard Franz, [gy yaga‘, TDOT, vol. 5, 385–393. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar – B. Kalthoff, lcn naṣal, TDOT, vol. 9, 533–540. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar – Frank van der Velden, xlv šalaḥ, TDOT, vol. 15, 49–71. Humbert, Paul, Étendre la main. Note de lexicographie hébraïque: VT 12 (1962) 383–395. Joüon, Paul, Divers emplois métaphoriques du mot ‘yad’ en hébreu: Bib 14 (1933) 452–459. Joüon, Paul, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 21996. Kieffer, René – Jan Bergman (éds.), La main de Dieu. Die Hand Gottes (WUNT 94), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Le Déaut, Roger, La nuit pascale. Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 (AnBib 22), Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963.

 Job et la main de Dieu 

 83

Letourneau, Isabelle, main, dans: Maria Michela Marzano (éd.), Dictionnaire du corps, Paris: P.U.F., 2007, 535–539. Lévêque, Jean, Job et son Dieu. Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique, 2 vol. (EB), Paris: Gabalda, 1970. Maiberger, Paul, rtn natar, TDOT, vol. 10, 119–122. Mies, Françoise, L’espérance de Job (préface M. Gilbert) (BETL 193), Leuven – Paris: Peeters – University Press, 2006. Mies, Françoise, Se plaindre de Dieu avec Job: Études 411 (2009) 353–364. Mies, Françoise, Transcendance et intelligibilité de Dieu dans le livre de Job: RivB 60 (2012) 33–67. Mies, Françoise, L’être créé. Essai d’anthropologie biblique, dans: Id. (éd.), Que soit! L’idée de création comme don à la pensée, Bruxelles: Lessius, 2013, 77–101. Mittmann, Siegfried, Das Symbol der Hand in der Altorientalischen Ikonographie, dans: René Kieffer – Jan Bergman (éds), La main de Dieu. Die Hand Gottes (WUNT 94), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 19–47. Le Musée Rodin, Hors-série Beaux Arts magazine, 2007. Nielsen, Kirsten, !jf śatan, ~jf śatam, TDOT, vol. 14, 73–79. Norin, Stig I.L., Das Hand Gottes im Alten Testament, dans: René Kieffer – Jan Bergman (éds), La main de Dieu. Die Hand Gottes (WUNT 94), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 49–63. Papadaki-Oekland, Stella, Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts of the Book of Job. A Preliminary Study of the Miniature Illustrations. Its Origin and Development, Athènes: Brepols, 2009. Perdue, Leo G., Wisdom in Revolt. Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job (JSOTSS 112), Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Perdue, Leo G., Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job. Theological Anthropology in the First Cycle of Job’s Speeches, dans: Willem André Maria Beuken (éd.), The Book of Job (BETL 114), Leuven: Peeters, 1994, 129–156. Péter-Contesse, René, Main, pied, paume? Les noms des extrémités des membres (dy, lgr, @k) en hébreu et en araméen biblique: RB 105 (1998) 481–491. Philonenko, Marc, Main gauche et main droite de Dieu, dans: René Kieffer – Jan Bergman (éds), La main de Dieu. Die Hand Gottes (WUNT 94), Tübingen: Mohr, 1997, 135–140. Ricœur, Paul, La symbolique du mal, dans: Id., Le volontaire et l’involontaire, II, Paris: Aubier, 1988, 163–492. Rignell, Lars Gösta, Comments on Some cruces interpretum in the Book of Job: Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1978) 111–118. Roberts, Jimmy Jack McBee, The Hand of Yahweh: VT 21 (1971) 246–251. Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle, L’art juif, Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques, 1975. Seely, David Rolph, The Image of the Hand of God in the Book of Exodus, dans: J. Harold Ellens – Deborah L. Ellens – Rolf P. Knierim – Isaac Kalimi (éds), God’s Word for Our World. Fs Simon John De Vries (JSOTSS 388), Londres – New York: T & T Clark, 2004, 38–54. Swanepoel, M.G., Job 12. An(other) anticipation of the Voice from the Whirlwind?: OTE 4 (1991) 192–205. Terrien, Samuel, The Iconography of Job through the Centuries. Artists as Biblical Interpreters, Pennsylvania: State University Press, 1996. Zeller, Madeleine, Marc Chagall et le Message biblique de Nice, dans: Françoise Mies (éd.), Bible et art. L’âme des sens (Le livre et le rouleau 34), Bruxelles: Lessius 1999, 89–129.

Dariusz Iwanski

Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1 Dariusz Iwanski: University of Nicolas Copernicus, Torun, Poland

1 Introduction The Book of Job had always fascinated me, but under the guidance of Professor M. Gilbert I found it even more fascinating. There is such a richness of topics in it. One that I especially treasure is intercession. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Job’s intercession arguing that its occurrence in the prologue and the epilogue of the Book is not coincidental¹. On the contrary, it sheds a new light on the dynamics of the whole drama if we correctly understand the legal nuances embedded in it. Commentators point to other places in the Book where the theme of intercession is to be found. They usually indicate Job 5:1 and 33:23–24, where a form of angelic intercession seems to be at stake. In the current paper I will focus exclusively on Job 5:1. I believe that there is more to it than intercession only but, in order to prove that, it is necessary to determine and examine the legal background of the verse. I argue that it employs courtroom imagery and takes for granted the divine council operating as a law court. The verse has a long history of research and interpretation, but so far no one paid much attention to this aspect of Eliphaz’s statement in Job 5:1.

2 Difficulties Interpreting Job 5:1 In 1981 David J. A. Clines provided the most extensive summary of the exegetical proposals concerning the understanding of the verse². He first identified two main problems that the interpretation of the verse involves: “Why should Eliphaz imagine that Job would want to appeal to the ‘the holy ones’? And why should such an appeal be futile (or wicked)?” He then listed eight most popular interpretations of the verse offered in the history of its exegesis. For some “verse 1 is

1 Iwanski, The Dynamics of Job’s Intercession. 2 Cf. Clines, Job 5:1–8, 185–194.

 Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1 

 85

a manifesting, or hatching, impatience or anger like that of the fool of vv. 2–5”. For others “verse 1 is a warning against appealing to the ‘holy ones’ as mediators since such an approach will draw down the wrath of God upon him”. Still others believe that our verse “is a polemic against the Mesopotamian idea of a personal god to whom a man may turn to make his appeal heard in the assembly of the great gods” or it indicates that “it is futile for Job to cry for help, for he has disqualified himself from receiving help by his ‘vexation’ and ‘jealousy’ (5:2), the marks of a fool”³. Clines found them all wrong and hardly accounting for the problems mentioned above. Instead he offered his own solution: “appeal to ‘the holy ones’ by Job is futile because Job’s suffering is self-produced and therefore cannot be alleviated by any external agency”⁴. It is worth noting that Clines –when producing his opinion– did not show any interest in the legal overtones present in the verse. As a matter of fact, it is hard to find scholars taking that aspect into consideration. One of the few who did was Luis Alonso Schökel in the commentary on Job⁵. He held that at this point of the drama there already resounded in the ears of Job the theme of a recourse to judicial procedure (ricorso giudiziale), continuing the subject of laying claim to rights before God. The angel could serve as an advocate or arbiter. It looked as if Eliphaz wanted to discourage Job ahead of time from a case with God because his case was already lost and nobody would intervene for him. That in fact would be foolishness (cf. Job 5:2)⁶. Alonso Schökel can rightly take credit for at least recognizing the possibility of the legal overtones in Job 5:1. On the other hand, he did not show all possible dimensions of the statement, not to mention the question of the divine council operating as a law court, which Eliphaz definitely takes for granted. That is however more evident in the second colon of the verse, which I will refer to when discussing the meaning of Job 5:1b. For now let us turn to the legal overtones present in Job 5:1a.

3 Job 5:1a – Courtroom Proceedings Echoed Eliphaz is presumably not aware of the exact nature of the events that initiated Job’s trial and are described in the prologue. Yet, he detects a juridical nature of

3 Cf. Clines, Job 5:1–8, 186–190. 4 Cf. Clines, Job 5:1–8, 194. See also Habel, The Book of Job, 130–131. 5 Alonso Schökel – Sicre Díaz, Job. I am using the Italian translation of the work: Giobbe. 6 Cf. Alonso Schökel – Sicre Díaz, Giobbe, 162–163.

86 

 Dariusz Iwanski 

the things that have befallen Job. No wonder then that in his argumentation he is making use of courtroom terminology or simply plays on certain concepts which are forensic in nature⁷. The verse concerned (5:1) begins with the verb ‫קרא‬, “to cry out, call, summon”. It is actually often used in the context of calling on God for help. That action frequently bears juridical overtones because it is equivalent to calling upon God, the Supreme Judge, for judgment on the oppressor. If Israel (or an individual Israelite) is oppressed, she can and should call upon God to deliver her. That deliverance translates into judgment with a sentence issued and a subsequent punitive action for the oppressor⁸. Alonso Schökel, whom I have already mentioned as one of the few exegetes who recognized the juridical nuances in the verse examined, took the verb ‫ קרא‬together with the second verb of the colon, namely ‫ענה‬, “to respond (callrespond)”. This wordpair is widely attested to in the Psalms (4:2; 17:6; 20:10; 22:3; 86:7; 91:15; 102:3; 119:145; 120:1; 138:3) but also in the Book of Job itself (e.g. 12:14; 13:22; 14:15; 19:16). He concluded that in Job the verb ‫– ענה‬with or without ‫–קרא‬ has clearly forensic meaning (9:3.14–16.32; 13:22; 16:8; 23:5; 30:20; 31:35)⁹. That is a fact that we may not ignore when interpreting the verse. It becomes clearer when consulting the work of Pietro Bovati on justice and legal terms and institutions in the Bible (Ristabilire la giustizia)¹⁰. Bovati places our wordpair among examples of a complaint understood as “a request for intervention directed to a judge who does justice by giving aid to the unjustly oppressed”¹¹. In another place he states that “a complaint is a speech that is pronounced in a place of judgment and demands an intervention by the judge: to begin with, this intervention is a speech that is a response to the request made, and at the same time a decree or sentence with normative value. In fact, on the

7 Holtz, Praying as a Plaintiff, 259, observed: “courtroom imagery in dialogues between humans and deities extends the ancient Near Eastern adjudicatory system from earth to heaven. […] for the common person divine courts were ‘the ultimate court of appeal’. One manifestation of this phenomenon, in both Hebrew and Akkadian prayers, is the speaker’s demand for judgment from the deity”. 8 Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 44–45, notes that one of the best examples here would be the prayer of the poor: “Deuteronomic laws warn against mistreatment of the poor on the grounds that ‘they might cry [‫]ק ָרא‬ ָ to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt’ (Deut 15:9; 24:15). […] The ‘call’ to God for help is certainly frequent in the Psalms in the context of the lament prayers (Ps 3:4; 4:1.3; 17:6; 22:2; 27:7; 30:8; 88:9). […] The outcry of the Hebrews against Egyptian oppression precipitates the redemptive response of God (Exod 2:23; 3:7.9)”. 9 Alonso Schökel – Sicre Díaz, Giobbe, 162–163. 10 I will use its English translation: Re-Establishing Justice. 11 Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 323.

 Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1 

 87

basis of this speech by the judge, execution subsequently occurs: this is the practical application of what the judge has laid down”¹². The pattern is 1) accuser’s complaint ‫ ;צעק‬2) judge’s acknowledgment ‫ ;שמע‬3) judge’s response in the sentence ‫ ;ענה‬4) execution of deliverance ‫ישע‬. Bovati continues by saying that the pattern is discernible in other biblical texts even if they do not exactly follow that fourfold pattern. Different verbs can be used for the “appeal part” as well (e.g. ‫קרא‬, ‫( שוע‬Pi), ‫)צעק‬. As a matter of fact he lists our verse among examples of the appeal-response nexus. Whereas in our verse there are only two of the four elements of the pattern –‫ קרא‬and ‫–ענה‬, that is enough “to bring to mind the whole judicial operation involved in a complaint”¹³. Some room should be made for one more possibility for interpreting the wordpair concerned. Sylvia Scholnick in her dissertation extensively dealing with forensic language in the Book of Job made an interesting observation on Job 13:22, where the two verbs are at play: Then call (‫ )קרא‬and I will certainly respond (‫;)ענה‬ Or let me speak (‫ )דבר‬and you reply to me (bwv)!

She argues that the verb ‫ ענה‬is used here to mean “to reply (in a case)”, “to be a respondent” where the opponent’s case has been presented. That is why her translation is emphasizing the legal connotations of the verbs concerned: Then make a plea and I will certainly be a respondent; Or let me make a charge and you reply to me!¹⁴

So in her opinion here “Job initiates legal proceedings against God, he sets before his opponent the option of choosing to be a plaintiff or defense. […] Job cares less for the role he will take in the suit than that the crisis involving his legal status be resolved. The verb ‫ ענה‬stands for part of the action leading to such a resolution: replying to testimony presented by an opponent-at-law. For the most part when the poet uses ‫ענה‬, the verb indicates the process of testifying in response to an opponent’s charge or testimony. However, a study of ‫ ענה‬in the Hebrew law clarifies the forensic usage of the verb and makes it obvious that the testimony does not have to be in response to any previous testimony. ‫ ענה‬may, in fact, be used to indicate an initial plea (Deut 21:7). When ‫ ענה‬is used in contrast with ‫צעק‬, ‫שוע‬, ‫ דבר‬or ‫קרא‬, verbs which indicate the action of initiating and presenting a

12 Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 326. 13 Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 326–327. 14 Scholnick, Lawsuit Drama, 233.

88 

 Dariusz Iwanski 

case, it is obviously intended to be a verb of reply”¹⁵. Even though Scholnick, in all her study, did not pay any attention to Job 5:1, I believe that her observations concerning Job 13:22 can rightly be applied to the verse examined since the same wordpair occurs there. That being said, it is time to draw some conclusions on the meaning of the first colon of Job 5:1. First of all, it is undeniable that Eliphaz is alluding to some juridical proceedings here. Most definitely he is referring to the realm of the law cort. Second –based on the above presentation– we may think of at least two interpretations. First, Eliphaz is playing on the appeal-complaint motif. Without saying it explicitly he may think of God, the Supreme Judge, as the addressee of the complaint. He then explores the possibility that Job makes a complaint to God for help. Job actually could play the righteous sufferer and in this way claim his right to call upon God for help. The Supreme Judge is expected to take a stand on the case of the oppressed and intervene right after the complaint has been made. His intervention would be first carried out in the form of a speech as a response to the complaint. That speech would at the same time be a sentence. Based on that sentence, the execution of the sentence should follow. Regardless of how justified that scenario might look, Eliphaz is trying to say that there is no need to call upon God the Judge to intervene because Job’s case is evidently lost. God himself had already decided and spoken, and subsequently the execution of His judgment occurred. So, what would be the point in pretending to be innocent and calling upon God so He may hear and respond (intervene), if He has already responded (intervened) finding Job guilty? Second, Eliphaz is trying to draw a quite hypothetical, but theoretically possible scenario: Job is making a plea against God in front of a third party, an impartial judge or arbiter. So there is a perspective of a lawsuit with God. It is true that “there is no known precedent in Hebrew Bible for a man’s bringing a lawsuit against God” […], but if there is “the possibility of a servant initiating litigation against his master (Job 31:13) and a subject against his king (1 Sam 24:8–22)” then one can theoretically imagine turning to the court “for litigating with one’s ultimate king and master, God”¹⁶. Eliphaz of course explores this possibility as absurd and something foolish hoping that Job would see for himself the uselessness of such an action. As a matter of fact, later on in chapters 9 and 10 Job is considering the bold possibility of a man suing God in court. The question is though: who would be the judge or arbiter? Since there is none (cf. Job 9:33), a lawsuit

15 Scholnick, Lawsuit Drama, 233–234. 16 Scholnick, Lawsuit Drama, 131–132.

 Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1 

 89

with God will never happen. God will never respond, meaning: He will never play the defense. It is time to examine the second colon of the verse, namely Job 5:1b. As was mentioned earlier, it makes a clear reference to the divine council motif that was introduced in the prologue.

4 Job 5:1b – Divine Council Echoed The role of the prologue of the Book of Job is significant because it “serves as a natural and indispensable introduction” providing the necessary information about the persons involved but also about the setting of the drama¹⁷. In other words, the prologue equips the reader with the necessary knowledge about the world within which the drama is set and the protagonists operate. Within that world there is evidently a place for the divine council that clearly operates as a judicial body or law court¹⁸. It is a legal entity, where binding decisions are made and judgments issued. The concept of the divine council is actually not originally Israelite: it had been known in the Near Eastern beliefs long before the establishment of the Israelite state¹⁹. Nonetheless, Patrick D. Miller argued that that very concept was fundamental for biblical authors in order to account for “how the government of human society by the divine world is carried out”²⁰.

17 Cf. Zerafa, The Wisdom of God, 42. 18 Cf. e.g. Kingsbury, The Prophets, 284. On the council of Yahweh see e.g.: Robinson, The Council of Yahweh, 151–157; Wright, The Old Testament, 30–41; Cross, The Council of Yahweh, 274–277; Cooke, The Sons of (the) God(s), 22–47; Kingsbury, The Prophets, 279–287; Whybray, The Heavenly Counselor. 19 Commentators have long recognized the existence of biblical references and allusions to the divine council, which has its roots in the Near Eastern beliefs, cf. e.g. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, 132–170.366–407; Couturier, La vision du conseil divin, 14–17; Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 1; Suc Kee, The Heavenly Council, 259, observed that there the council “represents the most authoritative decision-making agent in the universe and history”; Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 122, put it this way: “The assembly of the gods seems to have been made up of deities who had a certain amount of autonomy, authorized by the presiding deity. The assembly met both at set intervals and at times called by El, various deities, or even humans for specific events. The business of the assembly apparently included governance of both the heavenly and earthly realms, as well as religious and festive occasions”. 20 Miller, Cosmology and World Order, 432 and Idem, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 26–27. An interesting example of God presiding over the court in heaven is found in 1 Kgs 22:19–20 (Heidt, Angelology, 18–19; cf. also Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 120). In the vision there was Yahweh enthroned and surrounded by the “host of heaven” – all gathered for a court session.

90 

 Dariusz Iwanski 

The divine council in Job 1–2 is portrayed as a group that met regularly to report to the highest authority: Yahweh²¹. Paul B. Sumner observes that among other things the Book of Job is known for legal terms and allusions to heavenly beings in their judicial functions²². In his opinion angels as members of the court can “act as witnesses, investigating detectives, bailiffs and perhaps fellow judges”²³. One of the figures who strongly emphasizes the legal character of this assembly is the satan, who also belongs to the divine entourage. The noun ‫ ָשׂ ָטן‬preceded by the definite article indicates that it is not a proper name but an office or a role that a particular member of the divine council assumes. It is the role of legal accuser, adversary or prosecution witness. It is, however, to be distinguished from a fixed office of public prosecutor²⁴. Bovati observed that the noun ‫שׂ ָטן‬, ָ “opponent, adversary, enemy” occupies a significant place in the legal field, and that it is not only restricted to the Book of Job (cf. 2 Sam 19:23; Ps 109:6; Zech 3:1–2; Job 1:6–9.12; 2:1–4.6–7)²⁵. It is worth observing that the prologue leaves the impression that the sons of God –the satan included– are free to raise their doubts in regard to God’s assessment. Actually it is the satan who proves this observation whereas the rest of the angelic assembly is rather static, meaning: it is probably united in thinking with God. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see that this one celestial being, not to be confused with Satan, is free to present his own views²⁶. He is eventually proven wrong, but the very fact that he was allowed to object to the divine opinion on Job is noteworthy.

Judgment has been made on king Ahab and a verdict issued. A volunteer (from among the host of heaven) was needed to execute it, i.e. to entice the king (cf. DeVries, 1 Kings, 268). Handy, Among the Hosts of Heaven, 121, noted that the angels could voice their sentiments at the forum of that assembly. N.L.A. Tidwell observed concerning the fourth vision of Zechariah’s that it “stands in a particularly close conceptual relationship to the prologue of Job, and the two together present a very full and detailed picture of the council operating as a law court” (Tidwell, Wā’ōmar, 347). Cf. e.g. Knight, Cosmogony and Order, 149. 21 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 121. 22 Sumner, Visions of the Divine Council, 7–10. Among those terms he lists for example: “umpire/arbiter”, Job 9:33; “intercessor, angel mediator”, Job 33:23; “witness”, Job 16:19; “He that vouches for me”, Job 16:19. 23 Sumner, Visions of the Divine Council, 2. 24 Cf. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 38. 25 Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, 297 26 Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 76, states that in her opinion the folk tale form in which the prologue is held “serves three purposes: it allows the audience to be sure that Job is not to blame for the calamities that befall him, it allows the ‫ ָשׂ ָטן‬to accuse God of divine patronage, and thereby challenge the traditional perception of world order […]”.

 Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1 

 91

Let us go back then to the crucial question in Job 5:1b. After having articulated his opinion concerning the uselessness of turning to God or against him in court, Eliphaz wants to dismiss any other option that might seem reasonable in the context of the divine courtroom proceedings: who from among the holy ones (‫דשׁים‬ ִ ‫)קּ‬ ְ will you turn to (‫?)פנה‬²⁷ The verb that governs the second colon is ‫פנה‬, “to turn to”. Josef Schreiner observes that in its theological usage the verb ‫ פנה‬may be used as referring to Israel who should always turn toward Yahweh for help. “In a later period […] people in distress were apparently wont to turn to ‘the holy ones’ (angels) who could serve as mediators between the supplicant and God (Job 5:1). Eliphaz probably looks on the appeal as a last recourse, which he nonetheless rejects”²⁸. It is worth observing that Schreiner sees the holy ones as mediators and not intercessors. Actually, the difference is rather subtle, but existing. All intercessors are mediators, but not all mediators are intercessors. As a matter of fact, traditionally many exegetes would want to see in this colon an allusion to angelic intercession²⁹. Unfortunately, it is hard to account for how that would correspond with the calling-answering pattern of the first colon. Are these alternative actions? In other words, “if the first option is rather unproductive you may be considering turning to the holy ones for help”. I believe the angelic intercession may be partly alluded to, but there is more to the colon than that. As mentioned before, the angels act as witnesses and fellow judges. The first function has to do with their operating as a sort of divine intelligence, collecting data and knowledge concerning the people on earth (Job 1–2). As impartial witnesses they may be really considered as those who speak “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. On the other hand, they are free to express their assessment of the things witnessed on earth and thereby act as fellow judges. The case of the satan though is proving that when they go on assessing the data collected they may be wrong. That is why God does not put trust in his holy ones (Job 4:18). One should add: He does not trust completely in their judgment. I believe their judicial function could be presented in the form of the jury in the American legal system.

27 There is no doubt that the holy ones in this verse are the same figures mentioned in the prologue, i.e. members of the divine council. Actually, Cross and Freedman, The Blessings of Moses, 199, noted that the term “is commonly used for the members of the divine assembly in both biblical and extra-biblical literature”. Cf. also Suc Kee, The Heavenly Council, 261. 28 Schreiner, hn"p' pānâ, 583. 29 Cf. e.g. Pope, Job, 41; Habel, The Book of Job, 130; Hartley, The Book of Job, 117; Clines, Job 1–20, 138.

92 

 Dariusz Iwanski 

In the light of this, we may finally draw conclusions concerning the meaning of the second colon. There are several interpretations possible. They all depend on how we understand the first colon. If we opt for the first one (God is the Supreme Judge and Job appeals to him because he is oppressed), then the following interpretations are possible: a) There is a good reason to think that the holy ones, as members of the divine court and fellow judges, were unanimous with God on the sentence issued. They were free to express their divergent opinions (cf. the satan in the prologue), but even then it was up to God to issue the verdict³⁰. The contrary opinions of individual members were never binding for the Supreme Judge. Eliphaz is saying that Job might be tempted to appeal to the holy ones in case the Supreme Judge would dismiss his complaint, but there is no sense in appealing to the holy ones because they don’t have the decisive voice. b) Second, the angels can act as witnesses as well. Thus Job might want to expect them to give the true testimony on his innocence. However, Eliphaz wants to say that if God found him guilty, it means they must have had already testified against Job. Even if they had been testifying in Job’s favor, God would have had a better understanding of the matters concerning Job. That understanding would have evidently been contrary to such a testimony by the angels. c) Third, the angels are known for their intercessory abilities. They may intercede with God for the innocent who get oppressed unjustly or for any other reason undergo a severe affliction³¹. By interceding for them the angels help bring harmony to the world. According to Eliphaz Job is not innocent so he cannot count on their intercession. On the contrary, he may bring upon his head even bitter consequences since the angelic intercession is oriented towards punishing the evildoers and evidently Job does not have a clear conscience. Eliphaz is subtly mocking Job by making his point that the only angelic activity he may experience now is mediation, execution of the divine judgment. Thus the second colon has a very significant meaning: “to whom from the holy ones will you turn to stop the execution of the judgment? It has already been executed! Your case is lost!” If we accept the second understating of the first colon (Job is seeking a lawsuit with God), one possible interpretation of Job 5:1b is to be mentioned. Namely, if Job wanted to have a case with God, he would need to find a judge. The only

30 Cf. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 121. 31 Contrary to what Hartley, Book of Job, 117, stated: “Eliphaz resoundingly rejects this idea, however, for he believes that the angels are so tainted (4:18) that they do not have the standing to represent a person before God. Job also needs to realize that he has no grounds to petition God, for his fate is common to every human being”.

 Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1 

 93

candidates one might think of would be the members of the divine council. After all they had judicial credentials. Eliphaz would be then making a simple point here: a case with God would be so unique that not even the angels had sufficient credentials to become judges or arbiters. In other words, since there is no one to judge the case, Job should dismiss any such option.

5 Summary Summing up, we may say that Job 5:1 is extremely rich in content and several interpretations are possible. Above all, it is undeniable that it evokes courtroom imagery. That is then closely related to the scene of the divine council operating as a law court, which is depicted in the prologue. The divine council belongs to the world’s set-up introduced by the author and Eliphaz, as well as other protagonists, and operates in accordance with it. The sons of God (angels, the holy ones) gather together for a meeting that is presided over by Yahweh. Together they form the divine council. Yahweh is pictured as the Supreme Judge and the angels as fellow judges, witnesses (divine intelligence) or simply as mediators (either executors of God’s decrees or intercessors with God). There, Yahweh responds to the challenge launched by the satan and concerning the figure of Job. God authorizes the satan to act. Eliphaz is deprived of that knowledge. He simply takes for granted the divine council’s judicial aspect and interprets accordingly that which happened to Job. Based on his rather stiff understanding of how divine justice is executed he tries to patronize Job presenting to him a rather sad picture of the inadequacy of traditionally recognized means for solving problems of the oppressed. One by one he excludes the options Job might be tempted to give in. His statement in Job 5:1 is actually multidimensional and open to different interpretations. The first colon may be taken as a way of dismissing the possibility of crying out to God, the Supreme Judge, for help or as reducing to absurdity an option of making a plea against God in court. The interpretation of the second colon is dependent on the understanding of the first one. It may refer to the impossibility of turning to the members of the divine council for judging the case of Job on their own, testifying in favor of Job, interceding for Job with God or simply acting as arbiters/judges in the lawsuit Job might intend to launch against God. The statement of Eliphaz is to be read against the courtroom imagery. Only then can the reader fully appreciate the play on concepts embedded in Job 5:1. Eliphaz brilliantly explores any possible scenario related to claiming his right by Job simply to dismiss it a minute later as foolish and irrational. The Temanite is being sarcastic here. He gradually prepares Job for understanding that what

94 

 Dariusz Iwanski 

happened to him was not a coincidence. On the contrary, it was fully deserved and applied to by God (cf. 5:6). So even if the holy ones sided with him it would not bring about the expected solution. He should rather turn away from evil and repent, thereby gaining the right for help from God.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis – José Luis Sicre Díaz, Job. Comentario teológico y literario (NBE) Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1983; Italian translation: Giobbe. Commento teologico e letterario (edited and translated by G. Borgonovo) (Commenti Biblici), Rome: Borla, 1985. Bovati, Pietro, Ristabilire la giustizia. Procedure, vocabolario, orientamenti (AnBib 110), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1986; English translation: Re-Establishing Justice. Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (translated by Michael J. Smith) (JSOTSS 105), Sheffield: Academic, 1994. Clines, David J. A., Job 5:1–8: A New Exegesis: Bib 62 (1981) 185–194. Clines, David J. A., Job 1–20 (WBC 17), Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989. Cooke, Gerald, The Sons of (the) God(s): ΖAW 76 (1964) 22–47. Couturier, Guy, La vision du conseil divin: étude d’une forme commune au prophétisme et à l’apocalyptique: Science et Esprit 36 (1984) 5–43. Cross, Frank Moore, The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah: JNES 12 (1953) 274–277. Cross, Frank Moore – David Noel Freedman, The Blessings of Moses: JBL 67 (1948) 191–210. Day, Peggy L., An Adversary in Heaven. ‫ ָשׂ ָטן‬in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43), Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. DeVries, Simon John, 1 Kings (WBC 12), Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 22003. Habel, Norman C., The Book of Job. A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1985. Handy, Lowell K., Among the Host of Heaven. The Syrian-Phoenician Pantheon as Bureaucracy, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Hartley, John Edward, The Book of Job (NICOT), Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1988. Heidt, William George, Angelology of the Old Testament. A Study in Biblical Theology, Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1949. Holtz, Shalom E., Praying as a Plaintiff: VT 61 (2011) 258–279. Iwanski, Dariusz, The Dynamics of Job’s Intercession (AnBib 161), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. Jacobsen, Thorkild, Toward the Image of Tammuz and other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Kingsbury, Edwin C., The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh: JBL 83 (1964) 279–286. Knight, Douglas A., Cosmogony and Order in the Hebrew Tradition, in: Robin W. Lovin – Frank E. Reynolds (eds.), Cosmogony and Ethical Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985, 133–157. Miller, Patrick D., They Cried to the Lord. The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Miller, Patrick D., Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol, in: Id., Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology. Collected Essays (JSOTSS 267), Sheffield: Academic, 2000, 422–444.

 Courtroom Imagery: The Neglected Background of Job 5:1 

 95

Miller, Patrick D., The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel), London – Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Pope, Marvin H., Job. Introduction, Translation and Notes (The Anchor Bible 15), Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1965. Robinson, Theodore Henry, The Council of Yahweh: JTS 45 (1945) 151–157. Scholnick, Silvia, Lawsuit Drama in the Book of Job (Ph.D. Dissertation; Brandeis University 1975). Schreiner, Josef, “hn"p' pānâ”, TDOT, vol. 11, 578–585. Suc Kee, Min, The Heavenly Council and Its Type-Scene: JSOT 31 (2007) 259–273. Sumner, Paul B., Visions of the Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible (A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Religion Division Pepperdine University Malibu, California 1991; corrected 2011). Tidwell, N.L.A., Wā’ōmar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision: JBL 94 (1975) 343–355. Whybray, Roger Norman, The Heavenly Counselor in Is. xl, 13–14. A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah (SOTSMS 1), Cambridge: University Press, 1971. Wright, George Ernst, The Old Testament against Its Environment (SBT 2), London: SCM, 1950. Zerafa, Paul, The Wisdom of God in the Book of Job (Doctoral dissertation, Pontifical Biblical Commission; Rome 1978).

Renate Egger-Wenzel

Ein Phönix in Ijob 29,18? Renate Egger-Wenzel: Paris-Lodron Universität, Salzburg, Austria

Diese textkritische Frage stellen sich schon ganze Generationen von Forschern und Forscherinnen¹, ohne sie letztlich zufriedenstellend beantworten zu können. Vielfache Abhandlungen sind darüber geschrieben worden. Am intensivsten und umfassendsten haben sich damit wohl Driver/Gray² auseinandergesetzt. Aber ganz gleichgültig, wie man das strittige Wort lwx³ nun interpretiert, ob als “Sand” oder “Phönix”, in der griechischen Übersetzung der LXX  als “Palme” oder wiederum als der mythische Vogel “Phönix” oder im Lateinischen lediglich als “Palme”, die damit verbundenen Metaphern haben eine ähnliche Stoßrichtung: Sie wollen den Gedanken an Unzählbarkeit bzw. extreme Langlebigkeit beim Leser hervorrufen. Doch soll dieser Vers Ijob 29,18 erst in seinen Kontext gestellt werden.

1 Abgrenzung und Kontext Ijob 29 gehört mit den Kap. 3 und 30–31 zu den Dialogteil rahmenden Reden Ijobs. Der Leidgeprüfte schildert seine ehrenvolle Stellung bei Jung und Alt, bei Hochgestellten (29,2–11) und seinen Einsatz für soziale Randgruppen der Gesellschaft in früheren Tagen (29,12–17). Er sorgte für Arme, Witwe, Waise, Blinde und Lahme, ist ihnen Retter, Helfer, Augen und Füße, ja ein Vater, der für Gerechtigkeit im Rechtsstreit oder in der Auseinandersetzung mit den Minderbemittelten für Sanktionen sorgt. Auf seinen Rat hören sogar Fürsten, ja man ersehnt ihn, seinen Rat fast wie Regen nach einer Dürre oder wie Licht in der Finsternis (29,21–25). Die Verse 18–20 fallen aus dieser Darstellung heraus. Zunächst ist der Neueinsatz nach v. 1 in der 3. Person Singular (rm;aYOw: … @s,YOw:) mit dem Narrativ der

* Mit diesem kurzen und durchaus erweiterungswürdigen Artikel seien dem Jubilar, Prof. Maurice Gilbert, der viele Jahre im Advisory Board der «International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Studies» tätig war, die herzlichsten Glückwünsche ausgesprochen. 1 Vgl. Andersen, Job, 233. 2 Driver – Gray, Commentary, 202–204; vorher auch Hirzel, Hiob, 173  f. 3 Ben Yehuda, Dictionary, 1463, unterscheidet in der Vokalisation zwischen lAx und lWx. Bei letzterem handle es sich um den sagenhaften, langlebigen Vogel.

 Ein Phönix in Ijob 29,18? 

 97

1. Person Singular (rm;aow") in v. 18a auffällig. Thematisch ging es vorher um den Einsatz Ijobs für Benachteiligte der Gesellschaft. Die vv. 18–20 aber drehen sich um Ijobs eigenes Ergehen, um seinen Tod, sein “Weiterleben” und um seine dwbk. Ab v. 21 spricht Ijob davon, dass er die Aufmerksamkeit anderer erringt: “Auf mich haben sie gehört,…”. Dieser Plural weist aber keinen grammatikalischen Anschluss zu den drei vorhergehenden Versen auf. “Sie” könnte sich höchstens auf “die Suchenden” in v. 16b rückbeziehen, was aber als Subjekt für v. 21 zu weit entfernt ist. Damit scheint es sich in Ijob 29,18–20⁴ um einen eigenen Abschnitt zu handeln, der den Fortgang der Thematik unterbricht. Auch wäre durchaus ein logischer thematischer Anschluss gegeben, wenn die von v. 16 in einen Rechtsstreit Verwickelten nach “juristischem” Rat suchen und auf diese von Ijob erteilte Weisung letztlich hören, wie v. 21 insinuiert. Somit sind die Verse 18–20 für den Rest des Kap. 29 durchaus entbehrlich.

2 Ijob 29,18–20 und die metaphorischen Querverbindungen 2.1 Der Text Kolon

Satz

18a

rm;aow" [w"g>a, yNIqi-~[i

G Narr G PK

18a 18b

Ich sagte: Mit meinem Nest sterbe ich,

18b

`~ymiy" hB,r>a; lAxk;w>

H PK

18c

und wie der Sand/Phönix vermehre ich die Tage.

~yIm'-ylea/ x:Wtp' yvir>v'

NS Gpass Ptz s,m

19a

Meine Wurzel [ist] geöffnet zu Wassern

`yrIyciq.Bi !yliy" lj;w>

G PK

19b

und Tau übernachtet/bleibt in meinen Ranken/Zweigen.

20a

ydIM'[i vd"x' ydIAbK.

NS

20a

Meine Ehre/Leber [ist] erneuert bei mir

20b

`@ylix]t; ydIy"B. yTiv.q;w>

H PK

20b

und mein Bogen in meiner Hand verjüngt sich.

19a

19b

4 So auch Reuss, Hiob, 84–85; Peters, Buch, 313; Bückers, Buch, 431; Fohrer, Buch, 404; Andersen, Job. Introduction, 232; Rowley, Job, 188; Habel, Book, 411; Bräumer, Buch, 112.

98 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel 

Der textkritische Apparat der BHQ weist auf keine Besonderheiten hin. Durch die Redeeinleitung in v. 18a erfolgt ein thematischer Neueinsatz. Es geht nun rein um die Person Ijobs, aber nicht mehr um auf seine Hilfe angewiesene soziale Randgruppen der Gesellschaft. Vergleicht man nun die Wortfelder, welche sich durch Verben und Nomina ergeben, findet man bei zunächst oberflächlicher Betrachtung zwei Themenbereiche: Gleich zu Beginn ist vom Sterben die Rede und andererseits scheinen die anderen termini Lebensermöglichung bzw. -verlängerung dem Sinn nach zu intendieren.

2.2 Der (verbale) Tod Ijobs Das in 29,18b verwendete Verb für “sterben” ([wg) hat 24 Vorkommen im Alten Testament, davon allein sieben im Buch Ijob. Dabei finden sich fünf Belege im Munde des unschuldig Leidenden wieder, um angesichts seiner existentiellen Krise seinen Wunsch, nie geboren worden zu sein (10,18) bzw. nach dem Tod auszudrücken (3,11). Wenn man Ijob in diesem Rechtsstreit mit Gott mundtot machen könnte, dann wolle er sterben (13,19). Aber bevor er den mit ihm ringenden Freunden Recht gäbe, würde er eher tot sein wollen, als von seiner Rechtschaffenheit (hM'Tu) abzulassen (27,5). In 14,10 argumentiert Ijob, dass es in der Natur mehr Hoffnung zu geben scheint, nach einem Schicksalsschlag zu überleben als für den Menschen. Aus einem gefällten Baum kann dennoch wieder ein Spross hervorgehen (v. 7), aber wie sieht das für den Menschen aus (vv. 12.14)? In Ijob 29,18b spricht Ijob davon, dass er mit seinem Nest stirbt, doch wie lwx (Sand/Phönix?) vermehrt er seine Tage. Diese Antithese bedarf der Erklärung, was anhand der verwendeten metaphorischen Bilder erfolgen soll.

2.3 Metaphern 2.3.1 Das Nest (!qe) – Ijob 29,18b Zunächst wird vor dem geistigen Auge natürlich ein Vogelnest mit auf Eiern brütenden Vögeln oder hungrigen Jungvögeln darin, die ihren Eltern die hungrigen, weit aufgesperrten Schnäbel entgegenstrecken, entstehen. Vergleicht man die 13 Belege für dieses Wort im Alten Testament, so ist dieses Bild aus dem Tierreich naheliegend in Dtn 22,6; 32,11; Ps 84,4; Spr 27,8; Jes 10,14; 16,2. Auch der in großer Höhe erbaute und daher unzugängliche Adlerhorst entspricht Naturbeobachtungen und wird in Ijob 39,27; Jer 49,16 und Obd 1,4 als Bild verwendet. Doch wird diese Vogelnestmetapher immer wieder auch durch Analogiebildungen auf die

 Ein Phönix in Ijob 29,18? 

 99

Lebenswelt des Menschen übertragen. Lediglich Gen 6,14 und Num 24,21 sprechen nicht explizit von der Tierwelt. Der Genesistext berichtet von den Anweisungen an Noach zum Bau der Arche. Hier ist mit !qe eine Unterteilung innerhalb der Arche als Wohnplatz für Mensch und Tier gemeint. Num 24,21 spricht dagegen von dem gewählten Untergrund zum Bau eines Nestes für Kain bzw. die von ihm abstammenden Keniter, das dann wohl keinen Bestand haben wird, da es auf nacktem Felsen aufliegt, sodass jeder Sturm es hinwegfegen kann (v. 22). Hab 2,9 warnt davor, sein Haus mit ungerecht erworbenem Gewinn errichten zu wollen. Das führe zu Untergang. Somit soll ein “Nest” jedenfalls für Mensch und Tier Schutz bieten. Darin ziehen beide ihre Nachkommen auf und es soll eine ohne Unrecht, gut gewählte Basis haben. Nach Ijob 29,18b will der Autor der vv. 18–20 Ijob so darstellen, dass dieser daran denkt, dass er wie seine Kinder, eben “mit seinem Nest” nun auch daran ist zu sterben. Die Söhne und Töchter sind tot, seine Gesundheit schwindet. Er hat seinen schützenden Hort, sein Zuhause, seine Zukunft (durch den Tod seiner Kinder) verloren.

2.3.2 Sand/Phönix zur Vermehrung der Tage – Ijob 29,18c Geht man nun davon aus, dass mit lwx der Phönix gemeint ist, so kann man in den Kola 18a und b einen antithetischen Parallelismus sehen⁵. Denn obwohl Ijob jetzt mit seinem Heim daran ist zu sterben, wird er wie der mythische Vogel sein Leben vermehren (hbr). Wie soll das geschehen? Nach ägyptischen Quellen erneuerte der Phönix sein Leben alle 500 oder 1000 Jahre⁶ oder entsprechend “a Sothic period”⁷ alle 1461 Jahre (vgl. Hesiod, Frag. 304; Herodot, Hist. 2.73; Tacitus, Ann. 6,28). Doch ist nicht geklärt, ob lwx tatsächlich “Phönix” meint. Im Alten Testament finden sich 23 Belege dieses Wortes, das wie in Ijob 29,18 4x⁸ mit dem Verb hbr bzw. 6x⁹ mit dem Nomen bro und 1x¹⁰ mit hBer>h; verbunden ist. Hinzu kommt 8x¹¹ die Wortwurzel rps. Insgesamt ist lAx 17x¹² mit dem “Meer” konnotiert, sodass nur

5 Vgl. dazu Niehoff, Phoenix, 255. 6 Vgl. Ginzberg, Legends, 32. 7 Petersen, Old, 156; vgl. dazu ausführlich van den Broek, Myth, 26–27. 8 Vgl. Gen 22,17; Ijob 29,18; Ps 139,18; Jer 33,22. 9 Vgl. Gen 32,13; Jos 11,4; Ri 7,12; 1Sam 13,5; 2Sam 17,11; 1Kön 4,20. 10 Vgl. 1Kön 5,9. 11 Vgl. Gen 32,13; 41,49; Ri 7,12; Ps 139,18; Jer 33,22; Hos 2,1. 12 Vgl. Gen 22,17; 32,13; 41,49; Dtn 33,19; Jos 11,4; Ri 7,12; 1Sam 13,5; 2Sam 17,11; 1Kön 4,20; 5,9; Ijob 6,3; Ps 78,27; Jes 10,22; Jer 5,22; 15,8; 33,22; Hos 2,1.

100 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel 

die Bedeutung “Sand” in Frage kommt. Selbst Hab 1,9 geht von einer kaum zählbaren Menge aus, wenn der Text von den grausamen Chaldäern spricht, welche schnell viele Gefangene zusammentreiben (@sa) wie Sand. Damit bleiben nur drei Verse übrig, die mit lAx nicht explizit Unzählbarkeit intendieren: Nach Ex 2,12 verscharrt Mose den erschlagenen Ägypter im Sand. Dtn 33,19 spricht vom Überfluss ([p;v,) der Meere und in Analogie dazu von Schätzen, die im Sand vergraben sind. In Jer 5,22 setzt die Sanddüne dem Meer Grenzen. Damit ist nicht wirklich begründbar, warum lAx in Ijob 29,18b tatsächlich singulär mit “Phönix” übersetzt werden sollte¹³. Tatsächlich geht es im Zusammenhang mit dieser Wortwurzel um eine nicht überschaubare Menge, um Unzählbarkeit von etwas, in v. 18c um die de facto unbegrenzte Vermehrung von Lebenszeit, denn Sandkörner sind nicht bis ins letzte zählbar. Dass hier die Legende vom mythischen Vogel Phönix, der sein Leben quasi unendlich erneuern kann, thematisch nahe liegt, ist nicht zu leugnen.

2.3.3 Lebensspendendes Nass – Ijob 29,19 Betrachtet man die Vergleichstexte Jer 17,8 und Ez 31,7 auf der Basis der verwendeten Worte vrqI wyt'Po[;s.B)i , wie diese durch die Interpretation von lwx mit “Phönix” in Ijob 29,18 vorkommt, und in der Argumentation des ezechelianischen Gleichnisses auf das mythologische Element des Lebensbaumes aus dem Paradies zurückgegriffen wird. Schließlich wird doch der Phönix in der rabbinischen Tradition ebenfalls “in the Garden of Eden”¹⁷ platziert, der sich nicht wie der Mensch und die anderen Tiere an der verbotenen Frucht vergriff. Daher erklärt sich “the bird’s eternity as a result of its special obedience to the divine injunctions vis-à-vis the tree of knowledge” (vgl. Gen.R. 19.5). Auch Ijob 29,19 verbindet sich mit dem Bild vom Baum, da der Autor des Textes Ijob von seinen Wurzeln und Zweigen sprechen lässt, in denen Tau nächtigt. In diese Baum-Metapher fügt sich ebenso die Übersetzung von lwx ins Griechische mit  als Palme bzw. ins Lateinische mit palma thematisch ein. Dieser immergrüne Baum zeugt ebenso von Langlebigkeit wie der mythische Vogel der Urzeit.

2.3.4 Ijobs neue Ehre oder besser neue Leber?¹⁸ – Ijob 29,20a Respondierend zu 19,9, wo Ijob nicht nur darüber klagt, dass die Freunde ihn quälen, statt ihn zu trösten, sondern dass auch Gott ihn seiner Ehre entkleidet (jyvip.hi yl;['me ydIAbK.), ihm den Ehrenkranz (hr'j'[]) vom Haupt genommen hat, wird in Ijob 29,20a mittels Nominalsatz festgehalten, dass Ijobs Ehre erneut mit ihm ist (ydIM'[i vd"x' ydIAbK.). Das heißt, Ijob fühlt sich wieder hergestellt in seiner von allen, insbesondere auch von Gott hervorgehobenen Position. Doch kann es sich hier wiederum um eine geschickte mythologische Einspielung, diesmal in Bezug auf Prometheus handeln, der für die von ihm aus Lehm

15 Hossfeld, Buch, 1658. 16 Vgl. 7x ~yIm; Ez 31,4.5.7.14 [2x].15.16 und 2x ~AhT. Ez 31,4.15. 17 Niehoff, Phoenix, 257; so auch Ginzberg, Legends, 32. 18 Nur vereinzelt wird in der Literatur auf die andere Übersetzungsmöglichkeit von dwbk mit “Leber” verwiesen, wie z.  B. von Habel, Book, 411; Hartley, Book, 393.

102 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel 

geformten Menschen¹⁹ das Feuer vom göttlichen Olymp gestohlen hat. Darauf hin ließ der Göttervater Zeus den Dieb an einen Felsen schmieden, um ihn wehrlos zu machen, wenn ein Vogel täglich seine Leber²⁰ fraß. Diese allerdings erneuerte sich jede Nacht (Hesiod, Theogonie 525f: αὐτὰρ ὅ γ᾽ ἧπαρ ἤσθιεν ἀθάνατον, τὸ δ᾽ ἀέξετο ἶσον ἁπάντη νυκτός ὅσον πρόπαν ἦμαρ ἔδοι τανυσίπτερος ὄρνις). Der Autor mag hier einerseits eine Wiederherstellung Ijobs in seiner alten Position andeuten oder die beständige Qual des Leidenden, der aufgrund der nächtlichen²¹ Erneuerung am Leben bleibt und nicht stirbt.

2.3.5 Ein “durchbohrender Bogen” – Ijob 29,20b Unter Berücksichtigung von Ijob 20,24, wo ebenfalls beide Wortwurzeln (tv,q,, @lx) verwendet werden, drängt sich mit Ijob 29,20b im Sinne der Stilfigur einer Metonymie, genauer einer Synekdoche, das Bild eines Schützen auf, der mit Pfeil und Bogen durchschlagskräftig einen Feind besiegt. Damit könnte in diesem Text ein Hinweis auf das am südlichsten erscheinende Tierkreiszeichen vorliegen. Von Sternbildern ist auch anderweitig im Ijobbuch die Rede (vgl. 9,9). Das Tierkreiszeichen scheint nomadischen Ursprungs zu sein und wurde zunächst von den Sumerern, später den Babyloniern übernommen, die diese Symbolik für ihren Hauptgott Marduk verwendeten. Damit könnte eine Anspielung auf die babylonische Dichtung “Ludlul bēl nēmeqi” vorliegen, die auch als “Babylonischer Hiob” bezeichnet wird. Im Hebräischen jedenfalls bedeutet das Wort tV'q; Sagittarius. Spinnt man die Synekdoche etwas weiter, so trifft man unweigerlich auf Ps 127,3–5²². Hier wird Kinderreichtum mit einem kriegerischen Bild in Beziehung gesetzt: Kinder aus der Jugend sind wie ein Köcher voller Pfeile, die in einer Auseinandersetzung Sicherheit bieten. Doch liegt dieser Segen in Gottes Hand.

19 Vgl. Ijob 10,8–9; 33,6. 20 Hartmann, Kunstlexikon: “Die Leber wurde früher als Sitz des Lebens sowie des Sexualtriebs angesehen. Der zweite auf diese Art Gemarterte war der Riese Tityos, der sich an Leto, einer Zeus-Geliebten, vergreifen wollte”. 21 Vgl. die Wortwahl in v. 19b mit !yl. 22 EÜ: 3 Kinder sind eine Gabe des Herrn, die Frucht des Leibes ist sein Geschenk. 4 Wie Pfeile in der Hand des Kriegers, so sind Söhne aus den Jahren der Jugend. 5 Wohl dem Mann, der mit ihnen den Köcher gefüllt hat! Beim Rechtsstreit mit ihren Feinden scheitern sie nicht.

 Ein Phönix in Ijob 29,18? 

 103

3 Zusammenfassung Ijob 29,18–20 erweist sich somit als eine Glosse mit altorientalischen mythologischen²³ Einspielungen, die – sei es im Bild des Phönix, des Lebensbaums, des Prometheus oder des Sagittarius – im Kontrast zum Sterben in v. 18b ein unbegrenztes Weiterleben der Leidensfigur Ijob, der sich in einer Art Todessphäre fühlt, insinuieren. Der Interpolator wollte wohl gezielt einen Ausgleich zum Leid Ijobs in Aussicht stellen, da ihm dessen Rechtschaffenheit ansonsten nicht genügend gewürdigt erschien. Die eingangs gestellte Frage, ob es einen Phönix in Ijob 29,18 gibt, muss damit wohl auf der philologischen Ebene verneint, aber auf der Bedeutungsebene des Textes bejaht werden.

Bibliographie Andersen, Francis I., Job. An Introduction and Commentary, London: Inter-Varsity, 1976. Ben Yehuda, Eliezer, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, Jerusalem – New York: Yoseloff, 1908–1959. Bräumer, Handjörg, Das Buch Hiob 2. Teil: Kapitel 20–42 (Wuppertaler Studienbibel), Wuppertal – Zürich: Brockhaus, 1994. Bückers, Hermann, Das Buch Job (Herders Bibelkommentar. Die Heilige Schrift für das Leben erklärt V), Freiburg: Herder, 1939. Davidson, Andrew Bruce – Henry Craven Ord Lanchester, The Book of Job with Notes, Introduction and Appendix (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 14), Cambridge: University Press, 1926. Dhorme, Édouard Paul, A Commentary on the Book of Job, Paris: Gabalda, 1926. Driver, Samuel Rolles – George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (ICC 30), Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921. Egger-Wenzel, Renate, Von der Freiheit Gottes, anders zu sein. Die zentrale Rolle der Kapitel 9 und 10 für das Ijobbuch (Forschung zur Bibel 83), Würzburg: Echter, 1998. Ehrlich, Arnold Bogumil, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. 6: Psalmen, Sprüche und Hiob, Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1918. Fohrer, Georg, Das Buch Hiob (Kommentar zum Alten Testament), Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963. Gibson, Edgar C.S., The Book of Job with Introduction and Notes, London: Methuen, 31919. Ginzberg, Louis, Legends of the Jews 1, New York: Simon & Schuster, 21961. Habel, Norman C., The Book of Job. A Commentary (OTL), London: SCM, 1985. Hahn, Heinrich August, Commentar ueber das Buch Hiob, Berlin: Wohlgemuth, 1850. Hartmann, Peter W., Das grosse Kunstlexikon, in: http://www.beyars.com/kunstlexikon/ lexikon_7258.html ˂20.03.13˃

23 Zu den zahlreichen mythologischen Querverbindungen siehe u.  a. Egger-Wenzel, Freiheit, 181–199, im Kontext von Ijob 9,5–10 und dazu weiterführender Literatur.

104 

 Renate Egger-Wenzel 

Hartley, John Edward, The Book of Job (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991. Hirzel, Ludwig, Hiob (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 2), Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1839. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, Das Buch Ezechiel, in: Erich Zenger (Hg.), Stuttgarter Altes Testament. Einheitsübersetzung mit Kommentar und Lexikon, Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt, 2004, 1611–1692. Niehoff, Maren R., The Phoenix in Rabbinic Literature: HTR 89 (1996) 245–265. Peters, Norbert, Das Buch Job übersetzt und erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 21), Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1928. Petersen, Anders Klostengaard, Between Old and New. The Problem of Acculturation Illustrated by the Early Christian Use of the Phoenix Motif, in: Florentino García Martínez – Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (Hg.), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (JSJS 82), Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2003, 147–164. Reuss, Eduard Wilhem Eugen, Hiob, Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1888. Rowley, Harold Henry, Job (New Century Bible Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans – London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980. Scharer, Johan Rudolph, Das Buch Hiob aus dem Grundtext metrisch übersetzt und erläutert I, Bern: Walthardsche Buchhandlung, 1818. Szczygiel, Paul, Das Buch Job übersetzt und erklärt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes V,1), Bonn: Hanstein, 1931. Torczyner (Tur-Sinai), Harry, Das Buch Hiob. Eine kritische Analyse des überlieferten Hiobtextes, Wien – Berlin: Löwit, 1920. Umbreit, Friedrich Wilhelm Carl, Das Buch Hiob. Übersetzung und Auslegung nebst Einleitung über Geist, Form und Verfasser des Buchs, Heidelberg: Mohr, 21832. Vaihinger, Johann G., Das Buch Hiob der Urschrift gemäß metrisch übersetzt und erläutert, Stuttgart – Tübingen: Cotta’scher, 1842. Van den Broek, Roelof, The Myth of the Phoenix According to Classical and Early Christian Traditions, Leiden: Brill, 1972. Wright, William Aldis, A Commentary on the Book of Job by Berechiah, Mediaeval Jewish Scholar in France, Amsterdam: APA – Philo, 1979. (Reprint) Zenger, Erich (Hg.), Stuttgarter Altes Testament. Einheitsübersetzung mit Kommentar und Lexikon, Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelanstalt, 2004.

Sebastiano Pinto

The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31) Sebastiano Pinto: Theological Faculty of Puglia, Bari, Italy

Chapters 29–31 of the Book of Job¹ are usually regarded as the last speech by the protagonist, as can be seen from 29,1 (“Job continued his discourse and said…”) and 31,40 (“The words of Job are ended”). Meditating on his former happiness (chap. 29) Job notes with sadness his present state of prostration (chap. 30). With a final appeal to God so that he could account for his conduct and be cured from his skin disease, he protests his innocence for the last time through the solemn oath. The aim of the study contained in these pages is not to carry out an exegetical analysis of individual verses from chapters 29–31, but to explain how Job came to perceive the plight of the ‘righteous sufferer’; this will enable us to grasp what appears as the ‘objectivity’ of his retrospective look on life and show the complexity of this reconstruction of the sequence of memories. We will focus our attention on what we might call Job’s optical illusion, namely the ‘objective’ outlook, which he has on his own story, for the purpose of highlighting what guides and sustains this situational process. In our analysis we will apply a sociological approach to the text².

1 The Social Construction of Reputation It is surprising that the sociological reading of chaps. 29–31 has been so neglected³. The whole of chap. 29, most of chap. 30 (vv. 1–10) and many verses of chap. 31 (an examination of conscience in fourteen points of which nine relate to social sins: vv. 5–6, vv. 9–23, vv. 29–32), are focused on the importance that Job gives to those

1 Cf. Gilbert, La Sapienza del cielo, 90–94. 2 Cf. Blasi, Making Charisma; Cicourel, Method and Measurement; Coulon, Ethnomethodologie; Fele, Etnometodologia. 3 On the criteria for an appropriate application of the sociological approaches to the Old Testament, see Wilson, Sociological Approaches, 28–29.

106 

 Sebastiano Pinto 

moral rules that govern the community and which are accepted by the individual members⁴. What hurts Job, in addition to the physical consequences of his illness, is the loss of social reputation: “When I went out to the gate of the city and took my seat on the square, the young men saw me and withdrew while the old men rose to their feet, the chief men refrained from speaking and covered their mouths with their hands, the voices of the nobles were hushed, and their tongues stuck to the roof of their mouths” (29:7–10). As is well known, the gates of the city were a place of public concourse where courts were usually held, generally at the entrance to a city or in the main square (cf. Prov 22:22). Job remembers this public place as the place in which the social consensus on his person was reached. He speaks wisely and receives the reputation of which an important man of his calibre was worthy (Job 29:11–12). To the encomium on the part of this audience of colleagues there is added the blessing of all the beneficiaries of his charity (Job 29:13–17). These are represented (and objectified) in Job’s clothing while he advances with solemn and majestic step: “I put on righteousness as my clothing; justice was my robe and my turban” (v. 14). With clear hagiographic colouring, this description reveals the importance of certain rules of exemplary behaviour that reinforce the maintenance of social order and of positions within it (status), and can be traced back to the basic logic of the penalty-reward system that marks the boundaries of moral coexistence. These rules, when applied to coexistence, are about society at all times and, with different wording and specific characteristics, are also found in those societies defined by some scholars as ‘ancient’ societies (but not primitive ones). Exemplary moral conduct, especially in the case of very well-known people with responsibility, is also encouraged because of the social welfare related to the common good that follows from it. Bad behaviour, on the contrary, is stigmatized and punished just because of the evil of its negative consequences for all members of the group. For this reason also, a good reputation is strongly recommended in the wisdom writings. In Qoh 7:1 we read that “A good name is better than fine perfume”, while Prov 22:1 states that “A good name is more desirable than great riches and to be esteemed is better than silver or gold”. Job regrets precisely this loss of status. He that was once feared and revered by all people is now harassed even by insignificant and disreputable rascals (Job 30:1–15). The image of Job’s integrity is in fact the underlying ‘certainty’ that has been demolished by disease. If it is true that God rewards the righteous with health and well-being while punishing the wicked with suffering and death, the severity of Job’s disease is directly

4 Lévèque, Anamnèse et disculpation, 245.

 The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31) 

 107

proportional to his sin, and this gives rise to misunderstanding and disapproval, bringing disgrace on Job’s previous behaviour which had brought him a good reputation. We could say that, from Job’s perspective, there exists a structural consensus about what is moral and normative as regards the representation of social and religious order. He hyperbolically reconstructs his ‘career’ of ‘super-just man’ and scrupulously expounds the belief that organized social life is not possible without the fundamental values broadly shared by the Jewish faith. He reaches the conclusion in his last speech delivered in chaps. 29–31, i.e. that overturning the idea of a good God is just the last act of force to protect what remains of himself and his world. Using the sociological language that exaggerates the importance of the group in the choices of the individual, we could speak of Job as a ‘socially oriented’ person because of the considerable importance given to society. This importance is expressed both by the rules that society imposes and that the subject internalizes, and by the continuous public support required for people to stay within the system that these very rules have helped to create.

2 The Assumption of Ingenuous Faith The previous page does not intend to devalue Job and his personal battle against a worldview that is crumbling beneath his feet. It is our intention, instead, to show the obviousness of this attitude, the normality of a defence of his own status quo and the tacit agreement that support this logic of self-preservation. Let us try to explain what has just been asserted by reading a few verses from the book: “Then I thought, ‘I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix. My roots will reach to the water, and the dew will lie all night on my branches. My glory will not fade; the bow will be ever new in my hand” (29:18–20)⁵. “Yet when I hoped for good, evil came; when I looked for light, then came darkness” (30:26).

What Job expects of life is rooted in the well-known theory of retribution, a concept that is strongly attested in Scripture and rooted in the concept of election of the people and in the awareness that Israel exists only due to divine benevolence. The basic idea is the following: you have to respond to the divine goodness

5 For these verses, cf. the contribution by Renate Egger-Wenzel in this volume.

108 

 Sebastiano Pinto 

with appropriate behaviour; the risk is the loss of the promises and of the benefits they bring (land, wealth, health, and fecundity). The book of Deuteronomy says: “You may say to yourself: ‘My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me’. But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today” (Deut 8:17–18). And in Psalm 1 there is the blessedness of those who practice the Law: “That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither; whatever they do prospers” (v. 3). “Not so the wicked people. They are like chaff that the wind blows away” (v. 4). There is indeed a sense of order written into the entire universe that refers directly to the will of the Creator and that is read by the wise who find the explanation of the deeper meaning of life. In the wisdom sentences, in fact, “there is faith in the stability of elementary relationships between man and man, faith in the similarity of men and of their reactions, faith in the reliability of the orders which support human life and thus, implicitly and explicitly, faith in God who put these orders into operation”⁶. All the studies on the book of Job highlight the importance of the logic of retribution, its being called into question and the happy ending of the story in the epilogue. From our hermeneutical perspective we cannot but take note of the obviousness of this worldview. This worldview is held by Job and by every person looking at everyday life with ‘ingenuous’ faith, that is, believing that reality is in fact what it appears to be without any tricks or deception. While modern science uses systematic doubt as its research method, in daily life this doubt is systematically replaced by a trusting attitude towards our neighbours and towards the socio-religious structures they create. Firm faith in this world of rules, perceived as the best of all possible worlds, also helps us to understand the determination of Job’s three friends – Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite (and afterwards Elihu in chaps. 32–37). Such a determination responds in turn to the three cycles of speeches (chaps. 4–14, 15–21, 22–27) debating the direct relationship between crime and punishment. They follow, in essence, the same defensive logic as their accused friend. In this sense, both parties involved in the litigation (rîb) are united by the desire to preserve a religious system that, often confined to general assumptions, does not explain the complexity of situations in life and does not achieve the freedom that characterizes every relationship based on faith.

6 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 62–63.

 The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31) 

 109

A sociological reading of this story emphasizes, on the one hand, the implicit commitment to preserving a system on the part of all members of society, who consider others as also involved in this process with a high moral profile. On the other hand, this implicit commitment emerges as the sense of frustration, loss, annoyance, and hostility caused by an anomaly. It is readily joined to the efforts expended so that the outsider, driven by a moral necessity described as compelling, could fall within the system.

3 Illness as Reactive What gave rise to this system, which apparently had created the best of living conditions? The answer is, of course, the calamity that befalls the life of Job, who lost possessions, children and health. But that is not all. He is neither the first nor the last righteous man who experiences suffering in the Bible. The novelty lies in the changed animus with which the faith is lived. In the post-exilic period the assurances related to classical punitive logic are not enough because there remain the difficulties connected with the return into the Promised Land. And not only with regard to those who returned but also to the relations between them and those who remained in Judah-Benjamin⁷. The pattern that previously worked –in virtue of a superior rationality that justified the legitimacy of the use of suffering– is now abandoned and judged unfair and inadequate. But it should be noted that Job (and his friends who, as already stated, are substantially in the same position) does not intend to mar this world of ideas but rather to find the key to the problem. If there is a difference between Job and his friends it is the following: if the former is willing to sacrifice the idea of divinity to save his religiosity, the latter would rather sacrifice Job. Suffering is, therefore, assessed as the breaking down of the moral order, as something abnormal in a course of events considered habitual and predictable, and as an anomaly in a system that did not provide for such an event. Paraphrasing the words of the sociologist Harold Garfinkel⁸ we can say that the theologians of reward, trying to explain the persistence and continuity of the characteristics of the actions shared by the members of society, proceed in this way. They select a set of stable characteristics of an organization and look for variables that hold

7 We recall that Mizpah became the political centre for those Jews who were not deported in Babylon; cf. Jer 40:9–11; 2 Kgs 25. 8 Cf. Garfinkel, A Conception, 187.

110 

 Sebastiano Pinto 

them together. The novelty of the hermeneutical perspective inspired by the method of selection (in fact ethnomethodology)⁹ is that it breaks down these variables and realizes that they are held together by tradition and morality, by ‘that is what we are used to doing so’ and ‘by hearsay’. In other words, they are held together by a combination of practices that are “made routine” until they become sacred. The last words of Job, after the second answer from God, confirm what we have just said about the apparent solidity of this socio-theological system: “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you” (Job 42:5). What he once thought he knew (the optical illusion) is revealed in all its narrowness and partiality. Another world is opening up for Job.

4 The Attribution of Meaning through ‘Legitimate History’ We have described Job as a ‘socially ill person’ in the sense that he grants society a good share of his own self-perception of religion. We cannot, of course, blame him because every single person looking out on the scene of this world is initiated into the rules that govern it right through the process of socialization. Therefore, this normative datum is not challenged in our ethnomethodological reading but rather the functioning of such normative apparatus. Normally moral action is explained by indicating its conformity or non-conformity to the rule. If the rule is unconsciously incorporated from the outside into the psyche of the subject, it will produce an ethical choice in accordance with the value inspired by the same rule. This causal and deductive way of proceeding assumes that the subject usually manages to do what the normative institutionalized patterns require. The ethical gap that creates difficulties for Job and his morality –that is, the discrepancy between his institutionalized conduct and the unexpected reward (illness instead of health)– reveals the faults in this causal-deductive process of attribution because even applying those ethical rules he does not see the social

9 Fele, Etnometodologia, 22: “The ethnomethodology of Garfinkel tried to question again about some fundamental methodological assumptions that sociology uses to describe, explain and represent the pre-scientific social world; for Garfinkel is very important to pay attention to the methods, instruments, systems and practices used by people to do their worldly matters: in fact for Garfinkel the worldly matters consist of these methods” (translation mine).

 The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31) 

 111

benefits. This forces us to make unequivocal the implicit assumptions which held that morality and inspired obedience to it in view of their confirmation. Again, as we said above about the suffering that refutes the theological assumptions previously considered valid, Job’s disorientation aims at healing the fractures in the previous system. Job challenges God and his righteousness because he expects to be rehabilitated and reassured about the choices of his life that he banked on so much. The category of the “righteous sufferer” with which he presents himself to his friends is a social oxymoron that cannot be kept up for too long. It risks losing that integrity and reputation gained with so much effort. While in the previous theological scheme the suffering of the righteous man was accompanied by a surplus of good for the whole community (bearing in mind the suffering servant of Second Isaiah: Isa 52:13–53:12), in this case nothing positive and religiously significant seems to happen. Let us see how the causal-deductive process did not fail completely but is reformulated in reverse from Job. There is a sense of past choices (what at first seemed to be expected because previously made) that are simply acknowledged in the prologue to the book (chaps. 1–2) without any explanation of the personal motivations of the protagonist. This sense is traced out, created and reported at the beginning when Job recognizes that he has lost it or not fully understood it. Thus Job’s reasoning is not illogical when in chap. 31 he hyperbolically exaggerates his conduct in the past. Exaggeration, a powerful instrument for ‘provocation’ (used to elicit the divine response), is directly proportional to the will to resolve the aporia that he himself represents in the social and religious system. Is it not going too far to grant slaves the right to sue their master? Yet he has done it: “If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” (31:13–15).

Is it not an exaggeration to claim to be charitable even before birth? Yet he was so: “but from my youth I reared them as a father would, and from my birth I guided them” (31:18).

And again, is it not excessive to say that Job’s readiness to help his neighbour was such as not to keep anything for himself because the gift was unconditional? Yet he says so:

112 

 Sebastiano Pinto 

“those of my household have never said, ‘Who has not been filled with Job’s meat?’ but no stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler” (31:31–32).

And finally, is it not imprudent or provocative to be so proud of one’s own conduct as to challenge God, in order that he can recognize what kind of man Job is? And yet Job is markedly defiant when he says: “Oh, that I had someone to hear me! I sign now my defense – let the Almighty answer me; let my accuser put his indictment in writing. Surely I would wear it on my shoulder, I would put it on like a crown. I would give him an account of my every step; I would present it to him as to a ruler” (31:35–37).

The logic that inspires these words remains deductive and reveals the ‘legitimate story’ of the pious Job. This logic has been under consideration because of his disease, revealing an expectation of treatment that was taken for granted (the reward) and is now called for.

5 The Memorandum for the Pious Man From the ethnomethodological perspective we find, therefore, that the classic regulatory apparatus (the moral norms by which Job was inspired) is revealed not so much in its foundational character but in the ideal and future one: a ‘must be’ (a reference paradigm) more than a ‘being’ (a datum ‘objectively’ heard from the beginning). But what is the background from which Job draws these rules? Which handbook for the pious Israelite guides the reconstruction of a career? Chap. 31, as we noted above, is a long examination that is centred on three types of sin: the social, sexual and theological:      1)     2)     3)     4)     5)     6)     7)     8)     9) 10)

a lustful look at a young woman (31:1–4); fraud in business (31:5–6); thirst for wealth (31:7–8); adultery (31:9–12); denial of the rights of servants (31:13–15); inattention to the hungry (31:16–18); refusal to clothe the poor (31:19–20); public injustice towards the orphan (31: 21–23); trust in their own possessions (31:24–25); the worship of the sun and the moon (31:26–28);

 The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31) 

11) 12) 13) 14)

 113

taking pleasure in an enemy’s misfortune (31:29–30); the repudiation of the stranger (31:31–32); not confessing a sin (31:33–34); the dishonest acquisition of a field (31:38–40).

With regard to the faults that the protagonist claims that he has never had, six misdeeds are related to the rules of Jewish law (especially the Decalogue in Exodus 20): to act with fraudulence (“do not steal”), vv. 5–6, to crave the property of other people (“do not covet the property of others…”), v. 7, to desire the neighbour’s wife and commit adultery (“do not lust after your neighbour’s wife…”, vv. 9.11–12), to worship the sun and the moon (“have no other gods…”, vv. 26–27), to practice witchcraft to procure the enemy’s death (cf. Leviticus 20 which prohibits necromancy). In the other cases referred to by Job there is no precise reference to the Law but to the instructions of wise men. They call for charity that goes beyond the precept and directly involves the heart (to defend the weak, slaves, the stranger). Let us examine some items on the previous list of sins. Chapter 31 opens, in fact, by explaining the resolution not to sin by adultery, even with the eyes (Job 31:1); the visual excitement is, actually, the first step towards the consummation of a physical relationship and for this reason control of the use of sight is recommended: “Do not fix your gaze on a virgin, lest you stumble and incur penalties for her. Turn away your eyes from a charming woman, do not stare at beauty that does not belong to you” (Sir 9:5.8). This prudent dictum comes from the anthropological realism of the masters in Israel, who consider more prudent the attitude of those who avoid the occasion of sin rather than fighting it. Remaining in the context of sexual morality, in Job 31:11–12 the prohibition of adultery is expressed in verse 11 in legal language because it is a crime against the Law (Lev 18:7; 20:14; Exod 20:14) and will therefore receive a penalty. We know that this Law gave rise to considerable disparity between male and female in the treatment of adultery¹⁰. Job goes beyond this sexist practice because he considers adultery as a disgrace (v. 11). He performs an act of authenticity when he assumes responsibility for an infringement, which was considered less serious because

10 A husband was not regarded as committing adultery if he had intercourse with another unmarried woman because polygamy was allowed. It was considered adultery in case of a relationship with a woman who was married (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22) or even engaged (Deut 22:23); in the second case stoning was the punishment for this offence (Deut 22:14). In the first case of adultery the punishment was death (including also for the married adulterous woman).

114 

 Sebastiano Pinto 

committed by a man, and so he exposes himself, by reason of such a moral act, to the judgment of the Law. Similar is the discourse regarding theological sin and, in particular, the reference to idolatry in Job 31:26–28, expressed by mentioning the sun and the moon. We understand that the light that shines is the sun, even if the noun ‫ ֶשׁ ֶמשׁ‬does not come in this context (here called ‫ ;אוֹר‬cf. Job 37:21; Isa 18:4; Hab 3:4). Job denies having worshiped the stars against whose charm Deuteronomy tries to warn: “And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars, all the heavenly array, do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven” (Deut 4:19). In Israel, in fact, as in almost all cultures, the sun, the moon and the stars in general have been the object of worship and adoration (cf. 2 Kings 22–23), and for this reason also the prophets strongly denounce the star-worship (Isa 24:23; Jer 8:2; Ezek 8:16) paid to the Queen of Heaven (Jer 7:44). The religiosity of Job is chiefly marked by the choice not to use the name ‫– ֶשׁ ֶמשׁ‬a possible allusion to the solar deity– confirming the interior disposition of the sage to pure monotheism (cf. Gen 1:16). We spoke in the previous paragraph about (anti-)social sins. Here we return to point out that Israel’s legislation pays more attention to both slaves and the stranger (‫ )גֵ ר‬and gradually becomes more benevolent to them. The term ‫ גֵ ר‬does not mean only a stranger in the ethnic sense (i.e. not belonging to the chosen people) or in the religious sense (the one who has a different worship) but, more often, a person strange to the customs of that society in which he/she resides permanently even if he/she comes from a different place (Judg 17:7). Bearing in mind that before the eighth century texts that include foreigners among subjects to be protected are scarce (Judg 19:16), we can assume that only after the fall of Ephraim (722 BC) –as it is written in the oracles of Jeremiah (7:6; 14:8; 22:3) and Ezekiel (14:7; 22:7.29; 47:22) who exercised prophecy after this event– foreigners are counted among the weaker sections of society, i.e. having no rights, because of the new social circumstances. This new social framework requires new rules, different from those in Exod 34:11, and a renewed theological basis. Deuteronomy, in fact, extends the meaning of the term ‘foreigner’, referring it to the categories of widows, orphans and also of the Levites (Deut 14:28; 16:1.14; 24:17–21; 27:19). Job is fully inclusive in his evaluation of the poor and the strangers because he readily gave shelter to the homeless in accordance with the dictates of the Law and of the living religious tradition. In his moral orientation Job follows the “handbook” inspired by the whole legislative corpora that form the heart of the Pentateuch, but also the tradition of the masters of Israel that added to such precepts, recommendations and advice in order to make moral behaviour more and more authentic. Job is thoroughly

 The Optical Illusion: Job and the Reasons for a Protest (Job 29–31) 

 115

sure of the uprightness of his conduct. His disease has not undermined his convictions which, on the contrary, help to systematize a large and solid horizon of faith, according to what in sociology we can call a congruent vision of reality: “The object perceived of the ‘outside world’ is the concrete object and the two terms ‘perceived object’ and ‘concrete object’ are synonymous and interchangeable. Instead of a world of concrete objects that the theory cuts in this or that way, it is stated that the theory consists in the very act of cutting. No cutting, no cake, without an external reality to which they can approximately approach because the world is just what it appears”¹¹. Without indulging in a relativistic view of reality, in these pages we intend to emphasize the extreme importance of the specific circumstances in which Job has to express and build his own evaluative categories.

6 Conclusion: from the Knowledge of the ‘How’ to that of the ‘Who’ The analysis given in these pages intends to deepen some assumptions in order to read the story of Job from a different perspective. The use of social categories did not consist in finding fundamental classic assumptions related to social action and the one who performs them, but in undermining several deductive automatic principles that explain awareness of the world as the mere application of principles and rules. We have tried to show how attention to the methods, instruments, ways and procedures that Job uses to tell his story is substantial. Reality is the set of procedures and methods that allow the orderly unfolding of everyday reality. In other words, this is awareness of how rather than of what. This sociological interpretation is, therefore, less subversive than it might seem because it is non-evaluative. It does not intend to refute Job’s words but to report them, that is, to bring out the tacit and ordinary world, which day by day every single person takes for granted and that is often the only possible world. From the breakdown of this tacit and ordinary world Job can have a new relationship with the divine and with his history. This is possible thanks to the shock caused by the suffering that has helped to remove the blindness of the person who uncritically follows several normative and theological automatic principles (deductivism). The transition from the how to what really can show the way to the

11 Garfinkel, A Conception, 187.

116 

 Sebastiano Pinto 

who, that divine you to whom Job is directed at the end of the story and whom he could know thanks to suffering. In conclusion, this essay about the book of Job does not purport to be exhaustive because the approaches to the Bible are numerous. We want to illustrate, instead, along with other possible readings of that fascinating wisdom book, the hermeneutical richness that is stored in its recesses.

Bibliography Blasi, Anthony J., Making Charisma, New Brunswick: Transaction, 1991. Cicourel, Aaron V., Method and Measurement in Sociology, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. Coulon, Alain, Ethnomethodologie, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995. Fele, Giolo, Etnometodologia. Introduzione allo studio delle attività ordinarie, Rome: Carocci, 2002. Garfinkel, Harold, A Conception of, and Experiments with, ‘Trust’ as Condition of Stable Concerned Actions, in: Oliver J. Harvey (ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction, New York: Ronald Press, 1963, 187–238. Garfinkel, Harold, Studies in Ethnomethodology, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Garfinkel, Harold, Studies in Social Interaction, New York: Free Press, 1972. Garfinkel, Harold, An Overview of Ethnomethodology’s Program: Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996) 5–21. Gilbert, Maurice, La Sapienza del cielo. Proverbi, Giobbe, Qohèlet, Siracide, Sapienza (Parola di Dio. Seconda Serie 53), Cinisello Balsamo (Milano): San Paolo, 2005. Lévêque, Jean, Anamnèse et disculpation: la conscience du juste en Job, 29–31, in: Maurice Gilbert (ed.), La sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL 51), Leuven: University Press 21990, 231–248. von Rad, Gerhard, Wisdom in Israel, London: SCM, 1972. Wilson, Robert R., Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (Guide to Biblical Scholarship), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Qoheleth

James L. Crenshaw

Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment? James L. Crenshaw: Robert L. Flowers Emeritus Professor, Duke University, USA

1 Introduction For the author who has Yhwh pronounce a curse on the first couple and the agent of their nemesis, life was filled with hardship. In biblical times the obstacles to a rosy view of reality originated in nature or was the result of human malfeasance. Whatever optimism an individual managed to conjure up was quickly erased by natural disasters and man-made carnage. Hunger and thirst, disease and warfare, back-breaking labor and mental anguish tempered the faintest glimmer of optimism. Worse still, injustice in a world believed to be ruled by a benevolent deity cast a pall over divine faithfulness¹. Qoheleth lived in such a world, one that seemed to be spinning out of control². Not surprisingly, he came to hate life in such a universe. And yet he issued a call to seize the day, one that has been called the heart of his message³. Does this feature of his teaching make him a preacher of joy as some interpreters claim?⁴ Or is this summons merely a way of making the most of a difficult situation that will soon become even worse?⁵

1 The relationship between human response and God’s faithfulness gave rise to radically different views in the Bible. For some authors, Yhwh’s ‫ ֶח ֶסד‬trumped anything humans could do, whereas for others that loving kindness depended on loyal devotion on the part of worshipers. Given this uncertainty, efforts to sustain belief in divine justice within biblical literature took many forms, none of which was entirely satisfactory, on which see Crenshaw, Defending God. 2 See especially Seow, Theology, 237–249 and Tamez, When the Horizons Close. The loss of political sovereignty, destruction of the cultic apparatus, collapse of the social fabric, and captive status were distant memories, but life under the Persian and Ptolemaic empires was far from ideal. Economic volatility, political oppression, vassalage, and excessive taxation were inescapably present realities, cf. Crenshaw, Qoheleth in Historical Context, 285–299 and Seow, The Social World, 189–217. 3 Kaiser, Die Botschaft, 66. 4 The language is Whybray’s, Qoheleth, 87–98, but the claim that Qoheleth’s message was optimistic is often made, e.g. by Gordis, Koheleth; Krüger, Qoheleth, Lohfink, Qoheleth 5:17– 19, 625–635; Lee, The Vitality of Enjoyment, and Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Kohelet. 5 That grim future is signaled by the poetic description of old age and eventual death in Qoh 12:1–7 where the deterioration moves from a physical structure, a house, perhaps symbolic

120 

 James L. Crenshaw 

The human condition, according to the primeval story of Adam and Eve, was characterized by a single word, ‫ﬠ ָמל‬. ָ A form of this word occurs seventy-five times in the Hebrew Bible, thirty-five of which are located in a single book consisting of twelve chapters. In that book, Ecclesiastes, ten of these uses appear in just six verses, 2:18–23, the same number as are found in the entire book of Job. Three occurrences in Proverbs and fourteen in Psalms make up the other uses in the Bible except for thirteen scattered in prophetic and historical books⁶. The importance of ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬for Qoheleth’s thinking can hardly be exaggerated⁷. Hence this study of the above cluster and other isolated occurrences of the root ‫עמל‬.

2 The Nuances of ‫ָﬠ ָמל‬ The basic sense of ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬suggests the onset of tiredness. The verb covers the activity that brings on weariness, and the noun represents both the result of labor, wealth in its various forms, and the toil itself. The adjective indicates a state of exhaustion. Companion words, those found in parallel cola, further clarify the odious features of ‫ﬠ ָמל‬. ָ They include ‫( ָאוֶ ן‬iniquity, sorrow), ‫( ָח ָמס‬violence), ֹ ‫דשׁ‬ (destruction), ‫( ֶשׁ ֶקר‬lie), ‫( ַכ ַﬠס‬vexation), ‫( ִמ ְר ָמה‬deceit), ‫( ֳﬠנִ י‬poor), ‫( ָרשׁ‬oppressed), ‫( תֹּק‬oppression), ‫( ַל ַחץ‬distress), and ‫( ָשׁוְ א‬vanity). Together they indicate the activity that brings on exhaustion and the psychological state of distress. Qoheleth does not associate ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬with any of these synonyms. He does choose forms of the verb ‫ יָ גַ ע‬in 1:8 (“All words/things are tiresome….”) and in 10:15 (“The toil of fools exhausts them so they do not know how to go to a city”), and the epilogist uses the verb ‫ יְ גִ ַﬠת‬in 12:12 (“Additionally, my son, be warned; there is no end

of the body, to the human body itself, on which see Koosed, (Per)Mutations. In accord with Qoheleth’s observation that humans die but earth endures, the poem describes a robust nature in stark contrast with the death of mortals. Neither theory, deconstruction as put forth by Krüger, Qoheleth, or a rhetoric of erasure, the apt term introduced by Berger, Qohelet, 174, can negate the pessimism of Qoheleth’s last words. Seow’s assertion that apocalyptic imagery points to the end of the world is not supported by the continuation of funeral marches after the supposed end of time. If Qoheleth’s language in this final poem derives from apocalyptic literature, as argued by Seow, Ecclesiastes, 376–382 and Janzen, Qohelet, 465–483, it is muted almost beyond recognition. 6 Schwertner, ‘ML, toil, and Otzen, ‘ML. 7 Otzen, ‘ML, 200: “Thus ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬occupies a central place in the intellectual world of the author as he tries to come to terms with the unfolding of human life”. Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 97–100, recognizes the importance of ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬for Qoheleth, as does de Jong, A Book on Labour, 107–116, who uses it as a key to the structure of the book.

 Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?  

 121

to the making of many books, and much talking wearies the body”)⁸. One reason for the absence of the usual synonyms for ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬in Ecclesiastes may be the peculiar discourse Qoheleth employs, where parallelism is seldom present. The explanation is probably more complex than this, however, as a comparison with the use of ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬in the book of Job shows. For the author of the book of Job, ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬always describes the human condition as in Genesis 3⁹. The apparent exception, Job 3:20 (“Why does he give light to the worker, life to those bitter of soul?”) is better seen as complying with all the other uses of a form of ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬because of the parallelism between the one who toils and the unfavorable characterization of the worker as adversely affected by the expenditure of effort. Moreover, ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬is used along with synonyms such as ‫אוֶ ן‬, ָ ‫ָשׁוְ א‬ and ‫מ ְר ָמה‬. ִ This triad indicates human misery through imagery derived from agriculture and from anthropology (“As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble harvest it”, 4:8; “conceiving trouble [‫]ﬠ ָמל‬ ָ and giving birth to sorrow [‫]אוֶ ן‬, ָ their belly establishes deceit [‫]מ ְר ָמה‬, ִ 15:35, to which may be compared Ps 7:15, where the sequence in the same image is ‫ﬠ ָמל‬, ָ ‫אוֶ ן‬, ָ and ‫שׁ ֶקר‬. ֶ The overwhelming use of ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬in the Psalter is like that in the book of Job. The word refers to trouble, a misery that gnaws at both flesh and mind. ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬can refer to unpleasant circumstances brought on by talk (Ps 10:7; cf. Prov 24:2), to mental perplexities (Ps 73:16), and even metaphorically to a disturbed existence (Ps 73:5). In one instance, ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬simply means toil (Ps 127:1), like Prov 16:26, and in Ps 105:44 it bears the extended sense of the product of human labor (“He gave them the territory of nations; they inherited the gain/property of peoples”).

3 Is ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬a Neutral Term? In four instances, ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬is often taken to be neutral¹⁰, but the negative aspects of the word lurk in the background, for they imply expenditure of fruitless effort. In Jonah 4:10, God reminds the prophet that he, Jonah, had nothing to do with planting the vine that provided temporary relief from the blazing sun. Ps 127:1

8 In context, the subject of the verb ‫ יְ גִ ַﬠת‬probably indicates oral recitation of written texts by students entrusted with studying and copying them. For recent discussion of the educational process in the ancient Near East, see Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel; Carr, Writing on the Tablet, and van der Toorn, Scribal Culture. 9 For my analysis of the book of Job, see Crenshaw, Reading Job. 10 Otzen, ‘ML, 197–198, but for a different view, see Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 98. He writes that “Even in these verses, the noun ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬may mean ‘misery’ rather than ‘toil’”.

122 

 James L. Crenshaw 

judges human construction projects to be empty apart from divine collaboration, and Prov 16:26 attributes labor to the appetite (“A worker’s appetite toils for him, for his mouth urges him on”). Only Jdg 5:26 lacks such negative undertones, although the use to which the workers’ mallet was put by Jael is grim indeed.

4 ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬in Ecclesiastes Qoheleth never uses ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬to indicate misery as the human condition. Instead, he chooses the two exceptional senses in the book of Job, specifically toil and wealth¹¹. For him, the human condition is ‫ה ֶבל‬, ֶ which suggests transience, insub¹² stantiality, and futility or absurdity . Over and above the brevity of life and its irrationality, Qoheleth points to death¹³ and the loss of control of possessions as exacerbating existence. He exposes this complaint in the context of an astonishing confession, at least for a sage. Life was the supreme good for the composers of the book of Proverbs and, it can be argued, even for the author of the book of Job. It was left to Qoheleth to declare hatred of life in general, not merely as a personal antipathy like that expressed by Job in 10:1 as a result of his extreme suffering. “I loathe my life” differs from the blanket statement by Qoheleth, which moves beyond the specific “my life” to “life itself”¹⁴. In 2:18–23, ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬thematizes his dismay, and this concept is reinforced by three iterations that what he has just described is ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬¹⁵.

11 Ginsberg, Studies in Koheleth; Id., Supplementary Studies, recognized the dual sense of ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬but probably exaggerated the number of instances in which the noun meant “wealth”. 12 The rich nuances of ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬have been studied extensively. The direction of research is traced in considerable detail in a monograph by Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric, and a suggestive article by Dor-Shav, Fleeting and Timeless, 67–87. The associated image of either chasing the wind or feeding on air presents a bleak picture of existence. Depending on which sapiential goal one emphasizes – the acquisition of knowledge or the forming of character –, either absurdity or futility seems apt. 13 Imray, Qoheleth’s Philosophies, examines Qoheleth’s teaching as a philosophical response to Greek concepts of death. One can view death as the final process that began with the imposition of limits on human hubris that characterized the composers of the book of Proverbs insofar as they believed the intellect could virtually guarantee a good life, provided actions corresponded to the results of the inquiry. 14 In a forthcoming monograph, Qoheleth, I lay a foundation for an approach to Qoheleth that emphasizes a rhetoric constructed from the levity of a tease and the gravity of the forlorn. 15 The significance of 1:12–3:15 (or 22) in the plan of the book has been recognized by several recent scholars and is chronicled by Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Kohelet. Still, the key to

 Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?  

 123

“And I loathed all my wealth for which I had labored under the sun because I must leave it to another who will succeed me. And who knows whether he will be wise or foolish; yet he will control all my earnings for which I worked ingeniously under the sun. This also is futile. So I turned my heart to despair concerning all the toil at which I had worked under the sun. For everyone whose wealth was acquired with wisdom, knowledge, and skill must give it as his portion to someone who did not work for it. This also is absurd and a grievous evil. For what accrues to a person in all his toiling and the striving of his heart at which he labors under the sun? All his days are painful and his occupation vexing; even at night his mind cannot rest. This also is absurd” (Qoh 2:18–23).

5 The Larger Context Who speaks here? Qoheleth in the persona of the wisest of kings in the East, according to biblical lore¹⁶. This brief section leads up to the conclusion of the royal experiment in 2:24–26. What is that? The best option, Qoheleth opines, is to enjoy life. The problem is, however, that he also thinks such an alternative lies outside human control. Because pleasure is in the hands of an arbitrary deity, existence is tainted. Qoheleth’s assessment is that everything is devoid of meaning and feeding on or shepherding the wind. The sages’ fictional world has collapsed under Qoheleth’s close scrutiny. Human deeds, however gran-

unlocking the structure of Ecclesiastes has not been found despite the refrains that appear to set off individual units from what precedes and follows. A consensus does exist on the macrostructure of the book. It consists of a superscription in 1:1 and two epilogues, 12:9–12 and 12:13–14, an inclusio at 1:2 and 12:8, two nature poems, 1:4–11 and 11:8 (or 6)–12:7, and the corpus, 1:12–11:7. 16 The question is simple enough, but the answer is far from crystal clear. The initial speaker is replaced in 1:12 by a fictional king, who soon vanishes, and the main speaker takes over only to be temporarily silenced in 7:27, then resumes speaking until silenced for good by one, if not two, new speakers in 12:9–14. On the basis of ancient instructions and proverbial collections with a prose framework, Fox (Frame-Narrative, 83–106) proposed that a narrator introduces a fictional speaker who reflects on his own past while presenting ideas that he holds in the present. The result is a distancing of the narrator from the unorthodox teachings of Qoheleth, and students are warned against adopting his dangerous views about reality. Instead, they are to adhere to traditional fear of God and obedience. Although Qoheleth did advise hearers to fear God, his idea of fear differed greatly from that of the epilogist, and nowhere did Qoheleth advocate the keeping of commandments.

124 

 James L. Crenshaw 

diose, amount to nothing substantial in a universe governed by an irrational deity¹⁷. The unit under discussion moves from loathing, which picks up the same verb in 2:17, to a devaluation of everything, an assessment Qoheleth makes three times in this brief unit (2:19, 21, and 23). The reason for his hatred of possessions underlines Qoheleth’s self-centered language¹⁸, which comes to light most conspicuously in the nine uses of ‫( ִלי‬for myself) in 2:4–9. He must relinquish control of all he has acquired, and he has no idea whether or not the inheritor will be worthy of such goods. The distance separating this sentiment from that in Prov 13:22 is hardly explained by the actual successor to Solomon who in Ben Sira’s words was “broad in folly and lacking in sense” (Sir 47:23)¹⁹. To emphasize his point, Qoheleth uses a particle of existence in introducing an example of absurdity²⁰. By means of intelligence and skill, a person gathers possessions only to give them to someone else as his portion (‫)ח ֶלק‬ ֶ either during this life or at death. Such injustice elicits more than a mere “This also is ‫”ה ֶבל‬. ֶ Now Qoheleth adds “and grievous evil”. Why? Because life’s burden is constant; endless pain and vexation are capped by sleepless nights.

17 The disturbing depiction of Yhwh in the Hebrew Bible is drawing much criticism today, on which see Miles, God; Crenshaw, Reification, 327–332; and Seibert, Disturbing. The problem has even caught the eyes of philosophers who held a conference on the character of the God of the Bible, cf. Bermann – Murray – Rea, Divine Evil. 18 Höffken, Das Ego, 121–135, stresses Qoheleth’s huge ego, largely on the basis of the nine uses of ‫( ִלי‬for myself) in the royal experiment. Such self-interest prevails even when Qoheleth thinks about the value of having associates in 4:9–12, but this attitude is typical of sages because of their individualism. Similar clusters of personal references occur in Ruth 1:20–21, Jonah 4:2–3, Job 33:1–8 and 36:2–4 without indicating inflated egos. 19 Every effort to align specific incidents in Qoh 1:12–2:26; 4:13–16; and 9:13–16 with the biblical record of Solomon and his successor, Rheoboam, has failed. The rabbinic explanation for the differences among Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes as products of youth, maturity, and senility respectively shows that these scholars had a sense of humor like that of the author of the Babylonian Debate between a Master and his Slave. Greenstein, Sages with a Sense of Humor, 55–65, examines Qoheleth in the light of this amusing text. 20 On ‫יֵ שׁ‬, see Schoors, The Preacher, Part 1, 151–152 and Crenshaw, Qoheleth’s Quantitative Language, 10–12. The “high frequency” of this particle, its sixteen uses, may derive from Qoheleth’s tendency to use anecdotal arguments from personal experience.

 Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?  

 125

6 ‫ ִﬠנְ יָ ן‬and ‫ָﬠנָ ה‬ Qoheleth clearly attributes this heavy burden to God in 1:13 (“…It is a sorry business God has bestowed on humans with which to afflict them”)²¹. The noun ‫ִﬠנְ יָ ן‬ is unique to Qoheleth (2:23.26; 3:10; 4:8; 5:2.13 and 8:16). Its negative connotation is highlighted in 4:8 (“…also this is ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬and unpleasant business”), although the addition of the adjective ‫ ָר ָﬠה‬in 5:15 shows that ‫ ִﬠנְ יָ ן‬alone need not be construed negatively. The verb ‫ ָﬠנָ ה‬has four possible senses: (1) to answer; (2) to be occupied with; (3) to afflict; and (4) to sing or chant²². Either the second or third meaning applies in 1:13. In light of the immediate sequel to 3:10, it seems likely that Qoheleth viewed the gift bestowed on humans as a heavy yoke. The meaning of ‫ העלם‬in 3:11 remains ambiguous; regardless of which sense an interpreter chooses – duration or the hidden – , the gift does nobody any good as Qoheleth sees things²³. Why? The hidden culprit is death, a shadow hanging over everyone and coloring everything Qoheleth has to say. Death cancels the gains resulting from hard work and ingenuity. The word ‫יִתרוֹן‬ ְ is an economic term for the amount on the positive side of an accountant’s ledger²⁴. Qoheleth begins his teachings with a question: “What profit does a person have for all his toil at which he labors under the sun?” (1:3). In 2:11, he answers his own question. None. Here he uses forms of ‫ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה‬²⁵ and ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬to indicate the total activity that yielded no surplus, just as he does in 3:9, once again phrased as an interrogative (“What profit does the doer have in that he works?)”. Qoheleth varies the question in 5:15, prefaces it with a

21 Some interpreters take ‫ ַל ֲﬠנוֹת‬from ‫ﬠנָ ה‬, ָ “to busy oneself with, to occupy”. The adjective ‫ָרע‬ modifying ‫ ִﬠנְ יָ ן‬supports a negative reading of the infinitive. Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 106 writes that “In 1:13 and 3:10 ‫ ַל ֲﬠנוֹת‬may pun on the homonymous root ‘NH, ‘to suffer’”. 22 Labuschagne, ‘NH, 926, calls the usual distinctions in the four uses of ‘NH “anything but uncontested”. Schoors, The Preacher, Part 2, 428, objects to the meaning “afflicts” for 1:13, insisting that Qoheleth nowhere says that God afflicts people, only that the deity gives difficult situations to deal with. Gordis, Koheleth, 200, has the opposite opinion. 23 I remain convinced that ‫ העלם‬in 3:11 refers to the hidden, like ‫ נֶ ְﬠ ָלם‬in 12:14 (Crenshaw, The Eternal Gospel, 23–55). The temporal emphasis dominates 3:1–8, but 3:9 shifts to the notion of profit. Qoheleth’s denial that there is any profit is beautifully illustrated by the divine gift that does nobody any good. Emending the text to ‫( העלם‬Fox, Ecclesiastes, 23) accords with use in the book of Job but not with Qoheleth’s understanding of the noun. Fox thinks the toil is mental. 24 On the socio-economic context of Qoheleth, see Seow, Ecclesiastes, 21–33; Kugel, Qohelet and Money, 32–49 and Sneed, The Politics of Pessimism, 125–54. 25 Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 102–103, thinks ‫ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה‬refers to property in 5:5 like some uses of ‫ﬠ ָמל‬. ָ Divine intervention conflicts with Qoheleth’s belief that God is remote and not involved in the nexus of cause and effect. This contradiction is but one of many in Qoheleth’s thought.

126 

 James L. Crenshaw 

descriptive adjective (“This too is a severe malady”), and tacks on an observation that all his labor is for the wind. Even if individual effort yielded nothing permanent, according to Qoheleth, it did offer momentary satisfaction. The word ‫ ֶח ֶלק‬comes into play here²⁶. The fictional king admits that he derived pleasure from all his expenditure of effort, “and this was my portion in all my wealth (or toil)”, 2:10. Similarly, Qoheleth specifies eating, drinking, and experiencing good in one's work as the portion bestowed by God, a gift²⁷ that in 5:18–19 he calls both favorable and appropriate, good and beautiful. He makes the same point in 2:24, 3:13, and 8:15 without reference to portion. Unfortunately, every momentary pleasure stands under the judgment that “all human labor is for the mouth, and yet the appetite is never full” (6:7). Desire, he thinks, has the quality of Sheol, an open mouth that is never satisfied. Indeed, the specter of Sheol hovers over the advice in 9:7–10 that resembles what Siduri said to Gilgamesh and Enkidu²⁸. In short, do your utmost to eke your portion of enjoyment out of daily existence during your brief, oh so brief, stay on earth²⁹. The kinship with Egyptian Harper Songs is widely recognized, but literary dependence is unlikely. Carpe diem seems to have been a universal attitude among the young.

7 Injustice Qoheleth was troubled by something more than life’s brevity or lack of meaning. The injustices he saw around him and the unfairness in daily life in general irked him, throwing into question the traditional belief in divine jus-

26 Machinist, Fate, 159–175, detects second-order thinking akin to Greek philosophy in Qoheleth’s use of ‫ח ֶלק‬, ֶ ‫מ ְק ֶרא‬, ִ ‫עוֹלם‬, ‫ׇ‬ and ‫ח ְשׁבּוֹן‬, ֶ and Blenkinsopp, Ecclesiastes 3:1–15, 55–64, thinks Stoic influence lies behind the catalog of times. 27 Müller, Wie sprach, 507–521, discusses the importance of the verb ‫ נָ ַתן‬in Qoheleth’s discourse. Divine generosity is not questioned; its arbitrary nature tends to render human action irrelevant, ending in determinism (Rudman, Determinism). 28 van der Toorn, Did Ecclesiastes Copy?, 23–30, examines the similarities between Qoheleth’s teachings and ancient Near Eastern literature, especially the striking affinity with the Gilgamesh Epic, which was known in Syria and may have reached Qoheleth from this locale. 29 Alternatively, “…during your empty, meaningless stay under the sun”. Gianto, Human Destiny, 473–479, compares Qoheleth to a text from Emar that mentions the brevity of existence and the unalterable fates fixed by the gods. The Egyptian Instruction of Papyrus Insinger has the refrain “The fate and fortune that come, it is the god who sends them”.

 Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?  

 127

tice³⁰. The link between ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬and retributive justice was well established. It stands out in Ps 140:10 (“May the trouble inflicted by their speech cover the heads of those around me”)³¹. Similarly, in a brief proverbial unit of Psalm 7, the connection between ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬and retribution takes center stage (Ps 7:15–18). In addition to the image about being pregnant with trouble (v. 15), the psalmist appeals to an axiom: “the evil person who digs a hole will fall into it³², the ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬he caused recoiling on him, the ‫ ָח ָמס‬descending on his head” (Ps 7:16–17). This connection did not escape the author of the book of Job (cf. 4:8 and 20:22), for whom misery could be viewed as divine discipline³³.

8 Conclusion Against this bleak background provided by ‫ﬠ ָמל‬, ָ ‫ה ֶבל‬, ֶ and ‫ח ֶלק‬, ֶ and punctuated by hatred of life, every claim that Qoheleth’s message was positive has a hollow ring. Even if ‫ ַמ ֲﬠנֶ ה‬in 5:19 means “keep one occupied with” as in later rabbinic texts³⁴, the larger context makes it clear that Qoheleth thought only the lucky³⁵ fared well. “What”, one may ask, “about those who could find no pleasure in watching others busy themselves with joys of the heart?” Moreover, even if young people are advised to enjoy life in 11:7, the words are doubly qualified, first by life’s brevity, and second by a future judgment. And finally, the inclusio at 12:8,

30 If the expectation of divine judgment derives from him and not from an editor, as is the case in 12:14, Qoheleth seems to have been terribly conflicted over this issue. 31 The text is far from lucid here, but the psalmist seems to pray that his tormentors suffer the harm they have called down on him. 32 A proverbial saying in Qoh 10:8 voices the same opinion about retribution. Divine agency, if assumed, is definitely at odds with the remote deity, a situation that von Rad describes as an impenetrable barrier separating human thought from divine activity, resulting in loss of dialogue (cf. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 230–232). 33 For the biblical understanding of suffering as God’s way of disciplining those who veer from the expected religious path, see Crenshaw, Divine Discipline, 178–189. 34 Lohfink, Qoheleth 5:17–19, 625–635, refers to revelation by joy, but Schoors, The Preacher, Part 2, 431, writes: “This is an attractive idea, but, as said, the hi[phil] of ‫ ענה‬I does not make sense, and does not exist. Hence the theological idea of ‘revelation by joy’ based on this verb has no leg to stand on”. The role of revelation in wisdom literature is treated in Crenshaw, Sipping from the Cup, 2009, 41–62. 35 As is well known, the adjective ‫ טוֹב‬lacks a moral sense in Qoheleth’s use, as does its opposite, ‫ח ֶֹטא‬.

128 

 James L. Crenshaw 

coming as it does after the exquisite depiction of old age and death³⁶, suggests that either Qoheleth persisted in his pessimism³⁷ or an editor thought he did³⁸. In short, Qoheleth’s hatred of life was no momentary phase but persisted to the end, notwithstanding the seven texts that soften the pessimism³⁹ for the lucky. For everyone else, God’s favor⁴⁰ did not abound, only ‫ ָﬠ ָמל‬and ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬⁴¹.

Bibliography Anderson, William H.U., Ironic Correlations and Skepticism in the Joy Statements of Qoheleth: SJOT 14 (2000) 67–100. Backhaus, Franz Josef, Kohelet und die Ironie: BN 101 (2000) 29–55. Berger, Benjamin Lyle, Qohelet and the Exigencies of the Absurd: BibInt 8 (2001) 141–179. Bermann, Michael – Michael J. Murray – Michael C. Rea (eds.), Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham, Oxford: University Press, 2011. Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Ecclesiastes 3:1–15: Another Interpretation: JSOT 66 (1995) 55–64. Carr, David M., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford: University Press, 2004. Crenshaw, James L., The Eternal Gospel (Eccl 3:11), in: Id. – John T. Willis (eds.), Essays in Old Testament Ethics, New York: KTAV, 1974, 23–55. Crenshaw, James L., Education in Ancient Israel. Across the Deadening Silence (The Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York: Doubleday, 1998.

36 See Gilbert’s illuminating discussion of this poem (Gilbert, La description, 96–109), as well as the informative excursus by Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 333–349. 37 Enns, Ecclesiastes, 49, notes that Qoheleth “strikes a tone of deep resignation”, indeed that he “touches a more sensitive nerve: the trustworthiness, even goodness, of God” (122). 38 Holistic interpretations have created vanishing editors but the realities of the text virtually require them, even if the nomenclature changes to transmitters who add a postscript. Even Fox, Ecclesiastes, 13, concedes the possibility of a pious gloss in 2:3 (“and to grasp folly”). 39 Uehlinger’s suggestion that Qoheleth belongs to symposiastic philosophy (Uehlinger, Qohelet, 234–235), while intriguing, raises the question whether the pessimism of Ecclesiastes would be at home at sumptuous banquets, however intellectual they purported to be. In this regard, Sirach seems more fitting as symposiastic literature. 40 Irony is certainly present in Ecclesiastes (cf. Anderson, Ironic Correlation, 67–100; Backhaus, Kohelet und die Ironie, 29–55, and Sharp, Ironic Representation, 37–68), but discerning its presence is difficult. It is hugely ironic to call Qoheleth a sage when his teachings label everything ‫ה ֶבל‬, ֶ even wisdom, and when the book ends by calling into question all his observations about life. Where does the irony fall? On his pessimism? On the statements about enjoyment? On divine judgment? On the claim that he spoke truthfully? 41 Sneed, Qoheleth as ‘Deconstructionist’, 308–309: “It is as if ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬acts as a black hole or dark matter that sucks up any positive meaning left over for humanity. ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬becomes the ultimate void and debit”.

 Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?  

 129

Crenshaw, James L., The Reification of Divine Evil: Perspectives in Religious Studies 28 (2001) 327–332. Crenshaw, James L., Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Crenshaw, James L., Qoheleth’s Quantitative Language, in: Angelika Berlejung – Pierre van Hecke (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context. Fs Antoon Schoors (OLA 164) Leuven: Peeters, 2007, 1–22. Crenshaw, James L., Qoheleth in Historical Context: Bib 88 (2007) 285–299. Crenshaw, James L., Sipping from the Cup of Wisdom, in: Paul K. Moser (ed.), Jesus and Philosophy. New Essays, Cambridge: University Press, 2009, 41–62. Crenshaw, James L., Reading Job: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Crenshaw, James L., Divine Discipline in Job 5:17–27, Proverbs 3:11–12, Deuteronomy 32:39 and Beyond, in: Katharine Dell – Will Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually (LHB/ OTS 574), New York – London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013, 178–189. Crenshaw, James L., Qoheleth: The Ironic Wink, Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 2013. Dor-Shav, Ethan, Fleeting and Timeless: Azure 18 (2004) 67–87. Enns, Peter, Ecclesiastes (The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2011. Fox, Michael V., Frame-Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet: HUCA 48 (1977) 83–106. Fox, Michael V., A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up. A Rereading of Ecclesiastes, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Fox, Michael V., Ecclesiastes. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Bible Commentary), Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 2004. Gianto, Agustinus, Human Destiny in Emar and Qohelet, in: Antoon Schoors (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BETL 136), Leuven: Peeters, 1998, 473–479. Gilbert, Maurice, La description de la viellesse en Qohelet XII,7, est-elle allégorique?, in: John A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (VTS 32), Leiden: Brill, 1981, 96–109. Ginsberg, Harold Louis, Studies in Koheleth (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 17), New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950. Ginsberg, Harold Louis, Supplementary Studies in Kohelet: PAAJR (1952) 35–62. Gordis, Robert, Koheleth, the Man and His World (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 19), New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1951. Greenstein, Edward, L., Sages with a Sense of Humor: The Babylonian Dialogue between the Master and His Servant and the Book of Qoheleth, in: Richard J. Clifford (ed.), Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel (SBLSymS 36), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, 55–65. Höffken, Peter, Das Ego des Weisen: TZ 4 (1985) 121–35. Janzen, J. Gerald, Qohelet on ‘Life under the Sun’: CBQ 70 (2008) 465–483. Imray, Kathryn, Qoheleth’s Philosophies of Death (Ph.D. Dissertation, Murdoch University, 2009). de Jong, Sthephan, A Book on Labour: The Structuring Principles and the Main Theme of the Book of Qohelet: JSOT 54 (1992) 107–116. Kaiser, Otto, Die Botschaft des Buches Kohelet: ETL 71 (1995) 48–70.

130 

 James L. Crenshaw 

Koosed, Jennifer L., (Per)mutations of Qohelet. Reading the Body in the Book (LHB/OTS 429), New York – London: T & T Clark, 2006. Krüger, Thomas, Qoheleth. A Commentary (Hermeneia), translated by O.C. Dean Jr. and edited by Klaus Baltzer, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. Kugel, James L., Qohelet and Money: CBQ 51 (1989) 32–49. Labuschagne, Casper J., ‘NH to answer, TLOT, vol. 2 (1997) 926–930. Lee, Eunny P., The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet’s Theological Rhetoric (BZAW 353), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Lohfink, Norbert, Qoheleth 5:17–19–Revelation by Joy: CBQ 52 (1990) 625–635. Machinist, Peter, Fate, miqreh, and Reason: Some Reflections on Qohelet and Biblical Thought, in: Ziony Zevit (ed.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies. Fs Jonas C. Greenfield, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995, 159–175. Miles, Jacques, God: A Biography, New York: Vintage, 1995. Miller, Douglas B., Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes. The Place of ‘Hebel’ in Qohelet’s Work (Academia Biblica 2), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Müller, Hans Peter, Wie sprach Qohälät von Gott?: VT 18 (1968) 507–521. Otzen, Benedikt, ‘ML, TDOT, vol. 11 (2001) 196–202. von Rad, Gerhard, Wisdom in Israel, London: SCM, 1972. Rudman, Dominic, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes (JSOTSS 316), Sheffield: Academic, 2001. Schoors, Antoon, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part 1: Grammar; Part 2: Vocabulary (OLA 41 and 42), Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1992 and 2004. Schoors, Antoon (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BETL 136), Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger, Kohelet (HTKAT), Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004. Schwertner, Siegfried, ‘ML toil, TLOT, vol. 2 (1997) 924–926. Seibert, Eric A., Disturbing Divine Behavior. Troubling Old Testament Images of God, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009. Seow, Choon Leong, Ecclesiastes. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 18C), New York: Doubleday, 1997. Seow, Choon Leong, The Social World of Ecclesiastes, in: Leo G. Perdue (ed.), Scribes, Sages, and Seers. The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World (FRLANT 219), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, 189–217. Seow, Choon Leong, Theology When Everything Is Out of Control: Int 55 (2001) 237–249. Sharp, Carolyn J., Ironic Representation, Authorial Voice, and Meaning in Qohelet: BibInt 12 (2004) 37–68. Sneed, Mark R., Qoheleth as ‘Deconstructionist’. ‘It is I, the Lord, your Redeemer… who turns sages back and makes their knowledge nonsense’ (Isa 44:24–25): OTE 10 (1997) 303–31. Sneed, Mark R., The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes. A Social-Science Perspective (Ancient Israel and Its Literature), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Tamez, Elsa, When the Horizons Close. Rereading Ecclesiastes, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006 (originally Orbis, 2000). Uehlinger, Christoph, Qohelet im Horizont altorientalischer Weisheitsliteratur, in: Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger (ed.), Das Buch Kohelet. Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie (BZAW 254), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997, 155–247. van der Toorn, Karel, Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?: Biblical Review 16 (2000) 23–30.

 Qoheleth’s Hatred of Life: A Passing Phase or an Enduring Sentiment?  

 131

van der Toorn, Karel, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Whybray, Robert Norman, Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy: JSOT 23 (1982) 87–98.

Jesús M. Asurmendi

Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets Jesús M. Asurmendi: Institut Catholique, Paris, France

1 Introduction It would have been surprising if Qoheleth had not dealt with the question of power, as he had done with all other questions essential to humanity: work, death, time, money, women, God¹. In doing so, he places himself within the classical parameters of sapiential literature. Indeed, a fundamental branch of wisdom concerns itself precisely with the management of policy (1 Kgs 3:9; Wis 9:3)², and often political specialists and those with power are known and designated as “sages” or wise men. Not all the texts of wisdom are faced with this human reality in the same way. And Qoheleth has accustomed readers to positions for the most part unexpected, even provocative. What is the link then with power? One of the characteristics of this original sage is to set himself against the trend in major theological thinking found elsewhere in Scripture. From that starting point, it is interesting to see his stance with regard to power and to compare it with that of the prophets. It is obvious that in the prophetic corpus uniformity is not appropriate. However, some important clues emerge regarding this matter. In the face of this primordial reality of power, comparing the two approaches, that of Qoheleth and that of the prophets, will reveal one of the differences that contribute to the discordant harmony of the Bible.

2 Qoheleth and Power 2.1 Qoh 1:12–2:26 Apart from the title of the book (1:1), the term “king” appears for the first time in 1:12. It is the beginning of the section often referred to as a “royal fiction” (1:12–

1 Asurmendi, Du non-sens. 2 Gilbert, La structure.

 Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets 

 133

2:26)³. It is not difficult to see the different parts of this composition. Indeed, after presenting the preacher as “king of Israel in Jerusalem” (1:12), in 1:13–18 he discusses the task that God has imposed on humanity in addition to wisdom, essential for everyone and most especially for the king, and in 2:1–2 shows his indepth research into pleasure. In 2:3–11 he describes his achievements and then proceeds to judge the pretensions of wisdom in 2:12–23. This part ends with 2:24–26, where God appears as at the start of the section (1:13), credited with being at the origin of the limited amount of happiness that human beings find in their lives. Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger returned to this text recently, contemplating it from an anthropological point of view⁴. He stresses the importance of 2:24: “A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work”. This somewhat disillusioned conclusion which king Qoheleth draws from this section (1:12–2:26) is in tune with the rest of the work but takes a particular form, as in ancient civilizations the king is a paradigm of what is human, whereas here the king (the prototype of humankind) pushes his economic and social exploits to the extreme. But each time Qoheleth lists his triumphs he brings down upon himself a judgment that reduces his successes to nothing. “When I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had done to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun” (2:11). After this development, clearly more oriented towards wisdom, in 2:23 he concludes, “This too is meaningless”. The king Qoheleth arrives at these conclusions as an artisan who excels in every field of human activity as well as that of research and the practice of wisdom. Having harvested the fruits of all his action and labours, he is confronted by two impassable walls: death and inheritance. This is the fate suffered by all, whether wise or foolish. And even if the king is the wisest of all, as he has just said, death awaits him: “what more can the king’s successors do?” (2:12). In this way he comes to “hate” life, because (as he says) the work that is done under the sun was “grievous to me; I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me” (2:17–18). There is no point in projecting oneself into the future through one’s descendants. The worthiness of the heir is by no means assured, and in any case he will profit from the toil of his predecessors. The royal fiction allows Qoheleth to criticize not the exercise of power but the fundamentals and pretensions involved in its essential workings: will, power

3 Koh, Autobiography, 23. 4 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Agonie.

134 

 Jesús M. Asurmendi 

and knowledge. He does it by confronting the king with reality: the emptiness of inheritance and the void of death. Hence the repetition in his sentence: “all is meaningless” (1:14; 2:11).

2.2 Qoh 4:13–16 It is generally known how difficult it is to arrange the book of Qoheleth in a well-ordered “Cartesian” way. Nevertheless, echoes and resonances between the various units can be perceived. The question of royalty is dealt with in 4:13–16 and taken up again in 5:7–8 (NRSV 5:8–9); these two units surround 4:17–5:6 (NRSV 5:1–7), which deals with the prudent management of relations with God⁵. This composition may be a matter of chance. Formally, 4:13–16 is the third “tob” [better] saying (cf. 4:6, 9), ending in 4:16 with the refrain typical of Qoheleth: “This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind”. The essential thread of unity in 4:13–16 is constituted by the contrast between elderly-mad-king and youthsage-poor man. Although 4:15b is not very clear, it seems a good solution to see this “second youth” (v. 15) as successor to the first young, poor sage, and superior to the old, insane king. The historical background is difficult to establish with any accuracy. In contrast, the literary motif is well known⁶. The story of Joseph (Gen 37–50) comes to mind at once, as does the trio Saul-David-Solomon (1 Sam 9 – 1 Kgs 2). But the comparisons stop there because it is better not to look any further into Solomon to pursue the schema king-madman/poor-wise-youth (cf. Sir 47:22–25). In the succession described by Qoheleth, things seem to improve without however resulting in a positive, stable situation (v. 16). It is the eternal “beginning again”. And there is nothing worth remembering or taking delight in. Everything is meaningless. Qoheleth began by displaying a “tob” [better] saying that is typically sapiential (4:13), and he develops it with variations that concretize various possibilities of “young, poor and wise”. The youth may have come from prison to the kingship, or he may have been born in poverty within his kingdom (vv. 13–14). But he ends by denying its relevance. Once again it is a bitter criticism of any hope that is based on “the one who follows”, the “successor”, whatever his origin, thinking that wisdom will carry him forward. This criticism of royalty may also relate to the

5 Krüger, Qoheleth, 101; Buhlman, Difficulty, 105–106. 6 Bellia, Il libro, 190–191; Weisman, Elements, 554.

 Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets 

 135

messianic hope that, while not being shared by all, was important at the time of Qoheleth⁷. Change does not necessarily provide a reason for rejoicing.

2.3 Qoh 5:7–8 (NRSV 5:8–9) The text moves from changing the king and dampened hopes (4:13–16) to acting on violence against the law and justice in the province within the state (5:7–8 = NRSV 5:8–9)⁸. One of the essential functions of the king was precisely to restore justice and to make sure it prevailed. This is not the first time that Qoheleth makes this observation (3:16–4:3) but here the officials and the king are explicitly named. Hebrew verse 7 is clear: everyone has a superior above him. Hebrew verse 8 is less so. Schwienhorst-Schönberger translates: “Ein Vorteil (‫ )יִ ְחרוֹן‬des Landes für alledem: ein König für das bebaute Land”⁹. Hence we may understand the verse thus: “the increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields”. We should not forget the socio-political situation of the period. Palestine is ruled by the Ptolemies¹⁰. Greek royalty tended to consider their king divine and to confuse the state with the king and thus with the country or the land. The king is the master, the proprietor of the country and of its land. This monarchical system considered itself the best political regime. Qoheleth recalls injustice (Hebrew verse 7) that contrasts with the claims of Greek royal ideology. Qoh 5:7b-8 (NRSV 5:8b-9) reminds us of the strict enforcement of the system in place. But any reader of this text by Qoheleth who also takes into account what is happening around him/her will observe that the enforcement is not working. This is yet one more contrast between official doctrine and reality; it would appear then to be a subtle criticism of the system. Thomas Krüger’s reading of this unit is especially relevant¹¹. Qoh 5:7 (NRSV 5:8) may be read as a response to those who complain of injustice; one should not despair because above the offending official there is always another one to see justice is carried out. Yet on the other hand, in contrast, there is nothing to be done since one corrupt official is covered by another one higher up, and

7 Bellia, Il libro, 191. 8 Krüger, Ambiguities, 64–67. 9 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Kohelet, 319. 10 Perdue, Sword, 221–224; Bellia, Il libro, 192–198. 11 Krüger, Qoheleth, 113–115.

136 

 Jesús M. Asurmendi 

so on. The institution is a system organized to protect and mutually defend its members. Qoh 5:8 (NRSV 5:9) can also be read in two ways. In one interpretation, it can be read as a confirmation of the justification of the system in the previous verse. In this hierarchical system, the king, at the top, controls and guarantees the good order of the whole to the advantage of each person who has his “share” (‫)יִ ְחרוֹן‬¹². But it can also be read like this: in a situation where injustice reigns and in which each grade of power benefits the poor (‫רשׁ‬,ָ Hebrew v. 7a), the good thing is that everyone benefits without expecting anything whatever from the system and that each person is his own king. The two verses, separately and together, can be read in both ways. One of them favours a political system with subtle irony enhanced by the reminder of injustice. The other interpretation, in view of the injustice of the system, favours the appeal to “everyone for himself or herself”. What should be pointed out and is extremely important for our purpose is the innate ambiguity of the unit in relation to royalty and power.

2.4 Qoh 8:1–9 The boundaries of the unit pose a small problem at the start. The question of whether 8:1 is the beginning of a new unit (8:1–9)¹³ or the conclusion of the preceding one¹⁴ has often been discussed. Most commentators prefer the first option; the section is clearly divided into two parts: vv. 1–5 and 6–9, linked by the repetition of the words “time” and “judgment” (NRSV: “way”) in vv. 5 and 6. But in addition to “time” and “judgment” (NRSV: “way”), some other expressions in both parts are similar: “to know” (8:1.5.7); “evil/harm” (8:3.5.6.9); “to master/dominate” (8:4.8.9)¹⁵. This reinforces the connections between the two parts of the unit. One interpretation of this text is that it is about the relationship between wisdom and power. Pancratius Beentjes quotes the well-known texts of Ahikar, the Instruction of Ptahhotep and the sentences of Papyrus Insinger (Phibis)¹⁶. Inspired by this classic motif, the question in the verse receives a first theoreti-

12 Buhlman, Difficulty, 106. 13 Jones, Wisdom, 212; Beentjes, Wise, 305; Krüger, Qoheleth, 151. 14 Irwin, Ecclesiastes, 130–131. A sharp division exists between 8:1a and 8:1b according to Lohfink, Qoheleth, 102–103. 15 Jones, Wisdom, 213. 16 Beentjes, Wise, 307.

 Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets 

 137

cal response that sets out the interest and value of wisdom in political matters. Verses 2–5 detail points of advice from the wisdom books, presenting them as a way in which to extricate oneself and to get back one’s outlay in the case of a conflict with those in power (who ultimately have the last word). Verses 6–9 thus represent Qoheleth’s response to the advice on wisdom in the preceding verses. Negation appears five times in vv. 7–8 and marks the rhythm¹⁷. In this way, the pretensions of wisdom in relation to power are denied as well as the (absolute) power of the king. But reading 8:1–9 becomes more complicated because of v. 2¹⁸. Indeed, the meaning of v. 2b: ‫בוּﬠת ֱאל ִֺהים‬ ַ ‫“( וְ ַעל ִדּ ְב ַרת ְשׁ‬and because you took an oath of God”) is open to several interpretations, offering three possibilities for the whole of 8:2–3a: a) Religious motivation: obey the king’s command, and because you took an oath before God (what God has done to the king or what you have done to the king with God as witness) do not be in a hurry to leave the king’s presence; and do not stand up for a bad cause. b) Exhortation to obey the king even if he asks for an oath guaranteed by God. c) Exhortation to obey the king, except when he demands an oath. With this ambiguity at the very heart of the counsel, of the sapiential recommendation par excellence (vv. 2–3) the reader has not made much headway. It is difficult to find one’s way in this situation where the conflict of loyalties often appears. In this section, at first glance, power appears absolute (v. 4). But it is called into question by the human condition (vv. 6–8). The counter-power that wisdom seems to set against royal power appears, for its part, quite fragile, the more so in that it is radically conditioned by speech whose trademark is profound ambiguity.

2.5 Qoh 9:13–10:1 The identity of the first part of the unit, 9:13–16 is fairly obvious. Its heart is a short recital, a parable with a surprising ending, which is typical of this genre¹⁹. Once again we are faced with the relationship between power (royal, military)

17 The contrast is violent, as already illustrated by the syntax: “he does not know” (v. 7a), “there is not” (v. 8a tris) and “it will not” (v. 8). 18 Krüger, Ambiguities, 67–70. 19 Weisman, Elements.

138 

 Jesús M. Asurmendi 

and wisdom. It is a face-to-face engagement from which wisdom emerges victorious. Verse 16 is the conclusion of the sage Qoheleth. He begins in v. 16a by drawing the obvious conclusion that emerges from the sapiential “doctrine” by using the “tob” [better] proverb once again: “wisdom is better than strength”. As usual, Qoheleth adds his own thoughts: “the poor man’s wisdom is despised and his words are no longer heeded”, even if he saves the town. What is at stake in this unit, in harmony with the rest of the book, is a criticism of power and of wisdom; wisdom is better than strength, but does not receive social recognition. If wisdom had the ambition to exist through and with social recognition, it is making a mistake. This ambition is an illusion. The second part of the unit (9:17–10:1) seems to be a variation of the preceding narrative example, as it repeats a number of its key terms (notably the ‫חכם‬ [wise] root). Drawing his conclusion from the dictum in v. 16b (wisdom is better than valour, strength and power) and its parallel in v. 18a (wisdom is better than weapons of war), the sage concludes: Better wisdom than war and strength. Wisdom saves one even in armed conflict. Having said that, wisdom is none the less devitalized, because it is too fragile. Indeed, wisdom is so weak that a touch of madness outweighs much wisdom, as a dead fly gives perfume a bad smell. This is not a very positive summing up.

2.6 Qoh 10:4–7 After giving more thought to wisdom in 10:2–3, Qoheleth returns in 10:4–7 to links between wisdom and power. As we have already seen, Qoheleth begins by making reference to a classic piece of advice from wisdom, and then he adds his own thoughts. The meaning of v. 4, that seems to be quite clear at first sight, is less so²⁰. Does it refer to the king or another official? And if the reader (“you”) is thus the target of the anger of that authority, what does it mean: “do not leave your post”? Does the author mean to say that everything must be done to “keep one’s place”? Must one then submit? Verse 4b may well be understood in this way. Or does Qoheleth wish to advise that one must maintain one’s position, cling to one’s convictions, and “stand up” to the leader and to power? Given this meaning, it would not be a question of keeping one’s post but of taking the risk of losing it. Is this a call to resistance or submission? Once again, as in 8:1–9, the reader is faced with the ambiguity of wisdom.

20 Krüger, Qoheleth, 181–183.

 Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets 

 139

Added to this ambiguity are the political upheavals evoked in vv. 5–7, calling into question the pertinence of wisdom in v. 4. What use is this wisdom when the rules of the game are turned topsy-turvy? But verses 5–7 also describe another horizon. Here is an observation that seems unacceptable to Qoheleth: rich people occupying low positions and fools in high ones. But the correlation does not work. A rich person corresponds to a poor person, and stupidity to intelligence. However, in this instance, for Qoheleth someone “poor” equals an “idiot” and a “rich” person represents someone intelligent. He had said the opposite himself in 4:13–16! The second part of the observation relates to the pair prince/servant whose respective places are reversed. Such a situation is unthinkable. Here, it is more a question of irony than ambiguity.

2.7 Qoh 10:16–20 Qoheleth’s last text deals explicitly with power. The section that begins: “woe to you, O land, whose king…” is well defined by this formal beginning and by the theme. Verses 16–20 are framed by the inclusion formed by “the king” in v. 16 and v. 20. The overall structure of the piece is clear. On the one hand, verses 16–17 are constructed in the form of parallels: misfortune/good fortune even though the content of the two verses does not correspond. If one takes the word “house” (v. 18) to mean royalty²¹ (with vv. 18–19 pointing directly back to vv. 16–17), the mention of meals in the two sub-units follow on from this. Verse 20 is in the same context of royal power. Whatever the historical realities that may form the background to these verses, one has a rich selection with which to illustrate the sayings of the sage in v. 16 and even in vv. 18–19. Qoheleth’s positions are of several kinds and sequences: rejection and criticism of the dysfunction of senior officials and the court, a statement justifying the power of “moderate nobles”, in a well-ordered and respected framework, extending criticism more widely, and putting drunkards and the lazy on the same footing. It cannot be said that Qoheleth is opposed to “eating and drinking” as long as it is “with moderation/in due season” and above all when it is perceived as a gift from God (as in 2:24–25). Verse 20 can be read in two ways²². With regard to power, extreme caution is called for, which may be read as qualifying the critical remarks Qoheleth makes in his earlier verses! But to forbid even thinking ill of the king or rich people is

21 Lohfink, Qoheleth, 131. 22 Krüger, Ambiguities, 70–71.

140 

 Jesús M. Asurmendi 

really going a bit far. That is why a good number of commentators detect only thinly veiled irony. Thus, the picture is quite clear: Qoheleth criticizes excess but does not call into question the monarchy as an institution in the same vein as in 10:4–7 and, to a certain extent, in 1:12–2:26, where the king is presented as a human prototype.

2.8 Conclusion The number of texts Qoheleth devotes to power is very significant. But the sage does not radically call into question its existence in its monarchic version, or its “aristocratic” dimension. Wisdom appears as a counter-power, often qualified as “better” than strength or power. But this appears in its fragility and precariousness. Moreover, when confronted by power, wisdom functions in a radical ambiguity that is its trademark. So disciples reading Qoheleth, the sage, will have the greatest difficulty in working out how they should behave in the face of power, for everything can be either relevant or the contrary. And if one says, “the next (king) will be a good one”, it is just one more illusion. The most radical position taken by Qoheleth in relation to power is at the anthropological level. The greatest successes of the best kings are condemned to absolute failure and represent the absurdity of inheritance and, above all, the meaninglessness of death.

3 Prophets and Power This article is not the place for making an in-depth analysis of prophets and power. A reminder of some positions in the prophetic corpus will suffice. We will thus be able to understand the contrast between Qoheleth and the prophets. To be sure, not all the books of the prophets take the same attitude with regard to power. Deutero-Isaiah takes a great deal from Cyrus, as Haggai and Zechariah do from Zerubbabel. Let us begin with the cycle of Elijah/Elisha and especially that of Elisha. We find a series of quite vivid accounts, in which great importance is attributed to all that is miraculous. There are stories of battles in which the man of God or the prophet intervenes with dazzling success (2 Kgs 3:4–27; 6:8–23; 6:24–7:20). In a similar vein, in contrast to the king, another set of stories offers a vision of the mighty prophet (as in 2 Kgs 4:8–37; 4:38–41; 5:1–27), or portrays the wellbeing of the people and especially justice (2 Kgs 4:1–7; 4:42–44; 6:1–7; and in part, for the motifs intermingle, 6:24–7:20 and 8:1–6). All these various facets shape very posi-

 Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets 

 141

tively the profile of the prophet in contrast with the extremely negative one of the king, while acknowledging the competences of the latter. Clearly, it is not a question of speculative discussion of power. But the relevance and accuracy of thought is in no way inferior. It is an elegant way in which to position oneself in relation to royal power, theologically discrediting it. Besides, through the interplay of personages, as a fact, these accounts suggest replacing the monarchical institution with the prophets as a means of salvation for Israel – not bad as a stand against the incarnation of power in the fullest sense of the word. In a comparable way, Hosea uses methods other than stories to carry out the same work. His polemic against royalty is well known. It is enough to read Hos 13:10–11: “Israel, where is your king that he may save you? In my anger I gave you a king, and in my wrath I took him away”²³. The rejection of royalty could not be clearer. But by what right do Hosea, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah criticize kings (and thus power) so savagely?²⁴ By what right does Amos allow himself to criticize Jeroboam II, king of Israel, and to announce his violent death by the sword (Amos 7:9)? Things appear to be crystal clear. Let us look only at Amos chapter 7, with the three first visions (7:1–9) leading to the biographical account of his dispute with Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (7:10–17). The close context and the architecture of the entire book illustrate this²⁵. The fact that this account is enshrined in the series of visions is not without its importance. These visions announce the end of Israel, but the stories included with them provide the motivation for these predictions of calamity. While the series of visions is the third part of the book of Amos, the second part of the work (Amos 3–6) consists of oracles that could not be clearer in denouncing the unacceptable injustices and perversions within the nation of Israel. The person responsible in the end is none other than King Jeroboam, which is why he receives his punishment early on: death by the sword²⁶. Political power is wounded at the heart. No palliatives, excuses or false pretences can avail. This being so, prophetic criticism lays bare the system and tears political power from its ideological vindications that are valid only to the extent they operate to carry out faithfully the purpose for which the system was set up and justified. As Hans

23 Wolff, Hosea, 227. 24 Nardoni, Rise, 100–110. 25 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 302–304. 26 According to 7:9, death by the sword is actually threatened against “the house of Jeroboam”; see Wolff, Joel and Amos, 295.

142 

 Jesús M. Asurmendi 

Walter Wolff says when speaking of the prophet Micah: “it is not the function that justifies the message, but the message that justifies the function”²⁷. The intervention of Amos, like that of the other prophets, profoundly upsets the functioning of the system. Indeed, they cut the umbilical cord that links power to the faith of Israel. In the view of Amos, the parallel drawn by Amaziah (Amos 7:13) between Bethel as the sanctuary (and thus the house of God) and as the house of the king no longer applies. For the prophet, there is another instance, one that judges everyone, both the people and the king. But for the king, the king and political power are legitimate only within the competence of that other instance (which the prophets claim to represent and speak in its name). We find a comparable situation in the Book of Jeremiah, since Jer 22:13–19 (especially v. 18) targets King Jehoiakim (609–598 BC). The relations between these two, the prophet and the king, are famous. The oracle in Jer 22:13–19 is one of the many critical remarks by Jeremiah against the kings. He deals with an essential aspect of royal activity. There are two parts to this discourse: accusations in vv. 13–17, and sentence in vv. 18–19. In vv. 13–14, the accusations all concern the same matters: justice and law. The king is accused directly, in the second person with a wealth of details, of the abuse of power and glaring injustice. He treats himself to a magnificent palace but does not pay his labourers. His attitude is thus put into perspective in two ways. Firstly, in relation to what “makes his reign secure”, that is to say, what justifies it and gives it worth and interest. Secondly, verses 15b-17 bring to light the accusations; the prophet, in effect, sets out what constitutes the legitimacy, the meaning and basis of power: to know God and to be happy (a reference back to Josiah’s reign). The two elements merge in the practice of law and justice.

4 Final Conclusions One of the essential indicators of prophetic criticism of power is none other than the right to justice. This is the criterion of judgment and the motivation for their utterances. It is with respect to the adequacy of power; of royalty and of the “right to justice” that the prophets criticize kings, condemn them, and even declare them illegitimate (contrast Isa 11:4–5; Ps 72:4). This motif of the prophetic word and action will suffer no compromise. The configuration proper to the prophet explains the strength and violence of his stance against power. “But as for me,

27 Wolff, Micah.

 Power in Qoheleth and the Prophets 

 143

I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice (‫)מ ְשׁ ָפט‬ ִ and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin” (Mic 3:5–8). The call (“go, say to them”), essential to the prophet’s mission, unites with clear and cutting positions (“denounce and announce”) – whoever may perish, even the prophet. With reference to Qoh 9:13–18, the case of Jeremiah is deliberately brought to our notice. For example, Qoheleth quotes the case of the poor sage who saved or would have saved his town. The position of the sage and the prophet confronted by this kind of situation is not exactly the same, far from it. As we can see in the case of Jeremiah, the prophet is seeking to convey and have his point of view arising from it acknowledged, and also the action of the one who sent him. The sage aims to save his skin and to gain maximum personal profit. Jeremiah had suffered persecution, torture and prison. If the sage had sometimes endured the same fate as the prophet, it is because he did not succeed through his wisdom, because he placed his bet on the wrong horse. In the waters of wisdom, ambiguous by nature, the sage drowns. In 1:12–2:26 Qoheleth anthropologically devitalizes power and royalty, which are undermined by the wall of death and inheritance. However, in what follows in the work, he becomes reconciled to an aristocratic royalty, while all the while criticizing it with language that has double or triple meaning, so as not to be caught out. The prophet disqualifies royalty for theological reasons. The prophet is ensnared by power and crushed by it, for the messenger has references, criteria and horizons other than those that will allow him to play with words or fine phrases. If the sage is there to “let the wise listen and add to their learning and let the discerning get guidance” (Prov 1:5), the prophet is among his people to unveil reality (God and humanity) and to proclaim it before all. Faced with the fierce outspokenness of the prophet whose hair is agitated and whose beard trembles when he speaks, the ambiguity of wisdom is strengthened. Here we clearly see the difference between the world of the prophets and Qoheleth’s world.

Bibliography Asurmendi, Jesús M., Du non-sens. L’Ecclésiaste (LD 249), Paris: Du Cerf, 2012. Beentjes, Pancratius C., ‘Who is Like the Wise?’ Some Notes on Qohelet 8,1–15, in: Antoon Schoors (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BETL 136), Leuven: Peeters, 1998, 303–315. Bellia, Giuseppe, Il libro del Qohelet e il suo contesto storico-antropologico, in: Id. – Angelo Passaro (eds.), Il Libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia (Cammini nello Spirito. Biblica 44), Milan: Paoline, 2001, 171–216.

144 

 Jesús M. Asurmendi 

Buhlman, Alain, The Difficulty of Thinking in Greek and Speaking in Hebrew (Qoheleth 3.18; 4.13–16; 5.8): JSOT 90 (2000) 101–108. Gilbert, Maurice, La structure de la prière de Salomon (Sg 9): Bib 51 (1970) 301–331. Irwin, William A., Ecclesiastes 8:2–9: JNES 4 (1945) 130–131. Jones, Scott C., Qohelet’s Courtly Wisdom. Ecclesiastes 8:1–9: CBQ 68 (2006) 211–228. Koh, Yee-Von, Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth (BZAW 369) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Krüger, Thomas, Qoheleth (Hermeneia) Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. Krüger, Thomas, Meaningful Ambiguities in the Book of Qoheleth, in: Angelika Berlejung – Pierre van Hecke (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context (OLA 164), Leuven: Peeters, 2007, 63–74. Lohfink, Norbert, Qoheleth: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. Nardoni, Enrique, Rise Up, O Judge: A Study of Justice in the Biblical World (Biblical Studies/ Ethics), translated by Sean Charles Martin, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Perdue, Leo G., The Sword and the Stylus. An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger, Kohelet. Übersetzt und ausgelegt (HTKAT), Freiburg: Herder, 2004. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger, Zwischen Agonie und Glück, in: Christian Frevel (ed.), Biblische Anthropologie. Neue Einsichten aus dem Alten Testament (Quaestiones disputatae 237), Freiburg – Basel – Wien: Herder, 2010, 164–189. Weisman, Ze’ev, Elements of Political Satire in Kohelet 4,13–16; 9,13–16: ZAW 111 (1999) 547–560. Wolff, Hans Walter, Hosea. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea (Hermeneia), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Wolff, Hans Walter, Joel and Amos. A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos (Hermeneia), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Wolff, Hans Walter, Micah. A Commentary, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990.

Jeremy Corley

Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison Jeremy Corley: St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Ireland

1 Introduction The Books of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) have many differences. In terms of theology, the earlier shorter book is famous for its skeptical questioning of Jewish belief in divine providence and care for the world, whereas the later and longer book reasserts traditional Jewish faith against challenges from Hellenism. On a philosophical level, the author of Qoheleth often works by juxtaposing contradictions (e.g., Qoh 2:13–15; 8:10–13; 9:13–16), whereas Ben Sira attempts to resolve contradictions, even by accepting a system of paired opposites (Sir 33:15; 42:24). Differences of literary form also exist: Qoheleth has an alternation of poetry and prose, whereas Sirach consists entirely of poetry. While the outlooks and styles of Qoheleth and Sirach seem to be far apart, this article will show that in fact both books frequently share many motifs or ideas, though often expressed in different words. Here I follow a common dating of Qoheleth to the postexilic era, but well before 150 BCE (the date of the earliest Qumran fragments), and most likely in the third century BCE¹. I also follow the generally accepted dating of Ben Sira’s book to the first quarter of the second century BCE². As postexilic Jewish authors, both Qoheleth and Ben Sira write in Late Biblical Hebrew and employ two of the same Persian loanwords, which doubtless entered Hebrew through Aramaic: ‫זְ ָמן‬, “time” (Qoh 3:1; Sir 35:26 HB; [43:7 HB]; cf. Ezra 5:3); ‫פּ ְתגָּ ם‬, ִ “decree, response” (Qoh 8:11; Sir 5:11 HA; 8:9 HA; cf. Ezra 4:17; 6:11)³. Both authors also make use of the short relative pronoun ‫שׁ‬, ֶ “which, who” (e.g., Qoh 2:18–22; Sir 25:8 HC; 44:9 HM) alongside the longer form ‫( ֲאשׁר‬e.g., Qoh 3:9–10; Sir 18:32 HC; 44:9 HM). However,

1 Gilbert, Sapienza, 108; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxii; Lohfink, Qoheleth, 4; Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 50; Krüger, Qoheleth, 19. 2 Gilbert, Siracide, 1403–1404; Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom, 8–10. 3 Krüger, Qoheleth, 35–36. In this article I employ the abbreviations HB for the Genizah Hebrew MsB of Sirach, HM for the Masada Hebrew Ms, G for the Greek text, and S for the Syriac. The scriptural translations in this article are mine.

146 

 Jeremy Corley 

neither Qoheleth nor Ben Sira contains any Greek loanwords in the Hebrew text, though they both seem sometimes to echo Greek philosophy and literature. Both works are attested in Dead Sea Mss within a century or so of composition. The earliest surviving Qoheleth Ms (4Q109) dates from about 175–150 BCE, perhaps about a century after the original composition, while the earliest extant Ben Sira Ms is the long Masada scroll, dating from around 75–50 BCE, little more than a century after the original composition⁴. Thus, both books were evidently read and preserved by Second Temple Jewish scribes. Whereas many scholars have presumed that Sirach has referred to Qoheleth, Franz-Josef Backhaus denied that Sirach can be shown to have used Qoheleth, while Johannes Marböck spoke of a complex multi-layered relationship⁵. In addition, Maurice Gilbert demonstrated that there is not such a direct influence as is sometimes supposed between Qoh 12:13–14 and Sirach, nor between Sir 14:11– 19 and Qoheleth⁶. In this short article I will treat several potential similarities between Qoheleth and Sirach: shared motifs in the frameworks of the books; the presentation of Solomon; the use of number patterns as a structural feature; limited influence on the NT; and rabbinic questioning of their canonicity.

2 Shared Motifs in the Opening Pericope A comparison of Qoh 1:2–18 and Sir 1:1–10 indicates a few shared motifs (albeit rather general) at the opening of both books. In the absence of the Hebrew text of Sirach, the comparison here will be between the LXX texts of these books. The major difference is between Qoheleth’s focus on King Solomon’s achievement of wisdom after his personal quest (Qoh 1:12–18), and Sirach’s description of the royally-enthroned Lord as the giver of wisdom (Sir 1:6–10). Also significant is the fact that both texts begin by seeking wisdom from looking at the cosmos (cf. 1 Enoch 2:1–5:3), though they draw different conclusions. Qoheleth’s message about the cyclical nature of the world (Qoh 1:5–7) is illustrated by the way that, apart from the appendix, the end of the book in 12:8 returns to the thought of the opening in 1:2. In contrast, for Sirach human life seems cyclical only in comparison with the vastness of divine wisdom: “When human beings finish, they are beginning, and if they start again, they will be amazed” (Sir 18:7 S).

4 VanderKam – Flint, Meaning, 129, 187. 5 Backhaus, Qohelet; Marböck, Kohelet. 6 Gilbert, Qohelet.

 Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison 

 147

Qoheleth 1:2–18LXX

Sirach 1:1–10 G

All things are vanity (Qoh 1:2) A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever (Qoh 1:4)

All wisdom is from the Lord (Sir 1:1) With him it [= wisdom] is forever …The days of eternity… The breadth of the earth… (Sir 1:1–3) The height of the heaven… (Sir 1:3) Sand of the seas and drops of rain (Sir 1:2) Before all things wisdom was created (Sir 1:4)

The sun rises (Qoh 1:5) All the streams go to the sea (Qoh 1:7) Already it has been in the ages that were before us; there is no memory of those who were before (Qoh 1:10–11) I gave my mind to seek out and to observe in wisdom concerning everything happening under heaven (Qoh 1:13) I spoke in my mind, saying: Behold, I have become great, and I have added wisdom above all who were before me in Jerusalem (Qoh 1:16) I gave my mind to know wisdom and knowledge (Qoh 1:17)

The root of wisdom – to whom was it revealed? (Sir 1:6) One is wise, greatly to be feared, sitting upon his throne – the Lord (Sir 1:8)

He lavished it [= wisdom] on those who love him (Sir 1:10)

3 Shared Motifs in Concluding Passages Later, at the end of both works, a comparison of the Hebrew texts of Qoh 12:12– 14 and three closing passages in Ben Sira (Sir 43:27–33; 50:25–27; 51:30 HB) also indicates loosely shared motifs⁷. Admittedly, as Gilbert has pointed out, the combination, “Fear God and keep his commandments” (Qoh 12:13) already echoes phrases earlier in the book (Qoh 5:6; 8:5) and owes more to Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 5:29; 13:5) than to any specific text in Ben Sira⁸. Moreover, Qoh 12:13 also recalls David’s deathbed commission to Solomon: “You shall keep the injunction of the Lord your God, walking in his ways, keeping his statutes, his commandments and his judgments and his testimonies” (1 Kgs 2:3)⁹. Nevertheless, both sapiential books offer an overarching conclusion emphasizing fear of God and the importance of human deeds – though Ben Sira’s conclusion is spread over three of his final poems.

7 A parallel between Qoh 12:13 and Sir 43:27 is noted by Calduch-Benages, God, 86; Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 192; Middendorp, Stellung, 89; Fox, Time, 360. 8 Gilbert, Qohelet, 163. The mention of “judgment” in Qoh 12:14 echoes Qoh 11:9. 9 Puech, Qohelet, 160.

148 

 Jeremy Corley 

Qoheleth 12:12–14MT

Sirach 43:27–33; 50:25–27; 51:30

Of the making of many books there is no end…. The end of the matter (Sir 43:27 HB) The finish of the matter (Qoh 12:12–13) Everything has been heard (Qoh 12:13) He is everything (Sir 43:27 HB)…. The Lord has made everything (Sir 43:33 G/ HB) Fear God (Qoh 12:13) The fear of the Lord is life (Sir 50:29b HB) Keep his commandments (Qoh 12:13) For if one does these things, one will be capable for everything (Sir 50:29a G) This is everything for a human being He is everything (Sir 43:27 HB) (Qoh 12:13) Every deed God will bring into judgment, Perform your deeds in righteousness, and with everything secret, whether good or evil He himself gives you your reward in its time (Qoh 12:14) (Sir 51:30 HB)

Our comparison of shared motifs at the opening and close of both books has yielded an inconclusive result. While the similarities could potentially indicate some level of common sapiential enterprise, it is hard to prove any direct literary link.

4 The Figure of Solomon The figure of Solomon represents the purported identity of Qoheleth, at least in the opening (Qoh 1:12–2:26), and Solomon is celebrated by Ben Sira in the Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 47:12–23)¹⁰. Most of the parallels go back to the monarch’s portrait within the Book of Kings, but whereas Sirach follows the Book of Kings in emphasizing Solomon’s contribution to national life (e.g., temple building), Qoheleth highlights the king’s personal activity (e.g., constructing houses). More significantly, Solomon’s disappointment at leaving his domain to his foolish son is a motif shared between the two books¹¹. Indeed, both writings elsewhere observe that even monarchs are subject to death: “There is no human being with authority over the breath to imprison the breath, and there is no authority over

10 While Sir 47:17 alludes to two other Solomonic books (Proverbs and Song of Songs), it is unclear whether it refers to Qoheleth; cf. Corley, Study, 156. On Qoheleth’s Solomonic guise, see Christianson, Time, 128–172. 11 Krüger, Qoheleth, 70–71.

 Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison 

 149

the day of death” (Qoh 8:8); “A king today, and tomorrow he will fall; at the death of a human being he will inherit worms” (Sir 10:10–11 HA).  ¹² ¹³  King Solomon

Qoh 1:12–2:26

Sir 47:12–23 HB

King (1 Kgs 2:12)

Solomon was king in days of tranquility (47:13) How you were wise in your youth (47:14)

Building (1 Kgs 9:10)

I Qoheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem (1:12) And I said to myself: Behold, I have increased and added wisdom above everyone that was before me over Jerusalem (1:16) I built for myself houses (2:4)

Silver and gold (1 Kgs 10:21–22)

I also gathered for myself silver and gold (2:8)

Song (1 Kgs 10:12)

I gained for myself male singers and female singers… (2:8)

Concubines (1 Kgs 11:1–3)

…and human pleasures: a concubine and concubines (2:8)12 And I became great and surpassed everyone that was before me in Jerusalem (2:9) And I hated all my toil at which I toiled under the sun – that I should bequeath it to the human being who will be after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or foolish? Yet he will have authority over all my toil at which I toiled (2:18–19) And I turned to let my heart despair over all the toil with which I toiled under the sun (2:20).

Wisdom (1 Kgs 5:9–14 [NRSV 4:29–34])

Fame (1 Kgs 10:23–24)

Bequeathing toil to a foolish son (cf. 1 Kgs 12:8)

Despair before his death (cf. 1 Kgs 11:43)

…Who established a house for his [= God’s] name (47:13) And you heaped up gold like iron, and you multiplied silver like lead (47:18) And you gave praise on high in song… With song, proverb, riddle, and epigram you astonished peoples (47:15, 17) And you gave your loins to women, and let them rule over your body (47:19) Your name reached to distant isles (47:16 G) And he left after him one of his offspring, broad in stupidity and lacking understanding (47:23).

And Solomon slept despairing (47:23)13.

12 The meaning “concubine(s)” (NRSV) is uncertain; cf. Lohfink, Qoheleth, 49; Fox, Time, 180. 13 Where HB is slightly damaged, Smend suggests “despairing”, using the same root as in Qoh 2:20 (Weisheit, 457).

150 

 Jeremy Corley 

5 Rejection of Belief in the Afterlife Unlike the later Septuagintal Book of Wisdom (Wis 3:1–9), both Qoheleth and Sirach reject the belief in an afterlife (Qoh 3:21; 9:10; Sir 14:16; 17:27–28; 38:21; 41:3–4), and instead they emphasize that what survives death is a person’s reputation (Qoh 7:1; Sir 41:13). Since comparable concern for a good name appears elsewhere in ancient Jewish and Greek literature (e.g., Prov 22:1; Theognis 409– 410), it is hard to prove that Sirach used Qoheleth here. However, scholars have claimed that echoes of Qoh 9:10 exist in the Hebrew text of Sirach¹⁴. Admittedly, Sir 14:16cd is absent from the Greek and may be a secondary gloss¹⁵. Qoheleth 9:10

Hebrew text of Sirach

Everything that your hand finds to do, do with your strength (Qoh 9:10) For there is no deed or reckoning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, where you are going (Qoh 9:10)

And every matter that is fine to do, do before God (Sir 14:16cd HA) For there is no (possibility) in Sheol to seek enjoyment (Sir 14:16b HA) For ten, a hundred, or a thousand years, there are no reproofs about life in Sheol (Sir 41:4cd HM/B)

6 Number Patterns As scribal works, the Books of Qoheleth and Sirach both make some use of number patterns (including gematria) as a structural feature. Here they follow in the footsteps of the great Solomonic collection of proverbs (Prov 10:1–22:16), which gathers exactly 375 aphorisms to match the gematria value of the letters in the Hebrew name of Solomon, hmol{v. (300 + 30 + 40 + 5 = 375)¹⁶. Such arithmetical patterns reflect God’s providential arrangement of his creation, where nothing needs to be added and nothing taken away (Qoh 3:14; Sir 18:6; 42:21). Addison Wright pointed out that Qoheleth’s key word, “vanity” or “vapor” (‫)ה ֶבל‬, ֶ with a Hebrew numerical value of 5 + 2 + 30 = 37, occurs exactly 37 times

14 A literary connection between Qoh 9:10 and Sir 14:16 is presumed by Middendorp, Stellung, 88; Podechard, L’Ecclésiaste, 63–65, but denied by Backhaus, Qohelet, 43; Gilbert, Qohelet, 177–78. 15 Gilbert, Qohelet, 173; Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom, 258. 16 Skehan, Editor, 16.

 Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison 

 151

within the book, if we ignore one case of dittography¹⁷. Although the MT actually has 38 instances of the word, the second occurrence in Qoh 9:9 (“all the days of your vanity”) is widely regarded as a case of dittography, being omitted in NRSV and NAB¹⁸. In this way, the biblical author emphasizes the concept of “vanity” (‫)ה ֶבל‬ ֶ by allowing the numerical value of the word to shape the number of times it occurs in the book. The fact that this number is not accidental is confirmed by the word count of the whole appendix (12:9–14), which has exactly 74 words (= 2 x 37). There is however an irony here. The basic thesis of the book (according to some interpreters) is that there is no order or design to the universe: everything is random and pointless. Yet the very fact that the book has 37 occurrences of the term “vanity” (‫)ה ֶבל‬, ֶ whose numerical value is 37, suggests that despite some of the biblical author’s protests the universe actually has some kind of design, albeit mathematical (cf. Qoh 3:14). Indeed, the careful structuring of the book in other ways supports this observation¹⁹. The number 28 is also significant in Qoh 3:2–8 and 12:13–14. In Qoheleth’s famous passage on time (Qoh 3:2–8), we find the key word ‫“( ֵﬠת‬time”) occurring exactly 28 times, equivalent to the number of days in a four-week month²⁰. Interestingly, Qoh 12:13–14 also has 28 Hebrew words (14 in each verse). This tally of words recalls the opening of the seven-day creation story in Genesis, where Gen 1:1 has 7 words and Gen 1:2 has 14 words. Again, if time is carefully measured, then the world cannot be entirely absurd or meaningless, even if there is an ephemeral element of “vanity” or “vapor” in human life. Turning to Ben Sira, we can see that the Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44:1– 50:24) also makes use of numbers as a structural feature, since it exhibits a pattern in the tally of poetic lines: the introduction (44:1–15) has 18 bicola; the Torah section (44:17–45:26) has 64 bicola; the section on the Former and Latter Prophets (46:1–49:16) has 128 bicola; and the final praise of Simeon (50:1–24) has 36 bicola²¹.

17 Wright, Riddle, 44. 18 This phrase is absent from Alexandrinus, Syriac, and Targum; cf. Goldman, Qoheleth, 47 (Hebrew text), and 104* (textual commentary). However, retaining the phrase (with Vaticanus and Vulgate) is advocated by Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 163 n. 132. 19 Cf. Wright, Riddle, 49. 20 Krüger, Qoheleth, 76 notes on 3:2–8: “These verses name 28 (4 x 7) ‘matters’ in 14 (2 x 7) pairs”, but he speaks of the ordered cosmos without mentioning the four-week month. Within Qoh 3:1–8 the Hebrew term 'ēt (“time”) occurs 29 times; so Gilbert, Concetto, 69. Note that the programmatic statement on time in Qoh 3:1 has 7 words, matching the number of days of the week. 21 Corley, Structure, 57–60.

152 

 Jeremy Corley 

Praise of the Ancestors Length Gematria Word

Statement with Gematria Word

Sir 44:1–15 (Introduction) Sir 44:17–45:26 (Torah section) Sir 46:1–49:16 (Prophets section)

18 bicola 64 bicola 128 bicola

But their name is living to generation and generation (44:14 HM). Noah, the righteous one, was found perfect (44:17 HM). [Joshua:] Servant of Moses in prophecy (46:1 HB).

Sir 50:1–24 (Praise of Simeon)

36 bicola

‫“( ַחי‬living”): gematria value = 18 ‫נוֹה‬ ַ (“Noah”): gematria value = 64 ha'Wbn> (“prophecy”): gematria value = 64 = ½ x 128 ‫“( לוֹ‬for him,” 2 x): gematria value = 36

May his loyalty with Simeon be confirmed, and may he establish for him the covenant of Phinehas, that will not be cut off for him, or for his offspring in the days of heaven (50:24 HB).

Whereas the gematria word occurs in the opening bicolon of the Torah section (44:17) and the Prophets section (46:1), in the opening and closing sections the gematria word occurs in the penultimate bicolon (44:14; 50:24). Note that in the Masada Ms (which lacks 44:16 on Enoch), the very first word of the Torah section is ‫נוֹח‬ ַ (“Noah”, spelled plene). Moreover, the opening of the praise of Simeon (50:1–4 HB) has exactly 36 Hebrew words, matching the number of lines in the final section of Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors²². The symbolism of the numbers may be interpreted in various ways. Perhaps the 18 lines of the introduction recall the Eighteen Benedictions which came to be used in later synagogue prayer. Thereafter, having 64 (= 8 x 8) lines in the Torah section provides the square of the number of persons mentioned who received covenants (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, David), while having 128 (= 2 x 8 x 8) lines in the Prophets section recalls the 8 books of the Former and Latter Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve), mentioned in Hebrew canonical order in this section. Finally, the 36 lines of the Praise of Simeon match the length of the great poem on wisdom in Sir 24:1–34, hinting that the high priest embodies the wisdom that came to rest in Israel²³.

22 Mulder, Simon, 59. 23 Smend, Weisheit, xli.

 Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison 

 153

7 Limited Echoes in the New Testament Within the NT, neither Qoheleth nor Sirach is explicitly quoted more than once each. At most, the NT includes one explicit and precise Qoheleth quotation: “…as it is written, ‘There is not a righteous [person], not even one’” (Rom 3:10, echoing Qoh 7:20). However, it is probably more accurate to say that Rom 3:10–12 is basically a quotation of Ps 14:1–3 (13:1–3 LXX)//Ps 53:2–4 (52:2–4LXX), but that the three-word Greek phrase οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος was borrowed from Qoh 7:20LXX²⁴. At most, the NT also includes one explicit and precise Sirach quotation: “You know the commandments: …‘You are not to defraud’” (Mark 10:19, echoing Sir 4:1). However, it is probably more exact to state that Mark 10:19 is basically a quotation of the commandments in Exod 20:12–16//Deut 5:16–20, but that the two-word Greek phrase μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς was borrowed from Sir 4:1 G²⁵. But if we extend the scope to allusions and echoes, it is arguable that Ben Sira has at least as much influence on the NT as Qoheleth. Sometimes indeed, the NT echoes both sapiential books, as in Jesus’ Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:16–21)²⁶. Sirach 11:18–19 HA observes: “There is one who grows rich from depriving himself, and he wants to deduct his reward, but at the time when he says, ‘I have found rest, and now I shall eat of my prosperity’, he does not know what will be his portion, but he will leave it to another and die”²⁷. Similarly, while Qoh 8:15 states: “There is nothing better for a human being under the sun than to eat and to drink and to be happy,” Qoh 6:2 points out an evil affecting human beings: “[There is] a man to whom God will give riches and possessions and honor, and for himself there is nothing lacking from anything that he might desire – yet God will not authorize him to eat from it, but a stranger will eat it”. In Jesus’ parable, after the rich fool has gathered his produce into barns, he says to himself: “Soul, you have many good things resting for many years; take your rest, eat, drink, be happy”, but God says to him, “Fool, this night your soul will be demanded from you; and the things that you prepared – to whom will they belong?” (Luke 12:19,20). Yet the presence of a comparable saying in

24 Also 2 Cor 5:10 parallels the thought of Qoh 12:14, but the wording is different; cf. Puech, Qohelet, 161; Lange, Diskussion, 123. On links between Qoheleth and the NT, see Krüger, Qoheleth, 32–33. 25 Note that in LXX Deut 24:14, Alexandrinus has οὐκ ἀποστερήσεις (“you shall not defraud”) whereas Vaticanus reads οὐκ ἀπαδικήσεις (“you shall not unjustly withhold”). 26 Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom, 239; Marttila, Sirachbuch, 104. 27 Sirach 14:15 HA says: “Is it not to another that you will leave your wealth?” Hence the next verse urges enjoyment of life while on earth.

154 

 Jeremy Corley 

1 Enoch 97:8–10 suggests that both Qoheleth and Sirach are voicing a common sapiential thought.

8 Rabbinic Questions about Canonicity Finally, both books faced similar questions about canonicity among the rabbis, though with different outcomes. Despite previous doubts, Qoheleth was accepted into the rabbinic canon after discussions (m. Yad. 3:5; m. Ed. 5:3; b. Meg. 7a), whereas Ben Sira was excluded (y. Sanh. 10:1; t. Yad. 2:13) – even though later rabbinic quotations exist with the formula “it is written” (e.g., b. Ber. 48a; y. Ber. 7:2; y. Naz. 5:3), a formula usually reserved for canonical books. Sometimes it is thought that Sirach was excluded because of its denial of the afterlife in the Hebrew text (Sir 14:16; 38:21; 41:3–4), but Qoheleth also expresses similar doubts (Qoh 3:21; 9:10). Possibly the attribution to Solomon helped Qoheleth, whereas Sirach was excluded because its author was known to be a second-century BCE sage.

9 Conclusion In conclusion, while Qoheleth strongly criticizes traditional wisdom whereas Sirach reasserts it, both books have several intriguing similarities: shared general motifs in the frameworks of the books; the presentation of Solomon; the use of number patterns as a structural feature; limited influence on the NT; and rabbinic questioning of their canonicity. Though we cannot prove it, it is possible that Sirach knew the Book of Qoheleth but wished to differ sharply from its theological outlook. The believing theologian (Sirach) may have wished to reassert the value of faith against the doubts raised by the questioning philosopher (Qoheleth).

Bibliography Backhaus, Franz-Josef, Qohelet und Sirach: BN 69 (1993) 32-55. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, God, Creator of All (Sir 43:27–33), in: Renate Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God (BZAW 321), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002, 79–100. Christianson, Eric S., A Time to Tell. Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSS 280), Sheffield: Academic, 1998.

 Qoheleth and Sirach: A Comparison 

 155

Corley, Jeremy, An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira, in: Id. – Vincent Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit (CBQMS 38), Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 155–182. Corley, Jeremy, A Numerical Structure in Sirach 44:1–50:24: CBQ 69 (2007) 43–63. Crenshaw, James L., Ecclesiastes (OTL), London: SCM, 1988. Fox, Michael V., A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up. A Rereading of Ecclesiastes, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999. Gilbert, Maurice, Il concetto di tempo (‫)ﬠת‬ ֵ in Qohelet e Ben Sira, in: Giuseppe Bellia – Angelo Passaro (eds.), Il Libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia (Cammini nello Spirito. Biblica 44), Milan: Paoline, 2001, 69–89. Gilbert, Maurice, Qohelet et Ben Sira, in: Antoon Schoors (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BETL 136), Leuven: Peeters, 1998, 161–179. Gilbert, Maurice, La sapienza del cielo. Proverbi, Giobbe, Qohèlet, Siracide, Sapienza (Parola di Dio. Seconda Serie 53), Cinisello Balsamo, Milan: San Paolo, 2005. Gilbert, Maurice, Siracide, DBS XII (1996) 1389–1437. Goldman, Yohanan A. P., Qoheleth, in: Adrian Schenker et al. (eds.), Megilloth (Biblia Hebraica Quinta 18), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004, 25–53 (text), and 64*-112* (commentary). Krüger, Thomas, Qoheleth (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. Lange, Armin, In Diskussion mit dem Tempel. Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Tempel, in: Antoon Schoors (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BETL 136), Leuven: Peeters, 1998, 113–59. Lohfink, Norbert, Qoheleth. A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. Marböck, Johannes, Kohelet und Sirach – eine vielschichtige Beziehung, in: Id., Weisheit und Frömmigkeit (ÖBS 29), Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 2006, 79–103. Marttila, Marko, Das Sirachbuch und das Neue Testament: BN 144 (2010) 95–116. Middendorp, Theophil, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden: Brill, 1973. Mulder, Otto, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50 (JSJS 78), Leiden: Brill, 2003. Murphy, Roland E., Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A), Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1992. Podechard, Emmanuel, L’Ecclésiaste (EB), Paris: Gabalda, 1912. Puech, Émile, Qohelet à Qumran, in: Giuseppe Bellia – Angelo Passaro (eds.), Il Libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia (Cammini nello Spirito. Biblica 44), Milan: Paoline, 2001, 144–170. Skehan, Patrick W., A Single Editor for the Whole Book of Proverbs, in: Id., Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom (CBQMS 1), Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971, 15–26. Skehan, Patrick W. – Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. New Translation with Notes by Patrick W. Skehan; Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella (The Anchor Bible 39), New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin: Reimer, 1906. VanderKam, James – Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity, London: T & T Clark, 2002. Wright, Addison G., The Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited: Numerical Patterns in the Book of Qoheleth: CBQ 42 (1980) 38–51.

Krzysztof Bardski

The Snowball and the Cord of Three Strands: Qoh 4:12b in the Rabbinic Tradition Krzysztof Bardski: Card. S. Wyszynski University, Warsaw, Poland

1 Introduction The interpretative biblical tradition of the community of faith can be compared to a snowball rolling down from a high mountain. Its nucleus is formed by the biblical text, but, throughout the centuries, many ideas and new connotations have been added to the initial intention of the biblical author¹. They may be extraneous to the original historical context; nevertheless they belong to the heritage of the communities of faith that consider the Scriptures as Word of God. Ancient and medieval sermons, treatises, letters or commentaries on the Bible contain a great number of interpretations that have frequently been neglected by biblical scholars. They show how Jews and Christians in the past centuries used Scripture and accommodated it to the different situations of their communities. In our article, we shall deal with one literary motif taken from the Book of Qoheleth 4:12, “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken”. We shall follow the snowball of the Jewish tradition whose nucleus is the “cord of three strands”. At the end of our article we shall present a general outline of the Christian tradition connected with this verse. For a detailed presentation of the Christian tradition, see our article in Polish published some years ago².

2 Literal Meaning of Qoh 4:12b In the historical context, Qoh 4:7–12 is a wisdom teaching on the practical advantages of common activity in comparison with the futile efforts undertaken by indi-

1 Grech, The «Regula Fidei», 222: “Today’s biblical scholar must follow that text in its later reinterpretations and its Wirkungsgeschichte up to the present day to be able to observe the growth of this snowball along the path of history”. 2 Bardski, Trzykrotnie zapleciony sznur Eklezjastesa, 5–42.

 The Snowball and the Cord of Three Strands 

 157

viduals. The first two verses (Qoh 4:7–8) stress the vanity of the toil of a single person. Then, Qoh 4:9–12a, using practical examples such as falling down, a cold night or an unexpected attack, presents the superiority of efforts undertaken by two persons. Finally, a proverbial conclusion in Qoh 4:12b adds in a metaphorical way the idea that three are even better than two. In origin Qoh 4:12b was probably a proverb drawn from Middle Eastern wisdom traditions³. But, from the literary point of view, in the context of the Book of Qoheleth, the motif of the cord of three strands acts as a symbol inviting the reader to connect it with situations in his or her life. Scripture gives explicit examples to show why two are more effective than one. But why are three better than two? Which situations can be connected with the literary motif of the cord of three strands? These are questions the text puts to the reader. The intention of the text is to shift the mind of the reader from the simple image of a cord to a symbolical level.

3 Symbolic Potential of the Biblical Image Before approaching the interpretative traditions, let us look at the special qualities of the text that generate specific connotations in the interpretative process. We shall specify the potential of the image to generate new symbolic meanings: a.

The functional aspect of the cord as an instrument used to tie several objects together to immobilize, to pull or to restrain. b. The longitudinal visual aspect of a cord, calling to mind something that unites two separate extremities or puts together a series of elements. c. The numerical symbolism. The biblical text will call to mind any reality composed of three elements. d. The image of strands contains the idea of a perfect union of different elements. e. The endurance and strength of the cord. It suggests a tension between the two extremities. But the fact that the cord is “not quickly” broken means that actually it can be broken. f. And finally we should not neglect the interpretative suggestions of the context. The cord illustrates a relationship between persons that cooperate.

3 Cf. Shaffer, The Mesopotamian Background, 246–250; Id., New Information, 159–160.

158 

 Krzysztof Bardski 

4 Hebrew Tradition In comparison with other verses of Ecclesiastes, Qoh 4:12a occurs relatively often in the ancient Hebrew texts. We have detected 40 occurrences of the verse carrying new symbolic meanings. Symbolic creativity was connected mainly with the number three and the strength of the cord. In the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer (IX century, Eretz Israel) we even find a hermeneutical principle based on our verse. Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov (died 419, fourth generation of Babylonian Amoraim), commenting on Gen 15:9 (“Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old”) concludes by quoting Qoh 4:12: “Wherever the number three appears, it is connected with nothing else but with powerful strength”⁴. According to this principle the cord of three strands symbolizes strength, endurance and faithfulness⁵. In our research we have identified at least four interpretative keys to the verse. They concern (1) the value of cooperation between three individuals, (2) the spiritual link between generations, (3) cooperation with God as source of power and might, and (4) the symbolism of different elements of the tradition.

4.1 Cooperation between Three Individuals In the first group (cooperation between three individuals), several traditions try to identify the three persons represented by the verse with personages taken from Jewish tradition. The Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah (VIII century, Eretz Israel) suggests three historical representations of the verse⁶. First, the two are David and Bathsheba, while the third is the prophet Nathan who approves the words of Bathsheba (1 Kgs 1:14) and confirms the dynasty of David by his heir Solomon (1 Kgs 1:33). Second, the two are Jehoiada and Jehoshabeath, but it is the third, namely the community of Israel, that confirms the kingship of Joash (2 Chr 22:11). Third, the two are Mordecai and Esther, but the third, the king Ahasuerus agrees with them and issues a decree liberating the Jews (Esth 8:10). A similar interpretative pattern we find in the medieval midrash Demut Kisse Shlomo ha-Melech⁷: the

4 Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer, 28,2. In this article the translations from rabbinic texts are my own. 5 Rabbi Yohanan ben Zaccay (died around 90, first generation of Palestinian tannaim) used to call his disciple Yehoshua Ben Hananya a “cord of three strands” because of his endurance and faithfulness (Abot of Rabbi Natan, 14). 6 Cf. Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah, 4,9,1. 7 Cf. Demut Kisse Shlomo ha-Melech, 6.

 The Snowball and the Cord of Three Strands 

 159

two are Nathan and Gad who cooperate with the third, David, as they admonish him after his sins. Even the words of Qoheleth, “if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion” (Qoh 4:10), have been applied to the admonition of the prophet Nathan concerning the sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12) and to the rebuke by Gad after the census of the people of Israel (2 Sam 24:11). Cooperation between individuals concerns especially the study of the Torah. The ancient document Sifre Devarim (end of III century, Eretz Israel) formulates a general principle: “A man should get a friend with whom to study the Torah and the Mishnah, to eat and drink together and with whom to share his secrets”⁸. Here the numerical aspect has been neglected in order to stress the importance of mutual cooperation. In the same vein, are the Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah and Midrash Qoheleth Zuttah, as they explain in details: “If two are studying the Torah and one of them forgets something, the second will help him. And the third that forms the cord of three strands is the teacher correcting the errors of both of them”⁹. Another goal of cooperation between individuals is ~wl{v' (peace, well-being). The sources mentioned above quote the following story attributed to Rabbi Meir (died 130–160, third generation of Tannaim, Eretz Israel) in connection with Qoh 4:12. When he saw a single man, he used to say: “Shalom, man of death!”; when he saw two men, he used to say: “Shalom, men of conflict!”; and when he saw three men, he used to say: “Shalom, man of peace (shalom)!”. This interpretation may have some connection with the Targumic reading of Qoh 4:12 (V-VII century): “If a powerful wicked man stands in a certain generation and his deeds bring punishment to the world, two will stand against him to remove the punishment. But much more valuable are three righteous men living in one generation and the peace is among them”.

4.2 Spiritual Link between Generations The second group of Jewish interpretations is focused on the spiritual link between generations. In the midrash Sifre Devarim¹⁰ and in the ethical midrash Tanna de-be Eliyahu¹¹, composed in the third century in Babylonia, we find the following interpretation: the continuity of the heritage of Jacob (Deut 32:9) is

8 Sifre Devarim, Netzavim Vayyelech, 2 (pisqa 305). 9 Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah, 4,9,1; Midrash Qohelet Zuttah, 4,12. 10 Cf. Sifre Devarim, Haazinu, 7 (pisqa 312). 11 Cf. Tanna de-be Eliyahu, 3,11.

160 

 Krzysztof Bardski 

based on the three patriarchs, namely Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom the cord of three strands symbolizes. The midrash of Elijah issues a moral obligation to preserve spiritual unity with the Patriarchs, also called Fathers of Israel. There is a lexical similarity with the above-mentioned interpretation of the Targum: the Aramaic tzadyqya (plural of righteous) and zkwthwn (their merits) call to mind the tradition of the zekut Avot (the merit of the Patriarchs) with their importance in the atonement context of Rosh ha-Shanah. But there is a substantial difference: the Targum speaks of three righteous people in one generation while Sifre Devarim and Tanna de-be Eliyahu deal with three righteous representatives of consecutive generations. In later Talmudic tradition, the treatises Ketuvot¹² and Baba Batra¹³ mention three rabbis – grandfather, father and son (Rabbi Bisa, Rabbi Chama and Rabbi Oshaya) who faithfully transmitted the Oral Torah from father to son. On this basis –together with the pattern of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob– the medieval Tosefot and Rashi¹⁴ formulate a general rule: wisdom is not a private affair but should be transmitted from generation to generation. Rashi confirms this consideration by quoting Isa 59:21, “My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring”. In the eyes of Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak (Rashi) the three generations mentioned by the prophet Isaiah can interpreted in the light of Qoh 4:12b. The moral dimension of the link between generations is stressed in the Midrash Tehillim. This commentary on the book of Psalms, composed from earlier sources in the XIIIth century, suggests the following rule: if there are three righteous men, grandfather, father and son, nothing in this world can separate them and they can be certain to receive a reward in the world to come¹⁵. Also Rabbi Zeira (third generation of Amoraim, Eretz Israel, III-IV century) confirms there are families transmitting from generation to generation the love for the Torah and the ability to gather possessions¹⁶. The same midrashic source raises an objection: it can happen that a rich family loses all its belongings gathered in the course of many generations. Rabbi Zeira answers: “It is not written ‘the cord of three strands will be not broken’, but ‘is not quickly broken’”.

12 Cf. b. Ket. 62b. 13 Cf. b. B. Bat. 59a. 14 Cf. Rabbi Shlomo Ben Yitzhak, Miqraot Gedolot, Ad Qoh 4:12b. 15 Cf. Midrash Tehillim, 59,1. 16 Cf. Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah, 4,9,1.

 The Snowball and the Cord of Three Strands 

 161

4.3 Co-operation with God as Source of Power and Might The third group of interpretations stresses the power of God as the source or the strength of the metaphorical cord of three strands. In Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer it is written: “Was it you who made yourself a cord of three strands? It is I who repeat to you the words: you shall be perfect with the Lord, your God”¹⁷. In the text there is no allusion to the number three, nor is God one of the elements of the cord. We have, rather, a general reference to the power and endurance that come from God. In the same way the principle formulated at least three times in Talmud Yerushalmi should be read: “If somebody once, twice or three times avoids violating the Torah, God will strengthen him. But if he abandons the path of the righteousness, he can be finally broken, like the cord of three strands”¹⁸. God’s co-operation with humanity illustrated by the image of the cord of three strands appears especially in the act of procreation. Rabbi Yohanan (died 279, second generation of Amoraim) used to say that the words “two are better than one” (Qoh 4:9) refer to husband and wife, and the subsequent motif of the cord of three strands makes allusion to God who gives them descendants. This interpretation was illustrated with the example of Amram and Jochebed, parents of Moses¹⁹. Another context appears in the interpretation of Rabbi Isaac (died around 200, fourth generation of Tannaim, Eretz Israel) transmitted by the Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah²⁰. The words pronounced by Moses and Aaron have more authority than the words pronounced by Moses only. But the highest authority –see “the cord of three strands”– corresponds to the words God ordered to be spoken by Moses and Aaron. The scriptural example recalled here is Lev 11:1. A similar interpretation has been endorsed by the quotation from Lev 9:23 in the same passage of Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah: “It is better that Moses and Aaron work together, than that they work separately. If they act jointly, the Divine Presence (Shekinah) descends upon them and bestows the blessing”. A further symbolical elaboration is the trio consisting of God, Moses and the Torah that gives a blessing more enduring than “the cord of three strands”. It seems this interpretation became a normative explanation of the blessing of Moses in Deut 33:1–29. We find it in the Midrash Devarim Rabbah (V-VIII century, Eretz Israel), Midrash Tanchuma (IX century, using sources from IV century, Eretz

17 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 15,3. 18 y. Peah 5b, y. Sanh. 49, y. Shevu. 7b. 19 Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah, 4,9,1. 20 Cf. ibidem.

162 

 Krzysztof Bardski 

Israel) and in the Chronicles of Moses (X-XI century)²¹. Notice that such interpretation of the symbol is far from the interpersonal relation expressed by the primary meaning of Qoh 4:12b. However, nothing suggests here –as happens in other midrashim– a personification of the Torah.

4.4 Symbolism of Different Elements of the Tradition The last interpretative key of the symbol of “the cord of three strands” goes beyond the interpersonal character of the three connected elements. It is based on the simple mention of the number three, but also on the function of the cord as something that ties and on the longitudinal visual aspect of the cord, symbolizing the continuity of the tradition. “The cord of three strands” may carry a symbolic meaning of the Written Law (Miqra), Oral Law (Mishna) and the Traditions (derech eretz) that fasten the unity of the People of Israel in a certain moment of its history and through the ages. This interpretation is present in the treatise Qiddushin of both the Talmuds (Yerushalmi and Bavli), and was appreciated by Rashi²². A similar symbolic creativity gave birth to the interpretation we find in the treatise Menachot of Talmud Bavli. It is connected with the observance of three commandments: to wear tefilim on the head and on the arm, to wear tzitzit at the edges of the garment, and to place the mezuzah on the side of the door²³. The first two mitzvot contain a clear visual allusion to the cord, while all of them call to mind the context of Qoh 4:12b. The three elements prevent falling down and an unexpected attack (Qoh 4:9–12a) – that means from sin and from evil spirits.

21 Cf. Midrash Devarim Rabbah 11,4; Midrash Tanchuma (version of the Warsaw edition), Vezot ha-beracha, 2; Divre ha-yamim le-Moshe Rabbenu (Chronicles of Moses), 12. 22 Cf. y. Qid. 22b; 23a; b. Qid. 40b; Rabbi Shlomo Ben Yitzhak, Miqraot Gedolot, ad Qoh 4:12. 23 Cf. b. Men. 43b.

 The Snowball and the Cord of Three Strands 

 163

5 Outline of the Christian Interpretative Tradition In our earlier research, we identified more than a hundred symbolic interpretations of “the cord of three strands” in the Christian tradition²⁴. They can be summarized in the following way: a.

Co-operation between individuals and the virtue of charity (especially the Syriac tradition, John Chrysostom and pseudo-Chrysostomian writings). b. Unity of the Church (Basil the Great, Pacian of Barcelona, Paschasius Radbertus). c. The link of love uniting humanity with God (Gilbert of Hoyland, Burchard of Bellevaux, William of St. Thierry, John of Forda). d. The three virtues of faith, hope and charity (Jerome, the Venerable Bede, Paschasius Radbertus, Gilbert of Hoyland, Guibert of Nogent). e. The mystery of the Holy Trinity (The most frequent interpretation in the patristic age: Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory of Elvira, Basil the Great, Philastrius of Brescia, Chromatius of Aquileia, Paulinus of Nola, Gregory the Great, Salonius, Olympiodorus, Gregory of Agrigento). f. Unity of the testimonies of the Scriptures (Ambrose, Jerome). g. Unity of the senses of the Scriptures, especially historical, allegorical and moral (the Venerable Bede, Burchard of Bellevaux). h. Body, soul and spirit, according to the Platonic anthropology (probably Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, Olympiodorus, Gregory of Agrigento, Dionisius bar Salibi, Bernard of Clairvaux). i. A negative interpretation: a cord symbolizes the sin or the vice (Augustine, Gregory the Great, Aelred of Rievaulx, Petrus Cellensis, John of Forda, Bernard of Clairvaux). j. A special case is the symbolic creativity of Bernard of Clairvaux, who connects the image of “the cord of three strands” with Christ, the angels, the triple testimony of blood, spirit and water (1 John 5:6–8), the triple ascensus of the Virgin Mary, humility, and many other spiritual topics.

24 For detailed references to the authors and sources see our article: Bardski, Trzykrotnie zapleciony sznur Eklezjastesa, 5–42.

164 

 Krzysztof Bardski 

6 Conclusions It may be surprising for the modern reader that such a marginal literary motif of the Bible as “the cord of three strands” should become the source for such deep dogmatic, moral or mystical reflection. The topic analyzed in our article is far from being exhausted; there are many more texts –especially of medieval authors– not yet published containing further symbolic interpretations in both the Jewish and the Christian traditions. Despite the differences between both traditions there is a similar process of symbolization of the biblical literary motif. First, the interpreter discerns a specific relation between the literary motif and certain aspects or concepts belonging to the religious sphere, sometimes very loosely connected with the biblical context. Second, a complex construction of allegorical associations (involving other biblical passages) is built around the symbolic interpretation that motivates the relation between the literary motif and its proposed parallel. Finally, the symbolic interpretation –repeated and developed by other interpreters– becomes part of the heritage of a certain community of faith that preserves it and considers it authoritative. In the exhortation Verbum Domini of Benedict XVI we read: “While today’s academic exegesis, including that of Catholic scholars, is highly competent in the field of historical-critical methodology and its latest developments, it must be said that comparable attention needs to be paid to the theological dimension of the biblical texts, so that they can be more deeply understood in accordance with the three elements indicated by the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum”²⁵. These three elements mentioned in Dei Verbum are the unity of the whole of Scripture, the living Tradition of the whole Church and the analogy of faith²⁶. In our article, we have analysed the Hebrew tradition, considering the unity of the whole Scripture: one verse has been interpreted in the light of the whole canon of the Hebrew Bible. We have approached the interpretation from the point of view of the tradition of Israel, and we have applied the principle of the analogy of faith in the way that a biblical motif has been connected in a symbolic way to certain elements of the religious doctrine of Judaism. The methodological approach presented in our article can also be helpful in furthering the Christian interpretation of the Bible according to the prin-

25 Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, 34. 26 Dei Verbum, 12.

 The Snowball and the Cord of Three Strands 

 165

ciples mentioned in Dei Verbum and stressed by Benedict XVI in Verbum Domini²⁷. At the same time, the approach to the text from the perspective of the reader, especially in the context of the community of faith, is one of the characteristic marks of the post-modern study of the Bible. Sometimes such an approach can become subjective and arbitrary. The consideration of the traditions of the communities of faith helps to integrate this kind of approach with the scientific study of the Scriptures. At the same time it offers a fresh insight into the so-called morethan-literal meaning of the Bible.

Bibliography Ancient and Medieval Commentaries on Ecclesiastes Jewish Tradition Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Ecclesiastes in: Miqraot Gedolot, ed. Vienna 1859 (repr. Jerusalem 1988), vol. 2, Megilat Qohelet. Midrash Qohelet Rabbah, Hebrew with Yiddish translation: Sefer Midrash Rabba Qohelet, Sefer Medrosz Rabo, 12, Warsaw 1934. English translation: A. Cohen, Midrash Rabbah (ed. Soncino), London 1931 (repr. 1971). German translation: A. Wünsche, Bibliotheca Rabbinica, vol. 1, Leipzig 1880 (repr. 1967). Midrasch suta. Haggadische Abhandlungen über Schir ha-Schirim, Echah und Kohelet, nebst Jalkut zum Buche Echah, ed. S. Buber, Berlin 1894. Moshe Alsheich, Sefer Devarim Tovim, Venice 1606; English translation: The Book of Koheleth. In Pursuit of Perfection, Jerusalem 1992. Shlomo Ben Yitzhak (Rashi), Commentary on Ecclesiastes in: Miqraot Gedolot, ed. Vienna 1859 (repr. Jerusalem 1988), vol. 2, Megilat Qohelet. Shmuel Ben Meir (Rashbam), The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir on Qoheleth, ed. S. Japhet and R. Salters, Jerusalem 1985. Targum Qohelet, Miqraot Gedolot, vol. 2, Vienna 1859; Targum de Qohelet, Edición príncipe del Ms. Villa Amil de Alfonso de Zamora, ed. L. Díez Merino, Madrid 1981. Targum Qohelet, ed. E. Levine, New York 1981; Le livre de Qohelet et son homologue araméen, Les dix Paroles, ed. C. Mopsik, Lagrasse 1990 (French translation).

27 This methodology has been presented and developed in many articles and in our recent books: Bardski, Pokarm i napój miłości; Id., Słowo oczyma Gołębicy; Id., W kręgu symboli biblijnych; Id., Lektyka Salomona.

166 

 Krzysztof Bardski 

Christian Tradition Alcuin, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (PL 100, 667–720). Bar Hebraeus, Des Gregorius Abulfarag genannt Bar Ebhrojo Anmerkungen zu den Salomonischen Schriften, ed. A. Rahlfs, Leipzig 1887. Catena Hauniensis in Ecclesiasten (CCG 24). Catena Trium Patrum (CCG 11). Didymos of Alexandria, Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Toura-Papyrus), ed. G. Binder, L. Liesenborghs, M. Gronewald, J. Kramer, and B. Krebber, Bonn 1969–1983 (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 25, 26, 22, 13, 16, 24, 9). Dionysios Bar Salibi, Kohelet-Kommentar des Dionysius bar Salibi, ed. W. Strothmann (GOF 31), Wiesbaden 1988. Ephrem, S. Patris nostri Ephrem Syri opera, Rome 1740, vol. 2, 338–344. Jacob of Sarug, Homiliae selectae Iacobi Sarugensis, ed. P. Bedjan, Paris 1910, vol. 3, 858–875. John of Apamea, Kohelet-Kommentar des Johannes von Apamea, ed. W. Strothmann (GOF 30), Wiesbaden 1988. Ps-John Chrysostom, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (CCG 4, 51–103). Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (CCL 72, 247–361). Ps-Gregory of Agrigento, Explanatio super Ecclesiasten, ed. G. H. Ettlinger (CCG 56). Gregory of Elvira, Fragmenta in Ecclesiasten (ad Eccl 3, 3 e 3, 6) (CCL 69, 262). Gregory of Nyssa, Homiliae in Ecclesiasten Salomonis (GNO 5, 195–442). Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Metaphrasis in Ecclesiasten (PG 10, 988–1017). Isho’dad of Merv, Commentaire sur le livre de l’Ecclésiaste, ed. C. van der Eynde (CSCO 229–230, Syriac: 96–97) 197–218. 233–255. Metrophanes of Smyrna, Thargmanebay Eklesiastisay Mithrophane Zmurnel metropolitsay, ed. K. S. Keklidze, Tbilisi 1920. Olympiodorus, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (PG 93, 477–628). Procopius of Gaza, Catena in Ecclesiasten (CCG 4, 5–39); Un nuovo testimone della Catena sull’Ecclesiaste di Procopio di Gaza: il Cod. Vindob. Theol. Gr. 147, ed. S. Leanza (CCG 4 Suppl.). Richard of S. Victor, Tractatus de meditandis plagis quae circa finem mundi eveniunt (PL 196, 201–212). Ps-Rupert of Deutz, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (PL 168, 1195–1306). Ps-Salonius, In Ecclesiasten expositio mystica (PL 53, 993–1012). Taio of Saragossa, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (PLS 4, 1754–1772). Theodor Bar Konai, Liber scholiorum, ed. A. Scher, Leipzig 1910 (CSCO 55), 336, 13–14. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Das Syrische Fragment des Ecclesiastes-Kommentars von Theodor von Mopsuestia, ed. W. Strothmann (GOF 28), Wiesbaden 1988; Syrische Katenen aus dem Ecclesiasten-Kommentar des Theodor von Mopsuestia, ed. W. Strothmann (GOF 29), Wiesbaden 1988.

 The Snowball and the Cord of Three Strands 

 167

Modern Literature Bardski, Krzysztof, Trzykrotnie zapleciony sznur Eklezjastesa (Koh 4, 12b) i jego symbolika w tradycji Izraela i Kościoła: Scriptura Sacra 3 (1999) 5–44. Bardski, Krzysztof, Pokarm i napój milosci. Symbolizm w ponaddoslownej interpretacji Biblii w tradycji Kosciola (Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 16), Warsaw: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Vocatio”, 2004. Bardski, Krzysztof, Słowo oczyma gołębicy. Metodologia symboliczno-alegorycznej interpretacji Biblii oraz jej teologiczne i duszpasterskie zastosowanie (Rozprawy naukowe 3), Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 2007. Bardski, Krzysztof, W kręgu symboli biblijnych, Krakóv: Petrus, 2010. Bardski, Krzysztof, Lektyka Salomona. Biblia, symbol, interpretacja (Warszawskie studia teologiczne. Nowa seria wydawnicza. Rozprawy naukowe 6), Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 2011. Benedict XVI, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation «Verbum Domini», Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2010. Grech, Prosper, The «Regula fidei» as Hermeneutical Principle Yesterday and Today, in: Richard Malone (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Acts of the Symposium held by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, September 1999, Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2001, 208–224. Shaffer, Aaron, The Mesopotamian Background of Qoh 4:9–12: Eretz Israel 8 (1967) 246–250. Shaffer, Aaron, New Information on the Origin of the Threefold Cord: Eretz Israel 9 (1969) 159–160.

Ben Sira

Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M.

Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom in Tobit 4:3–19 Alexander A. Di Lella: The Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., USA

1 Introduction Though the Book of Tobit is primarily a story, scholars generally acknowledge that “it also incorporates a number of passages that would align it more with wisdom literature”¹. In this article I shall highlight and then examine the considerable number of parallels from the Wisdom of Ben Sira in the passage where Tobit gives extended advice to his son Tobiah (Tob 4:3–19), a text that can be called a “farewell” address since Tobit had prayed for death and, of course, expected that his prayer would be answered. The text of Tobit below is taken from The New American Bible Revised (NABRE, 2011); this text is based essentially on the Greek text edited by R. Hanhart². Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., prepared this revised translation.

2 Tobit 4:3–19 3

He called his son Tobiah; and when he came, he said to him: “Son, when I die, give me a decent burial. Honor your mother, and do not abandon her as long

1 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 34. See also Simpson, The Book of Tobit, 191–192; Clamer, Tobie, 430–431; Moore, Tobit, 19–21; Zappella, Tobit, 18. 2 Hanhart, Tobit. There are two complete recensions of Tobit in Greek. Hanhart calls these recensions Greek I (= GI), the shorter text form, and Greek II (= GII), the longer form (by about 1700 words). Almost all major manuscripts – Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1594 (= 990), and most cursive manuscripts – contain GI of Tobit, which Hanhart prints at the top of the page with its apparatus underneath. Hanhart prints GII at the bottom of the page with an apparatus, which includes readings from 319, which fills in part of the lacuna in Sinaiticus 4:7–19b, and 910 as well as the critically important Old Latin manuscripts (= La). The Old Latin, which contains the entire Book of Tobit, is important, for it was translated from a text-form close to the recension found in Sinaiticus that has two significant lacunae (4:7–19b and 13:6i-10b) for which 319 and GI is the basis of translation. For the text and manuscript evidence of Tobit, including the Qumran materials, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 3–17.

172 

 Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. 

as she lives. Do whatever pleases her, and do not grieve her spirit in any way. 4 Remember, son, how she went through many dangers for you while you were in her womb. When she dies, bury her in the same grave with me. 5 “Through all your days, son, keep the Lord in mind, and do not seek to sin or to transgress his commandments. Perform righteous deeds all the days of your life, and do not tread the paths of wickedness. 6 For those who act with fidelity, all who practice righteousness, will prosper in their affairs. 7 “Give alms from your possessions. Do not turn your face away from any of the poor, so that God’s face will not be turned away from you. 8 Give in proportion to what you own. If you have great wealth, give alms out of your abundance; if you have but little, do not be afraid to give alms even of that little. 9 You will be storing up a goodly treasure for yourself against the day of adversity. 10 For almsgiving delivers from death, and keeps one from entering into Darkness.11 Almsgiving is a worthy offering in the sight of the Most High for all who practice it. 12 “Be on your guard, son, against every kind of fornication, and above all, marry a woman of your own ancestral family. Do not marry a foreign woman who is not of your father’s tribe, because we are descendants of the prophets, who were the first to speak the truth. Noah prophesied first, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our ancestors from the beginning of time. Son, remember that all of them took wives from among their own kindred and were blessed in their children, and their posterity would inherit the land. 13 Therefore, son, love your kindred. Do not act arrogantly toward any of them, the sons and daughters of your people, by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in arrogance there is ruin and great instability. In idleness there is loss and dire poverty, for idleness is the mother of famine. 14 “Do not keep with you overnight the wages of those who have worked for you, but pay them at once. If you serve God thus, you will receive your reward. Be on your guard, son, in everything you do; be wise in all that you say and discipline yourself in all your conduct. 15 Do to no one what you yourself hate. Do not drink wine till you become drunk or let drunkenness accompany you on your way. 16 “Give to the hungry some of your food, and to the naked some of your clothing. Whatever you have left over, give away as alms; and do not let your eye begrudge the alms that you give. 17 Pour out your wine and your bread on the grave of the righteous, but do not share them with sinners. 18 “Seek counsel from every wise person, and do not think lightly of any useful advice. 19 At all times bless the Lord, your God, and ask him that all your paths may be straight and all your endeavors and plans may prosper. For no other nation possesses good counsel, but it is the Lord who gives all good things. Whomever the Lord chooses to raise is raised; and whomever the Lord chooses

 Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom inTobit 4:3–19  

 173

to cast down is cast down to the recesses of Hades. So now, son, keep in mind my commandments, and never let them be erased from your heart”.

3 Parallels and Their Analysis In the parallels discussed below I sometimes provide the Greek text of Tobit whenever I deem it pertinent and for the same reason the Greek text³ and the Hebrew (when extant)⁴ and Latin texts of Ben Sira⁵ as well.

3.1 Tob 4:3–4 3

“He called his son Tobiah; and when he came, he said to him: “Son, when I die, give me a decent burial. Honor your mother, and do not abandon her as long as she lives. Do whatever pleases her, and do not grieve her spirit in any way. 4 Remember, son, that she went through many dangers for you while you were in her womb. When she dies, bury her in the same grave with me”. Tobit urges his son to show due respect to his father and mother, a command that is based, of course, on the Decalogue (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) and finds a counterpart also in Prov 23:22: “Listen to your father who begot you,/ do not despise your mother when she is old”. The command to honor father and mother is greatly expanded in Ben Sira’s advice to children: Sir 3:1–16.⁶ Here are selected verses from that passage. “For the Lord sets a father in honor over his children/ and confirms a mother’s authority over her sons./ Those who honor their father atone for sins;/ they store up riches who respect their mother” (3:2–4). “A father’s blessing gives a person firm roots,/ but a mother’s curse uproots the growing plant” (3:9)⁷.

3 From Ziegler, Sapientia Jesu Filii Sirach. 4 From Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. 5 From Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam. 6 For an exhaustive study of this text, see Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern bei Ben Sira; see also the reviews of Hoppe, 136–138, and Begg, 285–287. For the concordance work of the MT as well as the Hebrew of Ben Sira, GI and GII, and La, I employed the elegant Macintosh program Accordance Bible Software, Scholars Collection, version 9.3.3, Altamonte Springs, FL, Oak Tree Software, 2011. This version makes it possible also to search the text of all the extant Heb Mss of Ben Sira published so far and even parses every word. 7 All translations from the OT are taken from NABRE for which I did the revision of the Wisdom of Ben Sira. I omit the critical notes here, because these would have made my article cumbersome

174 

 Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. 

Tobiah must provide his father and mother with a decent burial. Tobit’s advice finds an echo in Sir 38:16: “My son, shed tears for one who is dead/ with wailing and bitter lament;/ As is only proper, prepare the body,/ absent not yourself from his burial”. Tobit himself was zealous in his duty of burying the dead even at times with great personal risk to his life (Tob 1:16–18; see also 12:12)⁸. Burial is a major theme in the Book of Tobit, being mentioned seven times⁹. Then Tobit commands Tobiah to honor his mother and never abandon her or cause her any grief; this text clearly echoes Sir 7:27–28: “With your whole heart honor your father;/ your mother’s birth pangs do not forget./ Remember, of these parents you were born;/ what can you give them for all they gave you?” For the motif of burial of spouses and family together (Tob 4:4), see Gen 25:8–10 (Abraham is buried next to his wife Sarah); 49:29–33 (Moses is buried with his ancestors); Jdt 16:23 (Judith is buried in the cave of her husband, Manasseh). In Tob 6:15, Tobiah expresses his worry that if he should die after marrying Sarah (a fate that overtook her first seven husbands), his parents would have no other son to bury them. Sons had the serious obligation of providing proper burial for their parents; see Gen 47:29–31.

3.2 Tob 4:5 “Through all your days, son, keep the Lord in mind [], and do not seek to sin or to transgress his commandments. Perform righteous deeds [ (so S; 391 and La have the singular)] all the days of your life, and do not tread the paths of wickedness”. The duty of every God-fearing Jew was keeping the Lord in mind and avoiding sin by not transgressing his commandments¹⁰. “Theology of Remembering” is a major theme of Deuteronomic theology¹¹. For a parallel to Tobit’s paternal advice, we may cite Sir 1:26–28: “If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments,/ and the Lord will bestow her upon you;/ For fear of the Lord is wisdom and discipline [];/ faithfulness and humility are his delight./ Do not disobey the fear of the Lord,/ do not approach it with duplicity of heart”. See also 6:37; 10:19; 28:7; 32:23–24; 35:1–2¹². Particularly relevant here are the following passages: “If you 5

to read. The critical notes, however, are available for sale from the Catholic Biblical Association, Washington, DC 20064. 8 See Ego, Death and Burial in the Tobit Narration, 87–103. 9 See Bolyki, Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, 91–95. 10 See Deut 8:2; 26:13; 28:13–14; 30:15–20; Isa 64:4; Jer 51:50. 11 See Di Lella, The Deuteronomic Background, 384–385. 12 For practical and theoretical wisdom in Ben Sira, see Di Lella, God and Wisdom, 10–16.

 Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom inTobit 4:3–19  

 175

choose you can keep the commandments [; La mandata; Mss A and B have the singular, hwcm];/ loyalty is doing the will of God” (Sir 15:15); “Thus all who dwell on the earth shall know,/ all who remain in the world shall understand,/ That nothing is better than the fear of the Lord,/ nothing sweeter than obeying the commandments [] of the Lord” (23:27). In 15:1 Ben Sira summarizes his theological perspective well: “Whoever fears the Lord will do this;/ whoever is practiced in the law will come to Wisdom”. This statement contains Ben Sira’s favorite concepts: fear of the Lord, the Law, and Wisdom¹³.

3.3 Tob 4:6 “For those who act with fidelity [], all who practice righteousness []¹⁴, will prosper in their affairs”. Tobit’s observation is based on the Deuteronomic theology of retribution that we find throughout his book: in the present life virtue and fidelity will be rewarded, whereas wickedness and infidelity will be punished¹⁵. Tobit’s words call to mind Ben Sira’s comment in 27:8: “If you strive after justice [], you will attain it,/ and wear it like a splendid robe”.

6

3.4 Tob 4:7 “Give alms [] from your possessions. Do not turn your face away from any of the poor [], so that God’s face will not be turned away from you. Almsgiving is a worthy offering in the sight of the Most High for all who practice it”. The noun  appears more often in Tobit (22 occurrences) than in any other book of the Old Testament¹⁶. Raphael, in his farewell speech to Tobit and Tobiah before ascending into heaven, also speaks of the virtues of almsgiving: “Prayer with fasting is good. Almsgiving with righteousness is better than wealth with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold” (Tob 12:8). 7

13 See Harrington, Jesus Ben Sira of Jerusalem, 111. 14 As regards the placement of these words, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 169–170. 15 See Di Lella, The Deuteronomic Background, 380–389. Ben Sira’s teaching on retribution is also Deuteronomic; see Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 83–87. 16 See Moore, Tobit, 176.

176 

 Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. 

Ben Sira has similar words of wisdom, using virtually the same Greek words in the second clause: “A beggar’s request do not reject;/ do not turn your face away from the poor []./ From the needy do not turn your eyes;/ do not give them reason to curse you” (Sir 4:4–5).

3.5 Tob 4:8–11 8

“Give in proportion to what you own. If you have great wealth, give alms out of your abundance; if you have but little, do not be afraid to give alms even of that little. 9 You will be storing up a goodly treasure for yourself against the day of adversity. 10 For almsgiving delivers from death, and keeps one from entering into Darkness.11 Almsgiving is a worthy offering in the sight of the Most High for all who practice it”. Ben Sira makes many similar comments on the moral imperative of almsgiving: “With those in humble circumstances be patient;/ do not keep them waiting for your alms;/ Because of the commandment [], help the poor,/ and in their need, do not send them away empty-handed” (Sir 29:8–9); “Store up almsgiving in your treasury,/and it will save you from every evil;/ Better than a mighty shield and a sturdy spear/ it will fight for you against the enemy” (Sir 29:12–13)¹⁷. As regards v. 10, Tobit, in narrating the story of Nadab’s treachery (14,8.9–11), tells his son again about the importance and beneficial results of giving alms: it preserved from death his nephew Ahiqar who had cared for Tobit after his blindness¹⁸.

3.6 Tob 4:12 “Be on your guard, son, against every kind of fornication [], and above all, marry a woman of your own ancestral family. Do not marry a foreign woman [] who is not of your father’s tribe, because we are descendants of the prophets, who were the first to speak the truth. Noah prophesied first, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our ancestors from the beginning of time¹⁹. Son, remember that all of them took wives from among their own kindred and were blessed in their children, and their posterity would inherit the land”.

12

17 See Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands. 18 See Di Lella, A Study of Tobit 14:10, 497–506. 19 See Reiterer, Prophet und Prophetie in Tobit, 157–159.

 Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom inTobit 4:3–19  

 177

Though the noun , “illicit sexual activity”, is not explained here, it seems to refer to a marriage against the rules of endogamy²⁰. Tobit himself married Hannah, a woman of his ancestral heritage (1:3–9). By doing so, Tobit “reveals his loyalty to ancestral traditions, as he followed the endogamy or consanguineous marriage of the patriarchs (Gen 24:7, 37–38; 28:1–9; 29:19)”²¹. In an extended passage Ben Sira likewise warns about the evils of immorality (Sir 23:16–19): “Two types of people multiply sins,/ a third draws down wrath:/ Burning passion is a blazing fire,/ not to be quenched till it burns itself out;/ One unchaste with kindred/ never stops until the fire breaks forth./ To the unchaste [] all bread is sweet;/ he is never through till he dies;/ The man who dishonors his marriage bed/ says to himself ‘Who can see me?/ Darkness surrounds me, walls hide me,/ no one sees me. Who can stop me from sinning?’/ He is not mindful of the Most High,/ fearing only human eyes./ He does not understand that the eyes of the Lord,/ ten thousand times brighter than the sun,/ Observe every step taken/ and peer into hidden corners”. Ben Sira remarks further (Sir 41:17): “Before father and mother be ashamed of immorality [, MsB twnz],/ before prince and ruler, of falsehood”; as well as Sir 41:21c.20b-22ab: “[Be ashamed o]f gazing at a man’s wife,/ of entertaining thoughts about another woman;/ Of trifling with a servant girl you have,/ of violating her bed” (see also Sir 9:8–9). Tobit cites the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to motivate Tobiah not to marry a foreign woman. He reminds his son that all the ancestors took wives from their own kindred with the result that they were blessed in their posterity who inherited the land (v. 12). In 44:19–23 Ben Sira makes extended remarks regarding these ancestors: “Abraham, father of many peoples,/ kept his glory without stain:/He observed the Most High’s command [; La legem Excelsi; MsB !wyl[ twcm],/ and entered into a covenant with him;/ In his own flesh he incised the ordinance,/ and when tested was found loyal./ For this reason, God promised him with an oath/ to bless the nations through his descendants,/ To make him numerous as grains of dust,/ and to exalt his posterity like the stars;/ Giving them an inheritance from sea to sea,/ and from the River to the ends of the earth./ And for Isaac he renewed the same promise/ because of Abraham, his father,/ The covenant with all his forebears was confirmed,/ and the blessi ng rested upon the head of Israel./ God acknowledged him as the firstborn,/ and gave him his inheritance./ He fixed the boundaries for his tribes/ and their division into twelve”.

20 See Nicklas, Marriage in the Book of Tobit, 143–144. 21 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 112. See also Hieke, Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, 103–120, esp. 108–109.

178 

 Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. 

3.7 Tob 4:13 “Therefore, son, love your kindred []. Do not act arrogantly toward any of them, the sons and daughters of your people, by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in arrogance [] there is ruin and great instability. In idleness there is loss and dire poverty, for idleness [] is the mother of famine”. As regards love of kindred, Ben Sira offers this wisdom saying: “Every living thing loves its own kind [; La omne animal diligit similem sibi; MsA wnym bhay rXbh lk],/ and we all love someone like ourselves./ Every living being keeps close to its own kind;/ and people associate with their own kind [; MsA ~da rbwxy wnym la]” (13:15–16; vv. 14–15 in Hebrew). The sage has sundry observations on the evils of arrogance: “No matter what the wrong, never harm your neighbor,/ or go the way of arrogance./ Odious to the Lord and to mortals is pride [, MsA hwag],/ and for both oppression is a crime./ Sovereignty is transferred from one people to another/ because of the lawlessness of the proud./ Why are dust and ashes proud [, MsA hagy]?/ Even during life the body decays” (Sir 10:6–9). “Do not dispute about what is not your concern;/ in the quarrels of the arrogant [Mss A and B ~ydz; G ῀ ; La peccantium] do not take part” (Sir 11:9). “Panic and pride wipe out wealth;/ so too the house of the proud [] is uprooted” (Sir 21:4). “Through the lips the sinner is caught;/ by them the reviler and the arrogant [] are tripped up” (Sir 23:8). Tobit’s warning to his son about the evils of idleness, has a good parallel in Sir 33:28–29: “Force [your slave] to work that he be not idle,/ for idleness [] teaches much mischief”. 13

3.8 Tob 4:14 14

“Do not keep with you overnight the wages of those who have worked for you, but pay them at once. If you serve God thus, you will receive your reward. Be on your guard, son, in everything you do; be wise in all that you say and discipline yourself [] in all your conduct”. Paying a worker’s wages on time was a solemn obligation enshrined in the Law (Lev 19:13; Deut 24,14–15) as well as the prophets (Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5); see also Jas 5:4. So it is not surprising that Ben Sira also put great emphasis on this ethical imperative: “To take away a neighbor’s living is to commit murder;/ to deny a laborer wages is to shed blood” (34:26–27). Tobit connects this obligation with serving God who will then give Tobiah his reward. Ben Sira makes similar comments: “Whoever obeys me [Wisdom] will judge nations;/ whoever listens to me

 Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom inTobit 4:3–19  

 179

will dwell in my inmost chambers” (4:15). “Those who serve God to please him are accepted;/ their petition reaches the clouds” (35:20). Tobit then exhorts his son to be wise by practicing discipline. Discipline is of course a common refrain among the wisdom writers and a key concept in Ben Sira: “My child, from your youth choose discipline []/ and when you have gray hair you will find wisdom [; MsC hmkx]” (6:18)²². “Whoever seeks God must accept discipline [MsB rswm];/ and whoever resorts to him obtains an answer” (Sir 32:14). “Wise instruction, appropriate proverbs,/ I have written in this book” (50:27).

3.9 Tob 4:15 15

“Do to no one what you yourself hate”. This is a negative formulation of the Golden Rule; for a positive form of this rule, see Matt 7:12²³ and Luke 6:31. Tobit then warns his son about immoderate wine drinking: “Do not drink wine till you become drunk or let drunkenness accompany you on your way”. After he speaks about the joy of drinking wine in moderation, Ben Sira comes down hard on the misuse of wine: “Let not wine be the proof of your strength,/ for wine has been the ruin of many./ As the furnace probes the work of the smith,/ so does wine the hearts of the insolent./ Wine is very life to anyone if taken in moderation./ Does he really live who lacks the wine/ which from the beginning was created for joy?/ Joy of heart, good cheer, and delight/ is wine drunk at the proper time./Headache, bitterness, and disgrace/ is wine drunk amid anger and strife./ Wine in excess is a snare for the fool;/ it lessens strength and multiplies wounds” (31:25–30)²⁴.

3.10 Tob 4:16 16

“Give to the hungry some of your food, and to the naked some of your clothing. Whatever you have left over, give away as alms []; and do not let your eye begrudge the alms that you give”.

22 See Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 77–78. 23 The note in NABRE on this verse states: “This saying, known since the eighteenth century as the ‘Golden Rule’, is found in both positive and negative form in pagan and Jewish sources, both earlier and later than the gospel”. For other ancient formulations of the Rule, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 175. 24 For a comprehensive discussion of drunkenness in the Old Testamemt see Dubach, Trunkenheit.

180 

 Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. 

It is noteworthy that Tobit addresses almsgiving twice in the exhortation to his son, the first being in v. 7. In different parts of his book, Ben Sira is equally insistent on giving charity to the poor and doing so with a generous heart and in a timely manner. “As water quenches a flaming fire,/ so alms atones for sins [; MsA tajt rpkt hqdc]./ The kindness people have done [; MsA bwj l[wp] crosses their path later on;/ should they stumble, they will find support” (Sir 3:30–31). We should note that hqdc has a wide range of meanings some of which are: “righteousness, uprightness, justice, loyalty, innocence, honesty, godliness, charity, generosity, almsgiving, right, entitlement”²⁵. The noun , however, has a more restricted sense: “pity, mercy, charity, alms, alsmgiving”²⁶. “My child, do not mock the life of the poor;/ do not keep needy eyes waiting []./ Do not grieve the hungry, nor anger the needy;/ Do not aggravate a heart already angry,/ nor delay giving to the needy []./ A beggar’s request do not reject;/ do not turn your face away from the poor []./ From the needy do not turn your eyes [φ];/ do not give them reason to curse you” (Sir 4:1–5). “To the poor also extend your hand [ ],/ that your blessing may be complete” (7:32). “My child, add no reproach to your charity,/ or spoil any gift by harsh words [ /]./ Does not the dew give relief from the scorching heat?/ So a word can be better than a gift./ Indeed does not a word count more than a good gift;/ But both are offered by a kind person./ The fool is ungracious and abusive,/ and a grudging gift makes the eyes smart” (18:15–18).

3.11 Tob 4:17 17

“Pour out your wine and your bread on the grave of the righteous, but do not share them with sinners”. The exact meaning of Tobit’s advice is disputed, for Deut 26:14 seems to forbid, at least by implication, the offering of food at the tomb of the deceased: “I have not eaten any of the tithe while in mourning; I have not brought any of it while unclean; I have not offered any of it to the dead. I have thus obeyed the voice of

25 See DCH 7 (2010) 85–88. 26 See Lust – Eynikel – Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon, 192. For the range of meanings of , see the fine study of Griffin, A Study of Eleēmosynē in the Bible, esp. 2–5; I directed this dissertation.

 Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom inTobit 4:3–19  

 181

the Lord, my God, and done just as you have commanded me”²⁷. But apparently Ben Sira gives the same advice as Tobit: “Give your gift to all the living,/ and do not withhold your kindness from the dead [; La mortuo non prohibeas gratiam; MsA dsx [nmt la tmm]” (Sir 7:33). Ben Sira may refer to sharing the bread of consolation with the family of the deceased, as in Jer 16:7 and Ezek 24:17²⁸. In 30:18, however, Ben Sira seems to ridicule the practice of putting food and drink on the graves of the dead: “Good things set before one who cannot eat/ are like offerings placed before a tomb”²⁹. Relevant to these passages is Bar 6:26 where there is a scathing comment about idols: “If they fall to the ground, the worshipers must raise them up. They neither move of themselves if one sets them upright, nor come upright if they are tipped over; offerings are set out for them as for the dead”.

3.12 Tob 4:18 “Seek counsel [] from every wise person [], and do not think lightly of any useful advice”. Giving advice is what we expect of the OT wisdom teachers. A typical expression is Prov 19:20: “Listen to counsel and receive instruction,/ that you may eventually become wise”. True to his vocation, Ben Sira has many thoughts to offer along this line: “Listen, my child, and take my advice;/ do not refuse my counsel []” (6:23). “Do not neglect the discourse of the wise [; MsA ~ymkx txyX]/ but busy yourself with their proverbs;/ For in this way you will acquire the training [; MsA xql] / to stand in the presence of princes./ Do not reject the tradition of the elders/ which they have heard from their ancestors;/ For from it you will learn/ how to answer when the need arises” (8,8–9). “The knowledge of the wise [] wells up like a flood,/ and their counsel [́ ͂] like a living spring” (21:13). “When one is wise to the advantage of people,/ the fruits of [his] knowledge are lasting [ ˜]” (37:23)³⁰. 18

27 See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 176–177. 28 Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207–208; and Moore, Tobit, 173. 29 See de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 60. 30 For an explanation of the textual problems with the verse, see Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 435.

182 

 Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. 

3.13 Tob 4:19a “At all times bless the Lord, your God [], and ask him that all your paths may be straight and all your endeavors and plans may prosper. For no other nation possesses good counsel [], but it is the Lord who gives all good things []”. Using more colorful imagery than Tobit’s, Ben Sira also urges his students to praise the Lord: “Send up the sweet odor of incense,/ break forth in blossoms like the lily./Raise your voices in a chorus of praise;/ bless the Lord [] for all his works” (39:14)!³¹ Praise of God “is man’s most characteristic mode of existence: praising and not praising stand over against one another like life and death”³². Early in his book, Ben Sira says: “You that fear the Lord [; La qui timetis Deum]³³, hope for good things [],/ for lasting joy and mercy [ ]” (2:9). Regarding the good things the Lord provides, Ben Sira states: “For the virtuous his paths are level,/ to the haughty they are clogged with stones;/ Good things for the good he provided from the beginning [ ],/ but for the wicked good things and bad” (39:24–25). 19a

3.14 Tob 4:19b 19b

“Whomever the Lord chooses to raise is raised; and whomever the Lord chooses to cast down is cast down to the recesses of Hades [ ]. So now, son, keep in mind my commandments [ ], and never let them be erased from your heart”. The imperative  here forms an inclusio with v. 5, thus emphasizing the Deuteronomic “Theology of Remembrance”³⁴. In his “Song of Praise” near the end of the book, Tobit (13:2) echoes the thoughts of the first sentence: “For he afflicts and shows mercy;/ he casts down to the depths of Hades [ ]/, brings up from the great abyss./ What is there that can snatch from his hand”. When Tobit speaks of “my commandments”, he means, of course, not only the exhortations in 4:3–19, but especially the commandments of the Law. In like manner Ben Sira writes: “Reflect on the law of the Most High,/

31 See Liesen, ‘With all your heart’, 199–213. 32 So von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. I, 369–370. 33 NABRE inaccurately has “Lord”, instead of “Lord”. Future editions will correct this error. 34 See comment above on v. 5.

 Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom inTobit 4:3–19  

 183

and let his commandments [] be your constant study./ Then he will enlighten your mind,/ and make you wise as you desire” (6:37). “Nothing is better than the fear of the Lord,/ nothing sweeter than obeying the commandments of the Lord [/̃ ; La nihil melius quam timor Dei/ et nihil dulcius quam respicere in mandatis Domini]” (23:27).

4 Conclusion The above parallels between Tob 4:3–19 and the Wisdom of Ben Sira with their analysis confirm the scholarly consensus that the Book of Tobit indeed contains many clear wisdom motifs as well as statements. Some of the parallels (e.g., Tob 4:7 and Sir 4:4–5) are more striking and unmistakable than others; but even these latter show convincingly that the Book of Tobit employs wisdom ideas as a major literary feature³⁵.

Bibliography Baker, David L., Tight Fists or Open Hands. Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge U.K.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2009. Beentjes, Pancratius C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTS 68), Leiden – New York – Köln: Brill, 1997. Begg, Christopher T., [Review of] R. Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern bei Ben Sira. Studien zur Motivation und Interpretation eines Grundwertes in frühhellenistischer Zeit (TTS 51), Trier: Paulinus, 1991, in: Bib 74 (1993) 285–287. Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem, vol. 12: Sapientia Solomonis, Liber Hiesu filii Sirach (cura et studio monachorum Sancti Benedicti Commissionis pontificiae a Pio pp. X institutae sodalium), Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1964. Bohlen, Reinhold, Die Ehrung der Eltern bei Ben Sira. Studien zur Motivation und Interpretation eines Grundwertes in frühhellenistischer Zeit (TTS 51), Trier: Paulinus, 1991. Bolyki, János, Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies, in: Géza G. Xeravits – József Zsengellér (eds.), The Book of Tobit. Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May 2004 (JSJS 98), Leiden: Brill, 2005, 88–101.

35 For a detailed study of the wisdom instruction in Tobit 4, 12, and 14, see Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions.

184 

 Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. 

Clamer, Albert, Tobie, in: Louis Pirot – Albert Clamer, Paralipomènes-Esdras-NéhémieTobie-Judith-Esther-Job (La Sainte Bible, texte latin et traduction française d’après textes originaux avec un commentaire exégétique et théologique 4), Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1952, 385–480. Di Lella, Alexander A., The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3–11: CBQ 41 (1979) 380–389. Di Lella, Alexander A., God and Wisdom in the Theology of Ben Sira. An Overview, in: Renate Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002, 3–17. Di Lella, Alexander A., A Study of Tobit 14:10 and Its Intertextual Parallels: CBQ 71 (2009) 497–506. Dubach, Manuel, Trunkenheit im Alten Testament. Begrifflichheit – Zeugnisse – Wertung (BWANT 184) Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009. Ego, Beate, Death and Burial in the Tobit Narration in the Context of the Old Testament Tradition, in: Tobias Niklas – Friedrich V. Reiterer – Joseph Verheyden (eds.), The Human Body in Death and Resurrection (DCLY), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009, 87–103. Fitzmyer, Joseph, A., Tobit (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Griffin, Patrick J., A Study of Eleēmosynē in the Bible with Emphasis upon Its Meaning and Usage in the Theology of Tobit and Ben Sira (M.A. diss., the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1982). Hanhart, Robert, Tobit (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 8/5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Harrington, Daniel J., Jesus Ben Sira of Jerusalem. A Biblical Guide to Living Wisely (Interfaces), Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005. Hieke, Thomas, Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra-Nehemiah, in: Géza G. Xeravits – József Zsengellér (eds.), The Book of Tobit. Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May 2004 (JSJS 98), Leiden: Brill, 2005, 103–120. Hoppe, Leslie J., Review of Reinhold Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern bei Ben Sira. Studien zur Motivation und Interpretation eines Grundwertes in frühhellenistischer Zeit (TTS 51; Trier 1991), in: JBL 113 (1994) 136–138. Liesen, Jan, ‘With all your heart’. Praise in the Book of Ben Sira, in Renate Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002, 199–213. Lust, Johan – Erik Eynikel – Katrin Hauspie (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003, revised edition. Macatangay, Francis M., The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 12), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Moore, Carey A., Tobit. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 40A), New York: Doubleday, 1996. Nicklas, Tobias, Marriage in the Book of Tobit. A Synoptic Approach, in: Géza G. Xeravits – József Zsengellér (eds.), The Book of Tobit. Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May 2004 (JSJS 98), Leiden: Brill, 2005, 139–154.

 Parallels of Ben Sira’s Wisdom inTobit 4:3–19  

 185

von Rad, Gerhard, Old Testament Theology, vol. I: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Reiterer, Friedrich V., Prophet und Prophetie in Tobit und Ben Sira. Berührungspunkte und Differenzen, in: Géza G. Xeravits – József Zsengellér (eds.), The Book of Tobit. Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May 2004 (JSJS 98), Leiden: Brill, 2005, 155–175. Simpson, David C., The Book of Tobit, in: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. With introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books, edited in conjunction with many scholars by R.H. Charles, vol. I: Apocrypha, Oxford: Clarendon, 1913, 174–241. Skehan, Patrick W. – Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. New Translation with Notes by Patrick W. Skehan; Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella (The Anchor Bible 39), New York: Doubleday, 1987. de Vaux, Roland, Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. Zappella, Marco, Tobit. Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi antichi 30), Cinisello Balsamo (Milano): San Paolo, 2010. Ziegler, Joseph, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 12/2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21980.

Nuria Calduch-Benages

Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse Nuria Calduch-Benages: Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, Italy

1 Introduction We do not know whether Ben Sira was in a bad mood when he wrote his passage on the adulterous woman (!), as Duesberg – Fransen assert in their commentary¹, but it is a fact that, in Sir 23:22–27, the sage becomes very intransigent and his discourse acquires some very harsh tones. It is sufficient to compare this pericope with the previous one on the adulterer. While in Sir 23:18–21 the emphasis falls on the relationship between the adulterer and God who sees everything and whose attention nothing escapes, in Sir 23:22–27 the offence of adulterous woman becomes the passage’s centre of attention and its consequences are described in every detail. It is obvious that Ben Sira is more severe with the adulterous woman than with the adulterer. At any rate, our purpose is neither to make a comparative study of both these texts nor to investigate the different presentation of the two characters. We intend, rather, to focus our attention on Sir 23:22–27, dwelling not on the triple aspect of the offence of adultery or on its dramatic consequences that will ever pursue the fate of the children involved, but on the function of the last verse, a question that is usually passed over by scholars. The analysis of Sir 23:27 will be preceded by a brief presentation of previous studies on the entire passage, by our annotated translation of the Greek text and by an investigation into its literary composition. We shall conclude with some observations on 23:28(GII).

2 Previous Studies on Sir 23:22–27 The first to make a detailed study of Sir 23:22–27 was Warren C. Trenchard in his 1982 monograph on Ben Sira’s vision of women². The fourth chapter of this work (“Woman as Adulteress and Prostitute”) begins precisely with the analysis of our

1 Duesberg – Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 50. 2 Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 95–108.

 Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

 187

text, with the exception of the last verse. This analysis is preceded by a discussion of the immediate (23:7–27³) and remote (23:16–27) context. Sir 23:16–27 is devoted to various sexual misdemeanours and particularly to adultery whether by the man or the woman. Convinced of Ben Sira’s misogyny, Trenchard puts himself on the side of the adulterous woman, looking for a reason to explain and to justify her behaviour. And the result? Contrary to the seductress (“the strange/foreign woman”) of Proverbs (cf. Prov 2:16; 5:3; 7:5; 6:24), who supposedly is moved by sexual desire, the adulterous woman is moved by a desire for motherhood. Trenchard supposes therefore that the adulterous woman did not have any children by her husband. Since the legitimate way is unsuccessful, the woman tries the illegitimate one. In order to have a child, she does not hesitate to put her own life at risk. In Trenchard’s words, “the woman’s primary motivation for her act or acts was the desire to have children of her own. The prospect of an heir was probably her rationalization, since an heir would be an asset to her husband”⁴. Claudia V. Camp’s approach to our text and to the question of women in general in Ben Sira is different. In a well-known study published in 1991, she re-reads Sir 23:22–27 from the point of view of the “honor-shame complex”, a determining element in understanding Mediterranean anthropology. Within this framework, “social identity is construed with particular attention to sexual relationships, such that male ‘honor’ –the highest, and a highly contested, good– is determined essentially by the control men exercise over women’s ‘shame’, that is her sexuality”⁵. This control by the man, however, is not limited to the sphere of sexuality but embraces also the area of the family economy. It is the husband, and he alone, who has to maintain his house, his wife and his children (cf. Sir 25:21– 22). As far as our passage is concerned, behind the sage’s detailed description, Camp glimpses a rather unusual family situation: “the wives of poor men engage in sexual activity with wealthy patrons in order to help support their families. The issue here not would be the desire of childless women for heirs but the shameful necessity for a man –in order to avoid shame!– to accept as legitimate the fruit of his wife’s labor for another”⁶.

3 For the analysis of this section, he follows faithfully the proposal of Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 165–167. It should be noted that in the Greek text the above-mentioned section is entitled παιδεία στόματος, “discipline of the mouth”, a title which interrupts the indisputable unit of 22:27– 23:27 (the title is absent in S, A and O-V, in several minuscules as well as in the Syriac version). Beentjes, Sir 22:27–23:6 in zijn context, 144.149–150 (cf. Id., Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord, 89) and Marböck, Jesus Sirach 1–23, 270 doubt its authenticity. 4 Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 100. 5 Camp, Understanding Patriarchy, 2. 6 Camp, Understanding Patriarchy, 28.

188 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages 

Finally, we should note the contribution of Ibolya Balla in her doctoral thesis on family, gender and sexuality in Ben Sira (2011). In its fourth chapter, on illicit or inadvisable sexual behaviour, Balla devotes some pages to Sir 23:22–27⁷. In her analysis, she makes continual references to the passage on adultery with the aim of showing the differences between both texts, especially with regard to the gravity and consequences of the woman’s adultery. In addition to infringing the divine law and introducing an illegitimate heir into the family, the woman’s transgression lies in beginning a sexual relationship on her own initiative. In other words, in the situation described she does not perform a sexual role that is passive, as one would be expect, but an active one. It is not, therefore, the husband who is controlling the sexuality of the woman but vice versa. Now clearly, in a patriarchal society such as that of Ben Sira, such sexual freedom on the part of the woman could only be considered a grave offence against the honour of the husband. According to Balla, “it appears that Ben Sira takes a pragmatic approach to the issue of extramarital intercourse, where transgression against the divine law is an important factor, but transgression at communal level resulting in shame, and including the reversal of the normal order of things (female sexual initiative instead of male), seem to be equally important factors, if not more important”⁸.

3 Text, Translation and Textual Notes Since the Hebrew text of Sir 23:22–27 is not available, we go on to record the Greek version according to the edition of Ziegler⁹ together with our translation accompanied by some textual notes. 23:22 23

24 25

Οὕτως ϰαὶ γυνὴ ϰαταλιποῦσα τὸν ἄνδρα ϰαὶ παριστῶσα ϰληρονόμον ἐξ ἀλλοτρίου. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐν νόμῳ ὑψίστου ἠπείθησεν, ϰαὶ δεύτερον εἰς ἄνδρα αὐτῆς ἐπλημμέλησεν, ϰαὶ τὸ τρίτον ἐν πορνείᾳ ἐμοιχεύθη ϰαὶ ἐξ ἀλλοτρίου ἀνδρὸς τέϰνα παρέστησεν. αὕτη εἰς ἐϰϰλησίαν ἐξαχθήσεται, ϰαὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέϰνα αὐτῆς ἐπισϰοπὴ ἔσται. οὐ διαδώσουσιν τὰ τέϰνα αὐτῆς εἰς ῥίζαν, ϰαὶ οἱ ϰλάδοι αὐτῆς οὐϰ οἴσουσιν ϰαρπόν.

7 Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 134–137. 8 Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 137. 9 Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 235–236.

 Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

26 27

GII28

22 23

24 25

 189

ϰαταλείψει εἰς ϰατάραν τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς, ϰαὶ τὸ ὄνειδος αὐτῆς οὐϰ ἐξαλειϕθήσεται, ϰαὶ ἐπιγνώσονται οἱ ϰαταλειϕθέντες ὅτι οὐθὲν ϰρεῖττον ϕόβου ϰυρίου ϰαὶ οὐθὲν γλυϰύτερον τοῦ προσέχειν ἐντολαῖς ϰυρίου. δόξα μεγάλη ἀϰολουθεῖν θεῷ, μαϰρότης δὲ ἡμερῶν τὸ προσληϕθῆναί σε ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. So too the woman who leaves her husband¹⁰ and generates an heir¹¹ by another (lit. strange) man¹². Firstly, she has disobeyed¹³ the law of the Most High¹⁴; secondly, she has offended against her husband¹⁵ and third, she has committed adultery by prostituting herself¹⁶, generating children by another man (lit. strange man)¹⁷. She will be brought into the assembly¹⁸ and on her children will fall punishment (lit. there will be a visitation)¹⁹. Her children²⁰ will not put forth roots²¹, and her branches will not bear fruit.

10 La reads mulier omnis. Syr makes explicit: “who sins against”. After τὸν ἄνδρα, some mss. of the Lucianic recension (L) add the possessive αὐτῆς (= Syr and La). 11 The min. 248 and other mss. of L read the noun ϰληρονομίαν (= Lat ereditatem). 12 The Origenic recension (O-V) and the min. 248 read ἐξ ἄλλου (= Syr), cf. v. 23d. Lat translates freely ex alieno matrimonio, a choice which Peters considers “ganz schief [totally askew]” (Peters Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 192). 13 Syr: “she was unfaithful”. The same verse is to be understood in the following phrase (v. 23b). La reads incredibilis fuit and so has not understood the meaning of ἠπείθησεν (cf. Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 192). 14 Syr: “the law of God”. 15 Syr translates freely: “[she was unfaithful] to the husband of her youth”, cf. Prov 2:17. 16 Syr translates strangely: “[she was unfaithful] in the fornication of adultery”. 17 O-V and the min. 248 read ἐξ ἄλλου ἀνδρὸς (cf. v. 22b) (= La: ex alio viro). Syr instead: “by a stranger”. 18 La: in ecclesiam adducetur (= Gr). Syh: “in the assembly she will be treated with hatred”. Syr: “she will be driven out from the assembly”. 19 According to Peters, Lat respicietur is not a variant but a free translation of ἐπισϰοπὴ ἔσται so that “das Zusammentreffen mit der vermutenden Vorlage dqeP'yI zufällig ist [the coincidence with the conjectural Vorlage dqeP'yI is coincidental]” (Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 193). Syr, more explicitly, anticipates v. 26: “and her sins will be remembered against her children”. 20 Smend comments: “Man erwartet des Parallelismus halber eher von ‘Sprossen’ zu hören [For the sake of the parallelism, one expects to hear of ‘shoots’” (Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 214). 21 The preposition εἰς is absent in L, Syh, Syr and La. Syr adds “in the land”.

190 

26 27

GII28

 Nuria Calduch-Benages 

She will leave behind an accursed (lit. in a curse) memory and her disgrace²² will not be blotted out. And those who have survived will know²³, that nothing is better than the fear of the Lord and nothing sweeter than observing the commandments of the Lord²⁴. It is great glory to follow God and length of days to be accepted by him²⁵.

4 Literary Composition Criteria of both form and content point us to a tripartite division of the passage: the threefold offence of the adulterous woman (23:22–23), the consequences for the children (23:24–26) and the conclusion (23:27), which the glossator of the long form of the Greek version (GII) completes by adding a further verse (23:28). We should note the presence of the verb ϰαταλείπω (22a.26a.27a) in all three parts of our passage, even if it is employed with a different meaning each time²⁶.

4.1 Section one: Sir 23:22–23 There is no doubt that the link between our passage and the preceding one is indicated by the adverbial expression οὕτως ϰαί at the beginning of v. 22. There are discordant opinions concerning the interpretation of the said expression. While, for some authors, it represents a relationship of equality between the adulterer

22 Syr: “her debts/faults”. 23 Syr has two stichs: And all the inhabitants of the earth will know, and all those who have survived in the world will understand”, which emphasise the universal dimension of the sage’s teaching. According to some authors, for reasons chiefly connected with the rhythm, Syr is to be preferred (cf. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 214, even if he considers “in the world” an addition of the translator; Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 190; Box – Oesterley, Sirach, 396; Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 320; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach 1–24, 128). 24 Instead of ϰυρίου, 253 L-743 b 46 Arm read θεοῦ, while the min. 443 and 543 omit it. Syr: “his commandments”. 25 This verse is found only in L, in the min. 672 and 743 and in La: et gloria magna est sequi Dominum /longitudo enim dierum adsumetur ab eo. 26 In 23:22a and in 23:26a, ϰαταλείπω is transitive. In the first case, it is a question of leaving the wife (real sense), while in the second case a leaving behind of an accursed memory (figurative sense). In 23:27a, on the other hand, the verb is intransitive. Cf. supra.

 Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

 191

and the adulterous woman (both, in fact, have committed the same sin and both have attracted the attention of the narrator)²⁷, for others, instead, this equality is only apparent since the two characters, having a different importance, are treated in a different way²⁸. Moreover, there are those who maintain that the initial expression could be a concrete reference to the punishment that awaits the adulterer in the public square since this is the last thing mentioned in v. 21²⁹. So, consequently, the same punishment would apply also to the woman committing the same sin. Several factors contribute to the unity of the first section of our text. – First, the presence of our protagonist, who without ever being called exactly “adulteress”, is described in the first verse with two participial phrases as “the woman who leaves (ϰαταλιποῦσα) her husband and generates (παριστῶσα) an heir by a stranger”. – Second, the inclusions between παριστῶσα (22b) and παρέστησεν (23d) and between ἐξ ἀλλοτρίου (22b) and ἐξ ἀλλοτρίου ἀνδρὸς (23d). – Third, the triple repetition of the term ἀνήρ, “man/husband” (22a.23b.23d) and the repetition of ἀλλοτρίος, “strange” (22b.23d) both put emphasis on the male figure, whether the woman’s husband or her lover. – Fourth, both the use of a numeric series (πρῶτον, ϰαὶ δεύτερον, ϰαὶ τὸ τρίτον) and of four verbs in the aorist (ἠπείθησεν, ἐπλημμέλησεν, ἐμοιχεύθη, παρέστησεν) to describe the woman’s adultery serve to emphasise the gravity of the offence. – Fifth, the chiastic arrangement which links 22b: ϰαὶ παριστῶσα / ϰληρονόμον / ἐξ ἀλλοτρίου with 23d: ϰαὶ ἐξ ἀλλοτρίου ἀνδρὸς / τέϰνα / παρέστησεν, highlighting the centrality of the words ϰληρονόμον and τέϰνα, “heir” and “children”. Not by chance τέϰνα (23d) functions as hookword with the following section by anticipating its chief theme³⁰.

27 Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 97: “The effect of this [the reference is to οὕτως ϰαί] is to suggest that the man described in vv. 18–21 was also engaged in adultery. But since we are not told whom the man offended by his behavior, we are left to conclude that Ben Sira sees this offense being against the institution of marriage itself…”, cf., also, 267, note 37. On the same lines, cf. Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 68 and Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 167. 28 Marböck, Jesus Sirach 1–23, 275. 29 Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 325. 30 According to Trenchard, the step from the singular (“heir”) to the plural (“children”) “raises the question of whether this woman mothered more than one illegitimate child in her quest for an heir, or whether the text beginning in v. 23 becomes a discussion of general principle rather than a specific incident” (Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 100). In our opinion (and in

192 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages 

4.2 Section two: Sir 23:24–26 In 23:24–26, the presence of the woman makes itself felt by means of the pronoun αὕτη in v. 24a and the possessive adjective αὐτῆς, which is found in all the verses (5x) except the first. However, the author’s attention shifts towards the children upon whom the guilt of the mother falls. Notable is the repetition of τὰ τέϰνα αὐτῆς (24b.25a), together with οἱ ϰλάδοι αὐτῆς, “her branches” (25b), that is, her children in a figurative sense. Placed between two references to the woman (24a and 26ab), the discourse on the children occupies the central position of this section. While in 23:22–23 the verbs are all in past tense, here they are all in the future because they refer to the punishment, which both the mother and the children will undergo as a result of her adultery. The fact that the two verbs which express the actions of the children are formulated in the negative: οὐ διαδώσουσιν… εἰς ῥίζαν (25a) and οὐϰ οἴσουσιν ϰαρπόν (25b), underlines forcefully the dramatic repercussions of the mother’s behaviour on her children, already mentioned –albeit in a different way– in 24b. If we also take into consideration the last verse, which we shall be speaking of below, we can already glimpse in the three sections of the text an internal dynamic orientated towards ends which are typically pedagogical. Its route could be described as follows: starting point is the original relationship between the woman and the husband (man) in 23:22–23; it passes in a second moment to the relationship between mother and children in 23:24–26, in order then to come to rest finally in a sphere different from and larger than that of the family, viz. the relationship between people (disciples) and God in 23:27(28).

5 The Last Verse (Sir 23:27) We intend to concentrate now on the last verse. After a detailed analysis of 23:27, we shall try to establish its function at the formal and thematic level within the passage to which it belongs just as in its immediate and wider context.

this we agree with the author), it is impossible to reply to this question which, besides, seems to us to be forced on the text.

 Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

 193

5.1 Analysis Since the distich is the most characteristic literary unit of Sirach, it is striking that Sir 23:27 has three stichs instead of two. Even if this is not the only case in the book (there are forty or thereabouts), some authors have recourse to the Syriac version to resolve the anomaly³¹. Our preference, however, is to follow the Greek text as it has been handed down to us without altering it. From a syntactic point of view, the verse is composed of a principal statement (27a), governed by a verb of knowing (ἐπιγνώσονται), which rules a subordinate clause introduced by the conjunction ὅτι (27b). In its turn, this subordinate clause contains two coordinate nominal phrases (27bc). We turn now to an analysis of the statements one at a time. There is an unexpected change of subject in 27a. If, in the previous verses, with the exception of 23:24 where the children have been introduced, the subject has always been the adulterous woman, now οἱ ϰαταλειϕθέντες enter the scene as addressees of the teaching. But to whom is the author referring with this appellation?³² If we translate the term (part. pass. aor. of ϰαταλείπω) literally, the addressees are “those who remained”, that is, those who came later³³ (later than the woman is being understood), the future generations or posterity³⁴. The formulation of 27a, very similar to 46:10, confers on this stich a tone which some define as “moralising”³⁵. However, we find here the pedagogic intention of the sage who avails himself of every opportunity to point to the essential. In the light of what has happened, therefore, those that come after can learn (ἐπιγινώσϰω) something very important from the case of the adulterous woman and her progeny.

31 Cf. note 23. 32 According to Peters, the expression “all those who have remained in the world” (Syr) would be the best interpretation of οἱ ϰαταλειϕθέντες (Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 193). Differently, Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 175 and Kaiser, Weisheit für das Leben, 56 translate: “die sie zurückläßt [who left them behind (?)]”. In his recent commentary, Marböck translates: “die zurückgelassene werden [who are left behind]” and comments: “Die übrig gelassene (27a) Zeugen des Gerichtes über die Ehebrecherin und deren Kinder kommen zu einer sehr grundsätzlichen Erkenntnis [The witnesses of the judgement of the marriage breaker and her children (27a) come to a very categorical understanding]” (Marböck, Jesus Sirach 1–23, 270.275). Cf., also, Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 226: “Los restantes” [the other ones] and Fragnelli, “Siracide”, 1622: “I superstiti” [the survivors]. 33 Spicq, L’Ecclésiastique, 684 translates “ceux qui viendront après [those who come after]” and then comments: “Les survivants doivent tirer cet enseigement… [the survivors must attain this teaching]”. 34 Oesterley, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, 156; Minissale, Siracide, 123. 35 Cf. Duesberg – Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 196; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 70 and Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 136 speak of “moral lesson”.

194 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages 

But what will they learn? The content of the teaching is made explicit in 27bc by means of a “better”-saying. According to Roland E. Murphy³⁶, the “better”saying can be described as “a common form of the proverbial sayings scattered in wisdom literature. It is not usually found in clusters, and hence perhaps it stands out more prominently than other sayings”. In the book of Ben Sira there are eight “better”-sayings structured according to the formula “better than” (10:27; 16:3cd; 19:24; 20:31; 23:27bc; 29:22; 30:14–17; 42:14). To these texts, we should add the series 40:18–26³⁷, where, instead of the usual formula, the sage employs the variant “(better) than both”. Apart from the use of the said formula, 23:27bc has other points in common with the texts listed above. At the formal level, it shares the position at the end of the unit with 20,31 (conclusion of 20:27–31 on the appropriate use of wisdom), with 40:26 (conclusion of 40:18–26 on the better thing) and with 42:14 (conclusion of 42:9–14 on a father’s concern for his daughter). On the thematic level, it is close to 40:26 where the fear of the Lord constitutes the climax of the series, and to 19:24 where the fearer, ἔμϕοβος (of God) is set in contrast with the one who transgresses the law. Even if the God-fearer is without intelligence and the transgressor of the law is laden with prudence, the first is better than the second in the eyes of the sage. In other words, the one who fears the Lord occupies the first place, independently of his ability. The “better”-saying of 23:27cd follows the law of parallelism in which the members of the second stich correspond to those of the first, in this case in a synonymous relationship: ὅτι ϰαὶ

οὐθὲν οὐθὲν

ϰρεῖττον γλυϰύτερον

ϕόβου ϰυρίου τοῦ προσέχειν ἐντολαῖς ϰυρίου

The parallelism between fear of the Lord/God and law/commandments, the focal point of our verse, is frequent in Sirach. It is found also in the following texts: 1:25–26; 9:15–16; 10:19; 15:1; 19:20.24; 21:11; 32:15–16; 32:24–33:1; 37:12; 39:1. However, the precise expression προσέχειν ἐντολαῖς appears otherwise only in 32:24 (“whoever believes in/trusts in the law, observes the commandments”)³⁸. The Hebrew text, available in three manuscripts, presents a notable difference with respect to the Greek: “whoever observes the law (hrwt rmv MsB)/whoever

36 Murphy, Proverbial Sayings/‘Better’-Sayings, 35. 37 Reymond, Sirach 40,18–27, 84–92. 38 Cf., also, 35,1: “whoever observes the commandments [offers] a communion sacrifice”.

 Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

 195

gives heed to the law (hrwt rcwn Mss E, F), takes care of himself”³⁹. As Antonino Minissale rightly observes, this difference can be understood only if one takes into account the different structure which 32:21–24 presents in the two texts⁴⁰. While in the Hebrew text v. 24 opens a new strophe (32:24–33:3), in the Greek version it concludes the passage starting in v. 18 (32:18–24). Therefore, in addition to the expression προσέχειν ἐντολαῖς, 23:27 and 32:24 also have another element in common, that is, the concluding function which they perform in their respective passages, even when, as we shall see later, the significance of our verse is much broader. As to the comparative adjectives, “sweeter” (γλυϰύτερον) corresponds to “better” (ϰρεῖττον). The adjective γλυϰύς is also found in a passage on friendship with reference to speaking: “the sweet throat multiplies friends and the gracious tongue finds a welcome” (6:5), and, in Wisdom’s address to those who desire her: “the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey, my inheritance [is better] than the honeycomb” (24:20). The mention of remembrance or memory (μνημόσυνον) reminds us of the adulterous woman, whose memory is marked with a curse. However, this is not the only reference to our protagonist. In fact, in his description of the adulterous woman, the sage employs the same images which he has already applied to Wisdom in chapter 1 and which he will take up again in chapter 24. I refer to the terms ῥίζα, “root” (cf. 1:6.20; 24:12 [ἐρρίζωσα] and 23:25), ϰλάδοι, “branches” (cf. 1:20; 24:16[3x] and 23:25) and ϰάρποι, “fruits” (cf. 1:16; 24:17 and 23:25 [ϰαρπός]). With these references, Ben Sira not only intends to place the two female figures in relation to each other, but also to present Wisdom as the positive counterpart of the adulterous woman⁴¹. Another element present in both contexts provides further confirmation: while the adulterous woman is accused of transgressing “the law of the Most High” (23:23), Wisdom instead is identified with “the law that Moses commanded us” (24:23). What the sage intends with the expression “the law of the Most High” (νόμος ὑψίστου) is not made clear in the text. However, we hold with Pancratius C. Beentjes that it does not refer to a concrete commandment (Exod 20:14, for example, or Deut 5:10), but that it has a wider significance, something attested moreover in the other texts where it appears (9:15; 38:34; 41:8; 42:2; 44:20; 49:4)⁴². John J. Collins also

39 We should note that in the reading of MsB there is a repetition of the same verb as in 32:23b: “because whoever does this observes the commandments (hwcm rmv)”. 40 Cf. Minissale, La versione greca, 86–87. 41 Cf. Marböck, Gesetz und Weisheit, 42; Id., Jesus Sirach 1–23, 277 and Beentjes, Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord, 92. 42 Cf. Beentjes, Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord, 92–93. Differently, Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 102; Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 47; Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 325.

196 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages 

aligns himself with this position when –à propos this interpretation– he states: “Sirach’s concern is with conformity to tradition in principle, with the attitude of reverence, rather than with legal details”⁴³. Let us make a final observation on the adverb οὐθέν (“nothing”), present in the two stiches. Its repetition emphasises the radical nature of the conclusion. Both concepts, fear of the Lord and the observance of the Law, exceed all other values Ben Sira wishes to inculcate.

5.2 Function From our analysis, we deduce that Sir 23:27 functions as a conclusion. It is made clear both by the literary formula used in 27bc (a “better”-saying) and by its content (the wordpair fear of the Lord/observance of the law). The combination of these two elements with the final position of the verse and the introduction of the “better”-saying (27a) leaves no doubt with regard to this question. Of course, the problem arises when one wants to clarify to what text 23:27 is referring. In other words, for what passage, section or part of the book does it function as a conclusion? To this question there are, in our opinion, six possible solutions, which we present as follows: a) Sir 23:27 as the conclusion to 23:22–27, the passage on the adulterous woman⁴⁴. The negative tone characterising the description of the woman is softened by the last verse where the excellence of the fear of the Lord and the sweetness involved in the observance of the law get the upper hand. In this way, the sage succeeds in transforming a negative experience like that of the adulterous woman into an effective pedagogic tool. b) Sir 23:27 as the conclusion to 23:16–27⁴⁵, a section devoted to sins of a sexual nature, especially adultery. Our verse, therefore, refers, not only to the adulterous woman but also to the adulterer (23:18–21) and to those who succumb

43 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 70. 44 Beentjes, Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord, 92: “Sir. 23:27 has a clear function of summary in reaction to the description of the adulterous woman (Sir. 23:22–26)”. According to Murphy, on the other hand, 23:27 has no connection with the previous verses: “It does have the appearance of a sweeping, summary statement” (Murphy, Proverbial Sayings/‘Better’-Sayings, 38). 45 Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 226; Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 96; MacKenzie, Sirach, 97; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 68–70; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 176; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach 1–24, 126.128; Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 136: “The comment [she is referring to 23:27] seems almost an expression of hope or perhaps reassurance that whoever fears the Lord and keeps his commandments will be saved from sinning in the way described in 23:16–21.22–26…”.

 Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

 197

to their passions (23:16–17). It would have the aim of inspiring hope in the face of the dark reality of sin. Put differently, the fear of the Lord and the observance of the law help a person not to fall into the sins mentioned in this section. c) Sir 23:27 as the conclusion of 23:7–27⁴⁶, a section composed of two quite different passages, one on discipline in speaking (vv. 7–15), the other on sexual passions (vv. 16–27). In this case, the final verse would be a general application addressed to the “future generations”. In the introduction one would then find a corresponding general passage, 23:7–8, whose addressees are “sons/disciples”. The import of the conclusion, therefore, embraces not only sexual but also verbal sins. d) Sir 23:27 as the conclusion of 22:27–23:27⁴⁷, a section containing warnings about sins that destroy a person, such as sins of the tongue and sins of a sexual nature. As Beentjes⁴⁸ has demonstrated, the theme of 22:27–23:1 (prayer/tongue) is taken up and developed in 23:7–15 (instruction/tongue) and, in the same way, the theme of 23:2–6 (prayer/passions) is taken up and developed in 23:16–26 (instruction/passions). The purposeful composition of this section highlights the connection between prayer and instruction⁴⁹, to which 23:27 implicitly refers. In fact, the fear of the Lord and the observance of the law express the internal and external aspects of the religious spirit, that is, “the devotional and practical sides of religion”⁵⁰. e) Sir 23:27 as the conclusion of 19:20–23:27. At its strategic points, that is, at the beginning (19:20), in the middle (21:11), and at the end (23:23.27), this section contains the three fundamental theological concepts of the book⁵¹: wisdom, fear of God and the law. Even if 23:27 does not mention wisdom explicitly (the closest occurrence is found in 23:2b), the reference to “knowing” evokes its presence. f) Sir 23:27, finally, as the conclusion of 1:1–23:27⁵². Since the second part of the book begins in 24,1, our verse resembles Qoh 12:13 since both texts display a

46 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 166 (note that the author follows the Syriac text of 23:27); Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women, 96. 47 Weber, Sirach, 549; Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 321.326. 48 Beentjes, Sir 22:27–23:6 in zijn context, 144–150. 49 Gilbert, Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira, 118. 50 MacKenzie, Sirach, 97. 51 Cf. Beentjes, Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord, 90–92; Marböck, Sirach 1–23, 272.275–276. 52 Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 193; Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 226; Weber, Sirach, 549; Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 118; Beentjes, Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord, 92; Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 122.

198 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages 

close connection between fear of the Lord and observance of his commandments while being concluding verses. While some authors hold that 23:27 can be described as an “elegant conclusion”⁵³, we propose to read it as a purposeful statement. Between the lines, we can hear the voice of the sage who is instructing his disciples a fundamental lesson: “In short, the indispensable condition for tackling the ‘praise of Wisdom’ (cap. 24) is to be free from those sins which destroy the person from within. How can this be done? In addition to prayer, the fear of the Lord and the observance of the law will help you”⁵⁴. The reader now will certainly be confused at the prospect of having to choose between such different proposals. However, they are not mutually exclusive, but rather compatible and even complementary. At the end of our analysis, we believe to have shown that Sir 23:27 is a conclusive verse serving several purposes. This analysis finds confirmation in the connection mentioned above between the adulterous woman at the end of the first part of the book (1–23) and Lady Wisdom at the beginning of the second part (24:1–42:12). Sir 23:27 is a hinge: on the one hand, it is conclusive with regard to everything that precedes it and, on the other hand, it opens up before the reader a new horizon of which it is in some way an anticipation.

6 The GII Addition (Sir 23:28)⁵⁵ It appears that the glossator of GII was not satisfied with v. 27. In fact, he adds a new verse to our passage with the aim of completing the teaching of the master, which he holds to be insufficient in some way. In the first stich, the glossator proposes an idea –present elsewhere in the book (1:11.19 and 24:12.16–17)– that the relationship with God fills humans with glory. This idea is clarified in the second stich, the content of which recalls Deut 30:20. By means of a link between abundance of days and the fear of the Lord, the author not only clarifies the meaning of “to follow God” (ἀϰολουθεῖν θεῷ) in 23:27, but also makes the concluding function more explicit. Length of days in 23:28 refers to 1:12.20 and thus produces the effect of an inclusion.

53 Skehan – Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 326; Murphy, Proverbial Sayings/‘Better’Sayings, 38. 54 Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 137. 55 For a detailed analysis of Sir 23:28, cf. Bussino, Greek Additions, 361–368.

 Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse 

 199

In conclusion, with this addition on faithfulness to God and the awareness of being accepted by him, the glossator is preparing the transition to the discourse on Wisdom in chapter 24 and then to the exemplification of the history of the famous men in chapters 44–50. In doing so, however, “he diminished the role of Sir 23,27 within the teaching of Ben Sira”⁵⁶. In other words, the conclusion of the first part of the book is now shifted from 23:27 to 23:28.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis, Proverbios y Eclesiástico (LLS 8.1), Madrid: Cristiandad, 1968. Balla, Ibolya, Ben Sira on Family, Gender and Sexuality (DCLS 8), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Beentjes, Pancratius C., Sir 22:27–23:6 in zijn context: Bijdragen 39 (1978) 144–151. Beentjes, Pancratius C., ‘Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord’: Ben Sira 19,20–20,32: Context, Composition and Concept, in: Id. (ed.), “Happy is the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43), Leuven: Peeters, 2006, 87–106 = Estudios Bíblicos 47 (1989) 27–45. Box, George Herbert – William Oscar Emil, Oesterley, The Book of Sirach, in: Robert H. Charles (ed.), APOT, vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon, 1913, 268–517. Bussino, Severino, The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. Translated from the Italian by Michael Tait (AnBib 203), Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013. Camp, Claudia V., Understanding a Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem through the Eyes of Ben Sira, in: Amy-Jill Levine (ed.), ‘Women Like This.’ New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Graeco-Roman World (SBLEJL 1), Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1991, 1–39. Collins, John J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Duesberg, Hilaire – Irénée Fransen (eds.), Ecclesiastico (La Sacra Bibbia volgata latina e traduzione italiana dai testi originali illustrate con note critiche e commentate a cura di Mons. Salvatore Garofalo. Antico Testamento sotto la direzione di P. Giovanni Rinaldi C. R. S.), Turin – Rome: Marietti, 1966. Fragnelli, Pietro M., Siracide, in: Luciano Pacomio (ed.), La Bibbia Piemme, Casale Monferrato (AL): Piemme, 1995, 1571–1666 (= Pietro M. Fragnelli, Un uomo saggio istruisce il suo popolo. Invito alla lettura del Siracide, Rome: Pontificio Seminario Romano, without date). Gilbert, Maurice, Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira. Function and Relevance, in: Renate Egger-Wenzel – Jeremy Corley (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003 (DCLY 2004), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004, 117–135. Haspecker, Josef, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1967.

56 Bussino, Greek Additions, 368.

200 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages 

Kaiser, Otto, Weisheit für das Leben. Das Buch Jesus Sirach. Übersetz und eingeleitet, Stuttgart: Radius, 2005. MacKenzie, Roderick A.F., Sirach (OTM 19), Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983. Marböck, Johannes, Gesetz und Weisheit: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes bei Jesus Sirach: BZ 20 (1976) 1–21. Marböck, Johannes, Jesus Sirach 1–23 (HTKAT), Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2010. Minissale, Antonino, Siracide (Ecclesiastico) (Nuovissima versione della Bibbia dai testi originali 23), Rome: Paoline, 1980. Minissale, Antonino, La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo tragumico (AnBib 133), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995. Morla Asensio, Víctor, Eclesiástico. Texto y Comentario (El mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 20), Estella (Navarra): La Casa de la Biblia et al., 1992. Murphy, Roland E., Proverbial Sayings/‘Better’-Sayings in Sirach, in: Nuria Calduch-Benages – Jacques Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Fs Maurice Gilbert (BETL 143), Leuven: University Press – Peeters, 1999, 31–40. Oesterley, William Oscar Emil, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge: University Press, 1912. Peters, Norbert, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt, Münster in Westf.: Aschendorff, 1913. Reymond, Eric D., Sirach 40,18–27 as ‘Tôb-Spruch’: Bib 82 (2001) 84–92. Sauer, Georg, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira (ATD Apokryphen Band 1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schnabel, Eckhard J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics (WUNT 2. Reihe 16), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schreiner, Josef, Jesus Sirach 1–24 (NEB. Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung 38), Würzburg: Echter, 2002 Skehan, Patrick W. – Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes by Patrick W. Skehan. Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella (The Anchor Bible 39), New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Snaith, John G., Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach (Cambridge Bible Commentary. New English Bible), Cambridge: University Press, 1974. Spicq, Charles, L’Ecclésiastique, in: Louis Pirot – Albert Clamer (eds.), La Sainte Bible, vol. 6, Paris: Letouzay & Ané, 1951, 529–841. Trenchard, Warren C., Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis (BJS 38), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Weber, Thomas H., Sirach, in: Raymond E. Brown – John A. Fitzmyer – Roland E. Murphy (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968, 541–555. Ziegler, Joseph, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 12/2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21980.

Pancratius C. Beentjes

A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives: Ben Sira 40:1–17 and 16:26–17:4 Pancratius C. Beentjes: Tilburg School of Theology, Netherlands

1 Introduction In a decade when the study of the phenomenon of “intertextuality” was still quite rare, the present author made an attempt to investigate how Ben Sira in his book of wisdom has adopted formulae and quotations from the “holy scriptures” of his days, and in what cases we have to reject as direct parallels those passages that at first sight seem directly to be borrowed from biblical material but at a closer look have nothing to do with it either in content or in context¹. In this contribution to honour Maurice Gilbert on the occasion of his 80th birthday, the question of intertextuality in the Book of Ben Sira is investigated anew. Attention is paid to the use and function of quotations from and allusions to the first chapters of the Book of Genesis as they are supposed to be found in two pericopes, viz. Ben Sira 40:1–17 and 16:26–17:4².

2 Ben Sira 40:1 The first example emerges at the opening of chapter 40. Does Ben Sira in 40:1 borrow deliberately from Gen 3:20, either as an allusion or even as a quotation? A literal translation of Sir 40:1 from the Hebrew runs: (a) A great toil has God allotted, (b) and a heavy yoke to the children of man / Adam:

1 Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach. In the interim, several volumes relating to this topic have been published. E.g. Draaisma, Intertextuality in Biblical Writings; Fewell, Reading between Texts; Aichele – Phillips, Intertextuality and the Bible; Henze, A Companion to Biblical Interpretation. 2 My contribution is meant to approach the question from an angle different from that of Maurice Gilbert in his essay on Ben Sira as a reader of Genesis 1–11; see also Levison, Portraits of Adam, 33–48.

202 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

(c) from the day someone leaves his mother’s womb (d) to the day one returns to the mother of all the living. In order to assess the connotations of this verse as well as possible, it is necessary, first and foremost, to study the context of Sir 40:1. It is quite important that the pericope preceding Sir 40:1–17 functions as the opening of the final part of the Book of Ben Sira. Whether that pericope includes Sir 39:12–35, as is the opinion of some Ben Sira scholars, or, according to other experts, should be restricted to Sir 39:14–35, is not essential to the question under investigation³, for both options include the magnificent hymn in Sir 39:16–35 which de facto functions as a theodicy, a didactic poem reflecting on the appropriateness of creation. As opposed to the optimistic vision explicitly put into words in that hymn, in Sir 40:1 we find a range of thought which tries vigorously to refute the hymn’s thesis that all things are good. Starting with Sir 42:15, the theme of the overture (Sir 39:16–35) is amply re-orchestrated in a magnificently arranged wisdom hymn on Creator and creation (Sir 42:15–43:33) and on famous men in biblical history (Sir 44:1–50:29). Thus, it is quite evident that Sir 40:1 starts a new paragraph within the Book of Ben Sira, one which, according to the majority of experts, concludes with Sir 40:17. This consensus, however, contrasts sharply with views of the way in which one should define the structure of this passage (Sir 40:1–17)⁴. Returning to the heart of the matter, the question is whether the words ‫אם‬ ‫“( כל חי‬the mother of all the living”) in Sir 40:1 are to be considered a direct reference to Gen 3:20, as it is the only passage in the Hebrew Bible with an identical structure. In my view, a direct connection is far from obvious, since we have to do with two completely different contexts in which the expression “the mother of all the living” is found⁵. In Sir 40:1 it is used as an image referring to the earth⁶, whereas in Gen 3:20 the same expression is clearly dissociated from the “mother

3 In favour of Sir 39:12–35 are: van den Born, Wijsheid, 194–198; Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom, 454–461; Marböck, Gerechtigkeit Gottes; Liesen, Full of Praise. In favour of Sir 39:14–35 are: Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 183; Prato, Il Problema, 62–115; Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 138– 144; Rickenbacher, Weisheitsperikopen, 155–156. 4 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 182–183: Sir 40:1–7 and 40:8–17; Prato, Il Problema, 313: Sir 40:1– 5ab; 40:5cd-7; 40:8–11 and 40:12–17; Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom, 469–470: Sir 40:1–10 and 40:11–17; van den Born, Wijsheid, 198–200: Sir 40:1–11 and 40:12–17; Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 334–344: Sir 40:1–11 and 40:12–30. 5 Beentjes, Jesus Sirach, 110. 6 Westermann, Genesis, 365: “‘Mutter aller Lebenden’ wird in Sir 40:1 die ‘Mutter Erde’ genannt. Dies wird sicher auf eine traditionelle Bezeichnung zurückgehen…”. The image of

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

 203

earth tradition”⁷ and is intended to provide the reader with a typically popular etymology of the name Chawwah (= Eve), tracing it back in an artificial way to the verb ‫“( חיה‬to live”). In this respect, it must be expressly stated that in MS B, the only Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript in which chap. 40 has survived so far, an interesting variant reading has come down to us. Instead of ‫“( אם כל חי‬mother of all the living”), the left-hand margin offers the variant reading '‫“( ארץ כ' ח‬the earth of all the living”), which is identical to the Syriac: l’r‘’ dḥya⁸. Since the Greek translation by Ben Sira’s grandson has εἰς μητέρα πάντων (“mother of all”), both the marginal reading of MS B and the Syriac must be considered an interpretative change.

3 Parallel – Pro and Contra The following arguments are adduced in favour of the view that Sir 40:1 has much in common with Genesis 3. First, the resemblance between Sir 40:1d (“till the day one returns to the mother of all the living” and Gen 3:19b (until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken”). Second, apart from the verb “to return”, the expression “mother of all the living” has exactly the same function and is found in exactly the same position as “the ground…”. Moreover, as the expression “the mother of all the living” occurs in the same pericope (Gen 3:20), it will be taken for granted that we have to do with a direct parallel. Third, this view seems to be strengthened by the observation that Sir 40:3b has both the verb “to return” (‫ )שוב‬and the noun “dust” (‫ )עפר‬suggesting that, again, we have an allusion to Gen 3:19. However, for several reasons the verbal form ‫ לשוב‬is open to question. A close examination of the pericope’s structure brings to light that Sir 40:1c-d, Sir 40:3, and Sir 40:4 all have the same basic structure. The first half of each of these verses opens with the preposition ‫“( מן‬from”), whereas the second half opens with ‫עד‬ (“till”). The content of both parts are antithetical to each other:

“Mother Earth” is found all over the world, in myriads of forms and versions; see, e.g., Eliade, Das Heilige und das Profane; Dieterich, Mutter Erde; Nyberg, Kind und Erde. 7 See especially Jonah 1:21; Qoh 5:14; Ps 139:13.15. 8 The variant reading in the margin of Hebrew MsB is not mentioned by Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom, 469.

204 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

“from the day someone leaves…” / “till the day one returns…” (40:1c-d); “from wearing a crown and a head ornament” / “till wearing a garment of [skin]” (40:4)⁹.

Though the final word of Sir 40:4 is illegible, according to several text editions the lacuna has to be filled up with the noun ‫“( עור‬skin”). By this means, of course, another allusion to Genesis 3 is reconstructed, viz. to Gen 3:21, “And Yhwh God made garments of skin for the man and his wife…”¹⁰. There is no doubt that the intermediate verse (Sir 40:3) also aims at creating an antithesis. Whereas the first half refers to “sitting on a throne in exultation”, the second half –using the expression “dust and ashes”– lays emphasis on the opposite¹¹. Owing to this polar structure I hold the view that instead of ‫“( לשוב‬to return”) in Sir 40:3b one has to read ‫“( ישב‬to sit”) as in 40:3a¹². An identical verb used in two successive bicola is also found in Sir 40:4a and 40:4b, viz. ‫“( עטה‬to be covered with”, “to wear”). Another possibility would be to follow the marginal reading ‫ לובש‬/ ‫“( לבש‬to cover”)¹³. But since the motif of clothing is explicitly raised in 40:4, in 40:3b the expression “to sit in dust and ashes” is by far to be preferred.

4 Ben Sira 40:11 Bearing in mind this discussion relating to the verb “to return” (‫)שוב‬, it will come as no surprise that many exegetes are convinced that Sir 40:11a, “All that is of earth will return to earth”, is also an allusion to Gen 3:19, “until you return to the ground …”¹⁴. The same group of experts has quite easily linked Sir 40:11b, “and what is from above [returns] above”, with Gen 2:7, “and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. According to this view, Sir 40:11a would be a description of the decomposition of the human body, Sir 40:11b being an image of the return of the breath of life to God.

9 Lévi, The Hebrew Text, 48; Strack, Die Sprüche Jesus’, 35; Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, 215; Boccaccio – Berardi, Ecclesiasticus, 26. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 369 and Smend, Hebräisch und Deutsch, 38, prefer ‫“( שער‬hair”). 10 Gen 3:21 has also the verb ‫לבש‬. However, the Hebrew word rendered as “garment” (‫)כתנת‬ differs from the one found in Sir 40:4 (‫)שמלת‬. 11 The Greek of 40:3b has τεταπεινωμένου (“being humbled”). 12 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique I, 15; Smend, Hebräisch und Deutsch, 70; Prato, Il Problema, 304. 13 Among others, this marginal reading is followed by Peters, Das Buch, 335, and Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 603. 14 E.g. Peters, Das Buch, 337; Eberharter, Der Kanon, 8; Skehan – Di Lella, Wisdom, 471; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 68; Hamp, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 108.

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

 205

In a cogent analysis, Gian Luigi Prato has demonstrated that in none of these two cases should parallels with the Creation story be taken for granted. In no way does Sir 40:11 deal with human beings, their bodies or their breath of life since topics like “dust”, “ground”, and “breath” are markedly missing; more likely the verse should refer to the cosmos. Instead of references or allusions to Gen 2:7 and 3:19, Sir 40:11 should be associated with Isa 24:4.18.21, verses that are part of the opening chapter of the so-called “Isaiah Apocalypse” (Isaiah 24–27)¹⁵. Now I think I understand why one group of commentators consider Sir 40:11 to be the conclusion of the passage, while other experts hold the view that this verse is the opening of a new pericope. For, if Sir 40:11 is considered to refer to humankind, a link to Sir 40:1–2 is quite obvious¹⁶. If, however, the verse is interpreted as referring to the cosmos, it would be a serious option to consider Sir 40:11 to be the opening of the subsequent passage in which a whole series of natural disasters is mentioned. Contrary to the opinion of several Ben Sira commentators, this preliminary exploration of some aspects of the Hebrew text of Sir 40:1–17 reaches the conclusion that no explicit references to Genesis 1–3 are to be found in this pericope. Arising out of such a negative conclusion, the question still stands as to why such a respectable group of Ben Sira experts evidently take an opposite view. Could it be that I am too hard on the notion of intertextuality? Or are there other things that play a part in this discussion?

5 The Influence of the Third Generation With Sir 40:1–17 in mind, in my view an underlying thought is to be detected, to wit over- familiarity with the Greek text of the Book of Ben Sira since practically always it is the Greek text that is used as the basis for Bible translations. Only in those cases in which the Greek text is rather obscure has it been sporadically corrected according to the extant Hebrew manuscripts¹⁷.

15 Prato, Il Problema, 323–324. 16 This is Gilbert’s view: “… my point is that Sir 40:1, referring to the final fate of humans, only mentions their destruction, whereas 40:11–17 gives a complement to the teaching, asserting that the justice and goodness accomplished by human beings endure forever” (Gilbert, Ben Sira, Reader, 97). 17 See e.g. TOB, REB.

206 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

If we analyse the way the grandson of Ben Sira – the Greek translator – has rendered the Hebrew text of his grandfather, a series of quite remarkable differences comes to light with respect to 40:1–17. (1) It immediately catches the eye that 40:1a has a passive sentence: “A great engagement was created for every person”. As a result, the noun “God” has disappeared from the Greek text. Vis-à-vis the Hebrew text, the Greek has παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ (“for every person”). In doing this, the Greek translator has created a perfect synonymous parallelism with the second half of the verse. However, at the same time he has made a subtle change to this second half. Instead of rendering the Hebrew expression ‫ בני אדם‬as “the sons of man”, he introduces a proper name: “the sons of Adam”¹⁸. As a result, in an unmistakable way, the attention of the reader(s) is directly diverted to a specific part of the Old Testament, viz. the cycle of narratives in Genesis 1–3 in which a certain Adam is one of the main characters. (2) It also interesting to see what is said in Sir 40:10 (Hebrew), a translation of which runs: (a) For the wicked evil was created, (b) and because of him destruction happens¹⁹. The Greek text, however, offers the following sentence: (a) For the lawless all these things were created, (b) and because of them the flood occurred²⁰. It is the last word of 40:10b in the Greek that deserves our attention. “Flood” is the rendering of the noun κατακλυσμός that is found two more times in the Greek text of the Book of Ben Sira (21:13; 39:22). Both times it concerns a statement relating to the sage who is compared with a flood that waters dry land. In the Septuagint, however, with only two or three exceptions²¹, κατακλυσμός is always the rendering of the Hebrew noun ‫ מבול‬which is found in Genesis 6–11 no less than twelve times²². In the Hebrew text of Sir 40:10b, however, the noun ‫“( כלה‬destruction”, “annihilation”) occurs. Not only this noun itself, but also the context (“the wicked” / “evil”) draws attention to a very negative ambiance.

18 An identical case is found in Sir 16:16 and 33(36):10. 19 The translation “happens” goes back to the verb ‫ מוש‬II; see Rüger, Zum Text von Sir 40, 10. 20 Translation from NETS, 752. 21 Ps 31[32]:6; Nah 1:8; Dan[Th] 9:26. 22 In Sir 44:17d, relating to Noah, ‫ מבול‬has adequately been rendered κατακλυσμός by the Greek translator.

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

 207

It appears to me that in 40:10, by means of the noun κατακλυσμός, the Greek translator found a pretext for creating an allusion to the Flood narrative that starts in Gen 6:17. Now I suddenly begin to see why the waters possibly play such a dominant role in 40:11b. The Greek text of 40:11b runs: “and what is of the waters [returns] to the sea”. At first glance one might suppose the Greek translator probably twice misread the Hebrew ‫“( מרום‬above”) as ‫“( מים‬waters”, “sea”). However, maybe there was no error at all relating to the Greek translation of 40:11b, as the translator might deliberately have altered the rendering of the Hebrew text in order to get a consistent context relating to the Flood. (3) Finally, rather notable is the emergence of the noun παράδεισος in the Greek of Sir 40:17a. The text of it runs: (a) Kindness is like a garden of blessings, (b) and an act of charity will endure forever²³. In the Hebrew text of Sir 40:17a, however, the noun “garden”/“paradise” is nowhere to be found. A translation of Hebrew MsB runs: (a) Goodness will never be moved, (b) and righteousness will be lasting forever. What could be the reason for the Greek translation having the noun παράδεισος? At first, one is inclined to believe that Ben Sira’s grandson has “borrowed” it from 40:27a, “The fear of God is a paradise of blessing”. Without immediately repudiating this possibility, another solution cannot be ruled out to my mind. It is offered by the text of the Ben Sira Scroll discovered in 1964 by Yigael Yadin²⁴. In fact, Sir 40:17 is the first undamaged verse of the scroll, the Hebrew text of which reads ‫( חסד כעד לא תכרת וצדקה לעד תכן‬cf. Sir 41:11b)²⁵. Ben Sira’s grandson, being the translator of his grandfather’s Hebrew text into Greek, undoubtedly had in front of him a Hebrew text type that looked like the text of the Masada Scroll. It is not far-fetched to assume that the grandson misread ‫“( כעד‬like eternity”) as ‫“( כעדן‬like a garden”) or has deliberately interpreted it that way. This supposition is strengthened by the observation that Isa 51:3 (LXX) is the only text in the entire Septuagint in which ‫ עדן‬has been rendered παράδεισος. In all remaining occur-

23 For me, the striking inclusion between Sir 40:17 and 40:12 is an important argument for considering Sir 40:11 as the conclusion of the first part (40:1–11). Contra Skehan, Sirach 40:1–17. 24 Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll, 15; Masada VI [173]. 25 Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, 217, has rendered the Masada text of Sir 40:17a incorrectly; instead of ‫אל‬, he reads ‫לא‬.

208 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

rences within the Septuagint, παράδεισος is the rendering of ‫“( גן‬garden”) twenty three times. As compared to the text of the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, the Hebrew text of Sir 40:17a (MsB) has some interesting features too. Masada ‫חסד כעד לא תכרת וצדקה לעד תכן‬ MsB ‫וחסד לעלם לא ימוט וצדקה לעד תכון‬

In the first colon of MsB, we come across a plain example of a medieval copyist’s inclination to bring the Hebrew Ben Sira text as much as possible into line with the text of the Hebrew Bible²⁶. According to me, it is not far-fetched to suppose that both the Hebrew of Prov 10:30a (‫ )צדיק לעלם בל־ימוט‬and Ps 15:5d (‫)לא ימוט לעולם‬ have affected the present textual form of Sir 40:17a (MsB)²⁷. To conclude, on a closer examination of Sir 40:1–17 it appears that many references, allusions, and parallels usually related to the primeval narratives of Genesis seem, in the end, to be unfounded. To some extent, the Greek translator is responsible for this since at least three times in Sir 40:1–17 he has used or added vocabulary that strongly reminds us of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis. As far as the Hebrew text of the Book of Ben Sira is concerned, it is a matter of expressions and vocabulary that either function in a (completely) different way or are part of a topos-like language not bound to a specific Biblical text.

6 Ben Sira 16:26–17:4 Whereas, relating to Sir 40:1–17, the search for traces of the primeval narratives in the Book of Genesis turned out rather negative – an opposite result appears to be the case for Sir 16:26–17:4²⁸. Our analysis of Sir 16:26–17:4 will take place on the basis of the Greek text, since between Sir 16:26b and 25:8 there are only a few Hebrew verses left²⁹.

26 See Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach, 111–114. 27 Middendorp, Die Stellung, 101, only mentions Prov 10:30. He interprets ‫( כעד‬on the Scroll of Masada) as “wie ein Schmuckstück” (“like an ornament/jewel”), having in mind the Hebrew noun ‫עדי‬. In my view, however, there is not enough space on the scroll to add a yod here. 28 See Gilbert, Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1–11, 91–93; Levison, Portraits of Adam, 35–38. 29 Only some verses of MsC: Sir 18:30–19:2; 20:4–6.13.20–23; 21:22–23.26; 22:11–12.21–22; 23:11ab.

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

 209

First, let us have a quick look at the context. Sir 16:26–17:4 belong to an extensive “treatise on sin” starting in Sir 15:11 and ending in 18:14³⁰. This extensive discourse has two sections (15:11–16:14; 16:15–18:14) both opened by the characteristic formula “Do not say…” (15:11; 16:17). Immediately following this specific opening, Ben Sira reports his opponent’s words: “From God…” (15:11; 16:17), which subsequently are refuted by him (Sir 15:13–20; 16:24–17:23) and both cases are concluded with substantial arguments (Sir 16:1–14; 17:24–18:14). Everything seems to indicate that the structure of this “treatise on God, sin and humankind” is constructed on a discussion technique particularly used by Stoic philosophers³¹. That in Sir 15:11–18:14 we are indeed dealing with an important issue can be inferred not only from the extensive length of the discourse, but also from the fact that it is preceded by a poem on Wisdom (Sir 14:20–15:10). For it is a characteristic feature of the Book of Ben Sira that each new section is introduced by a paragraph in which wisdom is the main theme³².

7 Ben Sira 16:26–30 The opening of Sir 16:26 merits particular attention³³. Rahlfs’ Greek text edition has ἐν κρίσει κυρίου τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς, “in the decision of the Lord are his works from the beginning”³⁴. However, modern Bible translations by no means offer a rendering that reflects ἐν κρίσει. Could it be that Rahlfs is inaccurate here? Not at all! For all extant Greek manuscripts provide the reading ἐν κρίσει. Nevertheless, in these days nobody follows this reading any more. Yet, at first glance, this feels rather odd, seeing that the critical edition of the Greek text by Ziegler, which is undoubtedly a splendid example of scientific meticulousness, opens Sir 16:26 with ἐν κτίσει κυρίου, “In the Lord’s creation are his works from the beginning”, giving a variant reading which is nowhere to be found in any of the Greek manuscripts of the Book of Jesus ben Sirach³⁵.

30 For a circumstantial analysis, see Prato, Il Problema, 209–299; Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 142–155. 31 Pohlenz, Die Stoa I, 53. See also Löhr, Bildung. 32 Sir 1:1–2:18; 4:11–19; 6:18–37; 14:20–15:10; 24:1–29; 32:14–33:15, and 38:24–39:11. 33 As to Sir 16:26–17:14, see Wénin, De la création. 34 So van den Born, Wijsheid, 101: “In het oordeel van de Heer berusten zijn werken van het begin af” (In the judgment of God his works rest from the beginning). 35 Ziegler, Sapientia, 200.

210 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

In his decision, Ziegler is strongly supported by the reading of Hebrew MsA: ‫ כברא אל מעשיו מראש‬, “When God created his works from the beginning”. It is not necessarily the case that it was the Greek translator, Ben Sira’s grandson, who himself made this “mistake”. It is quite possible that it was an early copyist who, by so doing, has influenced the tradition history of the Greek text³⁶. The reason for emphasizing the divergent textual traditions of Sir 16:26 has to do directly with the function of this verse. In my view, it should be considered a subordinate temporal clause which comes to a conclusion in 16:27. A translation in this vein is found in the Revised English Bible: “When in the beginning the Lord created his works and, after making them, defined their boundaries, he disposed them in an eternal order and fixed their domains for all time”³⁷.

Everyone acquainted with the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis will immediately be reminded here of the profound discussions relating to the opening lines of the Hebrew text of both Gen 1:1–3 and Gen 2:4–7³⁸. The time adjunct ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς (16:26a) is an evident echo of the opening of Gen 1:1. Moreover, it is interesting that in 16:27b the author used the same noun again, albeit with a different meaning, “dominion”, which undeniably refers to the fourth day of creation: “God made two great lights, the greater for dominion over the day and the lesser for dominion over the night” (Gen 1:11). The way the Greek in 16:30a has been worded (ψυχῇ παντὸς ζῷου) is doubtless a clear reference to various animals created on the fifth and the sixth day: πασὰν ψυχὴν ζῷων (Gen 1:21); ψυχὴν ζῶσαν (Gen 1:24).

8 Ben Sira 17:1–4 The references to Genesis 1–3 that have been found so far in the first part of the Ben Sira passage (16:26–30) can by no means be classified as “weak”. It can hardly be a coincidence, therefore, that as soon as humanity appears (Sir 17:1), a remarkable series of explicit quotations and allusions is immediately put into effect:

36 The variant reading κτίσιν / κρίσιν is also found in Sir 43:25b (Lucianic recension). 37 REB, Apocrypha, 104. 38 See, e.g., Winther-Nielsen, In the Beginning.

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

Sir 17:1a Sir 17:1b Sir 17:3b Sir 17:4b

 211

Gen 2:7a Gen 3:19 Gen 1:26a.27a Gen 1:28³⁹.

These quotations from and allusions to Genesis 1–3 belong to a fixed thread of texts that is also frequently found as a cluster elsewhere⁴⁰. Therefore the question is raised regarding the way Ben Sira made use of this traditional pool of references. Did he adopt the passages from Genesis in a purely mechanical way or can we detect a shift of accent or even changes in the manner he handled them? The first thing that immediately catches the eye is the fact that Ben Sira has taken the quotations from Genesis 1–3 in an order different from the original text. The sage is apparently doing this for his own purpose, as a number of elements from the creation narratives have been arranged in a different way from the traditional sequence. As a result, it is precisely on the creation of man (Sir 17:1) that all eyes are immediately fixed. For, up to that point, the pattern of Genesis 1 has been followed more or less. Whereas the creation of the elements as well as the creation of the animals (16:26–30) follow the pattern of the first creation story, when it comes to the creation of human beings (17:1a) and their death (17:1b), passages are explicitly quoted from the second creation story. Thereafter, Ben Sira restricts himself to quotations from and allusions to the first creation story. It would be quite desirable, therefore, to make a detailed inquiry into the text of Sir 17:1, as there is a good chance that this verse will supply the exegetical key as to why Ben Sira reversed the order of the quotations from Genesis.

9 “The Lord Created a Human Being out of Earth” (Sir 17:1a) Though a Hebrew text of this verse has not been recovered so far, there is almost absolute certainty that Ben Sira’s original text contained a literal quotation from Gen 2:7. This certainty is founded on another Ben Sira passage that has almost the

39 The question whether Sir 17:2 is meant as an allusion to Gen 6:3 is left out of consideration here. 40 See Levison, Portraits of Adam, 35–38; Alonso Schökel, The Vision of Man.

212 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

same Greek wording as Sir 17:1a and, moreover, has a parent Hebrew text that is completely identical in vocabulary to the Hebrew of Gen 2:7. Sir 17:1a Sir 33[36]:10b Sir 33[36]:10b

Κύριος ἔκτισεν έκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ ‫ומן עפר נוצר אדם‬

The Greek translation of Sir 33[36]:10b is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text and, since this Greek rendering shows a striking resemblance to Sir 17:1a, it is definitely the case that with regard to this latter text the author had a direct quotation of Gen 2:7 in mind. A comparison between Sir 17:1a and 33[36]:10b produces a surprising result. In Sir 33[36]:10b the Greek translator has rendered the Hebrew noun ‫“( אדם‬man”) with a proper name (“Adam”), a phenomenon that is also found elsewhere in this document (Sir 16:16; 40:1). The observation that the translator in 17:1a did not choose the proper name “Adam”, but the more general notion “man”, is a feature that can help us make a step forward in the analysis of the text. To the translator, the content of 17:1–4 obviously has a more extensive influence than being related to just one single person (Adam). The statement of Sir 17:1a therefore concerns every human being. We still do not have a clue why, in his quotations from Genesis 1–3, Ben Sira did not adopt their “canonical” sequence. In my opinion, it is the verb κτίζειν (“to found”, “to create”) that will bring us closer to an answer since it reminds us of the conjectured noun κτίσει in 16:26a⁴¹. Now this observation unravels the basic structure of this Ben Sira passage⁴²: The creation of the works The creation of humankind

(Sir 16:26  ff.) (Sir 17:1  ff.)

That it is the author’s intention to emphasize the polarity between these two “groups” can be elucidated by looking at the function of Sir 17:1b within this structure: “He returned him into it again”⁴³. By contrast with the works which have been arranged for ever (Sir 16:27) with the help of the unequivocal refer-

41 With 23 occurrences it is one of the grandson’s favourite verbs. In the Septuagint κτίζειν is found about 40 times in total. Further details: Reiterer, Die immateriellen Ebenen, esp. 92–93. 42 The following paragraphs are an attempt at developing further the line of thought by Alonso Schökel, The Vision of Man, esp. 235–236; see also de Fraine, Het loflied; Duesberg, La dignité. 43 de Fraine, Het loflied, 12 advocates a so-called gnomic aorist: “Zonder twijfeld voert Hij hem to haar terug” (no doubt, He leads him back to it), cf. also page 10. In view of the structure of

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

 213

ence to Gen 3:19, the creation of man is characterized as a finite existence, which moreover is confirmed by the words of Sir 17:2a⁴⁴. It seems important to point to the observation that, within the Ben Sira passage, this distinct reference to Gen 3:19 plays a completely different role from its function in the second creation story. Whereas in Gen 3:19 man’s return to the ground is meant as punishment for his rebellion against God, in Sir 17:1b it is a common fact for every human being. In just this way, one can explain why the author inserted the quotation from Gen 3:19 right at this particular point in the “hymn on human dignity”. Unlike its function in its original setting in Genesis 3, the Ben Sira verse hardly serves as a negative statement. I find it hard to avoid the impression that Ben Sira placed these negative undertones elsewhere, to be more specific, in the depiction of the works as given shape in Sir 16:27–28. For it can hardly be a coincidence that those works are described there as some kind of ideal human beings! In so doing, they fill in the polar structure of the pericope, and, within this unity, Sir 16:29–30 has a special function too⁴⁵. Specifically, the final statement of Sir 16:30b prepares for the statement relating to people’s mortality (Sir 17:1b). The naturalness of perishable life for living creatures that creep upon the ground is almost automatically supposed and transferred to humankind⁴⁶. At the same time, however, with the help of at least two explicit quotations from Genesis 1, man, in Sir 17:3b and 17:4b, is set apart from “all that is on earth”. Closely connected with the first of these quotations (Sir 17:3b/Gen 1:26a.28a), an intriguing matter comes to light. Working through the text of Sir 17:1–4, the reader will find that these verses reveal an interesting pattern of parallelisms. Sir 17:1b and 17:2a make a pair, as do Sir 17:4a and 17:4b. The verses in between give rise to discussion, so radical that –even without textual evidence in the manuscripts– the Greek text was altered in order to make the pattern fit. This relates to the opening words of Sir 17:3a, which in all Greek manuscripts are rendered καθ᾽ἑαυτοὺς. A literal rendering of this bicolon then runs: “He clothed them in a strength like themselves”, which makes a perfect parallelism to 17:2b, “He gave them authority over the things upon it [the earth]”.

Sir 17:1–4, this could only be possible if the other aorists were to be considered as gnomic aorists too, which however is not possible for all the occurrences. 44 In Sir 37:25a a similar phrasing is used. 45 It is quite striking that Alonso Schökel says not a single word about this passage. 46 Collins, Before the Fall, 200–201: “Ben Sira, then, represents a line of interpretation of Genesis that took the story as paradigmatic of the human situation rather than as a narrative that explained its origin”.

214 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

Hugo Grotius, however, and in his footsteps Johann W. Linde, formed the hypothesis that one should read καθ᾽ἑαυτὸν, so as to refer to God: “He clothed them in a strength like himself”⁴⁷. This emendation is incorporated in the main text of both Rahlfs’ and Ziegler’s editions⁴⁸. However, following this emendation for Sir 17:3a, the parallelism with 17:2b gets lost, which in itself causes no problem, although a new problem arises, namely, the position of 17:2b. Now this verse line lacks a second complementary statement, and, as a result, it is isolated from the context. In my view, the hypothesis of Hugo Grotius and Johann W. Linde followed by so many text editions and commentators should be rejected⁴⁹. Linde, for instance, was governed in his considerations by the fact that in Gen 1:26 a pluralis majestatis is used, which according to his view has caused the plural καθ᾽ἑαυτοὺς, whereas ad sensum only God is involved. The rendering “secundum se” that is to be found in the Vetus Latina is no strong additional argument in this debate either, as almost every bicolon of this ancient Latin translation has been given a place here that is different from its position in the Greek text. What is more, one of the most important and fundamental aspects that have directly to do with the appearance of the quotations from Genesis is completely passed over. Would it be too far-fetched to assume that precisely those two quotations (Gen 2:7a / Sir 17:1a; Gen 1:26a.28a / Sir 17:3b) are cited to play a prominent role within the passage? One should pay attention to the fact that Sir 17:2a, which is crucial to my reasoning, has no explicit quotation from Genesis! As the majority of the verses have been arranged in parallel pairs (17:1b + 17:2a; 17:2b + 17:3a; 17:4a + 17:4b), two statements remain that, as a result of their “non parallel lay-out”, receive extra emphasis: “The Lord created a human being out of earth” (17:1a), and “in his image he made them” (17:3b). It can be no coincidence, therefore, that exactly here we come across the two most marked aspects of humankind in its relation to God. Thus, one can understand why the Vetus Latina has brought forward the statement in Sir 17:3b and connected it to Sir 17:1a. However, Sir 17:1b clearly shows that this change did not succeed, as this transposition disrupted both the link with Sir 17:1a and with Sir 16:30b.

47 Grotius, Annotationes; Linde, Sententiae. 48 Swete, The Old Testament, vol. II, 676 has καθ᾽ἑαυτοὺς. 49 E.g., Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 155; Box – Oesterley, The Book of Sirach, vol. I, 375; Duesberg – Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 164; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 546.

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

 215

10 Conclusion A close reading of Sir 40:1–17 and 16:26–17:4 reveals that Ben Sira, with the help of some quotations from and allusions to the primeval narratives of Genesis, has created his own theological framework as to the position of mankind in God’s creation. None of these quotations from or allusions to Genesis 1–3 was adopted in a slavish way. As a matter of fact, they provide an intriguing example of biblical intertextuality.

Bibliography Aichele, George – Gary A. Phillips (eds.), Intertextuality and the Bible (Semeia 69–70), Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Alonso Schökel, Luis, The Vision of Man in Sirach 16:24–17:14, in: John G. Gammie (ed.), Israelite Wisdom. Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978, 235–245. Beentjes, Pancratius C., Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45,6–26, Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag, 1981. Boccaccio, Pietro – Guido Berardi, Ecclesiasticus. Textus hebraeus secundum fragmenta reperta, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1976. van den Born, Adrianus, Wijsheid van Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) (BOT VIII), Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1968. Box, Georges Henry – William Oscar Emil Oesterley, The Book of Sirach, in: Robert Henry Charles (ed.), APOT, vol. I, Oxford: Clarendon, 1913, 268–517. Collins, John J., Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve, in: Hindy Najman – Judith H. Newman (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation. Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJS 83), Leiden: Brill, 2004, 194–232. Dieterich, Albrecht, Mutter Erde. Ein Versuch über Volksreligion, Leipzig – Berlin: Teubner, 1925. Draaisma, Sipke (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, Kampen: J. H. Koch, 1989. Duesberg, Hilaire, La dignité de l’homme. Siracide 16,24–17,14: BVC 82 (1968) 15–21. Duesberg, Hilaire – Irénée Fransen, Ecclesiastico (La Sacra Bibbia volgata latina e traduzione italiana dai testi originali illustrate con note critiche e commentate a cura di Mons. Salvatore Garofalo. Antico Testamento sotto la direzione di P. Giovanni Rinaldi C. R. S.), Torino – Roma: Marietti, 1966. Eberharter, Andreas, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben Sira. Auf Grund der Beziehungen des Sirachbuches zu den Schriften des A.T (Neuetestamentliche Abhandlungen III/ 3), Münster in Westf.: Aschendorff, 1911. Eliade, Mircea, Das Heilige und das Profane. Vom Wesen des Religiösen, Cologne: Anaconda, 2008. Fewell, Danna Nolan (ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992.

216 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes 

de Fraine, Jan, Het Loflied op de menselijke waardigheid in Eccli. 17,1–14: Bijdragen 11 (1950) 10–23. Gilbert, Maurice, Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1–11, in: Jeremy Corley – Vincent Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS 38), Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 89–99. Hamp, Vinzenz, Sirach (Die Heilige Schrift in Deutscher Übersetzung. Echter Bibel. Das Alte Testament), Würzburg: Echter, 1951. Haspecker, Josef, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1967. Henze, Matthias (ed.), A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Grotius, Hugo, Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum. Emendatius edidit, et brevibus complurium locorum dilucidationibus, auxit Georgius Ioannes Ludov. Vogel, Tomus III, Halle: Io. Iac. Curt., 1776. Lévi, Israel, L’Ecclésiastique, ou, La sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu édité, traduit et commenté, vol. 1 (BEHE.R 10.1), Paris: Leroux, 1898. Lévi, Israel, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Edited with brief notes and a selected glossary (SSS 3), Leiden: Brill, 1904. Levison, John R., Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism. From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPS 1), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988. Liesen, Jan, Full of Praise. An Exegetical Study of Sir 39:12–35 (JSJS 64), Leiden: Brill, 1999. Linde, Johann Wilhelm, Sententiae Iesu Siracidae Graece. Textum ad fidem codicum et versionum emendavit et illustravit, Gedani [Danzig] 1795. Löhr, Martin, Bildung aus dem Glauben. Beiträge zum Verständnis der Lehrreden des Buches Jesus Sirach (Dissertation, Bonn 1975). Maier, Gerhard, Mensch und freier Wille. Nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (WUNT 12), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Marböck, Johannes, Gerechtigkeit Gottes und Leben nach dem Sirachbuch, in: Jörg Jeremias (ed.), Gerechtigkeit und Leben im hellenistischen Zeitalter. Symposium anläßlich des 75. Geburtstags von Otto Kaiser (BZAW 296), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001, 21–52. Marböck, Johannes, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BBB 37), Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1971. Middendorp, Theophil, Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden: Brill, 1973. Nyberg, Bertel, Kind und Erde. Ethnologische Studien zur Urgeschichte der Elternschaft und des Kinderschutzes, Helsinki: Helsingfors, 1931. Peters, Norbert, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 25), Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Pohlenz, Max, Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, vol. I, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1948. Prato, Gian Luigi, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBib 65), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1975. Rahlfs, Alfred, Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes II, Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 81965. Reiterer, Friedrich V., Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira, in: Nuria Calduch-Benages – Jacques Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (BETL 143), Leuven: University Press – Peeters, 1999, 91–127.

 A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives 

 217

Rickenbacher, Otto, Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Freiburg Schweiz – Göttingen, Universitätsverlag – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Rüger, Hans-Paul, Zum Text von Sir 40,10 und Ex 10,21: ZAW 82 (1970) 103–109. Sauer, Georg, Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira) (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistich-römischer Zeit III/5), Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. Skehan, Patrick W., Sirach 40:1–17: CBQ 30 (1968) 570–572. Skehan, Patrick W. – Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. New Translation with Notes by Patrick W. Skehan; Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella (The Anchor Bible 39), New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Smend, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Hebräisch und Deutsch, Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Strack, Hermann Leberecht, Die Sprüche Jesus’, des Sohnes Sirachs. Der jüngst gefundene hebräische Text mit Anmerkungen und Wörterbuch (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin), Leipzig: Deichert, 1903. Swete, Henry Barclay, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Edited for the syndics of the University Press, vol. II, Cambridge: University Press, 1930. Vattioni, Francesco, Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca (Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica. Testi 1), Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Wénin, André, De la création à l’alliance sinaïtique. La logique de Si 16,26–17,14, in: Nuria Calduch-Benages – Jacques Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (BETL 143), Leuven: University Press – Peeters, 1999, 147–158. Westermann, Claus, Genesis (Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament 1.1), Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 21976. Winther-Nielsen, N., “In the Beginning” of Biblical Hebrew Discourse: Genesis 1:1 and the Fronted Time Expression, in: Shin Ja J. Hwang – William R. Merrifield (eds.), Language in Context. Essays for E. Longacre (Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications of Linguistics 107), Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington, 1992, 67–80. Yadin, Yigael, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. With Introduction, Emendations and Commentary, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society 1965 [= Masada VI. Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports: Hebrew Fragments from Masada by Shemaryahu Talmon, with Contributions by Carol Newsom and Yigael Yadin; The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada by Yigael Yadin, with Notes on the Reading by Elisha Qimron and Bibliography by Florentino García Martínez, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999]. Ziegler, Joseph, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 12/2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21980.

Maria Carmela Palmisano

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward” (SirG 51:30). Some Observations on the Use of   / hf,[]m; in the Book of Ben Sira Maria Carmela Palmisano: University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

1 Introduction In the Old Testament, the Hebrew verbal root √hX[ (translated into Greek most frequently with , ) and the noun hf,[]m; (), cover a vast range of meanings which extend from “make”, “do”, “produce”, “work” to defining the creative activity of God. The noun  with which the Greek translator renders hf,[]m; occurs most frequently in the sense of “work, product” or even “labour”¹. On a certain number of occasions in Ben Sira, the noun refers to the conduct of man (cf. 16:12). Hence the importance of recognizing the subject of the action/ author of the work: God or man. Starting from a comparison between the use of the noun / hf,[]m; and the related verbal roots in the various linguistic traditions of the book, we shall highlight some of the perspectives adopted by Ben Sira in the development of his pedagogic discourse on the work/working of God and man. In our analysis of the data and of the literary contexts, we shall not take up space in considering the verbal meaning of “labour”, that is, to follow “a professional activity” (such as that of the doctor, cf. 38:8, defined as a continuation of the divine activity) or a “trade”, an area treated recently by Friedrich V. Reiterer². Our interest is in understanding the relationship between the work of God and the work of man in the instructions addressed to the disciple, and to demonstrate the development within the totality of the sapiential work.

1 Cf. Ringgren, hX[, 414–432; Carpenter, hX[, 546–552. 2 Reiterer, “Alle Weisheit stamm vom Herrn...”, 229–267.

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

 219

2 The Distribution of Occurrences: “Work”, “Working” in the Different Textual Traditions in the Book of Ben Sira We begin by observing the distribution of the noun/ hf,[]m; and of some corresponding, related verbal roots in Greek, in Hebrew (where existing), and in the ancient translations of the book of Sirach in the table reproduced in the appendix³. With reference to the meanings of the noun,  refers (in GI) 16 times to the behaviour/conduct of man, 24 times to labour in the concrete, and 24 times to the action of God (if we include 16:22 about the works of justice, and 16:27 about the works of the creation)⁴. We observe, moreover, that on the 40 occasions which refer to the action of man and to labour in the concrete, the sage addresses himself to the disciple 11 times⁵, of which in 5 it is a question of “your (singular) works”, once of “your (singular) work” (11:20) and only once, at the end of the book, is use made of the form “your (plural) work” with the suffix of the second person plural (51:30a). If we then consider the distribution of the noun in the different parts of the book, we can make some observations. In the first part (Sir 1–23), the object of the sage’s attention is the action of the disciple, which the master desires “to mould”. In his instructions, he considers different areas of human activity; so different too are the subjects which are known to the hearer/disciple: the human being, the sinner, the rich man, the farmer. The modality and typology of acting, often presented in antithetical form, is placed progressively in relation to the activity of God (cf., especially, in chaps. 16–18) and his working in creation and human history. In 24:1–38:34 we are faced with a slight change of perspective in the pedagogical activity of the sage. Lexicographical analysis shows that the subjects of acting/ working at the beginning of the section are the disciples of wisdom (Sir 24:22). The instructions that follow often take up themes which have been treated in the first part (such as education, the master-slave relationship), but the sage angles them in such a way as to show progressively the excellent role of the sage in relation to other men and their working, and his function as interpreter of the divine work

3 The noun occurs 65 times in the text of GI and once in GII (11,15b). Beside the occurrences of / hf,[]m,; we have also recorded those of some related substantives and of corresponding verbal roots wherever this is necessary for the comparison of variant readings. 4 Cf. Bussino, The Greek Additions, in the philological note to  in Sir 11:15b. 5 Sir 3:8.17.23; 4:29; 7:25; 10:6.26; 11:20; 31:22c(34:27a); 32:23(35:27a); 37:11.

220 

 Maria Carmela Palmisano

(33:7–15). In Sir 39:14–43:33 Ben Sira describes the action of God, suggesting that the activity of the sage consists in making known the divine working and issuing a summons to praise. In Sir 45–49, on the other hand, he describes the action of the ancestors of Israel presented in the polarity, which has characterized them in the course of history, through having participated in or being opposed to the salvific work of God. Finally, in concluding the book, the sapiential poem Sir 51:13–30 takes up the fundamental themes of the search for wisdom and the fear of God (Sir 1). It also contains (v. 30) the final reference to action in the exhortation addressed by the master of wisdom to his disciples/readers, calling on them to put into practice the teaching they have acquired.

3 Some Elements of the Working of God and Man according to the Perspective of the Book 3.1 The “Working” in the Instructions of the Sage in Sir 1–23 The first half of the book contains numerous instructions addressed by the sage to his disciple, calling him “son” (3:17; 4:1). The first mention (in the plural) of the substantive  in 1:9G-S(P)-L has God as its subject and refers to his filling his works/creatures with wisdom. This passage, read against the cultural background of its time⁶, presents the fundamental conception of wisdom in Ben Sira as something which, guaranteed by the God who reveals himself in the history of Israel and in the Torah, is offered, not as an intellectual ability nor as a revelation reserved to some, but as a gift granted to all those who live in the faith and fear of God. In the third chapter of the book (3:8.17.23), the sage recalls the consequences of living in the fear of God (1:11–30) such as honouring parents (v. 8), being gentle in the conduct of one’s own affairs (v. 17), and avoiding ambitious attitudes (v. 23). In particular, in 3:8, we can observe the formulation () with which the disciple is exhorted always to render honour to his parents, in the twofold dimension of acting and speaking in which the totality of human experience is summarized (merismus)⁷.

6 Cf. Corley, Wisdom, 269–285. 7 The tension between word and action is very much present in the Greek language, beginning with Homer (and); the relationship between the two is tackled in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle (cf. Bertram, , 631–633) and finds expression in its anthropological and

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

 221

Sir 4:29 warns the disciple of the danger of inconsistency and division between arrogant speech and slow and indolent action. The occurrence of the noun  in the next sapiential pericope (6:19) describes the disciple’s demanding task, not without effort, in the search for wisdom, one that is soon rewarded with the abundance of its good fruits. Starting from 7:15, the sage’s argument introduces an important element, which he will continue to develop in the course of the first part of the book, that of the order of creation, i.e. the peculiar expression of the divine activity destined to inform the activity of the disciple too⁸. From this, in fact, there issues respect for the hard tasks (7:15) of the slave and of the hired worker, as also the successful upbringing of the children (expressed in the marrying off of the daughter in 7:25, defined as a “great work”!, in Hebrew: qs[). To the order established by God Ben Sira refers also the work of the artisan, who expresses himself in his product (9:17), and that of the sage, who fulfils himself in the word through which he guides the people. In the following verses, he will develop the antithetical principle by opposing the good and wicked use of the tongue. The exhortations in 10:6.26 indicate that a suitable attitude in the behaviour of the disciple in his relations with his neighbour springs from a correct relationship with the Lord, the consequence of which is a fair sense of self-worth and a balanced approach to work. From a correct attitude to the Lord derives in particular the ability to understand, beyond the principle of dual aspect, according to which men are divided into those who are honoured and those who are not (10:19), the necessity of not relying on contingencies and on temporary success (11:4) but of searching out the hidden work of God⁹. The occurrences of in 11:20–21.27 are placed at the end of the sapiential reflection on the dual aspect of reality. There the disciple is exhorted to go beyond the apparent success of the sinner (v. 21) trusting in the power of God who can reverse fortunes without

existential dimensions in the works of the Greek tragedians, cf. Sophocles, Electra 358, Oedipus Tyrannos 517 and Euripides, Alcestis 339. In the biblical tradition the relationship between word and deed finds its source in revelation, from which there ensues, for man, the necessity for consistency in human behaviour. Ben Sira is situated within the Old Testament tradition; above all, 3:8 considers the anthropological perspective. 8 The idea that man ought to respect the existing order in the world was present in the classical authors, cf. Cicero, De natura deorum, II 14 37: ipse autem homo hortus est ad mundum contemplandum et imitandum. 9 On the importance of the two dimensions of the divine action –the manifest and the hidden– read in the cultural context to which the sage refers, cf. Kaiser, Vom offenbaren.

222 

 Maria Carmela Palmisano

warning (v. 21), and introducing the reflection on death, a more trustworthy criterion for the correct valuation of life and of human actions. The theological perspective of the activity of God, introduced as early as 1:9 and which surfaced also in 7:15; 11:4, becomes the chief object of attention starting from 15:19 through the image of the eyes of God (symbolizing his judgement, cf., also, 17:8) turned to those who fear him, and, it is developed, above all, in Sir 16–18 (16:12.14.21.26; 17:8.19; 18:4). This section of the text, which unfortunately has been preserved for us in Hebrew with only some verses of Sir 16, presents the systematic argument of the sage concerning the work of God in creation and on the relationship between the action of God and that of man. As can be observed from the table, in this section of the book the subjects of the action –God and man– appear to be interwoven. The works of God are described as hidden (16:21), the expression of his justice (16:22), present from the beginning (16:26–27), distinct in their specificity and established in a perpetual order. Following the underlying background of Gen 1:1–2:4a, the sage describes the creation of man as the culmination of the creative activity of God (17:1); he alone can guide men to the recognition of his greatness (17:8.9), and their works (by contrast with the divine works which are always hidden) are always present before him (17:19). The resulting picture of the activity of God in the world and towards man brings out the knowledge which he has of human beings, of their sin, which like all creation is manifest to him like the light of the sun (17:20). In this context, the sage outlines the aspect of the retributive activity of God (17:23). The description of the order in creation arouses in the sage the awareness of his own limitations in singing its praises (18:4), indicating the end of man’s action in praise. The last mention of the verbal root in 20:28G-L employs the agricultural image of the working of the land in order to picture the sage (v. 27). His work is fruitful and worthy of honour by contrast with the figure of the fool. With the image of the sage and his work, the first step of the sapiential treatment of the theme is concluded. In summary, starting out from the statement that God fills his creatures with wisdom (1:9), the first part of the book portrays the activity of man, situating it progressively in relation to that of God, and to the order which he has stamped on creation. From this springs correct human action and the expectation of divine retribution in history or at the moment of death (11:27; 15:19). The action of God is situated within a cosmic perspective. Human action is portrayed by means of the juxtaposition of different groups of people among whom there emerges the antithesis between the action of the wise man and that of the fool. The choice between the two possible responses, like the moral choice between good and evil, depends on man and is entrusted

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

 223

to him together with life; it too, therefore, belongs to the order of creation (15:14–17)¹⁰.

3.2 The “Working” of the Sage: from Apprentice of Wisdom to Master of Wisdom (Sir 24:1–39:11) In Sir 24, Wisdom, which belongs to the order of creation established by God, assumes a more important role in the book and an explicit function of mediation between God and man. She speaks in the first person and gives instruction on how to live, affirming that the one who lives and works with her will receive honour and salvation from sin (24:22)¹¹. This passage seems to take up the beginning of the first part (1:9), which described the action of God. However, the following instructions are transmitted no longer by wisdom (she will speak no more in the first person), but exclusively by the master of wisdom who speaks with authority (24:30–34; 33[30]:16–18; also 34[31]:12–13). To the young disciple, there is held out a life in which there is a mingling of the sapiential and religious dimensions, true human respect and the religious dimension of belonging to God. Within an instruction on speaking, 27:9–10 juxtaposes the doers of justice alongside the doers of injustice, following the principle of dual aspect. At the conclusion of an instruction on the education of children, Sir 30:13 contains an exhortation to the disciple to devote himself to the education of his children. In 31:22, we find a summons to moderation in one’s own actions. In 33(36):15, at the conclusion of an instruction on the binary form of the works of creation (vv. 7–15), the sage invites his disciple to go back to the principle of dual aspect which characterizes the works of creation. Beneath the dual aspect of creation lies the unifying principle which is in God and permits the just valuation of the polarization present in creation. Note that this polarization does not have a moral character. Sir 33(30):23 contains an exhortation addressed by the sage to his disciple in his position as a future father, that he may exercise just authority over his children and take care of his own honour¹². In 33(30):25–29, we read a new series of exhortations having as their object the relationship with servants, this too presented in

10 Gilbert, God, 119–120. 11 The verse in S(P): “he who hears me will not fall, and all his works will not be destroyed”. 12 On the relationship between honour in Ben Sira and in Jewish and Hellenistic society, cf. A. Piwowar, La vergogna, esp. 314–316.

224 

 Maria Carmela Palmisano

antithetical form. The two lexicographical occurrences outline the action of the disciple towards his servant with the aspects of firmness and authority softened by the exercise of mercy (vv. 30–32). Significant is the mention of the action of God in 35(32):22, before the prayer of 36:1–22G. He is portrayed as a just judge who rewards the works of men. Sir 37:11 is part of an instruction on the choice of advisers (37:7–15), especially on the criteria for avoiding and choosing them. Sir 37:16 contains an important mention of at the beginning of a section devoted to human work (37:16– 38:23) which, successively and antithetically, assesses the activity of the sage and the other human professions. The verse introduces the motif of the  which precedes and is at the origin of all human activity. This verse will be followed by the theme of the opposition between the true and false sage (vv. 16–26). In 38:8, the mention of the works in the context of the description of the activity of the doctor and of the pharmacist is placed in relation to the eternal activity of God, guarantor of peace (health) on the earth. In 38:24–34b, the mentions of (38:25.27.28.29.31.34) refer to different artisans, described in contrast with the activity of the wise man but forming part of the order established by God and tending to preserve the order of creation¹³. The second part of the book (24:1–39:11) presents the activity of the sage/disciple in dialectical relationship with the other professions/trades in society and, above all, in opposition to the activity of the fool. These instructions, which in part take up and develop themes already encountered in the first part (education, relationship with servants, use of the tongue), are focused on emphasising the figure of the sage which is the culmination and conclusion of the second section (38:24–39:11). The affirmation that the  (37:16) precedes human activity suggests a correlation between human activity and divine activity which the sage recognises in the world¹⁴.

3.3 The Sage Proclaims the Works of God (Sir 39:12–43:33) The third part of the book presents particular characteristics. It treats the working of God almost exclusively (the action of man is described as manifest to the presence of God only in 39:19), making use of hymnic form, in 39:14–35 and in 42:15–

13 On the influence of the Hellenistic culture on Ben Sira’s vision of work, cf. note 2, and, in addition, Hengel, Judentum, 138–153; Wischmeyer, Die Kultur, 37–48. 14 On the relationship between the biblical-theological concept of the  and the philosophical one, especially that of the first Stoa, cf. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, 64–110.

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

 225

43:33. The sage issues a call to praise in 39:12–15.35 and composes a sapiential hymn in 39:16–31. The works of the Lord/the Most High are described as very good, presented in pairs, each appropriate for its established time (39:16.33). Sir 42:15 mentions the work of God at the beginning of the splendid hymn of creation¹⁵. By the use of parallelism, the verse sets in relation to v. 15c the action of God and his word and makes it possible to connect the word of God in creation with that of revelation¹⁶. In admiration, the sage describes the works of creation grasping their bivalent function (the sun burns and heats, 43:3–4; the sea is a cause of wonder and fear, 43:24–25) and concluding with the mention of the Lord, great and terrible, powerful and magnificent (43:29). The praise has a double aim: to make manifest the action of God and to propose to disciples, in their master, a model for imitation. In fact, praise is the culmination of the activity of the wise man (cf., also, 15:9–10). Compared with chaps. 16–17, the working of God in this hymn appears more explicitly linked with the motive of retribution and that of praise. Nature is the arsenal of God with which he opposes the wicked. The sapiential conclusion of the hymn (43:27–33) expresses the awareness of the inadequacy of the response made by praise to God’s action of God, which, for the most part, escapes human knowledge (v. 32). It also makes reference to the gift of wisdom which alone can permit the true understanding of his action. The third part of the book is focused on treating the working of the sage. He can understand and make known the action of God summoning his disciples to praise.

3.4 The “Works” of the Fathers in the Praise (Sir 45–49) In the fourth part of the book, the sage’s attention is concentrated on the work of the fathers of Israel. In Sir 45:10–12H-G-L¹⁷, the three occurrences of the noun () are reserved to the image-mediated description of the glorious robes of Aaron. The substantive is employed to express the sage’s enthusiastic admiration for the figure of the high priest. The metaphorical use of the term allows us to understand that the priestly and liturgical function represent the greatest work of God and man present in Israel according to Ben Sira (cf., also, Sir 50).

15 On this passage, cf. Calduch-Benages, God, 79–100. 16 In an original way, Ben Sira also places the Law in the order of creation (cf. the possible influence of Stoic philosophy on the sage’s argument in Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche, 188–223; Kaiser, Vom offenbaren, 62). 17 The passage is missing in S(P).

226 

 Maria Carmela Palmisano

The occurrence in 47:8 is interesting. It refers to David of whom it is said that in every work he praised the Most High with song and loved his Creator. David is portrayed as an example of a wise man of whom it is said that he alone can render praise to the Lord (15:9–10; 39:14), this is the work of man directed to him. In addition to his admiration for priestly activity, the sage describes in the Praise of the Fathers the prophetic works as wonderful, in particular those of Elisha (48:14) who worked miracles in his life and was wonderful even after his death (cf. 2 Kgs 13:20–21). For the sage, the greatness of the prophetic work lies in its being the mediator of salvation: through its activity, God works the salvation of his people (48:24–25). Within a new metaphor we read in 49:1 the portrait of King Josiah, whose memory is assimilated to the work of a perfumer, to the pleasantness of his perfumes and to the harmony of the music in a banquet. In summary, we can affirm that the noun / hf,[]m,; when examined in the Praise of the Fathers, refers not only to the activity of the ancestors, but its metaphorical use, in the case of Aaron and King Josiah, applies the term to man. This is presented as a work pleasing to God¹⁸.

3.5 Works and God’s Reward (Sir 51:30G) Sir 51 offers four occurrences of the verbal root “to work” and of the noun “work”. The first two are present in the sage’s autobiographical prayer of praise (51:2.8). The first sketches the negative activity of the slanderer and manufacturer of lies; the second, the action of the Lord, rich in mercy and everlasting. The memory of the Lord’s activity is the source of new strength in the worshipper and determines the passage from supplication to praise, from the intense cry for salvation to gratitude¹⁹. The last reference to human activity occurs at the conclusion of the work of Ben Sira. The sapiential poem²⁰ ends with an appeal addressed to the disciples/ readers to perform their own works. Sir 51:30 is fragmentary: v. 30a, present only in

18 The idea of man as the work of God, expressed frequently in metaphorical language in the OT (cf. Sir 33:10) and specified as the people of Israel (cf. Jer 18:6; Isa 29:23; 45:11; 64:8), occurs also in the apocryphal texts, cf. Wahl, Apocalypsis Sedrach, III 7: 

 19 On the thanksgiving prayer, cf. Di Lella, Ben Sira’s Praise, 151–170; Gilbert, L’action de grâce, 231–242; Guerra Martínez, El poder de la oración, 168–170; Palmisano, La prière, 281– 296. 20 On the poem, cf. Gilbert, Venez, 283–290.

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

 227

MsB, reads “perform your works in justice”²¹, while G reads “carry out your works before the time”. The reading of v. 30a in G, in the light of the ancient versions, S(P) and L, even if not unambiguous, contains an admonition to work promptly, without procrastination. Verse 30b (G and MsB) is confirmed by 11QPsa²², where we read only the conclusion of the stich. The close of the book, therefore, contains, in G, S(P), and L, a clear reference to the theme of divine retribution²³. This, like wisdom, comes from the Lord (1:1–10). The passage creates an inclusion with 2:8, which states the trustworthiness of the principle of divine retribution, and with Sir 11:22; 36:15, affirming its validity in the life of the sage and in the history of the people. In 51:22, the sage stated that his tongue (as the mediator of salvation) is the reward of the Lord. The close link between the spheres of speaking and acting which emerged in the sage’s discourse (3:8; 37:16) is reaffirmed in his last poem. The Lord’s reward is being able to praise him in word and deed. Theology and anthropology are brought together in the history of the sage and his disciples.

4 Conclusions A lexicographical investigation of the noun / hf,[]m; in the book of Ben Sira has allowed us to show the particular distribution of the occurrences of the noun, of the subjects involved, of the areas of work considered, and to grasp their nuances within each section of the text. The first and the second parts contain numerous instructions regarding the action of the disciple. Some of the teachings in the first part are taken up again and treated more deeply in the second. However, in the passage from the first to the second part, Ben Sira’s interest appears to be directed ever more to the figure of the sage and culminates with the description of the sage as the ideal scribe, affirming implicitly that the nature of the sage precedes his activity. The third and fourth parts, followed by the conclusion, present the close link between the work of the sage and the work of God. The sage describes, interprets and celebrates the divine activity, recognising in it its own reward (51:22).

21 The link between human working and justice is attested also in the classical world, as indicated in the works of Hesiod (VII cent. B.C.). He sees in human work and activity the expression of justice (defined as a positive struggle) guaranteed by Zeus, cf. Hesiod, Works and Days, 217. 22 The Syriac reads: “perform your works even if it is not the time, and the reward will be given to you at the due time”. 23 On the idea, in the Greek world, of divine retribution for human activity, cf. Hesiod, Works and Days, 320–341.

228 

 Maria Carmela Palmisano

In a canonical perspective, the theme of the working of the disciples, of God, and of the sage allows us to read in Ben Sira’s work the articulation of the theological and anthropological perspective at the end of the Old Testament period. The sapiential treatment contributes to the creation of the background against which there would be developed gradually the New Testament revelation, in particular in the Gospel of John. Here the works, in a theological perspective, will have the character of the revelation of the action of God in the Son, while, according to an anthropological perspective, they will become the point of participation in the divine communication which acts in history.

The occurrences of  / hf,[]m; in the book of Ben Sira vv.

Subject of the work/working

Hebrew (H)

Greek (G)

Latin (L)

1:9 3:8 3:17

God disciple disciple

  

opera sua in opere opera tua

3:23

disciple

4:29 6:19

disciple disciple

/ hf[m 25 (A) rf[ $ytkalm (C) (A $mm rtwybw) $tkalm dwb[t

7:15

disciple

hdb[ tkalm

    () 

7:20

disciple

(C) dbw[ db[



7:25 9:17 10:6

disciple artisan disciple

qs[ rXwy $rdb

10:26

disciple

twX[l/$cpx db[l 

operis eius noli scrutari operibus tuis opere laborabis laboriosa opera servum operante grande opus opera operibus iniuriae faciendo opere tuo

  

Syriac (Peshiṭta) S(P) yhwdb8([ )db(b krtw(b yhwdb8([b ktdY8b(b )LM( lM(t

26

xLPr )db(L pr+t / 27 / 28 mwL+t kdb( db(ML

25 MsA reads: “riches”, MsC: “your works”. 26 S(P) reads: “do not love yourself more than a person of the people”. 27 S(P) reads: “make your daughter go out (of your house) and slander will go away”. 28 S(P) reads: “the city will be secure on account of the wisdom of the just”.

 229

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

vv.

Subject of the work/working

10:27 11:4

man the Lord

11:15b30 man (good works come from the Lord) 11:20 disciple 11:21 sinner

Hebrew (H)

Greek (G)

Latin (L)

dbw[ yyy yf[m wl[p (A) ~yrXy

    GII

operatur opera Altissimi opera illius viae bonorum (V:L=H)

$tkalmbw

     /  

in opere in operibus peccatorum operum illius adsumet te opus



operam



operum

        33 (GII) 

opera illius opera iustitiae

(A wyl[)

11:27 13:4 14:19

man rich man man

15:19

man (God’s wyf[m l[p looking on the works of men) twice wyl[pmk man (divine recompense for man) man (divine wyf[mk recompense for man) God (A rts lkb) justice hf[m

16:12

16:14

16:21 16:22 16:26 16:27 17:8 17:8c

the Lord twice (works of God in creation) Lord Lord

17:9

Lord

db[y wyf[m

wyf[m / /

/

operam

opera ipsius opera illorum operibus suis operum suorum operum eius

Syriac (Peshiṭta) S(P) xLP[d yhwz)r{ yhwdb8([ )db8(d

29

31 h[Ydb(8B[ )Lw](d )db(^b[

yhw]L( xwLPN yhwdb8( 32

nwhtYr{t

yhwdb8({ (db({d) yhwdb8({

/ yhwdb8({ nwhYdb8({ yhwdb8({ ht$Yr{p /

29 S(P) reads: “mysteries” instead of “works” of God. 30 This is the only mention of the substantive in GII; cf. Bussino, The Greek Additions, ad locum. He observes in this case that the Greek addition is not far from GI while it contains reference to themes dear to the redactor of GII. 31 S(P) refers the works to one’s way of life, whence the use of the third person singular suffix. 32 In S(P): “the thoughts”. 33 The translation of the stich: “and grants them to glory for ever in his marvellous (works)”.

230 

 Maria Carmela Palmisano

vv.

Subject of the work/working

17:19 18:4 20:28

men the Lord man (who works the ground) disciples of wisdom one who practises truth one who practises injustice disciple disciple

24:22 27:9 27:10 30:13 31:22c (34:27a) 32:23a (35:27a) 33(36): 15a 33:23a (30:31a) 33:25b

Greek (G)

Latin (L)

/ / /

34  

opera illorum opera illius operatur

/



qui audit me

/



operantur

/



operantibus

 

operare operibus tuis

wlw[ dbkhw $yf[m

disciple

$yf[m



opere

the Most High

hf[m

opera Altissimi

disciple

$yf[m

servant

hkalm

    

db[h



operatur

db[h



(30:33b) (in the exhortation to the disciple) 33:26a slave (30:34a) 33:28a slave (30:36a) 33:30b slave (30:38) 35:24b men (32:22b) 37:11 disciple twice 37:16

Hebrew (H)

man



lwmg



actus suos

 

omni opere multa operatione operam verbum



35

yhwdb8({ yhwb8({ ydb8({L )$Q)w kYdb8({ kYdb8({ yhwdb({ kYdb8({

)NXLwPw )db(L

opus

/

rdb hf[m

nwhYdb8({ yhwdb8({ /

operibus tuis

conpedes mitte in opera

l[p wtkalm

Syriac (Peshiṭta) S(P)

/ 36

yhY+L$) ydb^({L hdb(B{ )db(

34 Codices S*-A read  referring the works to God. S(P) confirms the reading of the textus receptus and suggests that in the transmission from H (attested by S[P]-L) to G (S*-A) we find verified a tendency to interpret theologically a passage that initially referred to human activities. 35 S(P) reads the stich: “none of his works will be destroyed”. 36 S(P) reads the stich: “give him the authority over your house”.

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

vv.

Subject of the work/working

38:8 38:25

the Lord oxen

Hebrew (H)

whf[m (B) rwXb

Greek (G)

Latin (L)

         

opera eius operibus eorum opus opus operum opus opus operatio arte operatione

 231

Syriac (Peshiṭta) S(P) )db({ r[YtM )db(B{

blacksmith

/ /

potter

/

38:31 38:34

artisan artisan

/ /

39:14 39:16 39:19 39:33 40:17

the Lord the Lord human being the Lord

/ [yf[m] hf[m la hf[m

   

operibus suis opera Domini opera opera Domini

40:18 42:15 3 times 42:15d 42:16

(labourer) the Lord

rkX la yf[m wyf[m 37 l[wpw [wyf[m]

   (GII) 

operarii operum Dei opera eius

wyf[m yf[m

 

opera eius opus Excelsi

qcwm wyf[m wyf[m

 

operibus opera

wyf[m wyf[m hf[m

  

opera sua operum eius opus

/ / /

hf[m

(twice)

opera lapidarii

/

tlht



opus

/

38:27 38:28 twice 38:29 3 times

42:22 43:2 43:4 43:25 43:28 43:32 45:10 45:11 45:12

the Lord (with reference to the sun) the Lord the Most High blacksmith the Lord (in nature) the Lord the Lord embroiderer (Aaron’s robe) engraver (Aaron’s robe) Aaron’s crown

opus eius

h]db(B{d hdb( )db(B{ db( htdYb(B{d )db(B yhwdb8({ yhwdb8({ nwhYdb8({ yhwdb8({ )db8({w )db8({w yhwdb8({ yhwdb8({ ndb8({ yhwdb8({ yhwd^b({ db]( hdb]([ )db[(b /

37 The text of Mss M and B is confirmed by GII and S(P) but is absent from L. The Greek of the stich, probably belonging to the original text of Ben Sira, reads: “and his decision is carried out according to his goodwill” (cf. Bussino, The Greek Additions, ad locum).

232 

 Maria Carmela Palmisano

vv.

Subject of the work/working

47:8 48:14 49:1

David Elisha perfumer (reference to Josiah) lips the Lord disciples/readers

51:2 51:8 51:30 twice

Hebrew (H)

Greek (G)

Latin (L)

whyf[m hf[m hf[m

  

opere opera ipsius opus

yjX wydsx ~kyf[m (B) wf[

   

operantium operationis operamini opus vestrum

Syriac (Peshiṭta) S(P)

wdb(] nwKdb([

Bibliography Bertram, Georg, , TWNT, vol. 2, 631–653. Bussino, Severino, The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. Translated from the Italian by Michael Tait (AnBib 203), Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, God, Creator of All (Sir 43:27–33), in: Renate Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002, 79–100. Carpenter, Eugene, hX[, DOTE, vol. 3, 546–552. Corley, Jeremy, Wisdom versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1–10, in: Florentino García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168), Leuven: University Press, 2003, 269–285. Di Lella, Alexander A., Sirach 51:1–12: Poetic Structure and Analysis of Ben Sira’s Psalm: CBQ 48 (1986) 395–407. Gilbert, Maurice, God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11–18:14, in: Renate Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002, 118–135. Gilbert, Maurice, L’action de grâce de Ben Sira (Si 51, 1–12), in: Raymond Kuntzmann (ed.), Ce Dieu qui vient. Fs Bernard Renaud (LD 159), Paris: Du Cerf, 1995, 239–240. Gilbert, Maurice, Venez à mon école (Si 51,13–30), in: Irmtraud Fischer – Ursula Rapp – Johannes Schiller (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Fs Johannes Marböck (BZAW 331), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003, 283–289. Guerra Martínez, Antonio José, El poder de la oración. Estudio de Sir 51,1–12 (ABE 50), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino, 2010. Hengel, Martin, Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zur ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31988. Kaiser, Otto, Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott. Studien zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und Hermeneutik (BZAW 392), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Masqueray, Paul (ed.), Sophocle. I: Ajax – Antigone – Œdipe-Roi – Electre (CUFr), Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1922. Mazon, Paul (ed.), Hésiode. Théogonie – Les Travaux et les Jours – Le Bouclier (CUFr), Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1925.

“Perform your work promptly, and, in his time, he will give you your reward”  

 233

Méridier, Louis (ed.), Euripide. I: Le Cyclope – Alceste – Médée – Les Héraclides (CUFr), Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1925. Palmisano, Maria Carmela, La prière de Ben Sira dans les manuscrits hébreux et dans les versions anciennes, in: Jean-Sébastien Rey – Jan Joosten (eds.), The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Transmission and Interpretation (JSJS 150), Leiden: Brill, 2011, 281–296. Piwowar, Andrzej, La vergogna come criterio della fama perpetua. Studio esegetico-teologico di Sir 40,1–42,14 (Ph.D. Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Rome: Katowice 2006). Pohlenz, Max, Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1948. Rackham, Harris (ed.), Cicero. XIX: De Natura Deorum Academica (LCL), London: William Heinemann, 1979. Reiterer, Friedrich, V., “Alle Weisheit stamm vom Herrn...”. Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira (BZAW 375), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007, 229–267. Ringgren, Helmer, hX[, TWAT, vol. 6, 413–432. Wahl, Otto (ed.), Apocalypsis Esdrae, Apocalypsis Sedrach, Visio Beati Esdrae (Pseudoepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 4), Leiden: Brill, 1977. Wicke-Reuter, Ursel, Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa (BZAW 298), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Wischmeyer, Oda, Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach (BZAW 77), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.

Wisdom of Solomon

Luca Mazzinghi

The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit” (κολάζω and εὐεργετέω) in the Book of Wisdom Luca Mazzinghi: Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, Italy

1 The Use of the Words “to punish” and “to reward” in the Book of Wisdom As is well known, the final chapters of the book of Wisdom are characterised by seven antitheses in which the author contrasts the punitive actions of God against the Egyptians with the benefits granted to the children of Israel. These antitheses are governed by an initial principle expounded in 11:5, immediately before the first antithesis (11:6–14): “that through which their enemies were punished (ἐκολάσθησαν), was for them a benefit (εὐεργετήθησαν) in their difficulties”. That is, God makes use of the same created realities both in order to punish the wicked and to save the just. The case of the Exodus is a proof of the principle. This principle is repeated and closely examined in 11:15–16, a text which Maurice Gilbert has studied thoroughly¹. In this investigation, I intend to consider the antithetical pair of verbs present in 11:5, κολάζω and εὐεργετέω, which, in themselves, have not received great attention from the commentators². The vocabulary both of “punishing” and of “benefiting” is not rare in the book of Wisdom. Here, we are concerned only with those texts in which “punish” and “benefit” are found together. In particular, we shall be asking ourselves, within the frame of the whole book of Wisdom, what role the antithesis “punish”/“benefit” plays, and what is its religious and cultural background. We shall be referring, therefore, to Wis 3:4–5; 11:5.13; 16:2.9–11.24, the six texts in which κολάζω/κόλασις and εὐεργετέω/εὐεργεσία appear alongside each other. The verb κολάζω (“to punish”) is very frequent in Wisdom: it occurs a good twelve times in 3:4; 11:5.8.16; 12:14.15.27; 14:10; 16:1.9; 18:11.22, to which we can add the substantive κόλασις (“punishment”) present in 11:13; 16:2.24; 19:4. These

1 Cf. Gilbert, “On est puni”, 183–191 (= Id., La Sagesse de Salomon, 231–241). 2 Cf. a very brief observation on this in Engel, Das Buch der Weisheit, 187.

238 

 Luca Mazzinghi

two words are attested in the LXX outside the book of Wisdom, above all in those texts that are later and not translations, such as 1–4 Maccabees. In the book of Wisdom, the use of the two terms has always a theological value, with a decided eschatological flavour, as is the case, later, in the New Testament. The “punishing” is always seen as a work of God³. The verb κολάζω is normally used in the passive, except for 11:8 and 12:14. Objects of the divine punishment are the Egyptians (cf. 11:5.8.16; 12:27; 16:1.9; 18:11), idolatry (14:10), and the just person, but, in his case, only from the perspective of the wicked (3:4). The vocabulary of “benefiting” is also not uncommon in our book: the verb εὐεργετέω appears in Wis 3:5; 11:5.13; 16:2, in all four cases in connection with the vocabulary of “punishing”. Also found are the substantives εὐεργεσία in 16:11.24 (again, in connection with “punishing”); εὐεργετής in 19:14, and, finally, the adjective εὐεργετικός in 7:23, within the list of attributes proper to wisdom. This group of words is poorly attested in the LXX (Wisdom, Esth add. 8:12c, some occurrences in the Psalms and in 2–4 Maccabees). Apart from a few exceptions (2 Macc 4:2; 9:26; 3 Macc 6:24; 4 Macc 8:6.17; Wis 19:14), these words are used with reference to God. In particular, the verb εὐεργετέω always has God for its subject (cf. Pss 12[13MT]:6; 56[57 MT]:3; 114 [116 MT]:7; 2 Macc 10:38; 4 Macc 8,6; Esth add. 8:12c [16:3]), as is the case also in the writings of Philo (cf. infra). Among the other Jewish authors writing in Greek, Josephus uses the vocabulary of “benefiting” very often, in a theological but also in a political sense⁴. We observe immediately how in the book of Wisdom the use of the vocabulary of “benefiting” clearly acquires a polemical nuance, evident in a particular way in the texts of chapter 16: God is the only and true benefactor of humanity, in open contrast with the “benefactor” deities of the Graeco-Roman world –Asclepius and Isis in particular– and in a neat antithesis to the rulers and powerful of the earth to whom the epithet “benefactors” is also applied (cf. infra)⁵.

3 Cf. Schneider, κολάζω, κτλ, 815–818; for ὁ κολάζων in 18,22, cf. Priotto, La prima Pasqua, 210–212. 4 Cf. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, sub voce. 5 Cf. Spicq, Notes, vol. 1, 307–313. For the links between Wis 16:2.11.24 and the Hellenistic religious world, cf. Maneschg, Die Erzählung, espec. 186–187.

The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit”  

 239

2 God Punishes and Provides Benefits (Wis 3:4–5; 11:5.13; 16:2.9–11.24) The first text of Wisdom in which the vocabulary of “punishing” is joined to that of “benefiting” is found in the first part of the book, in a clearly eschatological context in relation to the death of the just (3:4–5). They “are in peace”; even if their death appeared as a punishment (ἐαν κολασθῶσιν) in the eyes of others, “their hope is full of immortality”. In exchange for a brief period of correction (ὀλίγα παιδευθέντες), the just “will receive great benefits” (μεγάλα εὐεργετηθήσονται, 3:5a). The use of the passive (κολασθῶσιν, εὐεργετηθήσονται) refers to the action of God (the subject of the rest of 5b). The death of the just cannot, therefore, be considered as a kind of divine punishment but, paradoxically, it should be read as a benevolent act on God’s part: in fact, the just obtain immortality (4b), life with God (9b). The end of the just is not a calamity, but a favour which they receive from God. After 3:4–5, the pair “punish”/“benefit” reappears only at the beginning of the third part of the book (chaps. 10–19) which, as is well known, continually recalls the initial section (chaps. 1–6). Our sage intends to base in history the eschatological gospel with which he opens his work: the very literary structure of the entire book of Wisdom is witness to this⁶. Introducing the seven antitheses with the already mentioned principle expressed in 11:5, our sage reminds us that the God of Israel is capable both of punishing the wicked and benefiting the just, and that he does this by making use of the same forces of his creation. In confirmation of this idea, our pair of words returns for a third time precisely within the first antithesis (11:6–14): the water which changed into blood for the Egyptians (cf. Exod 7:14–24) is contrasted with the water which poured forth from the rock for the thirsty Israelites (cf. Exod 17:1–7). In v. 13, we read “indeed, when they (the Egyptians) heard that, through their own punishment (διὰ τῶν ἰδίων κολάσεως), they (the Israelites) had received benefit (εὐεργετούμενους), they perceived that it was from the Lord”. The subject of the whole verse is here represented by the Egyptians who become aware of the presence of God⁷ when they learn of what happened to the Israelites in the desert: they –the Israelites– had received benefit from God through the same element of water which, being changed into blood in the course of the first plague, had served to punish the

6 Cf. Gilbert, The Last Pages. 7 On this subject, cf. Gilbert, La connaissance de Dieu, 191–210 (Id., La Sagesse de Salomon, esp. 322–323).

240 

 Luca Mazzinghi

Egyptians. It is interesting to observe how the theme of the punishment of the Egyptians in 11:8b, is linked to the antithetical one of the correction which God exercises with mercy in his dealings with the Israelites (ἐν ἐλέι παιδευόμενοι); for the Israelites, the vocabulary of punishment is thus transformed into that of “correction” (cf. also, 11:10; 12:2.26; 16:6); the Egyptians are “punished”, while the Israelites are only “corrected” (cf., infra, with regard to 2 Macc 6:12–17). After the two extensive digressions on the philanthropy of God (11:15–12:17) and on idolatry (chaps. 13–15), our pair of words returns together, for the fourth time, immediately at the beginning of the second antithesis (16:1–4), in 16:2, just after the passage on Egyptian zoolatry (15:14–19), which concludes the reflection on idolatry. In the same chapter 16, it is useful to recall that the vocabulary of “benefiting” also serves to create a literary link between the three antitheses contained in it (cf. 16:2.11.24). In 16:2, we read that “instead of this punishment (ἀνθ᾽ἧς κολάσεως), you did good (εὐεργετήσας) to your people; when their appetite desired a taste out of the ordinary, you provided quails as food…”. While the Egyptians were punished with the plague of frogs (cf. Exod 7:25–8:11, but also 8:12–15, the gnats; 8:16–28, the flies), it was quails that rained on the Israelites (cf. Exod 16:13; Num 11:31). We are thus reminded of the basic theme of the seven antitheses and the principle expounded in 11:5: God punishes the wicked and rewards the just, utilising the same created realities for the one and for the other. The digression on divine “philanthropy” (11:15–12:27) has shown us, however, that the punitive action of God is always in view of conversion (εἰς μετάνοιαν, 11:23), even when the ungodly are involved, and is always subordinate to his love and mercy towards every creature (12:2). In the third antithesis (16:5–14), the theme of punishment appears in v. 9: the Egyptians were worthy of being punished (κολασθῆναι) with the plague of the locusts and flies while the Israelites (“your sons”; 16:10) were preserved from the bites of the serpents in the desert (cf. Num 21:4–9) so that “they might not remain excluded from your benevolent action (τῆς σῆς εὐεργεσίας)” (v. 11); God’s benefits are bound up with his mercy (16:10b) and with his word (16:12b). In this case too, the “punishing” concerns the Egyptians, the “benefiting”, instead, only Israel. In 16:24, our pair of words returns for the sixth and last time in the book. We find ourselves at the heart of the fourth antithesis (16:15–29), in which the gift of the manna made to Israel is contrasted with the hail which fell on Egypt. The text of 16:24 appears particularly interesting because it constitutes a further repetition of the principles already expressed in 11:5.15–16: “indeed, the creation, obeying you who made it, exerts itself to punish (ἐπιτείνεται εἰς κόλασιν) the unrighteous and mitigates itself for the benefit (ἀνίεται εἰς εὐεργεσίαν) of those who trust in you”.

The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit”  

 241

It has long been noted that the vocabulary of this text has clearly been influenced by Stoicism. In fact, in Stoic cosmology, the expression ἐπιτείνεται καὶ ἀνίεται, two verbs which literally ought to refer to the bow string (“it tenses and it relaxes”), relates to the idea of the cohesion of the elements and the harmony of the universe. However, the commentaries do not linger much over the pair “punishment”/“benefit”⁸. In fact, v. 24 remains somewhat vague and does not mean to propound particular philosophical theories, but rather to reaffirm the principle already enunciated right at the beginning of the book (1:14; 5:17–20) and taken up again precisely in 11:5.15–16: namely, that the creation is bearer of salvation for the just, as well as of punishment for the wicked. The idea that creation itself is an instrument of salvation is peculiar to the book of Wisdom and constitutes one of its most original theological features⁹. Not so, however, the “punishing”/“benefiting” antithesis which, in the six texts which we have considered, appears to be at the root of such a conception. A brief examination of the combined use of the vocabulary of “punishment” and “benefit” in the Hellenistic world and in the Jewish literature written in Greek will help us better to understand the texts of Wisdom with which we are concerned.

3 The Influence of the Hellenistic World: Philosophy and the Treatises on Kingship In classical Greek, the idea of a God who punishes humanity is very widespread. In Stoicism, however, there developed the conviction that God is good and is the only cause of good. The idea is already clearly present in Platonic philosophy: the essence of God is only the good (Tim. 29e-30a) and it cannot be accepted that God is ever the cause of evils (Resp. II, 379de); with regard to this idea the text from the Timaeus is perhaps fundamental. In the words of Plutarch, the gods are “providing benefits and philanthropic” (εὐεργετικοὺς καὶ φιλανθρώπους)¹⁰, and yet they are not indifferent to evils. Recording an opinion of Chrysippus, the same Plutarch recalls that God “punishes wickedness (κολάζειν τὴν κακίαν)” and that evils are assigned by Zeus “according

8 Cf., in particular, Larcher, Le livre de la Sagesse, 934–936; Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 300, and the texts cited there. 9 Cf. Vogels, The God Who Creates. 10 SVF II, 323 frag. 1115.

242 

 Luca Mazzinghi

to reason or to punish or as part of the working of the universal economy”¹¹. Thus, in every case, evil occurs in a providential order willed by a God who by nature is the highest good: “And what reason have the Gods for doing deeds of kindness? It is their nature. One who thinks that they are unwilling to do harm, is wrong; they cannot do harm. They cannot receive or inflict injury” (Quae causa est dis benefaciendi? Natura. Errat siquis illos putat nocere nolle: non possunt. Nec accipere iniuriam quaeunt nec facere)¹². The idea of a God who is primarily “benefactor” rather than “punisher”, is frequent also in the mystery cults. Diodorus Siculus describes Isis as “benefactress” (εὐεργετικόν; cf. I, XXV, 2s); the epithet σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης appears in an inscription from the time of Augustus dedicated to Asclepius and set up in the temple of Philae¹³. The epithet σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης leads us to a new, possible background against which the author of Wisdom is moving. In fact, with this expression, it was not only the divinity that was being characterised but, particularly, the earthly monarch. Both in the Ptolemaic and in the Roman periods, the idea was widespread that the king was “benefactor” (cf. Luke 22:25) and, for his subjects, incarnated the very action of God. The pair σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης was much used in connection with the Ptolemaic monarchy and, subsequently, by the Emperor Augustus and his successors¹⁴. It is well known that, in composing the royal-Solomonic fiction which characterises Wisdom 7–9, our sage makes use of the neo-Pythagorean treatises on kingship¹⁵. Especially in the treatise on kingship attributed to Diotogenes, the Stoic-Platonic idea of a “benefactor” God is translated into that of a monarch who, incarnating on earth the universal law and the action of God, becomes, in his turn, a “benefactor”, performing only the good in his relations with his subjects.

11 SVF II, 338 frag. 1176. 12 Seneca, Ep. 95, 47. Cf. also, Philo, Prov. II, 82. For this subject within Stoic philosophy, cf. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, vol. 1, 98–101; vol. 2, 55–56. 13 Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones, vol. 2, 657,1; year 13/12 B.C. Cf. Maneschg, Die Erzählung, 186–187. 14 Cf. the pioneering study by Skard, Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe, 6–66; cf. also, Nock, Soter and Euergetes; Passoni Dell’Acqua, Euergetes. For Augustus styled as “benefactor”, cf. also, Philo, Legat. 149: Augustus is ὁ πρῶτος καὶ μέγιστος καὶ κοινὸς εὐεργετής; cf. also, note 5. 15 For a more extensive consideration and a richer bibliography on these treatises and for the problem of their dating, cf. Termini, Dal Sinai alla creazione, in particular, 167, note 29. Termini suggests a date for these treatises of around the III-II centuries BC. Cf. also, Squilloni, Il significato etico-politico. For the relationship of these treatises with the Book of Wisdom, cf. Gilbert, La vostra sovranità viene dal Signore, esp. 125–127; cf. also Larcher, Etudes, 219.

The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit”  

 243

Among the various recommendations addressed to the king in this treatise, the one relating to keeping oneself from covetousness lays down that “the king must possess the wealth necessary to benefit (εὐεργετεῖν) his friends”¹⁶. A little later, εὐεργεσία is registered by Diotogenes as one of the principal qualities of the king, together with the rapidity which he ought to display in knowing how to punish the wicked (κολάσιος). In this knowing how to connect the capacity of punishing with that of benefiting his subjects, the king shows himself to be θεόμιμος, imitator of the divinity. He cannot, therefore act on the basis of the fear of punishments – though this is necessary at times– but on the basis of benevolence, precisely as the divinity acts¹⁷.

4 Hellenistic Judaism: 2 and 4 Maccabees and Aristeas The influence of these Hellenistic concepts appears clearly in two Jewish authors who wrote in Greek, Aristeas and Philo, but also in the only two texts of the LXX (other than those already seen in Wisdom) in which the vocabulary of “punishing” and of “benefiting” is found together; both texts are late and are not translations. In 2 Macc 6:12–17, the author of the book provides an extensive theological reflection concerning the evils that have happened to Israel. Where Israel is concerned, God does not allow the wicked to go unpunished, but strikes them suddenly with punishments. That is a sign of his great benevolence (μεγάλης εὐεργεσίας, v. 13). With the other nations, however, God waits for them to reach the fullness of their sins in order to punish them (κολάσαι, v. 14). With his people, then, God acts in a merciful way, as a good sovereign, as a εὐεργέτης (cf. 2 Macc 4:2) who performs the good for his people, and, if he has to punish them, he does it, in fact, to correct and educate them (πρὸς παιδείαν, 2 Macc 6:12.16). In 4 Macc 8:6, within the conversation which the tyrant holds with the seven brothers who are going to be martyred by him, Antiochus, the persecutor king, declares: “just as I am able to punish (κολάζειν) those who disobey my orders, so am I able to benefit (εὐεργετεῖν) those who obey me”. Here, we have a clear reflection of the Hellenistic concept of kingship discussed above.

16 Cf. Diotogenes, 265,20–21, in Delatte, Les Traités de la Royauté, 39–40. 17 Diotogenes, 267,8  ff., in Delatte, Les Traités de la Royauté, 42; cf. also, 214–216.

244 

 Luca Mazzinghi

The Letter of Aristeas appears particularly interesting in this regard. On two occasions, the author reflects on this aspect of royal conduct, linking it closely in both cases with the action of God. In Arist. 188, magnanimity (μακροθυμία) is contrasted with punishing (κολάζειν); the assumption of such a benevolent attitude on the part of the sovereign leads the wicked to conversion (εἰς μετάνοιαν). We shall find a similar idea in Wis 11:23, in connection with the merciful action of God. A little later, in Arist. 190, it is precisely the activity of God, the benefactor of humanity, which becomes the model of such a way of acting for the good ruler: ὁ θεὸς εὐερφετεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος. An analogous idea is expressed in Arist. 208: the king must be “philanthropic” (φιλάνθρωπος). In fact, he must not punish thoughtlessly (ὄυτε εὐκόπως δεῖ κολάζειν), but has to imitate the divine mercy. On the part of the sovereign, therefore, it is a question of acting like God who benefits the whole of the cosmos (ὡς γὰρ θεὸς εὐεργετεῖ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον). In Aristeas, the influence of the neo-Pythagorean treatises on kingship clearly intersects with the Stoic-derived concept of a God who can only will the good. We observe how, compared with the book of Wisdom, Aristeas places most of his emphasis on the divine benefits, almost excluding or at least minimising the idea of punishment. For the author of the Letter, punishment, whether in the divine or in the human sphere, is always tempered because God is a benevolent and generous benefactor.

5 Philo of Alexandria It is in Philo, however, that our pair of words emerges in texts of particular interest, texts that are in many respects close to the book of Wisdom. As for Aristeas, so too for Philo, the wordpair “punish”/“benefit” describes primarily the conduct of the good ruler, who honours those who do good (τοὺς εὐεργέτας) and punishes (τὸ κολάζειν) the guilty (Flacc. 81). Yet, Philo’s interest centres rather on the disposition of God. In Deus 77–81, Philo describes the disposition of God who moderates his power on account of human weakness. The text of Deus 80 is notable in this connection: because of the natural weakness (φυσικὴν ἀσθένειαν) of human beings, God “does not wish to hand out either his benefits or his punishment as he actually can” (οὔτε εὐεργετεῖν οὔτε κολάζειν ὡς δύναται βούλεται), but “in the measure in which he sees that those who must be subject to one part or the other of his power are able to receive it”. Not long before (§ 76), Philo had just affirmed that God offers his mercy to human beings, something from which even the unworthy can benefit

The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit”  

 245

(εἰς εὐεργεσίαν): “he is not content to exercise his mercy after having judged, but he judges having already had mercy. In fact, with him, mercy is older than judgement (πρεσβύτερος γὰρ δίκης ὁ ἥλεος), because he knows who deserves to be punished (τὸν κολάσεως ἄξιον) before judging and not after”. Philo’s discourse on God, which comes in this section of the book, appears to be inserted within a more extensive treatment of the powers of God (cf. infra). Philo emphasises the fact that God measures his actions and, therefore, his gifts, but also his punishment, to the nature of the human recipient, whether for good or ill. In Sacr. 131.133, our pair of words returns more directly in relation to the doctrine of the divine Powers (δυνάμεις). The legislative power of God –one of the principal divine powers according to Philo– is, essentially, divided into two: “on the one hand, it aims at rewarding (εἰς εὐεργεσίαν) those who act rightly, on the other hand, at punishing (εἰς κολάσιν) those who sin” (131). The idea of a benevolent power (εὐεργέτις) alongside a punitive one (κολαστήριος) is taken up again by Philo, in Abr. 145, in connection with the episode of Sodom: salvation comes to human beings from the first power, destruction, however, from the other one. The whole section of Abr. 133–146 allows the Alexandrian philosopher to exclude the possibility that God can will evil; he is always σωτὴρ καὶ φιλάνθρωπος (137), but also able to punish. It is to this model of God that kings must conform in their own governance (144). In comparison to Aristeas, Philo does not restrict himself to underlining the divine benefits; in fact, they are equally balanced with God’s punitive disposition. We are, thus, closer to the ideas contained in the book of Wisdom which, however, does not show any awareness of the theory of the divine Powers as expounded by Philo¹⁸. And yet, for Philo too, there exists a certain inclination of God towards “benefiting”. In Mut. 129, we read that, even if he has to punish (κολάζεσθαι) the one who has committed injustice, the sovereign of the universe allows the wicked person to have intercessors so that his punishment may be moderated; in fact, “to do the good is proper to God” (θεοῦ δὲ τὸ εὐεργετεῖν ἴδιον). This idea is also implicit in the whole digression in Wis 11:15–12:27. In Somn. I, 143, Philo adds, however, that God extends both his punishments (κολάσεις) and his benefits (εὐεργεσίας) not by his own hand, but by the hand of his ministers. Quoting Exod 20:19, Philo declares that God does not act directly where human beings are concerned but in a mediated way. In the book of Wisdom, God’s actions occur by means of a mediator: the cosmos. But Philo’s ministers are personal agents, whereas Wisdom’s cosmos is an instrument.

18 Cf. Termini, Le potenze di Dio, 66–69.

246 

 Luca Mazzinghi

Again, in Fug. 65–66 Philo confirms that it is fitting for God only to do the good (εὐεργεσίας); punishment (τὸ κολάζειν) reaches the wicked by means of others, chosen by God. We note, then, that in Philo the term κολαστήριος (absent in Wisdom) is for the most part restricted to the powers rather than attributed directly to God (Post. 20; Gig. 47; Ebr. 32; Her. 166; Abr. 145; Spec. I, 307). In fact, Philo hesitates to attribute punishment directly to God since God cannot be considered responsible for evil; chastisement is sometimes seen as a preventive, as a warning directed at sinners. In the text of Conf. 171, Philo creates a play on words between κόλασις and κώλυσις (“warning”). In Fug. 74, he seeks to justify the punitive action of Providence declaring that it “is a good thing which is imitating the evil”. There is, therefore, something of a tension in the thought of Philo which is not altogether resolved. The idea that it is fitting for God only to do the good is fundamental for him, and is bound up, as in Wisdom (cf. the principle laid down in 12:16), with a firm faith in the divine omnipotence (cf. Opif. 46; Abr. 175; Mos. I, 94.174; Spec. I, 282; IV, 127)¹⁹. Philo’s effort seems to be that of reconciling two opposed visions of God’s activity: the idea, originating in a Stoic-Hellenistic context, of a God who only does the good, and the, typically biblical, idea of a God who punishes moral evil. Both Philo and the book of Wisdom are convinced that God is merciful because he is omnipotent, and that such omnipotence is manifested in the benevolent action of God in his dealings with his creation. Towards human beings, in particular, punishment is never an end in itself but is always subservient to conversion. We note again that, compared with Philo, the book of Wisdom emphasises much more the theme of history, basing its own eschatological reflection precisely on Israel’s past and renouncing allegory entirely²⁰. It is, therefore, the background of the history of Israel with its collection of accounts of the action of God, at once salvific and punitive, which constrains the author of Wisdom not to pass over the emphasis which it also places on punishment. He thus distances himself in part from Philo but also from Aristeas and from the Hellenistic models of which he shows himself to be aware and to make use.

19 Cf. Termini, Le potenze di Dio, espec. 139–141. 20 By contrast, cf. Winston, A Century of Research, 13–14: “Philo’s conception of the world historical process appears to be strictly impersonal. The sequence of world empires is determined by a cosmic principle of equality, a fundamental characteristic of the divine Logos”.

The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit”  

 247

6 The Book of Wisdom: Between Biblical Faith and Hellenism In conclusion, like Aristeas and Philo, the book of Wisdom demonstrates an effort to adapt a typically Hellenistic concept to the biblical faith. The Hellenistic concept in question is the Stoic-Platonic idea of a divinity only capable of doing the good. This idea includes the concept of the earthly sovereign who incarnates the divine action (cf. the treatises on kingship). The book of Wisdom adapts this Hellenistic concept to the biblical faith in a God who is good and generous to all his creation but also capable of punishing the wicked as is well demonstrated in the account of the Exodus which stands behind Wisdom 11–19. As we have already mentioned, it is not possible wholly to exclude a polemical intention on the part of our author: in the face of such pretended earthly “benefactors”, the only one who truly does the good is God. The book of Wisdom is careful to avoid attributing the quality of εὐεργέτης to God directly, perhaps precisely to escape the ambiguity, dangerous for an Alexandrian Jew, that any earthly ruler could be described in this way as imitating the divine action. It is interesting to note that, in the book of Wisdom, the wordpair “punish”/“benefit” is referred only to God, and never to rulers, such as happens in 4 Macc 8:6, in Aristeas, and, at least in one case, also in Philo (cf. supra). So then, a characteristic feature of the book of Wisdom lies in the fact that, with the exception of 3:4–5, the pair “punish”/“benefit” appears always in the frame of the seven Exodus-related antitheses, and, as we have noted, in a way that is programmatic at the beginning (11:5) and systematic within the first four antitheses (11:13; 16:2.9–11.24). The Philonic philosophical reflections on the Powers of God are lacking in Wisdom, and the biblical background of “punishing” and “benefiting” is undoubtedly much more marked. For our sage, “punish” and “benefit” have become special terms –although certainly not exclusive ones– to highlight the antithetical actions of God which stand at the basis of the seven antitheses of Wisdom 11–19. The profoundly biblical theme of the Exodus and the journey through the desert is thus reread in the light of a vocabulary that betrays clearly Hellenistic concepts. Where “punishing” is concerned, our sage must always consider it within the mercy and pity of God, which, only in the face of the conscious refusal of humanity to accept them, are transformed into the definitive chastisement: death (cf. 4:17–19; 12:27; 19:4). It is no accident that the two final antitheses (18:5–25 and 19:1–9) relate to the death of the firstborn and to the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. On the other hand, the same God who punishes is also the one who grants benefits to whoever believes in him. The influence of Hellenistic concepts

248 

 Luca Mazzinghi

of the divinity is thus revealed in always causing the aspect of benevolence to prevail over that of punishment. Finally, we must not pass over the fact that the first of the six occurrences of the wordpair “punish”/“benefit” present in Wisdom occurs in 3:4–5. In this way, there emerge the eschatological dimensions of the punitive and benevolent action of God, another theological novelty typical of our sage. For our sage, the historical action of God is the foundation and model of his eschatological action: he is a God who punishes, but, chiefly, a God who saves.

Bibliography Delatte, Louis, Les Traités de la Royauté d’Ecphante, Diotogène et Sthénidas, (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 97), Liège: Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, 1942. Dittenberger, Wilhelm (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones selectae. Supplementum sylloges inscriptionum graecarum, 2 vols., Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903–1905. Engel, Helmut, Das Buch der Weisheit (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament 16), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Gilbert, Maurice, La connaissance de Dieu dans le livre de la Sagesse, in: Joseph Coppens (ed.), La notion biblique de Dieu. Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes: Actes de la XXVe session des Journées bibliques de Louvain, 27–30 août 1974 (BETL 41), Gembloux – Leuven: Duculot – University Press, 1976, 191–210 (= Id., La Sagesse de Salomon, 311–335). Gilbert, Maurice, “On est puni par où l’on pêche” (Sg 11,16), in: André Caquot – Simon Légasse – Michel Tardieu (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215), Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1985, 183–191 (= Id., La Sagesse de Salomon, 231–241). Gilbert, Maurice, The Last Pages of the Wisdom of Solomon: Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 20 (1997) 52–67 (= Id., La Sagesse de Salomon, 261–278). Gilbert, Maurice, “La vostra sovranità viene dal Signore” (Sap 6,3): ambivalenza del potere politico nella tradizione sapienziale, in: Ermenegildo Manicardi – Luca Mazzinghi (eds.), Il potere politico: bisogno e rifiuto dell’autorità, RicStBib 18 (2006/1–2) 117–132 (Id., La Sagesse de Salomon, 121–140). Gilbert, Maurice, La Sagesse de Salomon: Recueil d’études = The Wisdom of Solomon: Collected Essays (AnBib 189), Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. Larcher, Chrysostome, Études sur le livre de la Sagesse (EB), Paris: Lecoffre J. Gabalda, 1969. Larcher, Chrysostome, Le livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon, vol. 3 (EB. Nouvelle Série 1), Paris: Gabalda, 1985. Maneschg, Johannes, Die Erzählung von der ehernen Schlange (Num 21,4–9) in der Auslegung der frühen jüdischen Literatur. Ein traditionsgeschichtliche Studie (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII, Theologie 157), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1981.

The Antithetical Pair “to punish” and “to benefit”  

 249

Nock, Arthur Darby, Soter and Euergetes, in: Id., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. Selected and Edited, with an Introduction, Bibliography of Nock’s Writings, and Indexes, by Zeph Stewart, vol. 2, Oxford: Clarendon, 1972, 720–735. Passoni Dell’Acqua, Anna, Euergetes: Aegyptus 56 (1976) 177–191. Pohlenz, Max, Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, 2 vols., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1948 and 1955. Priotto, Michelangelo, La prima Pasqua in Sap 18,5.25. Rilettura e attualizzazione (RivBS 15), Bologna: Dehoniane, 1987. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Unabridged Study Edition, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill, 2002. Schneider, Johannes, κολάζω, κτλ, TWNT, vol. 3, 815–818. Skard, Eilir, Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe: Euergetes-Concordia (Avhandlingar utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps – Akademi i Oslo), Oslo: Dybwad, 1932. Spicq, Ceslas, Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire (OBO 22/1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Squilloni, Antonella, Il significato etico-politico dell’immagine re-legge animata. Il νόμος ἔμψυχος nei trattati pitagorici Περὶ βασιλείας: Civiltà Classica e cristiana 11/1 (1990) 75–94. Termini, Cristina, Le potenze di Dio. Studio su dynamis in Filone di Alessandria (Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 71), Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2000. Termini, Cristina, Dal Sinai alla creazione: il rapporto tra legge naturale e legge rivelata in Filone di Alessandria, in: Angela Maria Mazzanti – Francesca Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria. Natura, legge, storia: Atti del VII Convegno di studi del gruppo italiano di ricerca su Origene e la tradizione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003) (Biblioteca di Adamantius 2), Villa Verrucchio (RN): Pazzini, 2004, 159–191. Vogels, Walter, The God who Creates is the God who Saves: the Book of Wisdom’s Reversal of the Biblical Pattern: Église et Théologie 22 (1991) 315–335. Winston, David S., The Wisdom of Solomon. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 43), Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Winston, David S., A Century of Research on the Book of Wisdom, in: Angelo Passaro – Giuseppe Bellia (eds.), The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research (DCLY 2005), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, 1–18.

Marco Nobile

The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3)* Marco Nobile: Pontifical Antonianum University, Rome

1 The Issue Belief in life after death came late to ancient Israel. In the earliest period of their history the Israelites shared the common Middle Eastern and Mediterranean conception of existence after the end of life as being that of “shadows” in the realm of the dead (Sheol). The Jewish people of the Second Temple period must have received the new conception of the hereafter through outside influences and internal impulses¹. To be sure, contact with Iranian religion, which embraced an idea of the resurrection of the dead, and then contact with Hellenistic culture, among whose range of religious ideas was also that of the immortality of the soul, may have sown the seed for the reception of this new truth. Regarding, however, the elements intrinsic to the faith of the Israelites, possibly stimulated by external factors, these are to be sought, on one hand in the theism that was moving towards becoming ever more monotheistic, and on the other, in the resulting ethical structuring of the faith, which had its foundation in the Mosaic Torah, as expressed particularly in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 30:15: “See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil”). Evidently the Torah itself does not speak of life after death, but there are in the Hebrew Scriptures those premises that are well described in the vision of the resurrection of the dry bones in Ezek 37:1–14. When God asks him whether the bones might rise to live again, the prophet replies: “O Lord God, you know!” (v. 3). It is precisely this omnipotent God, creator and redeemer (cf. Deutero-Isaiah: Isa 40:12–26; 41:1–7; 42:5–9; 43:8–12; 44:6; 51:9–11), who bound life and prosperity to the observance of his Law, who has the ability to continue to create life even beyond biological death.

* I thank Rev. Fr. David M. Jaeger, OFM for the English translation. 1 I have dealt amply with this subject in Nobile, La resurrezione dei morti, 79–129; cf., on the religious and cultural relations between Persia and Israel, the recent contribution of Piras, Politica e ideologia religiosa, 21–35.

The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3) 

 251

Naturally, this is a working hypothesis that seeks to restore meaning in the face of the huge problem thrown up in the wake of the catastrophe of the sixth century B.C., namely the fall of Jerusalem and of the Temple, and the Babylonian Exile. How was it possible for the people chosen by God and for its perennial institutions to undergo that complete disaster, and to be at the risk of vanishing from history? And in a wider sense, the problem of inexplicable suffering now arose inescapably, the problem of evil. Yet while the author of Job will later give an answer of a philosophical kind, namely, God as the principle of unity, in which multiplicity finds harmony and explanation², the Deuteronomistic historian and theologian offers an answer of an ethical kind: Good and evil, life and death, are related to justice. Anyone who observes the Law shall live, anyone who disobeys it shall die. But is the timespan of human existence sufficient for seeing justice triumph? No, if justice is not put in a relationship to a transcendent God who goes beyond the limits of the course of biological life and brings about his justice. To reach that point, though, life beyond death is required. This is the kind of problem inherited by the author of the Book of Wisdom. Our intention is to show, while limiting ourselves to the first three chapters, how this author, in the first part of his book (Wis 1:1–6:21), deals with the issue we have just presented; in other words, a) how he connects the solution of the issue of the hereafter with justice³; b) in what terms he set forth this solution.

2 Wisdom 1–3 2.1 Wisdom 1:1–15 “Love justice, you who judge the earth”, Ἀγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην, οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν (Wis 1:1). The Book of Wisdom opens with an obvious indication of the road it will take. The prologue of the first of its three parts (1:1–6:21; 6:22–9:18; 10–19)⁴ is a call by its author to the rulers of nations to “love” justice. It must be pointed out that it is δικαιοσύνη, by way of an artful inclusion, that concludes the

2 Ricoeur, La symbolique du mal, 298; Passaro, Domande e risposte, 119–136. 3 Gilbert, Sagesse, 113; Morla Asensio, Libri sapienziali, 219–220. 4 Gilbert, Sagesse, 100–114; Larcher, Études, 86; Sagesse, vol. 1, 120–123 (for Larcher the third part begins with Chapter 11); Beauchamp, Le salut corporel, 493.

252 

 Marco Nobile

prologue: “For justice is immortal (ἀθάνατoς)” (v. 15)⁵. This is an inclusion that attaches a significant attribute to the term “justice”, bringing about a synthesis of what the author said in the preceding verses. The subject matter of the discourse is then worked out along two pathways: one concerns the synonymy of justice with other terms, above all with σοφία (wisdom), while the other concerns the relationship of such terms with doing right. Those addressed⁶ have to keep in mind that God is to be sought in a spirit of simplicity, indispensably so, and not by trying him or refusing to believe in him: vv. 1c-3, an evident reference to the events of Exodus (Exod 17:7; Deut 6:16; cf. also the γογγυσμὸι, the murmuring of vv. 10b and 11a), which, by way of providing an archetype of Israelite identity, call as well for obedience to the Mosaic Torah. This is a necessary preparation if God is to let himself be found (ὅτι εὑρίσκεται, v. 2a) and if he is to send his wisdom into the one who, freed from evil and sin, searches for him (vv. 4.7). This is the ἅγιον πνεῦμα παιδείας, namely the holy spirit that teaches and that can be driven away only by ἀδικία (v. 5c), by injustice. Wisdom and the spirit are the same thing, indeed they are the spirit itself of God (vv. 6–7)⁷. It is of this spirit that it is said, in what is quite likely a parallelismus membrorum, in v. 8, that none who say ἄδικα (unjust things) will escape him, and that he will see to it that δίκη (retributive justice) will not be spared. Here the Spirit of the Lord is paired with the figure of the Greek goddess of justice/revenge, a clear borrowing in this Hellenizing⁸ work from Greek mythology, which is probably much more useful to it than simply as a source for a rhetorical image. The use of dike, in fact, anticipates that personification that will be the most original and complete expression of this work (see espe-

5 Gilbert, though he admits that v. 15 may appear to be the inclusive verse that ends the prologue, prefers nonetheless to see the ending of the prologue in v. 12 and to consider vv. 13–15 as the beginning of a new pericope going from 1:13–15 to 2:24. His position is based on the theme of creation developed with parallel terminology (Gilbert, Sagesse, 65–66). It is a plausible and well-argued position, but the ἀσεβεῖς of v. 16 appear to be introducing the subject matter of the following passage, which is precisely the discourse on the impious, hence v. 15 may perfectly well conclude the prologue; an alternative, not an exclusive, structuring. For his part, Larcher, Sagesse I, 165, agrees on the inclusive character of v. 15. 6 On identifying the addressees, cf. Gilbert, Sagesse, 101–102, for whom these would be the young members of the Alexandrian Jewish community, those who would later take over its leadership; cf. also Larcher, Sagesse I, 164–165; for Vílchez Líndez, Sapienza, 74–75, identifying the addressees is secondary, since the book appears to be a work designed for a wide readership. 7 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 181–182; Vílchez Líndez, Sapienza, 154.159. 8 In this context, dike is not the only borrowing from Greek culture; in v. 7, the spirit of God that fills the universe has the flavour of Stoic influence, even though only as a matter of general intellectual formation, according to most writers. Cf. Larcher, Sagesse, 187–188.

The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3) 

 253

cially 9:4: δός μοι τὴν τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρον σοφίαν, “Give me the wisdom that sits by thy throne”). Verses 12–14 constitute the culmination of the prologue, giving rise to the statement in v. 15: “Indeed justice is immortal”. In v. 11 the author had come back to the second person plural, turning inclusively to the addressees of v. 1; in v. 12 he continues with the same verbal form, bringing out the cause of death: the addressees must not bring death upon themselves by the errors of their deeds. It was not in fact God who “made” (οὐκ ἐποίησεν) death, nor does God experience delight at the downfall of the living (v. 13). Rather, he has created all things that they may exist (εἰς τὸ εἶναι: note the philosophical bent of this statement)⁹ and every creature in the cosmos is a bringer of health (σωτήριοι) (v. 14b)¹⁰. In none of these is there any destructive poison, nor does Hades (once more a Greek name, this time for the netherworld) reign on earth. What is said in vv. 12–15 has a clear reference to Gen 1–3¹¹, but the formulation presupposes a speculative re-arrangement and has much theological added value. The terminology confers on the discourse a semantic connotation that is original within the Old Testament tradition, as well as a philosophical flavour on the terms, a metaphorically intended borrowing from Greek mythology. The author knows that it is not God, but a human being, through disobedience to God’s mizwâ (cf. Gen 2:16), a prolepsis, or forerunner, of the future Torah, who brought about the entry of death into the world (in Wis 2:24 he refers also to the “devil”). The author’s presentation of this truth is as such original. When this author, with his Hellenistic education, speaks of God, he cannot but have before his eyes the Septuagint version of Exod 3:14, “I am the One who is”, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, whose philosophical force is indubitable: God is Being. Consequently he can only create being, i.e. existence, and not non-being, i.e. death. Death is not part of God’s plan. Still, the philosophical connotation does not exclude the author’s Hebrew faith, rather it expresses it in new terms. Deut 30:15 had God say regarding the Torah: “See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil”; in turn, Ezek 18:23.26–27 says, in the passage that discusses matters of the Torah: “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked (cf. Wis 1:13b) … and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?… When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity he has committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked person turns away from the

9 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 199–201. 10 Vílchez Líndez, Sapienza, 165. 11 Gilbert, Sagesse, 94.104; Larcher, Études, 86.282–292.

254 

 Marco Nobile

wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life”. The author of the Book of Wisdom succeeds in leading the now mature Hebrew faith towards its ultimate consequences. This faith succeeded in linking life to justice, but had not yet replied to the question “what justice?”. If life is destined to have an ending, then any justice bound to such life would also have a limited range. Mere biological life connects justice to its own transience. The solution: justice is immortal (1:15). By means of this affirmation, the author of Wisdom went beyond the mere ethical sphere and entered the ontological one. The prologue thus prepares for the conception being developed of justice/wisdom being in a certain manner hypostatic¹², it being of divine origin (cf. v. 7 and 9:4). It is she, first of all, who is immortal, which must therefore have consequences also for the being of humans.

2.2 Wisdom 1:16–2:24 These consequences now become a subject that the author at once begins to develop, effecting a transition in 1:16. He introduces the impious (ἀσεβεῖς), namely those who by deeds and words (ταῖς χερσὶν καὶ τοῖς λόγοις) think (λογισάμενοι, 2:1) that after death there is nothing (2:1–5). Even though various scholars rightly see here some vague influence of Greek philosophies¹³, positions are hardly lacking within the Old Testament that sound similar to the expressions used by the author of Wisdom. In Job 14:1–2.10–12 (cf. especially Wis 2:5) we find: “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He comes forth like a flower, and withers; he flees like a shadow, and continues not … But man (compared to the tree) dies, and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake, or be roused out of his sleep”. Qoh 3:16–22, in its turn, underlines the emptiness of justice and right on earth, even though the text admits that God, when the time comes, will repay each one according to his works; but Qoheleth’s thought does not go beyond its age, since for it humans have the same destiny as that of animals, to die, since there is just one and the same breath of life common to all (‫( )רוח אחד לכל‬v. 19aγ).

12 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 205, calls it “à demi personnifiée”. 13 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 215–216.

The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3) 

 255

It is interesting to note that Qoheleth, too, links the problem of justice with that of human life, except that Qoheleth, contrary to Wisdom, affirms the emptiness of justice if correlated with human life that is destined to end in death. Here almost the same argument is being made as that of the impious in Wisdom, even though here it is being advanced rather brutally (2:6–11). If death is the last word on the life of humans, then justice no longer has meaning; indeed, as affirmed at the culmination of this diatribe, in v. 11: ἔστω δὲ ἡμῶν ἡ ἰσχὺς νόμος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, τὸ γὰρ ἀσθενὲς ἄχρηστον ἐλέγχεται, “Let our (brute) force be the law of justice, given that weakness is deemed useless”. Death and injustice go together. Verses 12–20 select a more precise aspect of the arrogant arguments made by the impious, i.e. the persecution of the just person (τὸν δίκαιον) (v. 12). Given that the just person is a living contradiction of their manner of thinking and acting (vv. 12–17), it should be good to eliminate him/her (v. 20a). But what does the just person think? He/she μακαρίζει ἔσχατα δικαίων καὶ ἀλαζονεύεται πατέρα Θεόν (v. 16c): the just person declares blessed the final destination of the just, and –being just– has a unique and original bond with God, that of being his son (v. 13b.18a)¹⁴. The terminology –obviously in the apocalyptic mould– employed with regard to the ultimate destiny, indicates clearly that the vision of the just tore down the barrier that had hidden from view what lay beyond biological death, the hereafter. It is the truth that, paradoxically, is expressed and confirmed by the impious through their scoffing: “Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected” (v. 20). Verses 21–24¹⁵ express the author’s judgment. The impious, with their false reasoning, are in error, for evil has blinded them (ἀπετύφλωσεν) (v. 21). They do not see as the just see, for they know not the mysteries of God (μυστήρια Θεοῦ, an expression to be linked with ἔσχατα in v. 16c)¹⁶, i.e. they neither hope nor believe in the future of God that is the future of the pure souls (v. 22). Verses 23–24, taking up again the creation motif of 1:13–15 and reinterpreting Gen 1–3¹⁷, give the theological explanation of the truth being defended by the author. He offers the basis for the future of the just, relying on Gen 1:26–27, while he explains the entry of death into the world by evoking the account in Gen 2–3. His argumentation does, however, avail itself of new connotations conferred on the texts of Genesis, which allow for innovative interpretation. In v. 23 he puts in a causative parallel rela-

14 The “son of God” in v. 13b is expressed by παῖδα Κυρίου, while 18b uses υἱὸς Θεοῦ. 15 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 269–272. 16 Cf. Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 264–265. 17 Gilbert, Sagesse, 104–105.

256 

 Marco Nobile

tionship the ἀφθαρσίᾳ (incorruptibility) of the human being and his/her being created in the “image of (God’s) eternity (καὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας άἰδιότητος¹⁸)”. The human being is incorruptible because of his/her likeness to the endless life of God, i.e. to immortality (cf. Wis 1:15). The reinterpretation given in v. 24 to the origin of death narrated in in Gen 2–3, introduces the envy of the devil (διάβολος, adversary, cf. LXXJob 1:6–7; 2:1–2), this too being a typical trait of our author, the personification of anti-wisdom.

2.3 Wisdom 3 This chapter deals with the fate of the just and of the impious through an alternating structure: vv. 1–9 (the just); vv. 10–12 (the impious); vv. 13–15 (the just); vv.16– 19 (the impious). The text has prominent literary value: the second pairing of just/ impious constitutes a variation on the general subject of the first pairing. While the first pairing speaks of the just and the impious globally, the second pairing chooses images of the just and of the impious that are related to the semantic axis of fecundity vs. sterility. In vv. 13–15 the paradox is established that the woman who is barren but undefiled, and the eunuch who is incapable of procreation but who is righteous, will at the last moment of the “visitation of souls” (ἐν ἐπισκοπῇ ψυχῶν) obtain the fruit of their righteousness, and “a place of great delight in the Temple of the Lord” (spiritual fecundity), while in vv. 16–19 the children of the iniquitous (material fecundity) have prepared for them a devastatingly terrible final end (γενεᾶς γὰρ ἀδίκου χαλεπὰ τὰ τέλη) (v. 19). The close relationship is evident here between justice and one’s final destiny. Now how does the author imagine such ultimate future?¹⁹ The term he uses (ψυχή, soul) in 2:23; 3:1.13, to indicate the just, combined with that of “immortality/incorruptibility” (1:15; 2:23; 3:4b), might make one suppose that this author, with his Hellenistic education, understands the life beyond this earthly life in terms of the immortality of the soul (in a Platonic sense), which, upon death, finally succeeds in freeing itself from the prison of the body. In our view, ψυχή is used rather as an element of a cultural heritage and does not necessarily imply a fully precise philosophical orientation. It is more likely that this term belongs to a generic intellectual way of speaking current in the historical Alexandrian context. This interpretation is based precisely on the text of Wisdom 3. The souls to which 3:1.13 refers are those subjects who, after the sufferings of life on earth

18 This is the reading given in Rahlfs, cf. Lust, Greek-English Lexicon, 14. 19 Cf. Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 267.274–275; also Études, 264–269.

The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3) 

 257

(vv. 2–6), during which their “hope of immortality” (v. 4b) never failed, will come to be in the hands of God and, ἐν καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς, at the moment of the visitation, namely the coming of God²⁰, will shine forth like sparks and will govern the nations. Behind these images there is not any Greek thought, but an apocalyptic conception that brings to mind texts such as Dan 7:27: “And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them”. In other words, the eschaton that our author intends is closer to the hyperbolic and paradoxical biblical realism (cf. Isa 11:6–8) than to any hyperuranic Greek spirituality²¹. This receives confirmation from the use of the concrete images of the barren woman and the eunuch (vv. 13–14), who in contrast with past perceptions of either (cf. on sterility, Gen 30:23; 1 Sam 1:6; Hos 9:14; on eunuchs, Deut 23:2), become emblems of the new conception of justice, which is certainly not imaginable as some ascetical and spiritualized reality. In fact, the author has no intention of furnishing details of the contents of that future event, regarding which he, like many of his contemporaries (including the Qumran community), leaves the way wide open to the most varied hypotheses as to whether the final kingdom is to be within history or beyond history. Is there to be a single judgment, or two judgments, one after death and another one at the end of all things? The text is content to affirm that the life of the just person will continue after death. Understanding the text in these terms we must agree with Gilbert’s statement that it does not speak directly of the bodily resurrection of the dead, but does indirectly constitute a premise for this discourse, given the author’s positive view of the created world (cf. 1:14; 5:15.17.20b), as shown long ago by Paul Beauchamp²².

3 Conclusion If a scholar asks the question “how” the author of the Book of Wisdom imagines the hereafter, before asking “why” he considers the hereafter at all, then the scholar is not formulating the questions well. The idea that led the author of Wisdom to consider the hereafter is that the triumph of the justice/wisdom of God

20 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 284. 21 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 285–286. 22 Beauchamp, Le salut corporel des justes, 491–526; cf. also Gilbert, Sagesse, 104.

258 

 Marco Nobile

is reflected in the just. If this truth is reached first, then the answer to the question how afterlife is imagined, follows necessarily as a consequence of this truth. The author of Wisdom does indeed reach the conviction that there is life beyond this one, but it is not to this truth, however important, that his attention is principally directed; rather, he focuses on the meaning of human life, as against its meaninglessness for the impious²³. It is this approach that continues until the third part of the book (Wisdom 10–19), where what many consider a midrash on the Exodus is offered. There, the just (the Israelites) and the impious (the Egyptians)²⁴ are compared, and their diverging destinies become an eschatologizing reinterpretation of the events of the Exodus, culminating in this statement: ὅλη γὰρ ἡ κτίσις ἐν ἰδίῳ γένει πάλιν ἄνωθεν διετυποῦτο ὑπηρετοῦσα ταῖς σαῖς ἐπιταγαῖς, “The whole creation in its nature was fashioned anew, complying with your commands” (19:6). In other words, the Exodus becomes the paradigm of the history and life of Israel (cf. 19:22) and, if you will, of the whole of humankind. As for how the author sees life after death, the subject of this essay, I do not believe it possible to attribute to him a precise conception of it²⁵ that goes farther than this: the life of the just does not end with death, it goes on beyond death, because the just person has within himself/herself the spirit of wisdom/justice, i.e. the spirit of God (cf. 1:5–7), the eternal and immortal wisdom (1:15) that sits at God’s side (9:4). Wisdom thus becomes a substantial hypostasis mediating eternity.

Bibliography Beauchamp, Paul, Le salut corporel des justes et la conclusion du livre de la Sagesse: Bib 45 (1964) 491–526. Gilbert, Maurice, La Sagesse de Salomon (ou livre de la Sagesse), DBS XI (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1986) 58–119. Larcher, Chrysostome, Études sur le livre de la Sagesse (EB), Paris: Lecoffre J. Gabalda, 1969. Larcher Chrysostome, Le livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon, vol. 1 (EB. Nouvelle Série 1), Paris: Du Cerf, 1983. Lust, Johan – Erik Eynikel – Katryn Hauspie (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003, revised edition.

23 Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 107. 24 The author of Wisdom almost always avoids proper nouns, as in the case of the Israelites and the Egyptians: is it, in this case, due to the sensitivity that needed to be shown by a citizen of Alexandria? Cf. Larcher, Sagesse I, 108. 25 Cf. Larcher, Sagesse, vol. 1, 274; Gilbert, Sagesse, 104.

The Hereafter in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 1–3) 

 259

Morla Asensio, Víctor, Libri sapienziali e altri scritti. Edizione italiana a cura di Antonio Zani (Introduzione allo studio della Bibbia 5), Brescia: Paideia, 1997, 209–230. Nobile, Marco, La resurrezione dei morti nell’Antico Testamento, in: Salvatore Alberto Panimolle (ed.), Morte-risurrezione nella Bibbia (Dizionario di Spiritualità BiblicoPatristica 44), Rome: Borla, 2006, 79–129. Passaro, Angelo, Domande e risposte sulla giustizia in Giobbe: RivB 1–2 (2002) 119–136. Piras, Andrea, Politica e ideologia religiosa dell’impero achemenide: RicStBib 1 (2013) 21–35. Ricoeur, Paul, La symbolique du mal, Paris: Aubier, 1960. Vílchez Líndez, José, Sapienza. Traduzione e commento (Commenti biblici), Rome: Borla, 1990.

Michelangelo Priotto

Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) Michelangelo Priotto: Interdiocesan Theological College, Fossano, Italy

1 Introduction This essay is offered in honour of my mentor and friend, Professor Maurice Gilbert. It was through him that I was initiated into the understanding and love of the biblical literature of Wisdom, and, in particular, of the Book of Wisdom. At the end of an article about the figure of Solomon in Wisdom 7–9, he asked himself: “Mais alors, ce qui demeure en Sg 7–9 comme allusions à Salomon doit être probablement réinterprété, non plus dans un sens littéral, mais dans une ligne qui en permette une lecture vraie aux contemporains de l’auteur et même à tout lecteur. Qu’est-ce donc que la royauté? Que peut signifier être appelé à bâtir un Temple? Sur cette voie, le sage présent en Sg 7–9 n’est pas seulement le Salomon de l’histoire”¹ (But then, the allusions to Solomon in Wisdom 7–9 should probably be reinterpreted, no longer in a literal sense but along lines which will allow a reading that is true to the author’s contemporaries and even to every reader. What, then, is royalty? What can it mean to be called upon to build a temple? From this point of view, the sage present in Wisdom 7–9 is not only the Solomon of history). Starting precisely from the questions raised here, and focusing on Wis 9:7–8, I would like to state and clarify the meaning of Solomon’s invitation in the Book of Wisdom to build a temple.

2 Analysis of Wis 9:7–8 Wis 9:7–8 belongs to Solomon’s famous prayer to obtain Wisdom (9:1–18), a fundamental text for the understanding of this biblical book². This prayer, placed at the centre of the work, constitutes the high point of sapiential reflection and of

1 Gilbert, La figure de Salomon en Sg 7–9, 249. 2 Cf. especially the central study by Gilbert, Structure de la prière, 301–331; Id., La Sapienza di Salomone, vol. 1, 113–152; vol. 2, 96–109; Vignolo, Sapienza, preghiera e modello regale, 271–300.

Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) 

 261

the praise of Wisdom (chaps. 1–9) and is, at the same time, the introduction to a new reading of the redeeming events of Exodus (chaps. 10–19). In the context of the prayer itself, our verses introduce the second stanza (vv. 7–12). If the first (vv. 1–6) and the third stanza (vv. 13–18) underline, in particular, the universal anthropological horizon of the prayer (cf. in this regard the two inclusions “human being” – “human beings” in vv. 2.6 and in vv. 13.18), the second stanza focuses on the choice of Solomon as king of the people of Israel (cf. the inclusion “your people” – “your people” in vv. 7.12). It is important to emphasise, at the outset, the universal anthropological context of the two outer stanzas in order to understand the meaning of the figure of Solomon in the second stanza. An analysis of the vocabulary introduces us to the identity of this figure. The one praying is first of all described as βασιλεύς (king). If the reference is to the historical figure of Solomon, as clearly appears from the immediate context of vv. 7–8 and from the anticipation in 7:5 (“no king [βασιλεύς] has known any other beginning of existence”), then, in the light of the previous biblical wisdom tradition (cf. Prov 4:9; Sir 4:15H; 6:29–31)³ and of the Hellenistic-Stoic ideal of the wise king and of the wise as king⁴, the term acquires a broader meaning in the book. In fact, the author himself depicts the wise in their afterlife existence with the same royal traits: 3:8; 5:16. This enlarged horizon is confirmed by the author’s insistence on the fact that this royal figure shares the characteristics typical of every person, from birth (7:1–6) to death (9:5.14–15). It is clear that the king mentioned in v. 7 does not refer only to the historical Solomon, but, also and in particular, to the sage whose praise and task the author wishes to describe in his book. Royalty and wisdom are intimately united, and, if the desire to be instructed leads to the kingdom (6:17–20), it is the honour reserved to Wisdom that alone allows the king to reign forever (6:21)⁵. The next term δικαστής (judge), as in 6:1, is parallel with βασιλεύς, with which it alternates⁶ and shares the same general meaning. There are two possible ways to accent the verbal form that introduces v. 8: εἶπας or εἴπας. The first, followed by A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler and by the earlier editors, is a second person singular (you said), while the second is an aorist nominative participle (saying). In general, the first interpretation is preferred, based

3 Cf. Gilbert, Volonté de Dieu, 152, note 22. It is interesting to notice that Job 2:11LXX, unlike the MT, describes the three sages who come to comfort Job with the titles of βασιλεύς (Eliphaz and Zophar) and of τύραννος (Bildad); and, in Isa 51:4LXX, God addresses the people with the title of βασιλεῖς. 4 Cf. Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 71–89. 5 Cf. Bellia, Historical and Anthropological Reading, 92–94. 6 Cf. Scarpat, Libro della Sapienza, vol. 2, 259.

262 

 Michelangelo Priotto

on the Vorlage of 2 Chr 6:20⁷, but we prefer the second because, in that way, v. 8 is linked closely to the previous verse, making it evident that the divine choice is aimed entirely at the building of the temple. This will become significant in light of the interpretation of this book. From the literal construction of verse 8, it is evident that Pseudo-Solomon intends to stress the work of the construction of the temple. The initial participle (εἴπας) supports an initial infinitive clause, constructed as a chiasm (“temple” – “on your sacred mountain” – “in the city of your dwelling” – “altar), and then a second nominative clause (“imitation of the Holy Tent”) acting in apposition to the two previous terms “temple” and “altar” and on which there further depends a relative clause (“that you had prepared [προητοίμασας] from the beginning”). The verb προητοίμασας (you prepared) closes the entire period, recalling the initial verb προείλω (you chose) and stressing the idea of a previous design. There now clearly appears the crescendo caused by the threefold articulation: “temple” – “altar” – “imitation of the Holy Tent”, and by the fourfold repetition of the possessive pronoun σου (your), that culminates in the final expression “that you had prepared from the beginning”. The literary construction underlines, therefore, the importance of the temple and of the divine choice to dwell in Israel.

3 What Kind of Temple Is Being Referred to? Certainly, the author’s view is centred on the construction of Solomon’s temple, the central event of his reign (cf. 1 Kgs 5:15–9:25; 2 Chr 1:18–7:10). In this sense, the geographic indication ἐν ὄρει ἁγίῳ σου (on your Holy Mountain), repeated in Pss 14:1LXX and 47:2LXX, refers clearly to Mount Zion, on which the temple in Jerusalem stood. It is called “a holy mountain”, because it was already consecrated by the presence of the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6), by the erection of an altar in the courtyard of Araunah (2 Sam 24:18–25), by the appearance of the angel of Yhwh (1 Chr 21:15–30) and, even before, by the sacrifice of Isaac (2 Chr 3:1)⁸. So the parallel expression ἐν πόλει κατασκηνώσεώς σου (in the city of your dwelling) indicates Jerusalem as “the seat where the temple had been consecrated, the dwelling of the Most High (ὁ ναὸς τῆς κατασκηνώσεως τοῦ ὑψίστου)” (Tob 1:4 MsB).

7 2 Chr 6,20: εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ὃν εἶπας ἐπικληθῆναι τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐκεῖ, “over this place in which you have promised to put your name”; but, as Scarpat neatly notices, the text of 2 Chronicles does not relate strictly to the building of the temple, but to its dedication (Libro della Sapienza, vol. 2, 259). 8 Cf. Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse, vol. 2, 579.

Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) 

 263

The designation of the temple comes in three places: first with the word ναός (temple), which indicates the Solomonic temple⁹; then with the word θυσιαστήριον (altar), which as pars pro toto still refers to the Solomonic temple¹⁰; finally a third expression appears: μίμημα σκηνῆς ἁγίας (the copy of the Holy Tent). It is on this last that the author’s attention focuses. The first term, μίμημα (imitation), is in apposition to the previous terms, ναός and θυσιαστήριον. This shows a clear interpretative intent. If the author feels the need to specify terms that are in themselves sufficiently clear, it means that, with his typical allusive style, he intends to suggest a line of reflection. Mίμημα is a hapax in the book and does not occur in any other place in the LXX. If referred back to the Solomonic temple, it could refer to the design¹¹ given by David to his son Solomon (1 Chr 28:11.12.18.19), even if this is not a heavenly design, or to the design (‫תּ ְבנִ ית‬, ַ παράδειγμα) shown by Yhwh to Moses for the building of the desert sanctuary (Exod 25:9.40; 27:8), or even to the temple prefigured in Moses’ song of victory (Exod 15:17) before the existence of both sanctuaries. Here too, however, there is no mention of a heavenly design. So μίμημα, even though in apposition to the two previous terms, ναός and θυσιαστήριον, cannot refer to the Solomonic temple. At most it can refer to the Mosaic sanctuary. It therefore seems to suggest the need to go beyond the historical level of the Solomonic temple¹². In this sense, a text of Philo is interesting, where the Holy Tent of the desert is defined as a μίμημα of wisdom: “God lays out in symbolic function the Holy Tent and the things that are contained within it as copy and imitation (μίμημα) of wisdom” (Her. 112). In this Philonic interpretation, the construction of the Mosaic sanctuary is clearly in the service of wisdom. A more precise indication can come from consideration of the possessive phrase σκηνῆς ἁγίας. The term σκηνή could allude to the desert sanctuary, designated in fact as σκηνή τοῦ μαρτυρίου (Tent of Witness/Meeting)¹³, and built following the divine design (cf. Exod 25:9.40; 27:8). Nevertheless, this does not

9 Cf. 1 Kgs 6:3.5.17.33.36; 7:7.36; 1 Chr 28:11; 2 Chr 3:17; 4:7.8.22; 8:12. 10 It is not important to ask what altar is in view (cf. the debate in Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse, vol. 2, 579–580), both because, as pars pro toto, the indication is to the very temple rather than to a precise part of it, and because, as we shall see, the author goes beyond the level of a simple historical evocation of the Solomonic temple. In any case, θυσιαστήριον relates probably to the altar of the burnt offerings mentioned in 1 Kgs 8:64; 9:25; 2 Chr 4:1. 11 Notice, however, the use of παράδειγμα instead of μίμημα. 12 Usually the exegetical debate is limited to historical research; cf., for example, Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse, vol. 2, 580–583. 13 Cf. Exod 27:21; 28:43; 29:10.11.30.32.42.44; 30:16.18.20.21.26.36; 31:7; 33:7; 35:21; 37:5.19; 38:26.27; 39:7.21; 39:9; 40:2.5.6.22.24.26.34.35.

264 

 Michelangelo Priotto

seem to be the intention of the author, because there is no passage where it is said that the Solomonic temple was built according to the plan of the Mosaic sanctuary. However, we find the same expression again in an important text of Ben Sira: “In the Holy Tent (ἐν σκηνῇ ἁγίᾳ) I ministered before Him and thus became established in Zion” (24:10). This is a very significant text on which we need to dwell with care.

4 Ben Sira’s Reflection To understand Sir 24:10, we need to make an attentive analysis of its context. In her self-presentation in chap. 24, Wisdom goes out from God and, by his order, she takes up residence in Israel¹⁴. Her movement includes, first of all, the reality of the world, viewed according to the four ancient dimensions: heaven and the abyss (v. 5), that is, the two vertical extremes, and sea and earth (v. 6a), that is, the two horizontal extremes. This first movement emphasises that, thanks to the presence of Wisdom, creation is the first word of God, a word that embraces the entire universe, and that underlines an important fact: revelation does not start with Abraham, but with Adam, that is, with humanity, and creation is the place where divine Wisdom manifests herself. Wisdom then, despite her universal presence, searches for a dwelling among human beings (v. 7) and, finally, receives the order to “pitch her tent in Jacob” (v. 8). Then, with centrifugal progression, Wisdom’s place of residence is marked out: “the Holy Tent”, meaning the temple; “the beloved city”, that is Jerusalem; the people and the land of Israel. It is interesting to notice how Ben Sira enlarges the vision to include all the Promised Land. In fact, in vv. 13–14, he describes the progressive growth of Wisdom to take in the whole territory of Israel, almost as a “sapiential re-reading” of the past ambiguous conquest by Joshua¹⁵.

14 From the literary point of view this is emphasized by the inclusion “I had my tent (κατεσκήνωσα) … Pitch your tent (κατασκήνωσον)” (v. 8). Cf. Gilbert, L’éloge de la Sagesse, 326–348 and Calduch-Benages, The Perfume of the Gospel, 116–120. 15 The “sapiential” conquest of the land is the fruit of an exceptional divine presence, symbolically described through botanic metaphors. Therefore, Wisdom is really the tree of life, depicted with the most beautiful qualities of the creation’s trees: the majesty of the cedar, the green of the cypress, the elegance and the beauty of the palm, the perfume and the beauty of the rose bushes of Jericho, the pricelessness of the olive, the solidity of the plane. The geographical mentions indicate or hint at the borders of the country where the chosen people live: Lebanon and Hermon (= the north), En-Gedi (= the south), Jericho (= the east), the plain of Sharon (= the west). Therefore Wisdom has grown in all the territory of Israel.

Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) 

 265

Then, at v. 15, the Israelite sage compares Wisdom with aromatic plants, plants that serve for the preparation of chrism and myrrh used in the sacred liturgy¹⁶. With this, he wants to underline the liturgical role of Wisdom that permeates the whole land. This is not an anti-liturgical meaning, but certainly our author wishes to invite the faithful Israelite to expand his concept of worship from taking place only in the Holy Temple to being performed in all areas of his life. Indeed, he can meet God in the land and in everyday life, because Wisdom, as the place of his presence, consecrates the life of the people who live in the land. In this description of Wisdom, the expression ἐν σκηνῇ ἁγίᾳ of v. 10 acquires a very rich meaning, much broader than the specific liturgical area of the temple in Jerusalem. It affirms the presence of Wisdom in the Jerusalem temple, but also suggests her presence in all of creation and, in particular, her presence in the land of Israel¹⁷. We ask ourselves, then, if the parallel expression in Wis 9:8 does not contain the same semantic richness. Surely we cannot affirm with certainty that Pseudo-Solomon is alluding to the text of Ben Sira. However, following in the wake of previous Wisdom tradition, it is quite possible. Philo also takes this line when, commenting on Exod 33:7, where Moses pitches the Tent outside the camp, he writes: “Do you not see that, having received from God the Tent (τὴν σκηνὴν) of Meeting, meaning Wisdom, in which the wise person lives (κατασκηνόω) and dwells, Moses has planted it, made it strong and fortified it, not in his body, but outside of it” (Leg. 3,46). It is with this interpretive line of Wisdom that Pseudo-Solomon moves with the last stich of v. 8. In fact, he does this after mentioning the ναός and the θυσιαστήριον, almost in order to prevent the reader from dwelling exclusively on the image of the Solomonic temple, and so makes its real meaning clear. With the word mίμημα referring to a heavenly design and with the

16 Following Exod 30:23, the chrism or the anointing oil is made up of fresh myrrh, of fragrant cinnamon and of scented reed (concerning this last term Ben Sira does not follow the text of the LXX, but has ἀσπάλαθος, balsam, a hapax of the LXX). This oil was used for the consecration of the Tent of Meeting, of the ark, of all elements of the sanctuary and of the priests. The perfume that has to be given off in the Tent of Meeting, following Ex 30:34, is made up of storax, onicha, galbanum, sweet spices and pure frankincense. These are the same elements (except the spices) that we found in Sir 24:15 (cf. Calduch-Benages, Aromas, fragancias y perfumes, 15–30). 17 The verb κατασκηνόω describes the dwelling of Wisdom in the heights with God (cf. κατεσκήνωσα, 24:4) and her dwelling in Jacob (κατασκήνωσον, 24:8). Even if the translation of ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָכּן‬with σκηνή in the LXX simply follows the criterion of homophony (cf. Michaelis, σκηνή, 373), in Sir 24:10 σκηνή shares with the verb the broad meaning of stable residence, not related only to the temple of Jerusalem.

266 

 Michelangelo Priotto

expression ἣν προητοίμασας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, he underlines its divine preparation that starts from the beginning of the world¹⁸.

5 The Temple of Wisdom The author of Wisdom does not further specify the form of the original Holy Tent. However, it is significant that, immediately afterwards, he mentions Wisdom, qualifying her with three successive characteristics: she is with God, she knows His works, she was present at the moment of the creation of the cosmos. It is not necessary to postulate that v. 9a constitutes the continuation of v. 8c, thus associating Wisdom with the divine work of preparation of the Holy Tent¹⁹, because clearly the theological link of Wisdom with God is much stronger and embraces the whole of creation (vv. 9–12). The sequence of the prayer is significant: after first making an invocation to obtain the gift of Wisdom (v. 4), the author pauses to describe the identity of the petitioner, insisting above all on his belonging to the humankind (v. 5), on the absolute necessity of Wisdom (v. 6) and finally, on the commission entrusted to him by God, that of raising a temple, an image of the Holy Tent, prepared by him from the beginning (vv. 7–9). But which Tent is being referred to? Continuing again with the theme of Wisdom at v. 9, does not the author suggest that it is Wisdom herself? In the praise of Wisdom, he has described her divine origin with five powerful metaphors (“a breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, a reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God’s active power, image of his goodness”, 7:25–26); now he resumes her description, emphasizing her presence with God, especially at the moment of creation and with the realisation of his Works. The passage is made clear by the conclusion to v. 8. In fact, the expression ἣν προητοίμασας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς leads us precisely to the primordial moment of God’s activity, when he sends out Wisdom to create the world. Thus, in her self-presentation in Sir 24, Wisdom could affirm her coming forth from the mouth of the Most High and having her dwelling (cf. κατασκηνόω) in the heights of heaven (vv. 3–4) and subsequently having planted the tent (σκηνή, vv. 8.10; κατασκηνόω, v. 8) for herself in Israel. Therefore the first “work” that God prepared (προητοίμασας) is Wisdom, infusing her presence, first, in creation itself, and then, in the historic

18 Larcher puts stress on the historical explanation of the Mosaic and Solomonic sanctuaries, referring to 1 Chr 28:11–19 and above all to Exod 15:17; but the perspective of the author of Wisdom goes beyond the simple historical level (Le Livre de la Sagesse, vol. 2, 583). 19 Sic Cornely, Commentarius in Librum Sapientiae, 350–351.

Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) 

 267

redeeming process of the revelation to Israel, as the conclusion of the prayer (9:18) that introduces the whole third part of the book reminds us. Unlike Ben Sira, Pseudo-Solomon does not expressly mention the stages of this taking possession of Wisdom in Israel, limiting himself to the description of her works in the primordial and patriarchal history (10:1–14) and then, especially, in the story of the Exodus (10:15–19:22). However, in the prayer in chap. 9, he does give us a glimpse of the personal implication of this gift of Wisdom. Starting with 6:9.11.22–25, he begins to speak in the first person, and, if in these passages he presents himself simply as a teacher of wisdom who educates kings, in 9:7–8 he describes himself explicitly as the young Solomon who receives the mission to build the temple for God. Behind this picture of Solomon there is the figure of the author himself and also the figure of the ideal teacher of wisdom. If, as we saw above, the temple described in 9:7–8 is closely connected with Wisdom and, in particular, with her becoming presence in the world and in Israel, then the mission to raise the temple signifies the mission of the teacher of wisdom, wholly dedicated to teaching and to an integrated life in order to promote wisdom in the disciples and within the community. The figure of Pseudo-Solomon as teacher of wisdom is supported by a historical and anthropological reading of the Book of Wisdom, where the emergence of the sage in relation to the prophets and priests clearly appears²⁰. Certainly, the book knows the prophetic tradition, but traces prophecy back to wisdom (7:27; 11:1). Likewise, if we do not consider the ritual memorial of the Passover liturgy (18:9) and the reminder of the intercession of Aaron in the desert (18:20–25), the book is lacking in priestly references. In the environment of the Alexandrian diaspora, prophets and priests apparently do not perform any religious or institutional task, because their function is taken up with the role of teachers of wisdom. It is the teacher of wisdom who guarantees and interprets orthodoxy, because, thanks to the gift of wisdom, he knows how to discern the divine will (9:9–17) and the meaning of God’s hidden presence in history (chaps. 10–19). The most probable social context of this teacher of wisdom is the synagogue. In fact, the ban on Jewish attendance at the gymnasium favours the synagogue even more as the centre of education and of teaching²¹. A second point, typical of the sage-author of the book, is his search for Wisdom as bride²². In fact, the text immediately preceding the prayer of chap. 9 describes the passionate search by the young Solomon for a bride, that is Wisdom, and his

20 Cf. Bellia, Historical and Anthropological Reading, 85, note 6. 21 Kolarcik, The Sage, 256–257. 22 Cf. Beauchamp, Épouser la Sagesse, 347–369.

268 

 Michelangelo Priotto

deep desire to unite with her. In contrast with the biblical tradition that recalls the wedding of the young Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh (cf. 1 Kgs 3:1) and later his fabulous and sinful harem (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1–13), the book of Wisdom not only keeps silent regarding this, but, with a highly erotic vocabulary, shows his passionate search for Wisdom as a bride²³, a search culminating in the prayer in chap. 9, a wedding prayer that only God can fulfil. For the sage, the task to build a temple means a profound existential obligation, a total consecration to the service of Wisdom.

6 Wis 9:7–8 in the Light of the Wisdom Tradition At the end of the introduction to the collection of Proverbs, Prov 9:1–6 describes Wisdom building a house (ᾠκοδόμησεν) for herself and hewing seven pillars. In the light of 8:22–31, that is to say of the co-creative activity of Wisdom (cf. also 3:19), this house could be creation itself, where she dwells, plays and delights (8:30–31). It is on a solid basis that Wisdom founds her own presence in creation²⁴ and the seven pillars could easily allude to the seven collections of Proverbs 10–31. Thus, Wisdom, who comes to dwell in the world as her home, finds her final expression precisely in this revealed wisdom. In the context of the diaspora, the author of Proverbs is proposing, especially to the youth, a new worship, precisely that of Wisdom²⁵. It is she herself who occupies this house to which they are invited. It is not an abstract or far-off wisdom, but a wisdom close at hand, in Proverbs 10–31. With her the young are invited to feed, following the old prophetic invitation to feed on the Words of God (cf. Deut 8:3; Isa 55:1–3), meaning Wisdom (cf. Prov 10:21; 24:13–14). In Sir 24, Wisdom descends among human beings and takes residence in Israel, first in the temple, then in the whole country, where she offers her fruits as food (vv. 10–22), identifying herself with the very Tôrâ (v. 23). She enters into the

23 As God loves only “the man who dwells (συνοικοῦντα) with Wisdom” (7:28), Solomon “resolves to have her as his bride (νύμφην)” (8:2b) and “falls in love (ἐραστὴς ἐγενόμην) with her beauty” (8:2c). Wisdom “enhances her noble birth by sharing God’s life (συμβίωσιν ἔχουσα)” (8:3). Solomon therefore determines “to take her to share his life (πρὸς συμβίωσιν)” (8:9). The vocabulary belongs to the semantic field of conjugal love. 24 In the psalms and the wisdom tradition, the world is supported by solid foundations (cf. Ps 75:4; 104:5; Job 9:6; 38:6). With her active presence, Wisdom lays the foundations for the world, giving it order, solidity and meaning. 25 Cf. in this respect the observations of Bellia, Proverbi, 73–76.

Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) 

 269

sage, here played by Ben Sira himself, who, like an irrigation channel, makes the water flow from the river of Wisdom, watering a garden; and her waters grow so much that they become a river and then a sea (vv. 30–31). The teaching of Ben Sira is like a light that will shine far and wide (v. 32), because his teaching will spread beyond the borders of Israel, finally reaching the distant lands of the diaspora. It will be precisely the Alexandrian diaspora that will welcome his work in his grandson’s Greek version. The final poem (Sir 51:13–30G)²⁶ completes the reflection of Ben Sira, first setting out the way of the wise, a way deeply characterised by prayer. After praying in front of the temple (v. 14) and receiving and observing the Tôrâ, he stretches his hands upward to acquire the gift of Wisdom (vv. 19–22) and it is at this point that he himself becomes the new temple. So the temple in v. 14 is replaced by the teacher of Wisdom himself (v. 23a), by the school where he teaches (v. 23b) and finally by the disciple (v. 26c). It was said earlier that Wisdom offers her gifts (cf. Prov 9:3–6; Sir 24:19–22). Now it is said that the “giver” is the one who has already welcomed Wisdom and hands her on to all who desire her. Thus, the sage assumes the function of the temple, that is to say, he becomes the meeting place with God. This happens in the school through the practical learning of Wisdom, with the final aim that the disciple himself should become a temple of Wisdom (v. 26c). The existence and importance of the temple is not denied –it was the place where the teacher had met Wisdom (vv. 13–14)– but the teacher offers himself to the disciple who listens to him as the mediator between the temple, that is, the presence of God, and Wisdom, meaning the gift of God. This is not a new, secular mediation, because the insistence on the necessity of prayer to acquire Wisdom testifies that it is a spiritual itinerary that we are referring to: from the liturgy of the temple, we pass to the liturgy of life. In the light of this Wisdom tradition, our text of Wis 9:7–8 appears both richer and more comprehensible. In his discreet and allusive style, does not PseudoSolomon indicate to us that the mission entrusted to him of building the temple has now become for him (and for every disciple who wants to join his school) the mission of becoming himself the temple of Wisdom? Moreover, he indicates the process by which this can happen, i.e. by welcoming Wisdom as the beloved spouse, witnessing to her in teaching and especially invoking her in prayer, because “indeed, were anyone perfect among the sons of men, if he lacked the Wisdom that comes from you, he would still count for nothing” (9:6).

26 Cf. Harrington, The Wisdom of the Scribe, 183–184; Manfredi, The True Sage, 173–195. See also Gilbert, Venez à mon école, 283–290.

270 

 Michelangelo Priotto

Bibliography Bellia, Giuseppe, Historical and Anthropological Reading of the Book of Wisdom, in: Giuseppe Bellia – Angelo Passaro (eds.), The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLY), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, 83–115. Bellia, Giuseppe, Proverbi: una lettura storico-antropologica, in: Giuseppe Bellia – Angelo Passaro (eds.), Libro dei Proverbi. Tradizione, redazione, teologia, Casale Monferrato (AL): Piemme, 1999, 55–90. Beauchamp, Paul, Épouser la Sagesse ou n’épouser qu’elle? Un énigme du Livre de la Sagesse, in: Maurice Gilbert (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL 51), Gembloux – Leuven: Duculot – University Press, 1979, 347–369. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, Aromas, fragancias y perfumes en el Sirácida, in Ead. – Jacques Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert (BETL 143), Leuven: University Press – Peeters 1999, 15–30. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, The Perfume of the Gospel. Jesus’ Encounters with Women (Theologia 8), Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012. Cornely, Rudolf, Commentarius in Librum Sapientiae (Cursus Scripturae Sacrae. Commentariorum in Vet. Test. Pars II in libros didacticos. V. Liber Sapientiae), Paris: Lethielleux, 1910. Gilbert, Maurice, Structure de la prière de Salomon (Sg 9): Bib 51 (1970) 301–331. Gilbert, Maurice, Volonté de Dieu et don de la Sagesse (Sg 9,17s): NRT 93 (1971) 145–166. Gilbert, Maurice, L’éloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24): RTL 5 (1974) 326–348. Gilbert, Maurice, La figure de Salomon en Sg 7–9, in: Raymond Kuntzmann – Jacques Schlosser (eds.), Études sur le Judaïsme hellénistique. Congrès de Strasbourg (1983) (LD 119), Paris: Du Cerf, 1984, 225–249. Gilbert, Maurice, La Sapienza di Salomone, 2 vols. (Bibbia e preghiera 22), Rome: ADP, 1995. Gilbert, Maurice, Venez à mon école (Si 51,13–30), in: Irmtraud Fischer – Ursula Rapp – Johannes Schiller (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift für Johannes Marböck (BZAW 331), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003, 283–290. Harrington, Daniel J., The Wisdom of the Scribe according to Ben Sira, in: John J. Collins – George W. Nickelsburg (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Profiles and Paradigms (SBLSCS 12), Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980, 181–188. Kolarcik, Michael, The Sage Behind the Wisdom of Solomon, in: Leo G. Perdue (ed.), Scribes, Sages, and Seers. The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World (FRLANT 219), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, 245–257. Larcher, Chrysostome, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou La Sagesse de Salomon, vol. 2 (EB. Nouvelle Série 1), Paris: Gabalda, 1984. Manfredi, Silvana, The True Sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13–30 Gr), in: Angelo Passaro – Giuseppe Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008, 173–195. Michaelis, Wilhelm, σκηνή, TWNT, vol. 7, 368–396, esp. 368–383. Reese, James M., Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib 41), Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Scarpat, Giuseppe, Libro della Sapienza. Testo, traduzione, introduzione e commento, vol. 2 (Testi e Studi 3), Brescia: Paideia, 1996.

Building a Temple to Wisdom (Wis 9:8) 

 271

Vignolo, Roberto, Sapienza, preghiera e modello regale. Teologia, antropologia, spiritualità di Sap 9, in: Giuseppe Bellia – Angelo Passaro (eds.), Il Libro della Sapienza. Tradizione, redazione, teologia (Studia Biblica 1), Rome: Città Nuova, 2004, 271–300.

Alexis Leproux

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 Alexis Leproux: Faculté Notre Dame du Collège des Bernardins, Paris, France

1 Introduction Dès ses premiers cours à l’Institut Biblique (Rome), Maurice Gilbert se préoccupait de «philanthropie». Il proposait un commentaire de Sg 11,15–12,27, ensemble littéraire consacré à la modération de Dieu dans l’exercice de la justice¹. Cette même année, il revenait dans un bref article sur la pertinence de la conjecture μετριότητι (Sg 12,22), défendue par Albert Vanhoye. Il avait auparavant, dans son étude doctorale, analysé les chapitres consacrés à «la critique des dieux» (Sg 13–15). Avec ces travaux, Gilbert apportait une analyse précise et complète de la double digression insérée au cœur d’une longue synkrisis où se trouvent comparées, à partir du récit de l’Exode, le sort des Egyptiens et celui du peuple de Dieu (Sg 11,1–14 ; Sg 16–19). Importantes dans la composition et le contenu du Livre de la Sagesse, ces digressions présentent la réflexion originale d’un Juif d’Alexandrie du 1er siècle av. J.-C. soucieux d’éclairer, pour la jeune génération de son temps, le chemin de la connaissance du «Dieu véritable». Avant de montrer l’inanité d’idoles, œuvres de mains humaines qui ne donnent ni la vie ni le salut, l’auteur expose les raisons de l’ἐπιείκεια divine accordée à tous. Dans ce contexte de relecture du livre de l’Exode, une idée nouvelle de «la clémence divine» semble introduite et défendue. Les questions qu’elle soulève et les implications pratiques qu’elle engage justifient les détours de l’auteur. Comment peut-on montrer, à partir du récit de l’Exode où les fléaux ne manquent pas, la bonté de Dieu? Et pour gouverner, peut-on s’inspirer raisonnablement de ce Dieu qui frappe ceux qui lui résistent? La clémence des rois hellénistiques paraît plus aimable que la dureté de ce Dieu qui condamne et extermine. A l’inverse, la modération divine surprend ceux qui subissent des persécutions. Pourquoi Dieu laisse-t-il impunis ceux qui oppriment, voire exterminent son peuple? Quel est donc le sens de ces plaies bibliques, trop faibles pour être efficaces, trop nombreuses pour être admissibles? L’image de Dieu impliquée par l’exercice de

1 Gilbert, Philanthropie de Dieu.

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 273

sa justice conduisit Vanhoye à proposer la conjecture μετριότης «modération» à la place de l’étrange μυριότης «myriade», terme qui laisserait apparaître un Dieu frappant sans mesure. Il apparaît cependant nécessaire, à la lumière d’une étude plus large sur la clémence, d’évaluer de nouveau cette option textuelle où se trouve engagée la réception des manuscrits et l’image que nous avons de Dieu. Le motif de la clémence divine en Sg 11,15–12,27 permettra d’abord de poser les termes de la problématique. Entre la colère vindicative de Dieu et sa miséricorde infinie, quelles modalités se trouvent illustrées par la double attitude de Dieu à l’égard des Egyptiens (Sg 11,15–12,2) et des Cananéens (Sg 12,3–18)? Un rappel des influences hellénistiques permettra, dans un deuxième temps, d’identifier les sources d’une telle réflexion. Pour écarter l’idée d’un châtiment excessif comme celle d’une miséricorde complaisante, notre auteur interprèterait le récit biblique de l’Exode à la lumière de nouvelles perspectives inspirées de l’idéal royal gréco-romain. Enfin, nous reviendrons sur l’idée de la clémence chez notre auteur pour préciser la cohérence textuelle de Sg 12,19–22. Il se pourrait que le terme «myriade», paradoxal mais non moins présent dans les manuscrits, caractérise bien la clémence divine.

2 Problématique de la modération divine selon Sg 11,15–12,27 La composition de Sg 11,15–12,27 est présentée avec précision dans quelques pages inédites du cours de Gilbert. Un résumé en est proposé dans l’article du DBS consacré au Livre de la Sagesse². Un premier ensemble (Sg 11,15–12,2), marqué par une belle inclusion, décrit les modalités et les raisons du comportement divin à l’égard des Egyptiens. Un deuxième ensemble (Sg 12,3–18), plus étrange, développe le cas particulier des Cananéens. La péricope Sg 12,8–18, bien délimitée par le terme «épargner», insiste sur l’attitude inattendue de Dieu à l’égard d’un peuple criminel dont il est d’abord dit que Dieu décida de le détruire (Sg 12,3–7). Vient ensuite une double conclusion s’appuyant sur Sg 12,17–18: une leçon pour Israël d’une part (Sg 12,19–22), appelé à imiter Dieu, une annonce du sort final des Egyptiens d’autre part (Sg 12,23–27). Cette seconde partie de la conclusion revient sur le propos initial concernant le sort des Egyptiens: on découvre, comme ce fut annoncé pour les Cananéens (Sg 12,6), que deux types de jugement les concernent, l’un dit de «dérision» (cf. Sg 12,26//Sg 12,8), l’autre

2 Gilbert, Le livre de la Sagesse, 73–74.

274 

 Alexis Leproux

plus radical, qui est «l’ultime condamnation» (cf. Sg 12,27//12,7). Par ce parallélisme, entre Egyptiens et Cananéens, l’auteur met en valeur un châtiment mesuré et pesé, préalable au châtiment final et fatal. Que le sort final puisse être connu dès le commencement ne devait pas modifier le déroulement de cette première étape du jugement (cf. Sg 12,10). A sa nécessité, ses caractéristiques et ses modalités, l’auteur entend ainsi rattacher le devoir d’Israël: que celui-ci, bénéficiant de cette première phase d’un châtiment mesuré, n’oublie pas d’agir de même avec ses adversaires (Sg 12,22). Le destin de ces deux groupes, Egyptiens et Cananéens, illustre une même dynamique divine dont la visée est d’offrir les conditions d’une éventuelle «conversion» (Sg 11,23; 12,10; 12,19): ce n’est pas à l’impuissance de Dieu qu’il faut l’attribuer mais à sa toute-puissance qui ouvre un chemin de salut (Sg 11,17.21.23.26; Sg 12,9.18). Pour soutenir des Israélites tentés de réagir violemment, notre auteur s’attache à préciser les raisons de cette modération divine. Le premier aspect développé est un principe de proportionnalité: «on est puni par où l’on pèche» (Sg 11,16). Loi du talion, justice immanente, vengeance divine ou mesure pour mesure (Lv 19,35), Gilbert précise le sens de cet adage: «Dieu punit par cela même par quoi l’homme a péché […] le châtiment a bien lieu en ce monde; on est donc dans le cadre de la rétribution terrestre. L’idée de proportion entre la faute et le châtiment est assurément présente […] la proportion réside dans l’instrument»³. Et d’ajouter que «le châtiment ne vient pas de la même espèce mais par le même genre»⁴. Ainsi, la peine temporelle subie par les Egyptiens pour leurs péchés vient bien de Dieu lui-même qui «envoie une multitude de vivants sans raison» (Sg 11,15). Les coups envoyés par Dieu doivent en outre faire écho à la faute commise: «le culte rendu à des reptiles sans raison» (Sg 11,15). Le verset conclusif de ce premier ensemble reprend la même idée qu’il modifie légèrement: «tu les avertis, leur rappelant en quoi ils pèchent» (Sg 12,2). Le «rappel» fait ressortir l’intérêt de cette proportionnalité en vue de la conversion: les réalités du même genre, en l’occurrence des animaux, considérés comme «secourables» par le phénomène de la zoolâtrie, seront rejetés comme «mauvais» par les douleurs qu’ils infligent. La conclusion (Sg 12,23–27), en qualifiant les Egyptiens de «petits enfants sans intelligence» (Sg 12,25), souligne aussi que la mesure du châtiment tient compte de l’état des pécheurs: ils sont eux-mêmes «sans raison» [ἀλόγιστος], comme le sont, et les bestioles à qui ils rendent un culte, et les animaux que Dieu leur envoie pour les châtier [ἄλογος]. L’adage selon lequel «on est puni par où l’on pèche» n’est donc une réplique ni du talion ni

3 Gilbert, Philanthropie de Dieu, 6–7. 4 Gilbert, Philanthropie de Dieu, 8. Cf. aussi: Id., On est puni; Id., Les raisons de la modération; Id., La loi du talion, 81.

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 275

de la justice distributive⁵: il traduit le lien nécessaire, dans la mémoire, entre la faute, celui qui l’a commise et la peine encourue. C’est à cette condition semblet-il qu’un châtiment serait salutaire. A ce premier aspect mémoriel du châtiment divin, l’auteur en ajoute un second. Introduit dès l’analyse du sort des Egyptiens, cet aspect est surtout mis en valeur par l’histoire des Cananéens. On ne perçoit plus de proportion, entre les fautes abominables (Sg 12,3–7) qui appelleraient un verdict impitoyable, et les frelons qui leur sont envoyés. L’insistance porte ici sur la lenteur d’un châtiment qui n’advint que «peu à peu» κατὰ βραχύ (Sg 12,9.10). L’auteur s’appuie sur une expression hébraïque qu’il trouve dans l’épisode des frelons (Ex 23,30; Dt 7,22; cf. Jos 24,12), j[;m. j[;m. traduit littéralement dans la LXX κατὰ μικρὸν μικρόν. Quoi que les œuvres soient odieuses, «rites sacrilèges et crimes d’enfants» (Sg 12,4–5), le châtiment advient par petits coups, avec mesure, par de simples guêpes (Sg 12,8). Cet aspect du châtiment, déjà introduit par l’expression κατ᾽ὀλίγον (Sg 12,2) pour les Egyptiens, met en perspective un même contraste, présent dans les deux parties du texte, entre un ordre ultime de la justice, qui se joue «en une fois», comme le coup fatal d’une sentence de mort, et l’ordre préalable d’un châtiment modéré, qui doit s’opérer doucement, «peu à peu». L’envoi de frelons contre les Cananéens, en parallèle avec celui d’insectes ou de reptiles contre les Egyptiens, illustre ainsi l’effet d’une correction par petits coups, toujours en vue de la conversion. Sort initial des Egyptiens

Sort initial des Cananéens

11,15 Tu leur envoyas en punition une multitude de vivants sans raison […] 11,20 d’un seul souffle ils pouvaient tomber, poursuivis par la Justice, balayés par le souffle de ta puissance. Mais tu as tout réglé avec mesure, nombre et poids […] 12,2 Aussi est-ce peu à peu que tu reprends ceux qui tombent.

12,8 Tu as envoyé des frelons comme avantcoureurs de ton armée, pour les exterminer petit à petit. 12,9 Non qu’il te fût impossible de livrer des impies aux mains de justes en une bataille rangée, ou de les anéantir d’un seul coup au moyen de bêtes cruelles ou d’une parole inexorable; 12,10 mais en exerçant tes jugements peu à peu, tu laissais place au repentir.

Sort final des Egyptiens 12,26

Ceux qui ne s’étaient pas laissé avertir par une réprimande dérisoire allaient subir un jugement digne de Dieu […] 12,27 C’est pourquoi l’ultime condamnation s’abattit sur eux.

5 Cf. Aristote, Politiques 1280a et Sg 6,6–8.

Sort final des Cananéens 12,6

Ces parents meurtriers d’êtres sans défense, tu avais voulu les faire périr par les mains de nos pères.

276 

 Alexis Leproux

La modération divine est à l’œuvre dans une première étape de correction, faite d’une multitude de coups infligés dans le temps (cf. Sg 11,15.17; 16,1). Elle permet d’échapper, au moins pour un temps, au coup fatal et irréversible de la destruction. L’ordre de «la mesure, du nombre et du poids» (Sg 11,20), éclairé par ce contexte, permet d’envisager la modération divine au rythme du temps, par la mémoire des fautes commises d’une part, par la vertu des corrections subies d’autre part. Le lien établi entre le châtiment et la faute (cf. Sg 11,16) fait que la peine n’est pas arbitraire mais qu’elle appelle une conversion: c’est le principe de proportion. En outre, cette peine n’arrive pas brutalement, en une fois ou à l’improviste, mais elle épouse le rythme du temps, se donnant comme autant de coups salutaires: c’est le principe de gradualité. La puissance de Dieu inscrit donc le châtiment divin dans l’histoire humaine, à mesure d’homme, en des temps et des lieux variés, par des paroles et des œuvres nombreuses, avant de l’accomplir en «son décret irrévocable» (Sg 18,15). Ceci justifie d’ailleurs l’exhortation du Sage: «C’est à vous, souverains, que s’adressent mes paroles, pour que vous appreniez la sagesse et évitiez les fautes» (Sg 6,9). Une telle logique de la clémence divine paraît importante pour relire la leçon de philanthropie donnée à Israël (Sg 12,19–22): une myriade de coups ne traduirait pas nécessairement la folie d’un tyran mais pourrait être la caractéristique d’une justice écrite d’abord dans l’histoire, «à maintes reprises et sous maintes formes» (He 1,1; cf. Sg 19,22) avant que n’adviennent «l’impitoyable courroux» (Sg 19,1) et «une mort insolite» (Sg 19,6).

3 Interprétation biblique et influence hellénistique Ces quelques traits de la clémence divine, dégagés de Sg 11,15–12,27, offrent, au regard de la Bible, une certaine originalité. Aucun des textes bibliques commentés par notre auteur, les livres de l’Exode et d’Isaïe en particulier, ne présente explicitement une telle réflexion. L’ἐκιείκεια est en effet typiquement grecque; elle ne correspond à aucune notion hébraïque précise⁶. Certes, l’idée de modération n’est pas absente de la Bible, mais la précision juridique de l’équité dans son rapport à la justice distributive, discutée par Aristote et louée par Sénèque, est absente de la conception hébraïque de la justice et de la miséricorde. Traduc-

6 Cf. Preisker, Epieikeia epieikês, TWNT II, 585–587.

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 277

tion exceptionnelle de la racine xls par l’adjectif ἐκιεικής (Ps 85,5; cf. PsSal 5,12), présente sous une forme adverbiale dans quelques rares cas⁷, l’ἐκιείκεια n’apparaît jamais pour traduire un terme hébreu. On le trouve parfois dans les écrits du judaïsme hellénistique, ainsi dans le livre des Maccabées (2 M 2,22; 7,6; 10,9; 3 M 3,15), en Ba 2,27 ou encore dans le livre de Daniel (Dn 3,42; 4,27). Mais son sens reste assez large, oscillant entre l’indulgence, la bonté, la douceur et la modération. Son usage dans la lettre d’Aristée, écrit influencé par la conception hellénistique de la royauté issue des traditions philosophiques et oratoires grecques⁸, se rapproche de celui que nous trouvons dans le Livre de la Sagesse. Il désigne bien l’indulgence divine (Aristée 207) et la philanthropie du roi (Aristée 290) dans l’exercice de la justice. Un usage comparable apparaît dans le Nouveau Testament (Ac 24,4; 2 Co 10,1), chez Philon ou encore chez Flavius Josèphe qui rapproche l’adjectif ἐκιεικής de μέτριος (Ant. 15,182). Mais c’est en dehors de tout développement spécifiquement consacré à cette notion chère aux Grecs. Dans le Livre de la Sagesse, la modération est analysée pour elle-même. La violence du châtiment infligé à l’homme juste par des impies qui veulent en éprouver l’ἐκιείκεια (Sg 2,19) laissait présager un déchaînement de colère (Sg 5,20–23). Le chapitre suivant (Sg 6), à rebours de cette perspective apocalyptique, prône un sage exercice de la justice dans l’histoire: «en gardant gracieusement la grâce, on gagne la grâce. Et, en en étant instruit, on trouve sa défense» (Sg 6,10)⁹. Comme Dieu qui ménagea Egyptiens et Cananéens (Sg 11,15–12,18), comme le Sage qui doit se montrer «bon avec la multitude» (Sg 8,15), Israël doit apprendre à juger «avec modération» pour recevoir en retour un jugement de miséricorde (cf. Sg 12,22). La mesure de la justice préoccupe ainsi notre auteur jusqu’à la fin de son livre qui précise que «c’est en toute justice que les pécheurs souffraient pour leurs propres crimes» (Sg 19,13). D’un incompréhensible châtiment divin qui frappe parfois avec violence, châtiment qu’un livre de Job incline à garder dans l’obscurité de sa transcendance (cf. Jb 38–42), le Livre de la Sagesse tente de recueillir les lueurs pour convaincre les hommes de châtier avec mesure, raisonnablement, à la manière de Dieu, sans violence arbitraire ni indulgente faiblesse.

7 1S 12,22; 2R 6,3; 2M 9,27. 8 Berthelot, Philanthropia Judaica, 192. 9 Leproux, La sagesse de la grâce, 106: «Cette profession de foi, brève et elliptique, justifie, par l’interrogation qu’elle suggère sur ce qu’est la justice divine en son double rapport à la colère et à la miséricorde, la poursuite de la lecture. Elle stimule l’attention de ceux qui cherchent à comprendre comment la confrontation à l’impitoyable justice de Dieu inaugure la révélation de la loi de grâce. Celle-ci, illustrée d’abord par l’éloge du sage (Sg 7–8), sera transmise ensuite par sa prière (Sg 9–19)».

278 

 Alexis Leproux

Dans la Loi et les Prophètes, les récits ne manquent pas pour signifier les mouvements du cœur de Dieu, pour illustrer les degrés variés de sa colère (cf. Dt 29; Is 63; Ps 78) et de sa tendresse (Ps 103; Os 2; Jon 4), entre la justice vindicative et la miséricorde inouïe. La nécessaire correction du pécheur, la valeur éducative de la peine, la justice distributive n’étaient pas ignorées (cf. Dt 11,2–4; 8,5–16; Pr 3,12; Si 18,13). On ne trouve néanmoins ni terme spécifique ni texte éclairant pour distinguer la place précise de l’équité dans l’ordre des peines. Il semble que les motifs de la décision divine (cf. Sg 12,12; Is 40,14) dépassent toujours le bon sens, et qu’ils traduisent une colère ou une pitié qui débordent du cœur. Il est clair que le débat de Sénèque, entre «une sévérité ennemie des rigueurs inutiles et une clémence ennemie des attendrissements débonnaires»¹⁰ n’est pas entré dans l’univers biblique. Ce débat s’était ouvert une voie dans la conscience des princes, depuis qu’Eschyle eut chanté la justice vengeresse, que Sophocle et Euripide eurent tenté d’en modifier l’écho, qu’Académiciens, Péripatéticiens et Stoïciens entreprirent de consolider le fragile édifice «de la mesure en toute chose». Aristophane, quant à lui, ironisait encore sur la démagogie¹¹. Tout ce travail, recueilli dans des éloges de la royauté, de la clémence et de la philanthropie, devait introduire en Egypte, sur les pas d’Alexandre et d’Auguste, l’idéal gréco-romain de la douceur et de la mesure¹². Notre auteur, imprégné de cette culture, en recevrait un nouvel équilibre qui orienterait jusqu’à sa compréhension de la Loi et des Prophètes. Si le terme ἐκιείκεια apparaît chez Homère (Iliade XXIII,246), si la question traverse les grandes tragédies et retient l’attention des orateurs, c’est le propos d’Aristote qui retient l’attention¹³. Il montre que l’épikie est une vertu, qu’elle fait partie de la justice, qu’elle en est même, en un sens, le sommet. Cette analyse apporte les éléments philosophiques les plus précis sur le fondement rationnel de la clémence. Platon marque plutôt l’écart entre deux ordres¹⁴, l’un qu’il préfère

10 Waltz, Vie de Sénèque, 298. 11 Aristophane, Les Guêpes 1113: «Les Athéniens jadis, aux jours glorieux de Marathon et de Salamine, poursuivaient les Barbares en les dardant de coups d’épée dans les reins; aujourd’hui ils sont réduits à piquer tout le monde avec leur stylet, c’est-à-dire à condamner leurs citoyens pour gagner leur vie». 12 Cf. la bibliographie sélective en fin d’article. 13 Brunschwig, The Aristotelian Theory of Equity, 115–155. 14 Platon, Lois VI, 757 a: «Il y a deux sortes d’égalité qui portent le même nom, mais qui, à beaucoup d’égards, sont à peu près contraires l’une à l’autre, l’une qui consiste dans la mesure, le poids et le nombre, que tout État et tout législateur peuvent faire passer dans la distribution des honneurs, en laissant au tirage au sort le soin de la régler; pour l’autre, la plus vraie et la meilleure, il n’est pas aisé à tout le monde de la distinguer. C’est à Zeus que le discernement en

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 279

remettre au jugement divin et qu’il appelle l’équité, l’autre qu’il promeut pour les hommes, celui de la stricte justice: «N’oublions pas que l’équité et l’indulgence sont toujours des entorses à la parfaite exactitude aux dépens de la stricte justice»¹⁵. Les Stoïciens s’inscriront plutôt sur cet axe dont ils auraient modifié les raisons à partir d’une étymologie douteuse: «Les sages ne sont pas miséricordieux et ne pardonnent à personne, car ils n’atténuent pas les châtiments prescrits par la loi, du fait que céder (εἴκειν), de même que la pitié et la clémence elle-même, est une annihilation de l’âme qui, devant les châtiments, contrefait la bonté. Ils ne pensent pas non plus que les châtiments sont trop sévères»¹⁶. Cicéron penchera pour cette option que Sénèque tentera d’adoucir. Pour écarter l’option religieuse de Platon qui préfère renoncer à l’arbitrage de la clémence qu’il attribue aux dieux, Aristote définit le rapport entre l’équité et la justice ainsi que la responsabilité humaine qui en découle. Dans l’Ethique à Nicomaque, il insiste sur la distinction entre la lettre de la loi et l’intention du législateur, entre la portée générale de la loi et les cas particuliers. Il remet au juge la responsabilité de ce double rapport : entre la lettre d’une loi écrite qui ne peut qu’annoncer la généralité de ce qu’elle vise mais demeure incapable, en sa lettre, de prendre en considération l’ensemble des situations, entre l’intention du législateur et les situations particulières que ce dernier peut avoir négligées. Il en résulte un double registre de juridiction, entre le droit dit naturel qui entendra relier l’intention du législateur à toute situation particulière (ordre subjectif de la conscience), et le droit positif dont l’intérêt est d’offrir un cadre littéral et commun au plus grand nombre des cas (ordre objectif des prescriptions juridiques). Relisons les propos d’Aristote: «Il y a bien identité du juste et de l’équitable, et tous deux sont bons, bien que l’équitable soit le meilleur des deux. Ce qui fait la difficulté, c’est que l’équitable, tout en étant juste, n’est pas le juste selon la loi, mais un correctif de la justice légale. La raison en est que la loi est toujours quelque chose de général et qu’il y

appartient, mais le peu qui s’en trouve dans les États et chez les particuliers produit des biens de toute sorte. C’est elle qui accorde plus à celui qui est plus grand, moins à celui qui est plus petit, à l’un et à l’autre dans la mesure de sa nature. C’est elle aussi qui attribue de plus grands honneurs aux plus vertueux et de moindres à ceux qui sont dénués de vertu et d'éducation, rendant ainsi à l’un à l’autre ce qui lui revient proportionnellement à son mérite». 15 Platon, Lois VI 757e: τὸ γὰρ ἐπιεικὲς καὶ σύγγνωμον τοῦ τελέου καὶ ἀκριβοῦς παρὰ δίκην τὴν ὀρθήν ἐστιν παρατεθραυμένον. 16 Diogène Laërce VII,123: Ἐλεήμονάς τε μὴ εἶναι συγγνώμην τ’ ἔχειν μηδενί· μὴ γὰρ παριέναι τὰς ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ἐπιβαλλούσας κολάσεις´ ἐπεὶ τό γ’εἴκειν καὶ ὁ ἔλεος αὐτή θ’ἡ ἐπιείκεια ἀσθένειά ἐστι ψυχῆς πρὸς κολάσεις προσποιουμένης χρηστότητα· μηδ’οἴεσθαι σκληροτέρας αὐτὰς εἶναι. Pour l’étymologie, cf. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique, 354–355.

280 

 Alexis Leproux

a des cas d’espèce pour lesquels il n’est pas possible de poser un énoncé général qui s’y applique avec rectitude»¹⁷. L’attention d’Aristote porte sur l’intégration, dans l’exercice du droit, de toutes les situations, renonçant à rejeter dans l’irrationnel ou le religieux les situations qui échappent au cadre général défini par la loi écrite. Il pousse ainsi le juge, par son interprétation de la loi, à s’ériger en législateur: «La loi pose une règle générale. Quand survient un cas en dehors de la règle générale, on est alors en droit, là où le législateur a omis de prévoir le cas et a péché par excès de simplification, de corriger l’omission et de se faire l’interprète de ce qu’eût dit le législateur lui-même s’il avait été présent à ce moment, et de ce qu’il aurait porté dans sa loi s’il avait connu le cas en question. De là vient que l’équitable est juste, et qu’il est supérieur à une certaine espèce de juste, non pas supérieur à ce qui est juste dans l’absolu, mais à ce qui est erroné à cause de cet absolu. Telle est la nature de l’équitable: c’est d’être un correctif de la loi, là où la loi a manqué de statuer à cause de sa généralit黹⁸. Deux éléments sont ainsi mis en valeur: d’une part la distance entre la lettre et l’esprit de la loi et par conséquent le rôle interprétatif du juge qui, de ce fait, doit être juste; d’autre part la contingence de l’histoire humaine ou ce qu’Aristote nomme «ses irrégularités» qui appellent une relation vitale entre le droit et le fait: «de même que la règle épouse les mouvements de la pierre et n’est pas statique, ainsi en est-il du décret par rapport aux faits»¹⁹. En confiant au juge, et l’exigence d’une interprétation de la lettre pour rejoindre l’esprit du juste législateur, et l’attention aux faits tels qu’ils sont, Aristote met en place la clémence comme vertu humaine: c’est la raison humaine et non l’arbitraire du sort qui devra déterminer la peine singulière encourue par le coupable. Saint Thomas recevra cette option philosophique dans son traité des vertus: «l’épikie fait partie de la justice prise en général, comme une réalisation particulière de la justice. Il est donc clair que l’épikie est une partie subjective de la justice. Mais on l’appelle justice en priorité par rapport à la justice légale, car celle-ci se dirige selon l’épikie. Aussi celle-ci est-elle comme la règle supérieure des actes humains»²⁰. Soulignons en passant la situation spécifique du droit français qui s’appuierait plutôt sur une ligne stoïcienne: «Depuis la réforme des Parlements de l’An-

17 Aristote, Ethique à Nicomaque, Livre V (1137b). 18 Aristote, Ethique à Nicomaque, Livre V (1137b). 19 Aristote, Ethique à Nicomaque, Livre V (1137b): πρὸς γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ λίθου μετακινεῖται καὶ οὐ μένει ὁ κανών´ καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα πρὸς τὰ πράγματὰ. 20 Saint Thomas, Somme théologique, IIa IIae, Quest. 120. Art. 2.

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 281

cien Régime, le dura lex sed lex prévaut, dans le système juridique français, sur le summum ius summa iniuria. L’idée d’un recours exceptionnel à l’équité comme source de droit permettant au juge de prononcer sans le couvert de la loi (praeter legem) ou plus encore contre elle (contra legem) n’a pas droit de cité, et l’on fait référence à plusieurs arrêts de la Cour de cassation qui ont systématiquement cassé des jugements reposant sur un renvoi à l’équité. La notion garde pourtant une place, elle est mentionnée en plusieurs articles, a pris une place prépondérante dans le droit des contrats»²¹. Selon cette ligne, la clémence ne peut être considérée comme une source du droit. Ainsi apprend-on que Caton «s’attachait surtout aux principes moraux et civiques de l’École (le Portique) et, s’il s’appliquait à toutes les vertus comme possédé d’un enthousiasme divin, il était particulièrement épris de cette constance dans la justice que ne fléchit ni l’indulgence ni la faveur»²². Et Cicéron de rappeler cet esprit: «changer d’avis est une honte, pardonner est un crime, écouter la pitié, une lâchet黲³. Cette ligne se trouve cependant assouplie par un double phénomène, l’idéal philanthropique hellénistique conjoint à l’empirisme juridique romain²⁴. Le roi ou le juge devront tenir compte de la rigueur distributive et de l’exigence philanthropique. Parce que le Stoïcisme n’est pas «le reniement de l’humanitas, il implique un amour éclairé et lucide du genre humain»²⁵. Ce dont Posidonius²⁶ est bien conscient, Sénèque en fera un éloge célèbre: parce qu’il faut éviter à tout prix la cruauté tyrannique et tempérer la précipitation judiciaire, «la justice implique au plan judiciaire une échelle de peines équitables»²⁷. Rejoignant sur ce point les justifications morales de Platon, Sénèque multiplie les réserves et les reports. Il relie la figure du juge à celle d’un père qui

21 Michon, L’epieikeia aristotélicienne, 35. 22 Plutarque, Vie de Caton le Jeune, IV. 23 Cicéron, Pro Murena 30. Salamon, Sénèque, le stoïcisme et la monarchie absolue dans le De clementia § 3: «La promotion de la clémence au rang de vertu et même de vertu principale du prince apparaît de prime abord comme fort peu conforme à l’orthodoxie stoïcienne. La clémence n’appartient pas à la liste des quatre vertus cardinales ou primordiales (prudence, justice, courage, tempérance/modération), qui étaient devenues canoniques depuis l’époque de Platon et que Sénèque rappelle lui-même dans une de ses Lettres à Lucilius 20; elle ne figure pas non plus dans la liste des vertus subordonnées aux vertus cardinales que nous connaissons par Stobée. En revanche, et cette exception est en elle-même significative, la clémence apparaît dans la liste des vertus d’Auguste (uirtus, clementia, iustitia et pietas) telles qu’elles sont mentionnées sur le fameux clupeus qui lui est offert par le sénat et le peuple romain». 24 André, Sénèque et la peine de mort, 291. 25 André, Sénèque et la peine de mort, 287. 26 Cf. Laffranque, Poseidonius d’Apamée, 449–456. 27 André, Sénèque et la peine de mort, 295.

282 

 Alexis Leproux

éduque, redresse et dissuade: «Quel est donc son rôle, celui d’un bon père dont l’habitude est de réprimander ses enfants, usant parfois de caresses, parfois de menaces, allant quelquefois jusqu’à joindre des coups à ses remontrances […] il fait auparavant nombre d’essais [multa ante temptat] pour récupérer une nature en péril […] on n’en vient à infliger le dernier [ultima] supplice que si l’on a épuisé ces remèdes»²⁸. Et de conclure: «Le sage épargnera, conseillera, corrigera, il agira de même que s’il pardonnait et ne pardonnera pas, puisque celui qui pardonne avoue qu’il a omis quelque chose de ce qu’il aurait dû faire […] La clémence possède le libre-arbitre, elle juge non sous la contrainte d’une formule mais d’après l’équitable et le bien [ex aequo et bono]; il lui est permis d’absoudre et d’évaluer la peine au taux qu’elle veut. Elle n’accomplit aucune de ses actions avec le sentiment qu’elle agit en deçà du juste, mais avec le sentiment que sa décision est la plus juste […] Le sage imitera les bons agriculteurs: ceux-ci ne prennent pas seulement soin des arbres droits et élancés… ils appliquent des tuteurs, ils taillent… nourrissent… etc… il verra par quel moyen traiter chaque nature, de quelle manière on redresse les attitudes déviantes»²⁹. Moins philosophe qu’orateur, Sénèque rejoint cependant l’argument d’Aristote: adapter la décision de justice à la réalité en vue de la corriger et de la parfaire. Comme le souligne André, «la grande révolution sera la correction du concept de justice aponométique par la notion humaine d’équit黳⁰. C’est parce que la loi est édictée par l’homme, qu’une exigence d’équité mesure les châtiments, selon l’humanité en présence, l’humanité en chemin. Un grand nombre de peines ne signifie donc pas nécessairement un arbitraire tyrannique et cruel. Il peut être la marque de l’équité qui, tenant compte de l’humanité qu’elle corrige, établit une échelle des peines à la mesure de l’histoire humaine. Il semble que la clémence soit en ce sens un fondement scripturaire de l’idée de gradualité³¹.

28 Sénèque, De Clementia I,14,2. 29 Sénèque, De Clementia II,7,3–4. 30 André, Sénèque et la peine de mort, 295. «Sénèque réfute dans le De Clementia le mythe du rigorisme stoïcien, qui ferait une secte inhumaine et impitoyable, sans gradation dans l’attribution des responsabilités et des peines» (ibidem, 286). 31 Ratzinger, Documentation Catholique, 387–388: «Avec cette idée de ‘gradualité’ est abordé le thème de ‘l’être en chemin’, concrétisé au niveau de la connaissance et de la pratique morale. On déclare que la voie chrétienne toute entière est une ‘conversion’ qui se produit à travers des pas progressifs. Elle est un processus dynamique, qui progresse peu à peu vers l’intégration des dons de Dieu et des exigences de son amour absolu et définitif… C’est pourquoi s’impose une progression pédagogique, de manière que les chrétiens, à partir de ce qu’ils ont déjà reçu du mystère du Christ, soient conduits avec patience vers une connaissance plus pleine de ce mystère, et vers sa plus pleine intégration dans leur vie et leur comportement. Ainsi il pourra arriver que, dans l’esprit de l’amour et de la crainte de Dieu, mais sans trouble, le cœur et la vie

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 283

De ces quelques aspects, retenons l’immense progrès, pour la conception de la justice, des réflexions élaborées dans le cadre de l’idéal gréco-romain. Sg 11,15–12,27, écho très spécifique d’une telle perspective, inscrit dans le corpus biblique une réflexion inédite sur la justice de Dieu: la philanthropie divine est la réponse de la justice à ses plus hautes exigences. Si Dieu est le juste juge des hommes, il se doit d’être équitable dans l’application des peines: il jugera avec équité, c’est-à-dire en tenant compte de l’humanité de ceux qu’il juge et de l’histoire qu’ils vivent: «Parce que c’étaient des hommes, tu les as ménagés» (Sg 12,8). Il leur offrira, avant l’ultime châtiment, «de nombreux essais pour récupérer une nature en péril». Que notre auteur insiste sur la clémence de Dieu est une manière pour lui, et de convaincre ses coreligionnaires d’accepter la mesure de Dieu qui montre la preuve suprême de sa puissance quand il patiente, et de persuader ses contemporains grecs d’écouter la révélation du Dieu d’Israël qui n’est ni arbitraire ni cruel.

4 Originalité paradoxale de Sg 12,19–22 La double exigence de «la proportion» et de «la gradation» dans l’établissement des peines vise bien la correction et le salut des pécheurs. Parler de «mesure, poids et nombre» est une façon d’exprimer la prise en compte des contingences de l’histoire, pour écarter, dans l’exercice de la justice, le double piège de la généralité et de la passion³². Les enjeux de la modération sont synthétisés dans la leçon conclusive qui doit guider l’agir d’Israël: 19 En agissant ainsi, tu as appris à ton peuple que le juste doit être ami des hommes, et tu as donné le bel espoir à tes fils qu’après les péchés tu donnes le repentir. 20 Car, si ceux qui étaient les ennemis de tes enfants et promis à la mort, tu les as punis avec tant d’attention et d’indulgence, leur donnant temps et lieu pour se défaire de leur malice, 21 avec quelle précaution n’as-tu pas jugé tes fils, toi qui, par serments et alliances, as fait à leurs pères de si belles promesses? 22 Ainsi, tu nous instruis, quand tu châties nos ennemis [avec mesure/de mille manières], pour que nous songions à ta bonté quand nous jugeons, et, quand nous sommes jugés, nous comptions sur la miséricorde. (Sg 12,19–22)

de l’homme, grâce à la libération progressive de l’esprit et du cœur, s’ouvrent tout entiers au Christ». 32 Rappelons cet autre adage: «demain se préoccupera de lui-même; à chaque jour suffit son mal» (Mt 6,34).

284 

 Alexis Leproux

Ces versets reprennent le propos engagé depuis Sg 11,15³³. Le verset 22, comme l’a souligné Gilbert, est le point culminant de cette leçon en décrivant ce qu’il convient de vivre aujourd’hui. Son interprétation est donc importante et l’on comprend la réaction d’A. Vanhoye, surpris d’y trouver une contradiction flagrante qu’Osty traduisait ainsi: «Tandis que tu nous corriges, tu frappes mille fois plus nos ennemis». Notons l’absence de l’adverbe comparatif dans le texte orignal. Soulignons aussi l’étrange effet recherché par l’écrivain biblique qui, par l’usage d’une sorte de néologisme inconnu des Grecs, aurait ici renversé sa perspective au point de se contredire lui-même. Après avoir montré l’exigence d’une modération divine envers tous, première étape de tout jugement équitable, et ce quelle que soit la gravité des fautes, il insisterait sur un traitement de faveur pour Israël et une sévérité décuplée pour ses ennemis. L’incohérence de la phrase ne tenant qu’au terme μυριότης, Vanhoye reprit la suggestion de Kuhn dont il montra la pertinence. Il était probable que le terme ΜΕΤΡΙΟΤΗΤΙ ait perdu son Ε et que le Τ ait été confondu avec le Υ, d’où le terme ΜΥΡΙΟΤΗΤΙ. Gilbert lui-même confirma sa démonstration par l’étude structurale de cette partie et son sens global. Cette conjecture fut admise par Ziegler, Wright, Vílchez. Sans reprendre l’ensemble des arguments, il convient de reconnaître qu’une telle conjecture permet d’écarter un fâcheux contresens. Il s’agit bien, dans ce verset, de mettre en relief l’une des qualités les plus caractéristiques de Dieu, bien saisie par le génie grec, la modération du juge en faveur du tous, et non d’insister sur la violence du traitement de Dieu à l’égard des ennemis de son peuple. Renoncer à la traduction d’Osty s’impose donc. Il convient toutefois de revenir sur le sens de l’expression ἐν μυριότητι μαστιγοῖς, présente dans tous les manuscrits et que le latin, comme le syriaque, conserve fidèlement: multipliciter flagellas³⁴. Comment le terme μετριότητι, cohérent avec le contexte, a pu disparaître au profit d’un terme difficile et inconnu du grec? Rappelons que les termes rares et originaux ne manquent pas dans le Livre de la Sagesse³⁵. Le substantif μυριότης, construit à partir de l’adjectif μυρίος qui désigne chez Homère un nombre indéfini, auquel s’ajoute un suffixe de qualité, associé au verbe μαστιγόω, peut avoir ici une valeur adverbiale. C’est l’option latine qui traduit par multipliciter. Cette expression serait un écho du Ps 31,10: πολλαὶ [~yBir;] αἱ μάστιγες τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ.

33 Gilbert, Philanthropie de Dieu, 33. 34 A l’exception de deux manuscrits 106 et 261 qui présentent la lecture: εν μυριοτησι. La Vulgate maintient, y compris dans sa nouvelle version, l’adverbe multiplicter: Cum ergo das nobis disciplinam, inimicos nostros multipliciter flagellas, ut bonitatem tuam cogitemus iudicantes et, cum de nobis iudicatur, speremus misericordiam. 35 Larcher, Etudes sur le livre de la Sagesse, 182, note 1.

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 285

Une même racine sémitique rb est présente dans la version syriaque. L’expression de Sg 12,22 n’implique donc pas d’emphase sur le nombre de coups reçus par les ennemis d’Israël. Elle suggère plutôt, par l’apposition du participe «éduquer» au verbe «frapper», l’immense variation des moyens du châtiment qu’il faut retenir: «C’est pour nous instruire que tu frappais de mille façons nos ennemis, afin qu’en jugeant, nous soyons soucieux de ta bonté». Si l’on comprend par «mille coups» l’idée d’une justice vengeresse, le terme est impropre au contexte. Mais si l’on garde en mémoire l’opposition entre le coup fatal d’un verdict impitoyable (en une fois) et l’envoi d’une multitude de bêtes (cf. Sg 11,15) qui ne frappent que «peu à peu», on conçoit aisément que la multitude de coups fait écho «aux œuvres» (Sg 12,19) de Dieu qui offre les phases successives d’un châtiment progressif (cf. Sg 12,20). L’auteur «mettrait en garde ses coreligionnaires contre la tendance trop fréquente à condamner sévèrement et sans appel leur entourage païen, en anticipant en quelque sorte sur le jugement final de Dieu»³⁶. Rejoignant la réserve de Reese et de Scarpat concernant cette conjecture, je renonce toutefois à la nuance d’opposition que Scarpat maintient dans son commentaire: «il giusto deve imparare ad essere ‘filantropo’ come il suo Dio che puniva in mille modi le genti, ma concedeva anche loro ‘tempi’ e ‘occasione’ per allontanarsi dalla κακία (v. 20)»³⁷. La conjonction ma laisse entendre qu’il y aurait deux phases, l’une pour la punition, l’autre pour le temps de la conversion. C’est oublier la logique de la clémence qui fait du châtiment et de l’instruction (parole ou acte) l’occasion même (τόπως) de la conversion. Les nombreuses peines peuvent manifester la clémence de Dieu qui inscrit sa justice dans l’histoire, au rythme des hommes. La caractéristique de la justice d’Israël ne sera donc ni de condamner totalement ni de pardonner tout bonnement. Le juste juge châtiera chacun de telle sorte que le châtiment corrige l’action mauvaise. Il lui faudra pour cela adaptabilité et patience, en frappant de «mille manières». Ainsi, grâce à l’éclairage apporté par la conjecture μετριότητι, il apparaît possible de revenir au terme paradoxal μυριότητι qui renvoie, comme nous avons tenté de le montrer, non pas à la colère impitoyable d’un Dieu qui frapperait sans prévenir et sans mesure, mais à la mesure d’une justice clémente.

36 Larcher, Le livre de la Sagesse, vol. 3, 736. 37 Scarpat, Libro della Sapienza, vol. 2, 446.

286 

 Alexis Leproux

5 Conclusion Recueillons, au terme de cette analyse, trois bénéfices, celui du sens d’un verset difficile présenté et défendu par Vanhoye et Gilbert, celui du terme original μυριότης présent dans les manuscrits grecs et retenu dans la version latine par multipliciter, celui enfin d’un fondement scripturaire de la loi de gradualité. La proposition de Vanhoye montrait l’importance d’une lecture biblique qui ne soit ni asservie à une simple littéralité ni incohérente avec la compréhension du mystère de Dieu. S’il faut que l’étude de l’Ecriture soit l’âme de la théologie, il faut l’entendre comme une lecture intelligente qui tient compte de l’ensemble du propos d’un auteur et de la foi du peuple qui l’a reçu. Gilbert, par son attention à la composition littéraire, permit de préciser comment l’intelligence du mot ou de l’expression ne s’éclaire vraiment qu’à la lumière de son contexte littéraire. Pour justifier la présence d’un mot difficile, il faut une architecture littéraire qui rende raison de sa signification possible. Cette attention au sens et à la composition littéraire du Livre de la Sagesse conduit à reconnaître, dans le choix des mots et leur disposition, des jeux d’influences subtils qui marient l’héritage de Moïse à celui d’Homère. On y découvre, par l’organisation précise du propos et l’usage de termes spécifiques, l’interprétation inédite de problèmes bibliques traditionnels et parmi eux, la difficile question de la justice divine et du châtiment. C’est en vertu de la clémence de Dieu, dont l’idéal du sage grec apparaît comme le principe d’inspiration de notre texte, que se trouvent inscrites dans l’histoire du salut des peines variées et mesurées. Pour que le jugement final, «la parole toute-puissante» (Sg 18,15), puisse s’accomplir en toute équité, il convient que des peines temporelles soient infligées auparavant, que de nombreux coups, comme autant de paroles salutaires, puissent conduire à la conversion. On ne châtiera donc ni durement ni mollement, mais avec clémence, patiemment, selon une loi d’incarnation qui est aussi une loi d’adaptation aux situations de l’histoire humaine. La «loi de ‘gradualité’» trouverait en Sg 12,22 l’un de ses fondements scripturaires. Si l’on poursuivait l’analyse jusqu’en Sg 18, on s’apercevrait que l’attention à l’histoire des hommes et à leur situation, cette proportion des châtiments divins envoyés par Dieu pour que les hommes soient sauvés, n’est pas le dernier mot de la justice divine. Face au fléau final qui frappe le peuple, il semble qu’un médiateur humain se lève, grand prêtre du salut qui surgit pour affronter le courroux et l’arrêter (cf. Sg 18,21). Si le peuple de Dieu est appelé, dans sa manière de traiter ses ennemis, à suivre la mesure du jugement divin (cf. Sg 12,22), ne doit-il pas, quand l’ultime condamnation frappe ces mêmes ennemis, se lever en défenseur de leur vie. A la douceur initiale de la clémence d’Israël en faveur des nations s’ajouterait ainsi l’audace finale de son intercession sacerdotale, à la manière d’Aaron.

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 287

Bibliographie sélective Aalders, Gerhard Jean Daniël, Political Thought in Hellenistic Times, Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1975, 53–102. Amir, Yehoshua, Measure for Measure in Talmudic Literature and in the Wisdom of Solomon, in: Henning Graf Reventlow – Yair Hoffman, Justice and Righteousness. Biblical Themes and Their Influence (JSOTS 137), Sheffield: Academic, 1992, 29–46. André, Jean-Marie, Sénèque et la peine de mort: REL 57 (1980) 278–297. André, Jean-Marie, La conception de l’état et de l’Empire dans la pensée gréco-romaine des deux premiers siècles de notre ère: ANRW II, 30.1 (1982) 3–73. Bellincioni, Maria, Potere ed etica in Seneca. Clementia e voluntas amica (Antichità classica e Cristiana 25), Brescia: Paideia, 1984. Berthelot, Katell, Philanthrôpia judaica. Le débat autour de la «misanthropie» des lois juives dans l’Antiquité (JSJS 76), Leiden: Brill, 2003. Bertrand, Jean-Marie, De l’écriture à l’oralité. Lectures des Lois de Platon, Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2000. Bovati, Pietro, Ristabilire la Giustizia: Procedure, vocabolario, orientamenti (AnBib 110), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1986. Bringmann, Klaus, The King as Benefactor. Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism in: Anthony W. Bulloch – Erich S. Gruen – A.A. Long – Andrew Stewart (eds.), Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the Hellenistic Word, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, 7–24. Brunschwig, Jacques, The Aristotelian Theory of Equity, in: Michael Frede – Gisela Stikker (eds.), Rationality in Greek Thought, Oxford: University Press, 1996, 115–155. Brunschwig, Jacques, Rule and Exception. On the Aristotelician Theory of Greek Thought, in: Michael Frede – Gisela Stikker (eds.), Rationality in Greek Thought, Oxford: University Press, 1996, 161–172. Charlesworth, Martin Percival, The Virtues of the Roman Emperor. Propaganda and the Creation of Belief. The Raleigh Lecture on History 1937, Londres: Millford, 1937. Chaumartin, François-Régis, Le De Beneficiis de Sénèque. Sa signification philosophique, politique et sociale, Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1985, 207–246. Chaumartin, François-Régis, Sénèque. De clementia (Collection des Universités de France), Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres», 2005. D’Agostino, Francesco, Epieikeia, il tema dell’equità nell’antichità greca (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Filosofia del Diritto dell’Università di Roma 3/8), Milan: Giufrè, 1973. Ferrary, Jean-Louis, Philhellénisme et impérialisme. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate, Roma: École française de Rome, 1988, 489–517. Finan, Thomas, Hellenistic Humanism in the Book of Wisdom: ITQ 27 (1960) 30–48. Frazier, Françoise, Histoire et morale dans les Vies parallèles de Plutarque, Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1996, 231–273. George, Siegfried, Philanthropia im Buche der Weisheit: Bibel und Leben 11 (1970) 189–198. Gilbert, Maurice, La critique des dieux dans le livre de la Sagesse (Sg 13−15) (AnBib 53) Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1973. Gilbert, Maurice, Philanthropie de Dieu. Exégèse de Sg 11,15–12,27, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1976) [texte dactylographié non-publié] Gilbert, Maurice, La conjecture μετριότητι en Sg 12,22a: Bib 57 (1976) 550–553.

288 

 Alexis Leproux

Gilbert, Maurice, Le livre de la Sagesse et l’inculturation, in: Maurice Gilbert – Paul In-Syek Sye – Théoneste, Nkéramihigo, L’inculturation et la sagesse des nations (Inculturation. Études sur l’actualité de la rencontre entre la foi et les cultures IV), Rome: Centre «Culture and Religions», Pontifical Gregorian University, 1984, 1–12. Gilbert, Maurice, Les raisons de la modération divine (Sg 11,21–12,2), in: Mathias Delcor – André Caquot, Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1981, 149–162. Gilbert, Maurice, On est puni par où l’on pèche (Sg 11,16): in André Caquot – Simon Legasse – Michel Tardieu, Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985, 183–191. Gilbert, Maurice, Le livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon, DBS XI (Paris, 1986) 58–119. Gill, David, The Greek Sources of Wisdom XII,3–7: VT 15 (1965) 383–386. Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell, The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship (Yale Classical Studies 1), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1928, 68–91. Griffin, Miriam T., Seneca. A Philosopher in Politics, Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Grimal, Pierre, La clémence et la douceur dans la vie politique romaine, in Id., Rome, la littérature et l’histoire, 2 vols. (Pubblications de l’École française de Rome), Rome: École française de Rome, 1986, 1275–1287. Grimal, Pierre, Le bon roi selon Philodème et la royauté de César: REL 44 (1966) 254–285. Grimal, Pierre, L’image du pouvoir royal dans les tragédies de Sénèque: Pallas 38 (1992) 409–416. Grimal, Pierre, Sénèque ou la conscience de l’Empire (Collection d’Études Anciennes. Association Guillaume Budé), Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1979. Hake, Edward, Epieikeia. A Dialogue on Equity in Three Parts (Yale Law Library Publication 13), New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1953. Harkis, Edward M., Le rôle de l’épieikeia dans les tribunaux athéniens: Revue historique de droit français et étranger 82 (2004) 1–13. von Harnack, Adolf, Sanftmut, Hulde und Demut’ in der alten Kirche, in: Festgabe für D. Dr. Julius Kaftan zu seinem 70 Geburtstag 30.9.1918 dargebr. Vom Schülern und Kollegen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1920, 113–129. Larcher, Chrysostome, Le livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon, 3 vols. (EB. Nouvelle Série 1), Paris: Gabalda, 1983–1985. Larcher, Chrysostome, Études sur le livre de la Sagesse (EB), Paris: Lecoffre J. Gabalda, 1969. Lenger, Marie-Thérèse, La notion de bienfait (φιλάνθωπον) royal et les ordonnances des rois Lagides, in: Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz nel XLV anno del suo insegnamento, vol. 1, Naples: Jovene, 1953, 483–499. Leproux, Alexis, La sagesse de la grâce: RTB 1 (2011) 83–109. Long, Anthony A. – David N. Sedley, Les philosophes hellénistiques. Vol. II: Les Stoïciens, Paris: G-F Flammarion, 2001. Michon, Cyrille, L’epieikeia aristotélicienne comme correctif de la loi: Annuaire de l’Institut Michel Villey II (2011) 35–50. Pelletier, Anne-Marie, Ce n’est pas la Sagesse mais le Dieu sauveur qui aime l’humanité: RB 87 (1980) 397–403. Preisker, Herbert, Epieikeia epieikês, TWNT II, coll. 585–587. de Romilly, Jacqueline, La douceur dans la pensée grecque (Collection d’Études Anciennes. Association Guillaume Budé), Paris: Société d’Édition «Les Belles Lettres» 1979. de Romilly, Jacqueline, La Grèce Antique contre la violence, Paris: Éditions de Fallois, 2000.

L’ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27 

 289

Salamon, Gérard, Sénèque, le stoïcisme et la monarchie absolue dans le De clementia, Aitia [URL : http://aitia.revues.org/161], 1 | 2011. Scarpat, Giuseppe, Libro della Sapienza, 3 vols. (Biblica. Testi e Studi 1.3.6), Brescia: Paideia, 1989–1999. Spicq, Ceslas, Bénignité, mansuétude, douceur, clémence: RB 54 (1947) 321–339. Spicq, Ceslas, epieikeia, in: Id. Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire (OBO 22/1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978, 263–267. Spicq, Ceslas, La philanthropia hellénistique, vertu divine et royale (à propos de Tite III,4): Studia Theologica 12 (1958) 169–191. Valdenberg, Vladimir, La théorie monarchique de Dion Chrysostome: REG 40 (1927) 142–162.

Psalms

Jacques Vermeylen

Quand la structure révèle un sens: Les Psaumes «quasi-alphabétiques» 33 et 103* Jacques Vermeylen: Université Catholique de Lille, France

1 Introduction Le psautier compte plusieurs psaumes dits «alphabétiques», qui mettent en œuvre le procédé de l’acrostiche régulier (Ps 9–10; 37; 111; 112; 119; 145), ou avec des variantes (Ps 25; 34). D’autres psaumes peuvent être rapprochés de cette série parce que le premier mot commence par ‫ א‬et le dernier par ‫( ת‬Ps 1; 112). Les Ps 33, 38 et 103, qui comptent chacun 22 versets à la facture régulière sont apparentés à cette série de compositions qui disent la louange de Yhwh «de A à Z» et sont généralement tenues pour récentes (époque hellénistique)¹. Je m’en tiendrai ici aux Ps 33 et 103.

2 Quelques points communs Les deux psaumes comptent autant de distiques que l’alphabet hébreu compte de lettres, et cette similitude est remarquable. N’auraient-ils pas d’autres caractéristiques communes? Tout d’abord, ils sont le plus souvent rangés l’un comme l’autre parmi les hymnes. Le Ps 33 célèbre l’œuvre de Yhwh dans la Création et dans l’histoire, tandis que le Ps 103 célèbre le pardon qu’il accorde à ses fidèles. Cependant on observera que le Ps 33, sans titre, est introduit par la finale du Ps 32, chant d’action de grâce d’un homme pardonné: «Réjouissez-vous en Yhwh et exultez, justes, et criez de joie, tous les droits de cœur» (v. 11) (comparer avec 33,1)². En

* Je dédie cet essai à Maurice Gilbert, en lui redisant mon amitié, ma reconnaissance et mon estime. Il m’a beaucoup appris ! 1 En dehors du Psautier, le procédé de l’acrostiche est attesté en Pr 31,10–31; Lm 1–4; Na 1,2–8; Si 51,13–29. Lm 5 forme un autre poème de 22 distiques. 2 Comme le souligne Gilbert, Les louanges, 126.

294 

 Jacques Vermeylen

d’autres termes, lu à la suite de la pièce précédente, le Ps 33 célèbre lui aussi le pardon de Yhwh. Ensuite, on y rencontre plusieurs motifs communs. Dans chacun des deux poèmes, Yhwh se distingue avant tout par sa «loyauté» (‫חסד‬, 33,5.18.22; 103,4.8.11.17). Il «œuvre» (‫עשה‬, 33,4; 103,6.10; cf. 103,22), et son action a rapport avec la «justice» (‫צדקה‬, 33,5) ou les «justices» (‫צדקות‬, 103,6); quant aux œuvres des humains (‫)מעשיהם‬, Yhwh les observe, sans doute pour les sanctionner (33,15), tandis que ceux qui lui sont fidèles «œuvrent» ses préceptes (‫עשה‬, 103,18) et ses messagers sont «ouvriers» (‫עשה‬, 103,20.21) de sa Parole ou de sa volonté. Les deux psaumes désignent aussi les fidèles de Yhwh comme «ceux qui le craignent» (‫יראיו‬, 33,18; 103,11.13.17). Un troisième élément commun pourrait être leur architecture. En effet, tant le Ps 33 que le Ps 103 sont caractérisés par le même procédé d’encadrement, et la structure d’ensemble paraît similaire. Cela nécessite cependant un examen plus approfondi, car il n’y a pas d’accord entre les spécialistes sur ce point. Commençons par le Ps 103.

3 L’architecture du Ps 103 Un élément essentiel de la structure du psaume est évident: son encadrement, avec l’invitation à bénir Yhwh en tête et en finale. La discussion porte sur les limites du cadre, mais aussi et surtout sur la partie centrale. Le cœur du poème est-il constitué par le v. 8³, qui proclame les qualités de Yhwh? par les vv. 10–13⁴, qui alignent cinq comparaisons introduites par la même particule ‫ ?כ‬par les vv. 11–13⁵, avec trois comparaisons parallèles? Faut-il considérer que le psaumes compte quatre sections (vv. 1–2.3–10.11–19.20–22) qui se répondent deux à deux⁶? Dans un article déjà ancien, Paul-Émile Dion⁷ recensait non moins de neuf approches différentes, selon que l’on considère la syntaxe et la disposition en lignes, les groupements de lignes par la grammaire, les parallèles sémantiques, les répétitions de mots ou de phrases, l’«ornementation» (rythme, allitérations, etc.), la présence d’aramaïsmes, la distribution des images, les contacts littéraires, et enfin les effets

3 Spieckermann, Barmherzig, 1–18; Metzger, Lobpreis, 121–133; Böckler, Gott als Vater, 332–342. 4 Auffret, Un père envers des fils, 25–43; voir déjà Auffret, Essai sur la structure, 197–225. 5 Fokkelman, Psalm 103, 109–118. 6 Girard, Les Psaumes redécouverts, t. 3, 38–48. 7 Dion, Psalm 103, 13–32, spéc. 19–29.

Quand la structure révèle un sens 

 295

de symétrie. La prise en compte de l’ensemble aboutit à une vision complexe du psaume. Ce qui émerge est une double inclusion. L’enveloppe extérieure est formée par les vv. 1–5 et 19–22, qui invitent à bénir Yhwh. À l’intérieur de ce cadre, les vv. 6–8 ont pour correspondants les vv. 17–18, qui font comme eux référence à Ex 33–34 et font du psaume une méditation sur la loyauté de Yhwh à l’égard de son peuple malgré ses péchés. Le cœur du poème est formé par les vv. 11–13. Les observations faites part Dion permettent une interprétation globale équilibrée du texte. Nous partirons du plus évident pour aborder ensuite ce qui l’est moins. Le psaume est encadré par la même phrase «Bénis Yhwh, mon être» (vv. 1a et 22b). Cette phrase entre dans le rythme du poème au v. 1a, mais elle est en excès au v. 22b, comme si ce dernier élément avait été ajouté par un rédacteur qui voulait ainsi souligner le lien avec le Ps 104, encadré de la même manière. L’appel à la bénédiction de Yhwh aux vv. 1–2 et 20–22 forme une autre inclusion. Cependant les propositions participiales des vv. 3–5 se rattachent grammaticalement aux vv. 1–2 et leur sont donc inséparables; on remarquera en outre la série de 8 mots se terminant par la même syllabe ‫ כי‬aux vv. 3–5. De la même manière, le v. 19 doit être rattaché à la finale⁸, comme le suggère la correspondance entre ‫«( משלה‬elle gouverne», v. 19) et ‫«( ממשלתו‬son gouvernement», v. 22), ainsi que le mot ‫כל‬, «tout» (vv. 19.21.22aα.22aß). Ainsi, ‫כל‬, «tout», figure quatre fois dans l’introduction et quatre fois dans la conclusion du psaume. La partie centrale, qui comprend les vv. 6–18 est plus discutée et, effectivement, plusieurs regroupements sont possibles⁹. On remarquera cependant que toute une série d’éléments se répondent autour du v. 12: •

•

•

Les vv. 11, 12 et 13 proposent autant de comparaisons introduites par ‫כ‬, «comme», et contiennent chaque fois la reprise d’un même terme dans chacun des deux stiques. C’est le seul élément triple du psaume. On remarquera que les vv. 11 et 13 se terminent l’un et l’autre par la même expression ‫על־יראיו‬, «sur ceux qui le craignent». Autour de ce noyau qui dit la loyauté, le pardon et la tendresse de Yhwh, les vv. 10 et 14 se répondent, car on y retrouve chaque fois le même «nous», comme au v. 12, «centre du centre» de tout le psaume. Si Yhwh ne nous traite pas comme le mériteraient nos péchés (v. 10), c’est parce qu’il sait notre condition fragile (v. 14). Cet ensemble est lui-même encadré par les vv. 8–9 et 15–16, qui parlent respectivement des limites de la colère divine et de la brièveté de la vie de

8 Avec Dion, Psalm 103, 23. 9 On trouvera un aperçu de diverses propositions dans Allen, Psalms 101–150, 21.

296 

•

 Jacques Vermeylen

l’homme. Au «pas pour toujours» répond «comme l’herbe sont ses jours». De la même manière que le v. 9 est lié au v. 10 (même double négation), le début du v. 16 est lié au v. 14 (même ‫כי‬, «oui», «car»). Enfin, le cadre extérieur est formé par les vv. 6–7 et 17–18, qui disent chaque fois les dispositions généreuses de Yhwh à l’égard des siens («pour tous les opprimés», v. 6, trouve son correspondant au v. 18: «pour ceux qui gardent son Alliance et pour…») et, en particulier, à l’égard des «fils». De même, les justices (‫ )צדקות‬du v. 6 correspondent à la justice (‫ )צדקה‬du v. 17. Le v. 6 s’ouvre et le v. 18 s’achève par le même verbe ‫עשה‬, «faire». Notons en outre que le même verbe ‫ עשה‬se trouve au v. 10, alors que le v. 18 est lié au v. 14 par le même motif du souvenir (‫)זכר‬.

À l’intérieur du cadre principal, nous avons donc sept sections qui s’organisent autour d’un cœur formé par les vv. 11–13. Tout cela peut être visualisé par le tableau suivant, grâce auquel on peut encore observer diverses correspondances «transversales».

1 2 3 4 5 6

I

7 8

II

9 10

III

11

IV

12 13

Bénis Yhwh, mon être, et tout mon intérieur, son Nom de sainteté ! Bénis Yhwh, mon être, et n’oublie pas tous ses prix: lui qui pardonne toutes tes perversions, lui qui guérit toutes tes maladies, lui qui rachète de la tombe ta vie, lui qui te couronne de loyauté et de tendresse, lui qui rassasie de bien ton (avidité): elle se renouvelle comme l’aigle, ta jeunesse. Ouvrier de justices [est] Yhwh et de jugements pour tous les opprimés. Il a fait connaître ses chemins pour Moïse, et pour les fils d’Israël ses actions. Tendre et généreux [est] Yhwh, lent à la colère et grand en loyauté. Pas pour-toujours il ne conteste et pas à jamais il ne garde [sa colère?]. Pas comme nos péchés il a œuvré pour nous et pas comme nos perversions il n’a imposé-le-prix sur nous. Oui COMME sont élevés les cieux au-dessus de la terre, élevée est sa loyauté au-dessus de ceux qui le craignent. COMME l’Orient est éloigné de l’Occident, il a fait éloigner de nous nos crimes. COMME un père fait tendresse à ses fils, Yhwh fait tendresse à ceux qui le craignent.

Quand la structure révèle un sens 

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22

 297

V

Oui lui, il connaît notre façonnage, il se souvient que nous sommes poussière. VI Le mortel, COMME l’herbe sont ses jours; COMME la fleur du champ, ainsi il fleurit. Oui un souffle passe sur lui, et il n’est plus, et son lieu ne le reconnaît plus. VII Mais la loyauté de Yhwh [est] de toujours à toujours sur ceux qui le craignent et sa justice pour les fils des fils pour ceux qui gardent son Alliance et pour ceux qui se souviennent de ses préceptes pour les œuvrer. Yhwh dans les cieux fait fixer son trône et sa royauté, sur tout elle gouverne. Bénissez Yhwh, ses messagers, héros de force, ouvriers de sa Parole, [pour écouter la voix de sa Parole].   Bénissez Yhwh, toutes ses armées, ses serviteurs, ouvriers de sa volonté.   Bénissez Yhwh, toutes ses œuvres en tous lieux de son gouvernement. [Bénis Yhwh, mon être.]

4 L’architecture du Ps 33 La structure du Ps 33 a fait l’objet de plusieurs études, dont les résultats sont assez divergents. Un élément fait cependant l’unanimité des critiques: le poème est encadré par les vv. 1–3 (appel adressé à un groupe, invité à célébrer Yhwh) et 20–22 (confession et appel en «nous» adressé à Yhwh). La structure du corps du psaume (vv. 4–19), à l’intérieur de ce cadre, est moins évidente. Rappelons quelques propositions: •

Jean-Michel Vincent¹⁰ commence par attirer l’attention sur «le caractère lapidaire, saccadé, presque aphoristique»¹¹ du psaume, qui se présente comme une composition anthologique¹², mais aussi sur l’emploi d’un stock

10 Vincent, Recherches, 442–454. 11 Vincent, Recherches, 444 12 Voir déjà Deissler, Der anthologische Charakter, 225–233. Les vv. 5b et 12a sont identiques au Ps 119,64a et au Ps 144,15b, respectivement. Quant au v. 20b, il est très proche du Ps 115,9b.10b. Comme les Ps 115 et 144 ont eux-mêmes un caractère anthologique marqué, on hésitera à parler d’une dépendance littéraire dans un sens ou dans un autre; les éléments communs peuvent avoir été puisés dans les expressions stéréotypées d’un même milieu.

298 

•

•

•

•

 Jacques Vermeylen

de couples stéréotypés de mots, de phrases stéréotypées et de chaînes de mots traditionnelles. Il repère pas moins de 21 termes qui sont utilisés au moins deux fois. À l’intérieur du cadre, il distingue cinq sections: les vv. 4–5, puis quatre strophes disposées d’une manière symétrique quant à leurs longueurs respectives: vv. 6–9 (4 distiques); vv. 10–12 (3 distiques); vv. 13–15 (3 distiques); vv. 16–19 (4 distiques). Le poème culmine avec les vv. 18–19, qui explicitent le v. 12. Cependant les vv. 4–5 se trouvent en dehors de la symétrie, ce qui affaiblit cette proposition. Marc Girard¹³ présente ainsi le résultat de son analyse: «Place à la musique (vv. 1–3), pour célébrer le Dieu de la création (vv. 4–9), de l’alliance (vv. 10–12) et du salut (vv. 13–19) ! Voilà qui résume le Ps 33, cet hymne qui se termine en vantant le mérite de l’attente confiante (vv. 20–22)»¹⁴. Nous aurions donc une structure concentrique, autour d’un noyau formé par les vv. 10–12¹⁵. Ce noyau comporterait deux volets antithétiques (vv. 10 et 11–12). Hans-Peter Mathys¹⁶ envisage ainsi la structure des vv. 4–19: – vv. 4–12: la seigneurie de Yhwh a) sur la Création (vv. 4–9) b) sur l’histoire (vv. 10–12) – vv. 13–19: l’agir humain et de l’action divine correspondante a) le contrôle divin de l’activité humaine (vv. 13–15) b) l’action divine (vv. 16–19). Erich Zenger¹⁷ oppose deux objections à cette solution: la fonction des vv. 4–5 manque de clarté, car ces versets développent un thème distinct des vv. 6–9; d’autre part le lien des vv. 13–19 avec le programme d’ensemble du psaume n’a rien d’évident. Pour Markus Witte¹⁸, le corps du psaume comprend un cadre extérieur (vv. 4–5 et 18–19) qui exalte Yhwh comme un Dieu digne de confiance, d’abord comme un principe, puis dans le concret du salut qu’il apporte. À l’intérieur de ce cadre, nous aurions deux sections comprenant chaque fois deux strophes de trois distiques (vv. 6–8.9–11.12–14.15–17). L’auteur résume son propos par un plan:

13 Girard, Les Psaumes (1984), 260–266; je n’ai malheureusement pas pu consulter la nouvelle version de cette analyse par le même auteur dans Les Psaumes redécouverts, t. 1, 564–578 (1996). 14 Girard, Les Psaumes (1984), 266. 15 Voir dans la même ligne Lohfink, Die Bundesformel, 84–116. 16 Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 251–256. Kraus, Psalmen, t. 1, 261, propose le même découpage du texte. 17 Zenger, ‘Es sei deine Liebe’, 350–361, spéc. 352–353. 18 Witte, Das neue Lied, 522–541, spéc. 523–525.

Quand la structure révèle un sens 

A B C D D’ C’ B’ A’

•

•

Vv. 1–3 Vv. 4–5 Vv. 6–8 Vv. 9–11 Vv. 12–14 Vv. 15–17 Vv. 18–19 Vv. 20–22

 299

Introduction: triple appel à louer Yhwh Cadre: Yhwh est digne de confiance – la parole de Yhwh L’action de Yhwh dans la Création L’action de Yhwh dans l’histoire L’action de Yhwh dans l’histoire L’action de Yhwh dans la Création et l’histoire Cadre: Yhwh est digne de confiance – l’œil de Yhwh Conclusion: triple confession de confiance en Yhwh

Le psaume serait une longue méditation théologique qui relie l’expérience historique, l’expérience présente et l’espérance; il faut le lire comme un hymne eschatologique. Le temps ne serait pas d’abord à comprendre dans sa chronologie, mais plutôt comme un espace où Yhwh agit. Zenger¹⁹ attire cependant l’attention sur trois problèmes: Witte sous-estime la valeur programmatique des vv. 4–5; la césure qu’il place entre le v. 11 et le v. 12 ne tient pas compte du lien entre le v. 10 et le v. 12; la demande finale du v. 22 est trop peu considérée. Pierre Auffret a consacré à la structure du Ps 33 non moins de trois études détaillées²⁰. Comme il s’est lui-même corrigé, je ne reprendrai ici que sa dernière proposition. Le texte du psaume se présenterait comme «une série de vagues se couvrant les unes les autres, les thèmes se couvrant de façon continue et serrée»²¹. Ainsi, les vv. 4–9 sont parallèles aux vv. 9–11, les vv. 11–15 aux vv. 13–18 et les vv. 18–20a aux vv. 20–21. Il ne faudrait donc pas chercher des sections séparées, mais plutôt considérer le psaume comme une sorte de méditation continue, où les mêmes thèmes se reprennent et se prolongent. Plusieurs auteurs divisent le corps du psaume en deux parties: vv. 4–11 et 12–19²² ou 4–12 et 13–19²³.

19 Zenger, ‘Es sei deine Liebe’, 354–355. 20 Auffret, Hymnes d’Egypte, 55–73; Id., ‘Les pensées de son cœur’, 47–69; Id., ‘Rendez grâce’, 85–100. 21 Auffret, ‘Rendez grâce’, 100. 22 Ainsi, Gilbert, Les louanges, 126; Tromp, Psalmen 1–50, 192. Gilbert souligne que le début du v. 12 forme exactement le centre du psaume et que la deuxième partie, qui a la même longueur que la première, commence par une béatitude, comme les psaumes alphabétiques 1, 112 et 119. Terrien, The Psalms, 297, divise le corps du psaume en quatre strophes (vv. 4–7.8–11.12–15.16– 19). Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 143–144, et Lorenzin, I Salmi, 152–153, proposent la même structure, mais ils joignent curieusement le v. 4 à l’introduction. 23 Ainsi, Limburg, Psalms, 105–108. À l’appui d’une césure entre les vv. 12 et 13, on remarquera que 4QPsq a espace plus grand après le v. 12.

300 

•

 Jacques Vermeylen

Erich Zenger²⁴ attire l’attention sur le v. 22. Le psaume se termine par une demande qui renvoie aux vv. 5 et 18–19 (‫חסד‬, «loyauté» et ‫יחל‬, «attendre, espérer»), mais se trouve en tension avec ce qui précède: seul ce verset utilise le «tu» adressé à Yhwh, et le psalmiste demande ce qu’il considérait comme acquis au v. 5. Le «nous» qui prie est le groupe des «justes» du v. 1.

La variété de ces propositions²⁵ montre que la structure du psaume n’est pas évidente, alors que toute son interprétation lui est liée. C’est ici que le parallèle avec le Ps 103 est intéressant, car il suggère une belle solution. Les deux textes sont caractérisés par leur cadre extérieur développé (33,1–3.20–22; 103,1–5.19–22). Le Ps 103 est construit autour d’une partie centrale (vv. 11–13), qui en résume le propos. N’en irait-il pas de même pour le Ps 33? Précisément, on trouve au milieu du psaume un groupe de trois versets qui constituent une unité compacte²⁶: le double motif du «plan» et des «pensées» unit et oppose les vv. 10 et 11, tandis que «les nations» et «les peuples» dont Yhwh anéantit les projets au v. 10 s’opposent à «la nation» et au «peuple» qu’il s’est choisi (v. 12). Au centre du psaume se trouve la contemplation du plan de Yhwh, qui demeure d’âge en âge, alors que celui des nations ne tient pas. Cet élément structurant mis en place, nous pouvons considérer les passages intermédiaires, en commençant par les vv. 4–9. Cette section est scandée par les trois mentions de la parole divine (‫ דבר יהוה‬, vv. 4.6; ‫אמר הוא‬, v. 9), dont le psalmiste souligne chaque fois l’efficacité. Cela permet de distinguer trois sous-sections²⁷, placées respectivement sous le signe de la terre (vv. 4–5), des cieux et de la mer (vv. 6–7) et enfin à nouveau de la terre (vv. 8–9). Yhwh exerce sa maîtrise sur tous les domaines du cosmos. Notons que les deux premières strophes sont liées par le motif de l’œuvre (‫מעשהו‬, v. 4; ‫נעשו‬, v. 6) et les deux dernières par leurs références explicites à la Création. La deuxième section intermédiaire (vv. 13–19) compte également trois soussections (vv. 13–15.16–17.18–19)²⁸. Avec le v. 16, le psalmiste change visiblement de sujet. D’autre part, entourant la strophe centrale, les vv. 13–15 et 18–19 parlent du regard de Yhwh sur les humains, tandis qu’il y a opposition entre le non-salut de ceux qui comptent sur leur propre force (vv. 16–17, avec le verbe ‫היציל‬, «délivrer»,

24 Zenger, ‘Es sei deine Liebe’, 355. 25 Je n’ai pas pu consulter Gahler, Gott der Schöpfung. 26 Voir déjà Petersen, Mythos, 103–107. 27 Avec Petersen, Mythos, 104–105. 28 Je m’écarte ici de Petersen, Mythos, 105–106, qui ne distingue que deux sous-sections (vv. 13–15.16–19).

Quand la structure révèle un sens 

 301

v. 16) et le salut de ceux qui espèrent en Yhwh (vv. 18–19, avec le même verbe ‫היציל‬, v. 19). Le mouvement de la section est assez clair: depuis les cieux, Yhwh observe tous les habitants de la terre et discerne leurs œuvres (vv. 13–15); un premier groupe croit pouvoir se sauver par sa grande vigueur, mais il n’échappera pas à son sort, qu’on devine tragique (vv. 16–17); un deuxième groupe compte sur la loyauté de Yhwh et vivra, même s’il doit passer par l’épreuve (vv. 18–19). Tous les habitants du monde étaient invités à craindre Yhwh (‫ירא‬, v. 8); seuls ceux qui sont pénétrés de cette crainte ‫ירא‬, v. 18) vivront; quant à ceux qui ne croient qu’en eux-mêmes, ils ne seront pas sauvés. Nous avons ainsi un psaume admirablement construit autour du v. 11 (pérennité du plan divin), avec à l’intérieur du cadre sept sections²⁹. Les sections I à III montrent la solidité de la parole de Yhwh, qui se manifeste en particulier dans l’ordre de la Création; c’est cette parole qui dit son projet (v. 11). Les sections V à VII disent comment ce projet se réalise, chacune des strophes correspondant à un distique de la section centrale: la section VI correspond au v. 10 (le plan des nations), la section VII au v. 12 (le bonheur de la nation dont Yhwh est le Dieu) et la section V, qui embrasse l’humanité entière, au v. 11 (le projet de Yhwh, avec sa double face négative et positive). En outre, il y a correspondance entre les strophes extrêmes I et VII (motif de la loyauté divine), entre les strophes III et V (tous les habitants du monde ou de la terre), entre les strophes I et V (motifs de la terre et de l’œuvre ou des oeuvres), entre les strophes II et VI (références implicites à Ex 14–15)³⁰ et entre les strophes III et VII (motif de la crainte de Yhwh). Tout cela peut être visualisé par une traduction littérale et structurée du texte:

29 Chaque section compte deux distiques, avec cependant deux exceptions. La section IV, au centre, compte trois distiques, comme les éléments du cadre extérieur; il fallait un nombre impair pour qu’il y ait une phrase au centre. D’autre part, il fallait que le psaume compte 22 distiques, ce qui obligeait à allonger une autre strophe, en l’occurrence la strophe V. L’auteur du Ps 103 a rencontré le même problème, et il a choisi d’allonger la première partie du cadre extérieur. 30 On lit au v. 7 ‫כנס כנד מי הים‬, «il rassemble comme une digue les eaux de la mer». Cette phrase ne reprend pas la formulation et l’image de Gn 1,9, mais celles du cantique de Moïse après le miracle de la mer des Roseaux: «au souffle de tes narines, les eaux s’amoncelèrent, les flots se dressèrent comme une digue (‫( »)כמו נד‬Ex 15,8); on retrouve la même image avec le même mot ‫ נד‬dans le récit du passage du Jourdain au temps de Josué (Jos 3,16). La strophe VI fait elle aussi allusion à l’anéantissement de l’armée de Pharaon, avec la mention du roi (‫מלך‬, v. 16; cf. Ex 14,5.8), de l’armée (‫חיל‬, vv. 16.17; cf. Ex 14,4.9.17.28; 15,4) et du cheval (‫סוס‬, v. 17, cf. Ex 14,9bis.23; 15,1).

302 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

 Jacques Vermeylen

Criez de joie, justes, en Yhwh ! Aux hommes droits convient la louange. Célébrez Yhwh sur la cithare; sur la harpe à dix cordes, jouez pour lui ! Chantez pour lui un chant nouveau, jouez de votre mieux pendant l’ovation ! I Oui, droite est la parole de Yhwh et toute son œuvre est sûre. Il aime la justice et l’équité; de la loyauté de Yhwh la terre est remplie II Par la parole de Yhwh les cieux ont été oeuvrés et par le souffle de sa bouche toute leur armée. Il rassemble comme une digue les eaux de la mer mettant dans des réservoirs les abîmes. III Qu’elle craigne Yhwh toute la terre, que tous les habitants du monde le redoutent: oui, lui il a parlé, et cela fut; lui a commandé, et cela tint debout. IV Yhwh anéantit le PLAN des nations, il a déjoué les PENSÉES des peuples. Le PLAN de Yhwh pour toujours tient debout, les PENSÉES de son cœur d’âge en âge. Heureuse, la nation dont Yhwh est le Dieu, le peuple qu’il s’est choisi pour héritage ! V Des cieux, Yhwh regarde: il voit tous les fils-d’humain. Du lieu de son séjour, il observe tous les habitants de la terre, lui qui leur façonne ensemble leur cœur, lui qui discerne toutes leurs œuvres. VI Pas de roi sauvé par une grande force; un brave n’est pas délivré par une grande force. Mensonge que le cheval pour être sauvé, et dans sa grande force il n’échappera pas. VII Voici: l’œil de Yhwh est vers ceux qui le craignent, vers ceux qui espèrent en sa loyauté, pour sauver de la mort leur être et les faire vivre durant la famine. Notre être attend Yhwh: notre aide et notre bouclier, c’est lui ! Oui, en lui notre cœur se réjouit car en son saint nom nous faisons confiance. Que ta loyauté, Yhwh, soit sur nous comme nous espérons en toi !

Quand la structure révèle un sens 

 303

5 Les architectures comparées des Ps 33 et 103 Des deux côtés, on trouve une structure fondamentale identique: un cadre extérieur invitant surtout à la louange de Yhwh et une longue partie centrale qui parle de Yhwh à la troisième personne. Chaque fois, ce corps du psaume compte sept strophes agencées comme un chandelier, avec au centre (strophe IV) un élément triple qui semble dire le cœur du message. N’y aurait-il pas équivalence ou tout au moins analogie entre la solidité éternelle du plan (‫ )עצה‬de Yhwh (33,11) et le pardon qu’il accorde à ses fidèles (103,12)? Dans le Ps 33, le plan de Yhwh est lié à ses pensées (‫מחשבות‬, v. 11), celles qu’il exprime sans doute par sa parole-événement (‫דבר‬, vv. 4.6), elle-même associée à son œuvre (‫מעשה‬, v. 4). Et quelle est cette œuvre, sinon celle que Yhwh opère en faveur des siens (motif de la ‫חסד‬, v. 5)? Lu à la suite du psaume précédent, comme y invite 32,11, il s’agit du pardon octroyé au pécheur (32,5), pardon manifesté dans un acte de délivrance (32,6–7). Dans cette perspective au moins, les centres des deux psaumes se rejoignent. Les strophes I des deux psaumes ont en commun le motif de la justice exercée par Yhwh (‫ומשפט צדקה‬, 33,5; ‫צדקות…ומשפטים‬, 103,6). Si aucun lien particulier n’est discernable entre les strophes II ou les strophes III, le parallélisme est remarquable pour les strophes V à VII: Ps 33 V

Yhwh connaît la fragilité du groupe (v. 14) VI Celui qui compte sur ses propres forces ne sera pas sauvé (vv. 16–17) VII L’œil de Yhwh est vers ceux qui le craignent pour les délivrer de la mort (vv. 18–19)

Ps 103 Yhwh observe tous les habitants de la terre (vv. 13–15) Le mortel est voué à la disparition (vv. 15–16) La loyauté de Yhwh est sur ceux qui le craignent, pour ceux qui gardent son Alliance (vv. 17–18)

Cette fois, et même si la formulation comprend peu de points communs, le parallélisme est assez clair, avec la même succession: Yhwh connaît les humains, puis le psalmiste dit ce qui arrive à deux groupes: l’un va mourir (ici, Yhwh n’est pas mentionné), mais Yhwh délivre l’autre. On notera l’emploi de la même expression «ceux qui le craignent» en 33,18 et 103,17.

304 

 Jacques Vermeylen

6 Une lecture d’ensemble du Ps 33 Si telle est bien l’architecture du psaume, elle donne des indications importantes pour son interprétation. Au centre de la perspective se trouve le projet de Yhwh (le plan, les pensées, v. 11), dont la nature doit apparaître dans le jeu des parallèles et des oppositions de l’ensemble du texte. À l’intérieur de la strophe IV, ce projet de Yhwh est opposé à celui des nations et des peuples (v. 10), et ceux-ci sont à leur tour opposés à «la nation dont Yhwh est le Dieu, le peuple qu’il s’est choisi pour héritage» (v. 12). Un seul peuple entre dans le projet divin et est déclaré «heureux»; tous les autres peuples ont un projet contraire, et Yhwh les anéantit. Le projet divin tient debout (‫« )תעמד‬pour toujours, d’âge en âge» (v. 11). Les six strophes qui entourent la strophe IV disent comment il se réalise, en envisageant respectivement le passé (I-III) et le présent (V-VII). Ce que Yhwh a fait autrefois, il le fait encore. La strophe III utilise le même verbe ‫עמד‬, «tenir debout», et la phrase parallèle, au v. 9 («il a parlé et cela fut»), reprend la formulation répétée de Gn 1: déjà lors de la Création cosmique, ce que Dieu a dit «fut». La strophe II évoque également la Création, mais elle renvoie aussi à la victoire de la mer des Roseaux (cf. Ex 15,8). Oui, Yhwh tient parole (strophe I). De l’autre côté de l’élément central, le plan de Yhwh s’incarne dans le discernement qu’il opère (strophe V) entre celui qui compte sur ses propre forces (strophe VI) et ceux qui le craignent (strophe VII). Le projet de Yhwh, c’est d’agir en toute loyauté (‫חסד‬, vv. 5.18.22), selon la justice (‫צדקה‬, v. 5), en délivrant de la mort ceux qui espèrent en lui (strophe VII), alors que les autres périssent (strophe VI). L’humanité comprend donc deux groupes. Le premier est désigné comme «le peuple que Yhwh s’est choisi en héritage» (v. 12), expression qui renvoie au lien de l’Alliance. Ce peuple déclaré «heureux» est formé par les «justes» (‫)צדיקים‬ invités à crier de joie au v. 1, ou encore par le «nous» qui attend la protection de Yhwh (v. 20) et met en lui sa confiance (v. 21). En d’autres termes, c’est la communauté célébrante, attachée au Temple et à la Torah. Face à ce groupe, il y a tout le reste de l’humanité, où aucune distinction n’est faite entre païens et juifs oublieux de la Torah: ces derniers font partie des «nations» et des «peuples» dont les projets sont anéantis. La référence à la Création dit moins la production des éléments cosmiques que la victoire du Bien sur le Mal, représenté par les abîmes (‫תהומות‬, v. 7); de même, les allusions à Ex 14–15 renvoient au combat victorieux de Yhwh contre l’Égypte, son roi et ses forces armées. Le plan de Yhwh, aide et bouclier du groupe fidèle (v. 20), consiste à le délivrer d’une menace mortelle (v. 19). Le psalmiste parle d’une famine (v. 19), mais il songe sans doute plus encore à une menace de persécution: il faut être protégé par rapport à un groupe qui semble disposer de la force (cf. v. 16–17).

Quand la structure révèle un sens 

 305

Tout cela fait sans doute référence à une situation concrète. Comme Witte³¹ l’a relevé, les vv. 6–7 ont leurs plus proches parallèles en Si 39,12–35 et 42,15–43,33. On sait par ailleurs que le motif de la crainte de Yhwh (cf. vv. 8.18) tient une grande place dans le même Siracide (1,11–20.27–30; 2,7–10; etc.). Le psalmiste paraît donc appartenir d’une manière ou d’une autre au même monde³², sans doute au début du iie siècle. Jérusalem a été longtemps sous la coupe des Tobiades hellénisés et alliés aux Ptolémée d’Égypte, mais après la victoire d’Antiochos III à Paneion en l’an 200, les Tobiades sont chassés du pouvoir, et c’est le parti des juifs observants liés au Temple et à son grand prêtre qui tient le haut du pavé³³. Le Ps 33 pourrait célébrer cette victoire: Yhwh a fait triompher le groupe de ses fidèles et l’a sauvé de la domination du paganisme !³⁴ L’hymne se termine par une prière de demande (v. 22): les genres littéraires ne doivent pas être considérés comme indépendants les uns des autres. Yhwh a montré sa loyauté. La communauté des justes a été sauvée, mais rien, humainement, n’empêche un nouveau retournement de situation, et c’est pourquoi le psalmiste parle de confiance (v. 21) et d’espérance: encore et toujours, il faut compter sur la loyauté divine.

7 Comment le rapprochement entre les deux psaumes éclaire le Ps 103 Au centre du Ps 103 se trouve la proclamation du pardon que Yhwh accorde à la communauté de ses fidèles. La teneur de l’ensemble est assez claire. Les vv. 15–16, cependant, sont susceptibles de deux interprétations opposées. Ces versets parlent du «mortel» (‫אנוש‬, v. 15) qui fleurit comme la fleur des champs mais que le souffle de Yhwh va faire disparaître ou peut faire disparaître. De qui ces versets parlent-ils? Du groupe «nous», ou de ses ennemis? •

Le groupe «nous» vient de dire qu’il est poussière (‫עפר‬, v. 14), ce qui renvoie à Gn 2,7 et 3,19: l’humain, formé avec de la poussière (‫ )עפר‬retournera à la

31 Witte, Das neue Lied, 538. 32 Cf. Oeming, Das Buch der Psalmen, 194. Witte, Das neue Lied, 540, préfère parler d’un «prédécesseur du Siracide». 33 Voir notamment Sasse, Geschichte Israels, 128–135. 34 La double référence à Ex 14–15 prend ici un sens précis: l’ennemi, c’est le roi d’Égypte Ptolémée V, battu par Antiochos III.

306 

•

 Jacques Vermeylen

poussière au moment de sa mort. À première lecture, le mortel des vv. 15–16 n’est autre que le groupe «nous», auquel Yhwh donne son pardon: ce groupe devait s’attendre à mourir à cause de son péché, mais Yhwh lui donne de vivre malgré tout. Tel est l’effet concret du pardon qu’il accorde. Le ‫ ו‬du début du v. 17 soulignerait le contraste entre la brièveté de la vie humaine, même pour le groupe «nous», et l’éternité de la loyauté (‫ )חסד‬de Yhwh, qui reste fidèle à son engagement d’Alliance. Cette interprétation peut aussi s’appuyer sur le parallèle avec le Ps 90,2–6, où le groupe («nous») qui s’adresse à Yhwh semble s’identifier au «mortel» (‫אנוש‬, v. 3) dont la vie est aussi courte que celle de l’herbe qui fleurit le matin et sèche le soir. D’autre part, les images des vv. 15–16 reviennent ailleurs à propos des impies, persécuteurs des justes. Au Ps 92,8–11, les hors-la-Loi (‫ )רשעים‬ou les malfaisants fleurissent (‫ )ציץ‬comme l’herbe, mais c’est pour être abattus à jamais, alors que Yhwh est élevé pour l’éternité; la même opposition figure au Ps 103,15–17, avec le même verbe ‫ציץ‬. On peut lire dans une perspective voisine plusieurs passages sans doute très tardifs du livre de Job, qui soulignent combien le «mortel» (‫ )אנוש‬est insignifiant devant Dieu (4,17–20; 15,14–16; 22,2; 25,4–6). Le Siracide oppose, lui aussi, la grandeur sublime de Dieu et le néant de l’homme, dont la vie est brève (18,1–14). Dans cette littérature «antihumaniste», le mortel est par lui-même un être pécheur, corrompu, dénué de sagesse et éphémère. Dans la même ligne, le Ps 103,16b («son ‫ מקום‬ne le reconnaît plus») trouve son meilleur parallèle dans le discours de Bildad à propos de l’impie en Jb 8,18: «Si on l’arrache de son lieu (‫)מקום‬, celui-ci le renie: ‘je ne t’ai pas vu’».

Les vv. 15–16 du Ps 103 peuvent se lire dans les deux perspectives, et la correspondance avec les vv. 8–9 ne permet pas de trancher. Les nombreux points communs entre les Ps 33 et 103 ne prouvent pas qu’ils ont le même auteur, mais ils s’expliqueraient avec peine s’ils ne provenaient pas du même milieu producteur. Dans cette hypothèse, le parallélisme entre les strophes V, VI et VII des deux psaumes invite à prendre au sérieux la seconde possibilité, sans pour autant en donner la preuve formelle: il y a opposition entre le sort du «mortel» qui va vite disparaître (vv. 15–16) et celui des hommes qui craignent Yhwh et bénéficient de sa loyauté «de toujours à toujours» (vv. 17–18).

Quand la structure révèle un sens 

 307

8 Conclusion: quand la structure révèle un sens Les études portant sur l’architecture des textes bibliques s’en tiennent le plus souvent à une vision que je qualifierais d’«esthétique», car elles invitent à admirer les subtilités d’un agencement qui a son harmonie. En effet, les écrivains de la Bible avaient un réel talent littéraire, un talent qui tient parfois du génie, et il est heureux de s’en rendre compte. Cependant la forme et le contenu sont inséparables, et l’architecture confère au texte un relief; en d’autres termes, elle est porteuse d’un sens. Dans plus d’un cas, l’examen de la structure est un élément essentiel de l’interprétation. C’est ce que je pense avoir montré à propos des Ps 33 et 103.

Bibliographie Allen, Leslie C., Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983. Auffret, Pierre, Hymnes d’Egypte et d’Israël. Études de structures littéraires (OBO 34), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Auffret, Pierre, ‘Les pensées de son cœur’. Étude structurelle du Ps 33: Science et Esprit 39 (1987) 47–69. Auffret, Pierre, Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 103: Folia Orientalia 23 (1986) 197–225. Auffret, Pierre, Un père envers des fils. Nouvelle étude structurelle du Psaume 103: Theoforum 37 (2006) 25–43. Auffret, Pierre, ‘Rendez grâce à Yhwh avec la harpe’. Étude structurelle du Ps 33: Estudios Bíblicos 57 (2009) 85–100. Böckler, Annette, Gott als Vater im Alten Testament. Traditionsgeschichliche Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung eines Gottesbildes, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 2000. Deissler, Alfons, Der anthologische Charakter des Psalmes 33 (32), dans: Georges Couteneau et al., Mélanges bibliques, rédigés en l’honneur d’André Robert (Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 4), Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957, 225–233. Dion, Paul-Eugène, Psalm 103: A Meditation on the ‘Ways’ of the Lord: Église et Théologie 21 (1990) 13–32, spéc. 19–29. Fokkelman, Jan, Psalm 103: Design, Boundaries, and Mergers, dans: Bob Becking – Eric Peels (dir.), Psalms and Prayers. Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn August 2006 (OTS 55), Leiden – Boston, MA: Brill, 2007, 109–118. Gahler, Sabine, Gott der Schöpfung – Gott des Heils. Untersuchungen zum anthologischen Psalm 33 (EHS XXIII. Théologie 649), Francfort: Peter Lang, 1998. Gerstenberger, Erhard S., Psalms. Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14/1), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Gilbert, Maurice, Les louanges du Seigneur. Commentaire pastoral et spirituel des psaumes du dimanche et des fêtes, Paris: Edime International, 1991.

308 

 Jacques Vermeylen

Girard, Marc, Les Psaumes 1–50. Analyse structurale et interprétation (Recherches. Nouvelle Série 2), Montréal: Bellarmin, 1984, 260–266. Girard, Marc, Les Psaumes redécouverts. De la structure au sens, t. 3, 101–150, Montréal: Bellarmin, 1994. Girard, Marc, Les Psaumes redécouverts. De la structure au sens, t. 1, 1–50, Montréal: Bellarmin 1996. Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalmen (BK. Altes Testament 15), t. 1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1966. Limburg, James, Psalms (Westminster Bible Companion), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Lohfink, Norbert, Die Bundesformel in Psalm 33, dans: Norbert Lohfink – Erich Zenger (dir.), Der Gott Israels und die Völker. Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (SBS 154), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994, 84–116. Lorenzin, Tiziano, I Salmi. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I libri biblici. Primo Testamento 14), Milan: Paoline, 2000. Mathys, Hans-Peter, Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Metzger, Martin, Lobpreis der Gnade. Erwägungen zu Struktur und Inhalt von Psalm 103, dans: Manfred Weippert – Stefan Timm (éds.), Meilenstein. Festgabe für Herbert Donner zum 16. Februar 1995 (Ägypten und Altes Testament 30), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995 121–133 (repris dans Martin, Metzger, Schöpfung, Thron und Heiligtum. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments [Biblisch-theologische Studien 57], Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003, 188–209). Oeming, Manfred, Das Buch der Psalmen. Psalm 1–41 (NSK. Altes Testament, 13/1), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. Petersen, Claus, Mythos im Alten Testament. Bestimmung des Mythosbegriffs und Untersuchung der mythischen Elemente in den Psalmen (BZAW 157), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. Sasse, Markus, Geschichte Israels in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels. Historische Ereignisse. Archäologie. Sozialgeschichte. Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004. Spieckermann, Hermann, Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr…: ZAW 102 (1990) 1–18. Terrien, Samuel, The Psalms. Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Tromp, Nicholas J., Psalmen 1–50 (Belichting van het Bijbelboek), s’Hertogenbosch – Leuven: Katholieke Bijbelstichting – Vlaamse Bijbelstichting, 2000. Vincent, Jean Marcel, Recherches exégétiques sur le Psaume xxxiii: VT 28 (1978) 442–454. Witte, Markus, Das neue Lied – Beobachtungen zum Zeitverständnis von Psalm 33: ZAW 114 (2002) 522–541, spéc. 523–525. Zenger, Erich, ‘Es sei deine Liebe, JHWH, über uns!’ Beobachtungen zu Aufbau und Theologie von Psalm 33, dans: Reinhard Achenbach – Martin Arneth (éds.), Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie: Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAR 13), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009, 350–361, spéc. 352–353.

Ambrogio Spreafico

Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 Ambrogio Spreafico: Bishop of Frosinone-Veroli-Ferentino, Italy

1 Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible Melchizedek appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, in Gen 14:18 and in Ps 110:4. His importance is due to the role Melchizedek has in the New Testament, namely, in the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 5–7)¹: Christ’s priesthood has its foundations in Ps 110:4. As happens in the case of several biblical characters, we know very little of him, only that he was king of Salem and a priest of ‫( אל עליון‬God Most High, Gen 14:18). The name Melchizedek, in Hebrew ‫מלכי צדק‬, indicates without doubt a religious Phoenician and Canaanite origin as it means “my king is ‫”צדק‬, and ‫צדק‬ is a well-known divinity in the Phoenician pantheon². The connection between Gen 14:18 and Ps 110:4 (Ps 109:4LXX) is clear as in both texts Melchizedek is the central character. In Gen 14:18–20, he is the kingpriest who offers “bread and wine”, which means “food and drink”³ for Abram and his 318 servant-soldiers (v. 14), who have just defeated a group of invading kings (vv. 1.9). In Ps 110:4, Yhwh pronounces an oracle in favour of an unknown king, who is simply called ‫“ אדני‬my Lord”, to whom is promised amongst other things the eternal (‫ )לעולם‬priesthood, in accordance with Melchizedek’s words. It would appear clear that Psalm 110 depends on the text in Genesis and not vice versa, as often believed⁴. But the most important problem is their historical setting: were these texts created to legitimise King David and the Jerusalem priesthood (in conflict with

1 Cf. Manzi, Melkizedeq e l’angelologia: Melchizedek is mentioned in Heb 5:6.10; 6:20; 7:1.10– 17. 2 For evidence in the Ancient Near East, cf. van der Toorn (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons, 929–934, esp. 931–932. 3 Cf. Soggin, Das Buch Genesis, 233. The author suggests translating with “Speisen und Getränke”, an expression which is also found in 1QapGen ar XXII,15 where one can read mkl wmšth “food and drink” instead of the Hebrew leḥem wāyāyîn. For the text of the apocryphon, cf. García Martínez – Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 47; for a commentary, cf. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 108–109. 4 Cf. Nel, Psalm 110, 1–14, esp. 7–8; von Nordheim, Geboren von der Morgenröte?; Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek, 173.179; for a recent review of Granerød, cf. Prato, Review, 407–412.

310 

 Ambrogio Spreafico

Bethel) or, as is frequently maintained, were the two texts written to legitimise the Hasmonean priesthood, unique examples of kings of Israel who concentrated both political and priestly power in their hands? Our research centres on this second hypothesis.

2 Psalm 110 We start by looking at the text of Ps 110⁵, even if the present study focuses in particular on v. 4. The expression ‫ נאם יהוה‬of v. 1 has a particular meaning as it transforms the Psalm into a prophetic oracle. In fact, we can find it only in the prophetic books (in Isa, 25 times; in Jer, 175 times; in Ezek, 85 times; in Amos, 21 times; in Hag, 12 times; in Zech, 20 times); out of the 376 expressions referring to Yhwh, 356 are in a prophetic context⁶. In Qumran, in the non-biblical texts, one of 6 references has ‫ )נאם אל( אל‬and two create the expression ⁷‫נאם יהוה צבאות‬. In the Psalms this expression is present only in the one being discussed and it is relevant to inquire what the meaning of this uniqueness is. The effect is to transform a Psalm into a prophetic saying. Here is the translation of the Hebrew text of v. 4: “The Lord (Yhwh) has sworn and does not repent (‫)ינּחם‬, you are a priest for eternity on the word (‫ )על־דברתי‬of Melchizedek”. The most important textual problem is the expression ‫( על־דברתי‬literally “on my word”) that clashes with one of the most basic rules of Hebrew morphology: in a construct chain the governing noun cannot have a suffix⁸. To overcome this morphological and syntactic difficulty some scholars believe that the final y is a hireq compaginis⁹; accordingly, the expression ‫ על־דברתי‬is interpreted as a preposition ‫ על‬+ construct of the noun ‫דברה‬¹⁰, “word” being provided with a hireq compaginis, something which is well known and explained in Semitic morphology¹¹.

5 This text has undergone detailed morphological and syntactical analysis, which limits the need to repeat what others have already explained (cf. esp. Fitzmyer, Melchizedek, 63–69; Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek, 196–205). 6 Andersen – Forbes, Vocabulary, 370. 7 For evidence from Qumran, cf. Abegg (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, vol. 2, 501. 8 Joüon-Muraoka, § 129a. 9 Joüon-Muraoka, § 93l. 10 Morphologically this should be a female noun derived from dābār, “word” and the vocalisation should be debārāh, cf. Köhler – Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, vol. I, s.v. dibārāh. 11 Cf. also Waltke – O’Connor, An Introduction, § 8.2e.

Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 

 311

This hireq compaginis overcomes the obstacle of a noun with a suffix followed by a complement of specification, but does not clarify the expression: the meaning of “on the word of Melchizedek” is still quite unclear! In the light of Aramaic, others prefer to give to this expression a causal value¹². For V. Hamp this expression is widely used in Aramaic and it means “because of, regarding, for the will of”¹³. According to this interpretation, in Ps 110:4, God based the king’s priesthood on Melchizedek’s will. This interpretation is not in line with the context either. To find an appropriate meaning for this really difficult expression, it is preferable to follow the old interpretations. The LXX translates the Jewish expression with κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, “according to the order, the disposition”, expressed exactly by VL and Vg with secundum ordinem. In the Peshitta, however, the Hebrew is translated with bdmwth, “in his likeness”. The expression in the Syriac version has an interesting witness in Heb 7:15, where Christ is described as a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (ὁμοιότητα Μελχισέδεκ), a truth that the author (v. 17) bases on Ps 110:4: “you are a priest of the order (τάξιν) of Melchizedek”¹⁴. Traditionally the Psalm, provided with the superscription (‫)לדוד מזמור‬¹⁵, is interpreted as an oracle with which God grants the recipient royalty and priesthood. The problem is how to define the recipient. Most scholars believe that the aim was to recognize David (king and priest) in his role of heir of the religion practised in pre-Jewish Jerusalem¹⁶. Others believe this text could have been created to confer on David’s house both royalty and priesthood; there are several reasons that justify this innovation. David, anointed king instead of Saul (1 Sam 16:13) by Samuel, owed his good fortune to the rejection of Saul by Yhwh, because he, Saul, had usurped the priesthood (1 Sam 13:9–15)¹⁷. This way, thanks to the divine oracle, David and his legacy would not face this danger any more!

12 Cf. Clines, Dictionary, vol. 2, 412; Hamp, Ps 104,4b und die Septuaginta, 519–529, esp. 521; Rooke, Kingship as Priesthood, 187–208, esp. 197: the expression means “because of”. 13 Hamp, Ps 104,4b und die Septuaginta, 521; cf. also Beyer, Die aramäische Texte, esp. 547; the expression ‘l dbrt dy means “why”. 14 Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek, 199. 15 Normally this is ‫( מזמור לדוד‬cf. Pss 3–6; 8–9; 15; 23; 29 etc.); here the expression indicates not the author but the recipient of the divine promise, cf. Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 138–156, esp. 142. 16 Cf. Nel, Psalm 110, esp. 6. This is an attempt to link David’s house to the cult of Mount Zion. 17 Regarding the reasons which led to the deposition of Saul, the biblical story is quite confused; Samuel announces to Saul the rejection by God for a first time in 1 Sam 13:14 for having taken over the priestly ministry, and a second time in 1 Sam 15:16–23 for not having followed the order to destroy (ḥerem) the Amalekites and their plunder.

312 

 Ambrogio Spreafico

Even if the context of Ps 110:4 is unclear, this text certainly confirms the promise made by divine oath that David has received from God the priesthood “forever”¹⁸, hence in an irrevocable way! It is clear that this text highlights a key part of the story: while Samuel, as mentioned above, had deprived Saul of his regal role and David and Solomon had removed Abiathar to replace him with Zadok, the king is now king and priest at the same time. This interpretation however does not fit the historical context given by the Deuteronomistic History of David’s and Solomon’s kingdom. In reality, following the biblical tradition, David built a priestly class (1 Chronicles 23), but there is no evidence of a king who had assumed priestly responsibilities¹⁹. We must also underline that, excluding the deposition of Saul by Samuel, there is no other dethroned king. Therefore, the promise of an “eternal” priesthood looks meaningless if referred to the preexilic monarchy. As will be developed hereafter, rather than to David, the psalm seems applicable to the Hasmonean kingdom, when royalty and priesthood were brought together in the same person at the time of Simon the Maccabee, and, in a more stable way, at the time of John Hyrcanus.

3 Genesis 14:18–20 The text of Genesis 14 has always created great exegetical problems, especially the difficulty of harmonizing it with the Abramitic tradition²⁰. Abram as a brave warrior, ready to fight along with 318 servants transformed into a strong army, does not fit with the character in Gen 12:11–15, in which the patriarch, fearing Pharaoh, is ready even to give up his wife Sarah. The historical value of the information in the biblical text has been discussed for a long time and until some decades ago it was believed to contain an ancient historical nucleus. Nowadays we consider the biblical story to have no historical weight and even to be of recent creation²¹. In any case, regarding the composi-

18 As we will see hereafter, this is the same expression we find in 1 Macc 14:35 regarding the High Priesthood given to Simon the Maccabee. 19 For the priesthood in the monarchical period cf. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 84; Grabbe, Priests, Prophets Diviners, Sages, 44–45; Zwickel, Priesthood, 413–415. 20 Cf. in this regard, Ska, Essai sur la nature, 152–177, esp. 170–171. 21 For the story of the research on the text, cf. Schatz, Genesis 14, 13–62; Manzi, Melkisedeq e l’angelologia; Nel, Psalm 110; Römer, Genèse 15, 107–121.

Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 

 313

tion of the text, several elements create some uncertainty²². The scene initially seems to be focused on Abram meeting the king of Sodom, and then it introduces Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest²³. According to W. Brueggemann, it seems that the story was aimed at legitimizing Zadok as priest of David (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Kgs 1:8); in other words, the text “is placed here to serve the interests of the Davidic establishment. The effect would be to relate Israel to earlier Canaanite cultic practices and also to the memories of Abraham to an upstart regime”²⁴. Obviously this is a theory that needs to be demonstrated. Surely, God as creator of heaven and earth goes back to one of the oldest names of El, connected with Ugaritic mythology. I quote the pericope in question (Gen 14:17–24) according to the RSV, highlighting in italics vv. 18–20 which refer to Abram meeting Melchizedek: 17

After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; 20and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. 21And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.” 22But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, 23that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ 24I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me; let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share”.

Nearly 40 years ago Emerton²⁵ already claimed that Gen 14:18–20, which describes Abram meeting with Melchizedek, had been added to break up the story. As a matter of fact this pericope interrupts the description of Abram meeting the king of Sodom, to the extent that, if we read the biblical text without vv. 18–20 (above in italics), the story is very coherent. 17

After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 21And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.”

22 Cf. Brueggemann, Genesis, 134–135: the name of God ‫ אל עליון‬creates several problems; on the one hand this can be considered a divine name, even of Canaanite origin, on the other hand nowadays we are more cautious in recognizing its archaic origin. 23 It is surprising that the king of Sodom was not also mentioned as “priest”, if, as is often suggested, the priesthood was among the royal assignments. 24 Brueggemann, Genesis, 135. 25 Emerton, Some False Clues, 24–47; Id., Some Problems, 73–102.

314 

 Ambrogio Spreafico

22

But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, 23that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, lest you should say, “I have made Abram rich.” 24I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me; let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.

If vv. 18–20 are re-introduced, not only is the story interrupted, but also a clear contradiction emerges. While Abram gives the tithe to Melchizedek –at least following the traditional interpretation– thus keeping the rest of the war-chest, he seems to say to the king of Sodom that he does not want to take anything: I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, 23that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, lest you should say, “I have made Abram rich.” 24I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me; let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.

Apart from these internal reasons, the comparison with the parallel passage in the Book of Jubilees leads one to believe that vv. 18–20 of Genesis 14 are a late introduction. The apocryphal witness is very interesting because it is dated to the mid-II century BC. On this topic, there is no generally-accepted view amongst researchers, but the opinion of J.C. VanderKam is widely shared. It gives the period between 160 and 150 as the most likely time of composition²⁶. Contrary to what is supposed by VanderKam²⁷, Kugel nevertheless believes that the original draft of the work was changed by an interpolator who, through short sentences easily recognized by the stereotyped wording, such as the one referring to the norms “written on celestial tablets”, attributed instructions coded in the Sinai covenant to the patriarchal age²⁸. The interest of the text in Jubilees for the present inquiry is that in chapter 13 the legend of Abram at war with the oriental kings is described omitting the meeting between Abram and Melchizedek. This is the relevant part: And in this year came Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Amraphel, king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Sellasar, and Tergal, king of nations, and slew the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Sodom fled, and many fell through wounds in the vale of Siddim, by the Salt Sea. And they took captive Sodom and Adam and Zeboim, and they took captive Lot also, the son of Abram’s brother, and all his possessions, and they went to Dan. And one who had escaped came and told Abram that his brother’s son had been taken captive and (Abram)

26 VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 21. 27 VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 17. 28 Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 11–12; cf. also Segal, The Book of Jubilees, 323–324.

Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 

 315

armed his household servants […]. […] for Abram, and for his seed, a tenth of the first fruits to the Lord, and the Lord ordained it as an ordinance for ever that they should give it to the priests who served before Him, that they should possess it for ever. And to this law there is no limit of days; for He had ordained it for the generations for ever that they should give to the Lord the tenth of everything, of the seed and of the wine and of the oil and of the cattle and of the sheep. And He gave (it) unto His priests to eat and to drink with joy before Him. And the king of Sodom came to him and bowed himself before him, and said: “Our Lord Abram, give unto us the souls which thou had rescued, but let the booty be yours.” And Abram said to him: “I lift up my hands to the Most High God, that from a thread to a shoelatchet I shall not take aught that is yours lest you should say, I have made Abram rich; save only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me –Aner, Eschol, and Mamre. These shall take their portion” (Jubilees XIII,22–29)²⁹.

As we can see, the author of Jubilees transforms the story of Genesis in the sense that Abram and his priest lineage become recipients of the tithes. Even if the text of the Bible is not explicit about this, according to the tradition of the Letter to the Hebrews (7:4–7), it was Abram who gave the tithe to Melchizedek. The most interesting thing for our research is, however, the fact that Jubilees does not mention the meeting between Abram and Melchizedek. Therefore, if we exclude the interpolation of the norms relating to the tithes, the story is coherent. VanderKam believes that the omission in Jubilees is intentional and that the text of Genesis 14, on which the apocryphal text depends, already contained the pericope relating to the meeting between Abram and Melchizedek. According to him, the evidence concerns the mention of the tithes given by the servant to Abram³⁰. We must nevertheless stress that, according to Kugel, the mention of the tithes is precisely among the 29 passages inserted by the interpolator³¹. We have, therefore, to ask ourselves whether the prescription of the tithes given to Melchizedek (Gen 14:20) could have been suggested by the text from Jubilees. We can, therefore, take it that the inserted pericope relating to Melchizedek in the text in Gen 14 is subsequent to the Jubilees text. If the hypothesis formulated in this research is correct, the text in Genesis 14 would have had the addition of vv. 18–20 inserted at the end of the second century BC, that is, during the historical period in which the Hasmoneans, heirs of the Maccabees, bestowed not only political power but also religious power on the king.

29 For the translation, cf. Charles, The Book of the Jubilees, 94–95. 30 VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 49. 31 Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 11–12; for the tithes interpolation, 286.

316 

 Ambrogio Spreafico

4 The Hasmonean Priest-Kings Obviously, to describe the state of the priesthood at the end of the II century fully is not the purpose of this contribution³². It is however necessary to mention the ordination of Simon as high priest, as recorded in 1 Macc 14:35–41 (RSV)³³: 35 The people saw Simon’s faithfulness and the glory which he had resolved to win for his nation, and they made him their leader and high priest (ἡγούμενον αὐτῶν καὶ ἀρχιερέα), because he had done all these things and because of the justice and loyalty which he had maintained toward his nation. He sought in every way to exalt his people. 36And in his days things prospered in his hands, so that the Gentiles were put out of the country, as were also the men in the city of David in Jerusalem, who had built themselves a citadel from which they used to sally forth and defile the environs of the sanctuary and do great damage to its purity. 37He settled Jews in it, and fortified it for the safety of the country and of the city, and built the walls of Jerusalem higher. 38In view of these things King Demetrius confirmed him in the high priesthood, 39and he made him one of the king’s friends and paid him high honors. 40For he had heard that the Jews were addressed by the Romans as friends and allies and brethren, and that the Romans had received the envoys of Simon with honor. 41“And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), until a trustworthy prophet should arise.

This text offers several interesting elements. First, it is the people³⁴ who gave to Simon the title of leader and of high priest³⁵. This role was given to him without following the traditional practice which required the candidate to be among the offspring of Aaron as well as of Zadok, according to what is described in Ezek 44:15. The end of the story is equally important: on the one hand, it is said that the priests and the Jews positively considered (εὐδόκησαν) Simon as leader and high priest “forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα); on the other hand, it is explained that this role had to be confirmed by a “loyal prophet”. This is a clear contradiction! So, Ps 110 containing the “oracle of Yhwh” (v. 1) came just in the nick of time and

32 Cf. on this subject, VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 240–393; Nodet, La crise maccabéenne, 242–295. 33 For the connection between Ps 110 and the name of Simon Maccabee, Donner, Der verlässliche Prophet, 89–98. 34 This most likely refers not to the popular mass of all social classes but only to supporters, mainly armed ones, of the Maccabee family; cf. on the subject, VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 278–279; Sievers, The Hasmoneans, 106. 35 The word ἡγούμενος in reality is a military term and does not entail political autonomy; this was achieved by the Hasmonean house only with John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC) and not without protests, cf. Soggin, An Introduction to History, 349–350.

Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 

 317

was providential. According to a prophetic oracle, as pointed out before, the king also received the priesthood. As we can see, the priesthood received by Simon is not linked to the traditional one, but is a popular decision based on merits gained in the field of battle. Moreover, this role is not for ever, but until there is a “loyal prophet”³⁶ to endorse it³⁷. In this context, of course, both Ps 110:4 and Gen 14:18–20 were very providential. With Ps 110:4, Simon, as king, could be high priest because he was declared as such by the “prophet of Yhwh”. The Melchizedek priesthood made it possible to “bypass” both being the offspring of Aaron, claimed by the Maccabees, but not accepted by everybody³⁸, and being the offspring of Zadok, whose descendants in Egypt (Leontopolis) had continued the worship originally carried out in Jerusalem³⁹. Certainly the hypothesis of interfering with texts like Genesis 14 at the time of the Maccabees can raise some doubts, but we cannot forget that, nowadays, many believe that at the time of the Hasmoneans several textual amendments were made in order to give prestige to their government. Just to mention one widely-accepted element, we can recall that the general chronology of the Jewish Bible was modified in order to have the dedication of the Jerusalem temple (164 BC) coincide with the year 4000 from the creation⁴⁰. Also, in Deut 27:4 Mount Gerizim, which was designated as a worship place, as mentioned in the Samaritan Pentateuch⁴¹, was changed into Mount Ebal⁴². As regards the composition of the Psalm collection, the text was still being written at the time of Qumran⁴³. So it is clear that, during the Hasmonean time, at the end of the II century BC, several books of the Jewish Bible were re-edited. We can, therefore, consider “the

36 The Greek expression is equivalent in Hebrew to ‫ בביא נאמן‬which could also mean “loyal prophet”: Donner, Der verlässliche Prophet, 91. 37 Cf. Donner, Der verlässliche Prophet, 90: the formula could be a compromise or an allusion to John Hyrcanus who seems to have claimed the prophetic charisma! 38 The priestly family of Joiarib, according to 1 Macc 2:1 an ancestor of Mattathias father of the Maccabee brothers, would have been invented: cf. Donner, Der verlässliche Prophet, 91; Nodet, La crise maccabéenne, 291–297. Cf. also Scolnic, Judaism Defined, 36–41, who believes that the Hasmonean did not invent his ancestors, but only emphasised their importance (41). 39 Regarding the crisis in the priesthood at the time of the Maccabees, cf. Nodet, La crise maccabéenne, 246–285; for the temple of Leontopolis, Ibidem, 272–285. On Leontopolis, cf. also Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto. 40 Carr, The Moses Story, 7–36, esp. 17–18. 41  For the Samaritan Pentateuch, cf. Walton, Bibliorum Sacrorum, 824. 42 Cf. also, Schenker, Septante et Texte Massorétique, 147. 43 Scolnic, Alcimus, 117–137: Ps 79 would have been written during the Maccabean period by the high priest Alcimus (113–136, esp. 135).

318 

 Ambrogio Spreafico

Hasmonean age as ideal for the literary creation of several texts and the re-editing of existing ones”⁴⁴. The work of re-editing and re-writing did not spare even the Pentateuch⁴⁵.

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. The non-Biblical Texts Concordance, vol. 2, Leiden: Brill, 2003. Andersen, Francis I. – A. Dean Forbes, The Vocabulary of the Old Testament, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Beyer, Klaus, Die aramäische Texte vom Toten Meer. Samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-aramäische Wortliste, Register, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Sage, Priest, Prophet. Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel), Lousiville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Brueggemann, Walter, Genesis (Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching), Atlanta: Westminster John Knox, 1982. Capponi, Livia, Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto. Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia (c. 150 a.C. – 73 d.C.) (Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Pavia 118), Pisa: ETS, 2007. Carr, David M., The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections: Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012) 7–36. Charles, Robert, Henry, The Book of the Jubilees, or, the little Genesis translated from the Ethiopic text with an introduction by G.H. Box (Palestinian-Jewish and cognate texts (pre-rabbinic) 4), London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917. Clines, David J.A., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 2, Sheffield: Academic, 1995. Donner, Herbert, Der verlässliche Prophet. Betrachtungen zu 1 Ma 14,41ss und Ps 110, in: Rüdiger Liwak – Siegfried Wagner (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. Festschrift für Siegfried Hermann zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991, 89–98. Emerton, John A., Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV: VT 21(1971) 24–47. Emerton, John A., Some Problems in Genesis XIV, in: Id. (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch (VTS 41), Leiden: Brill, 1990, 73–102. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Melchizedek in MT, LXX, and the NT: Bib 81(2000) 63–69. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20) (Biblica et Orientalia 18B), Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 32004.

44 Himbaza – Schenker, Du texte à la théologie, 132–133. 45 Cf. also, Schenker, Septante et texte massorétique: at the beginning of the Hasmonean age, someone, invested with authority, could have compiled a new edition, “modified in a certain number of sections of the books of the Pentateuch, and of the historical and prophetical books” (158).

Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 

 319

Grabbe, Lester L., Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages. A Socio-religious Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel, Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. García Martínez, Florentino – Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, Leiden: Brill, 1997. Granerød, Gard, Abraham and Melchizedek. Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (BZAW 406), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Hamp, Vinzenz, Ps 104,4b und die Septuaginta, in: Joachim Gnilka (ed.), Neues Testament und Kirche. Fs Rudolf Schnackenburg, Freiburg: Herder, 1974, 519–529. Himbaza, Innocent – Adrian Schenker, Du texte à la théologie. Synthèse et perspectives, in: Innocent Himbaza – Adrian Schenker (eds.), Un carrefour dans l’histoire de la Bible. Du texte à la théologie au IIe siècle avant J.-C. (OBO 233), Fribourg – Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007, 132–133. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar – Erich Zenger, Psalms 3. A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011. Joüon, Paul – Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia biblica 27), Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2006, 2nd reprint of the 2nd ed., with corrections. Köhler, Ludwig – Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 1994. Kugel, James L., A Walk through Jubilees. Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its Creation (JSJS 156), Leiden – Boston, MA: Brill, 2012. Manzi, Franco, Melkisedeq e l’angelologia nell’epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran (AnBib 136), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1977. Nel, Philip J., Psalm 110 and the Melchizedek Tradition: JNSL 22 (1996) 1–14. Nodet, Étienne, La crise maccabéenne. Historiographie juive et traditions bibliques (Josèphe et son temps 6), Paris: Du Cerf, 2008. Prato, Gian Luigi, Review of G. Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek. Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (BZAW 406), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 201, in: RivB 59 (2011) 407–412. Römer, Thomas, Genèse 15 et les tensions de la communauté juive postexilique dans le cycle d’Abraham: Transeuphratène 7 (1994) 107–121. Rooke, Deborah W., Kingship as Priesthood: the Relationship Between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy, in: John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSS 270), Sheffield: Academic, 1998, 187–208. Schatz, Werner, Genesis 14. Eine Untersuchung (EHS XXIII. Théologie 2), Bern: Herbert Lang, 1972. Schenker, Adrian, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14 (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 48), Paris: Gabalda, 2000. Scolnic, Benjamin E., Alcimus, Enemy of the Maccabees (Studies in Judaism), Lanham: University Press of America, 2005. Scolnic, Benjamin E., Judaism Defined. Mattathias and the Destiny of His People (Studies in Judaism), Lanham: University Press of America, 2010. Segal, Michael, The Book of Jubilees. Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJS 117), Leiden: Brill, 2007. Sievers, Joseph, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters. From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 6), Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990.

320 

 Ambrogio Spreafico

Ska, Jean Louis, Essai sur la nature et la signification du cycle d’Abraham (Gn 11,27–25,11), in: André Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and History (BETL 155), Leuven: Peeters, 2001, 152–177. Soggin, J. Alberto, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah, London: SCM, 31999. van der Toorn, Karel (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden: Brill, 21999. VanderKam, James C., From Joshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. VanderKam, James C., The Book of Jubilees (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheffield: Academic, 2001. von Nordheim, Miriam, Geboren von der Morgenröte? Psalm 110 in Tradition, Redaktion und Rezeption (WMANT 117), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008. Waltke, Bruce K. – Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, Brian, Bibliorum sacrorum tomus primus sive Pentateuchus Moysis, London: Thomas Roycroft, 1653. Zwickel, Wolfgang, Priesthood and the Development of Cult in the Book of Kings, in: André Lemaire – Baruch Halpern (eds.), The Books of Kings. Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTS 129), Leiden – Boston, MA: Brill, 2010, 401–426.

Gianni Barbiero

The Structure of Psalm 111 Gianni Barbiero: Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, Italy

1 Introduction Today, as in the past, the structure of Ps 111 is a much debated topic¹. The discussion concerns two points in particular: the stichometry (or colometry) of the psalm, and its division into compositional units (stanzas and strophes).

2 The Stichometry BHS presents the “twin psalms” 111 and 112 as a series of monostich verses, corresponding to the acrostic². Indeed, by contrast with the other acrostics of the Psalter, in Pss 111 and 112 it is the individual stichs that are arranged according to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. On account of being outside the acrostic, v. 1a (‫ )הללו יה‬is generally regarded as a redactional addition and not counted among the components of the psalm. We are of the contrary opinion. To the arguments put forward by Scoralick³, we add the striking inclusion between ‫הללו יה‬ (1a) and ‫( תהללתו‬10c). The arrangement of the text in BHS is anomalous: in fact, the parallelism of members is characteristic of Hebrew poetry. In itself, the monostich is outside the canons of poetry, and the choice made by BHS does not correspond to that of the MT, which instead arranges the 23 stichs of the text (22 of the acrostic + the initial

1 Many thanks are due to the English translator of the text, Michael Tait and to the revisor, Michael Witczak. Gerard Sloyan and Pieter van der Lugt improved the article with helpful observations. 2 The editor of the book of Psalms, Bardke, adopts a position widespread among the exegetes of his generation: cf., for example, Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 488; Weiser, The Psalms, 698 (“a string of unmatched pearls”); Kraus, Psalmen, 940. This position has been taken up again, more recently, by Pardee, Acrostics, and Brettler, A Jewish Approach, 142–143. 3 For her position, Scoralick bases herself on numerical considerations: “Nur mit ihm [that is, with v. 1a] zusammen entstehen die 14 Wiederholungen und 7 Paarbildungen” (Scoralick, Psalm 111, 194, note 18). Auffret, Grandes, 183–184, and Girard, Les Psaumes, 173, note 3, also pronounce themselves in favour of the inclusion of v. 1a.

322 

 Gianni Barbiero

‫אללו יה‬, v. 1a) into 10 rhythmical verses, precisely 3 tristichs (vv. 1, 9 and 10) and 7 distichs (vv. 2–8)⁴. Even if the phenomena of synonymous and antithetical parallelism are absent, there is no lack of clues suggesting that two or, respectively, three stichs should be read together⁵. In v. 1bc, for example, the enjambment between ‫בכל־לבב‬ and ‫ בסוד ישׁרים‬is clear. Without v. 2a, v. 2b is incomprehensible, as even Brettler, defender of the monostich nature of Ps 111, is forced to admit⁶. The enjambment of v. 3 is expressed by the conjunction ‫ ו‬at the beginning of stich 3b (the only case in the psalm). The same is true of v. 6, where union between the two stichs is obtained by means of the preposition ‫ ל‬followed by the infinitive construct. Verse 7 is constructed in chiastic parallelism (cf. table 1): Table 1 7a

‫אמת ומשׁפט‬

 ‫מעשׂי יד יו‬ ×

7b

 ‫כ־פקוד יו‬

‫נאמנים‬

‫ נאמנים‬corresponds to ‫ ;אמת‬on the parallelism between ‫ מעשׁה ידיו‬and ‫פקודיו‬, we refer, from the point of view of content, to the analysis of the stanza⁷; from the point of view of sound, we notice the correspondence between the two personal pronouns referring to Yhwh. The enjambment between 8a and 8b is created by the repetition of the passive participle in plural form at the beginning of the two stichs: ‫( סמוכים‬8a), ‫( עשׂוים‬8b). That between the three stichs of v. 9 is suggested by the final rhyme: each stich terminates with the third person pronoun referring to Yhwh (‫לעמו‬, ‫בריתו‬, ‫)שׁמו‬. We have to reject, therefore, Weber’s proposal to make of the two tristichs of vv. 9–10 three distichs: 9ab, 9c-10a, 10bc⁸. Such a division would ignore, from the point of view of the content, the fundamental difference between vv. 2–9 and 10: as we shall see better in what follows, in vv. 2–9 the perspective is theological, speaking of the works of Yhwh, while in v. 10 the perspective is basically anthropological and sapiential: there, it is the deeds of humanity that are being spoken of.

4 On the value of the numbers 3, 7 and 10 (= 3 + 7) in gematria, cf. note 26. 5 Cf., in this regard, the observations of Zenger, in Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 159. 6 Brettler, Riddle, 62. 7 Cf. section 3.4. of the present contribution. 8 Weber, Zu Kolometrie, 62–63. In the same sense, cf. Becker, Gottesfurcht, 272.

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 323

Equally misleading is Fokkelman’s proposal to make of the three distichs of the MT’s vv. 4–6 two tristichs, reading 4–5a, 5b-6. In identifying the individual strophes, we shall see that vv. 4–6 form a compact poetic unit, in which the first part of each verse has a verb in qatal form with God as the subject. Expression is given to three historical actions referring to the Exodus and the Conquest (‫עשׂה‬, ‫נתן‬, ‫)הגיד‬. In the second part, on the other hand, this action is commented on in some way, with a nominal phrase (4b), an imperfect (5b), and a final clause (6b)⁹. These observations hold in part for Allen’s proposals, too. Radically disturbing the stichometry of the MT, he articulates the psalm in the following form: 1, 2, 3–4a, 4b-5, 6–7a, 7b-8, 9ab, 9c-10a, 10bc. Of the six distichs, which the MT has in vv. 3–8, Allen makes four tristichs, and, vice versa, transforms the two final tristichs (9–10) into three distichs¹⁰. By contrast with these bold proposals, it seems to us that the stichometry of the MT is more consistent. The observations we have already made will be confirmed by those we are about to make on the strophic structure of the psalm.

3 The Division into Stanzas and Strophes¹¹ The presence of internal divisions within the composition is roundly denied by Pardee, who poses the question: “Does this work have a macro-structure, a ‘literary’ structure, a story line, a plot line, such as may be found even in non-narrative poems?…The answer with regard to Psalm 111 is: No”¹². Against this position we can place a growing number of exegetes who, from different standpoints, seek to grasp a coherent line of thought in the psalm. Each author makes interesting observations, but the research is far from achieving a consensus, giving some justification, so it would seem, to Pardee’s criticisms¹³.

9 Fokkelman, Major Poems, 214–215. 10 Allen, Psalms 101–150, 122–124, who, in his turn, takes up the studies of Kissane and Schildenberger. 11 We use the term “stanza” to indicate the larger units, and the term “strophe” to indicate the smaller units within a stanza. 12 Pardee, Acrostics, 137. Cf., in the same vein, Pardee, La structure. 13 We list only some of the proposals: 1–2 | 3–4 | 5–6 | 7–8 | 9 | 10 (alternatively: 1–2 | 3–5 | 6–8 | 9–10) (Auffret, Grandes); 1–2 + 3–4 | 5–6 + 7–8 | 9–10) (Strofische structuren, 379–81; Id., Cantos and Strophes, 424; so also DeCaen, Theme, and van Grol, The Torah); 1 + 2–3 | 4–5 + 6 + 7–8 | 9–10 (Meynet, Un esercizio); 1 + 2–3 | 4–5 + 6 + 7–8 | 9 + 10 (Labuschagne, Psalm 111); 1–3 | 4–6 | 7–8 | 9–10 (Fokkelman, Major Poems, 213–218); 1 | 2–10 (Girard, Les Psaumes, 170–175; in this sense also Wolff, Psalm 111 and generally the studies influenced by Form Criticism); 1–2 | 3–6 +

324 

 Gianni Barbiero

The disconcerting diversity of structures suggested is due, on the one hand, to the multiplicity of lexical repetitions, which lend themselves to different structural arrangements, and, on the other hand, to the conciseness of the stichs, composed for the most part of only three words that can be understood in different ways¹⁴. In my opinion, only a global study bringing together various kinds of approach and focused on both form and content, can provide a satisfactory solution.

3.1 Some General Observations One of the fundamental criteria for grasping the structure of a text is the presence of repetition, which can suggest some kind of parallelism. The lexemes repeated in Ps 111 come to 14 (2x7!): Table 2 ‫הלל‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫כל‬ ‫ישׁר‬ ‫עשׂה‬ ‫עמד‬ ‫לעד‬ ‫זכר‬ ‫נתן‬ ‫ירא‬ ‫לעולם‬ ‫ברית‬ ‫עם‬ ‫אמן‬

1a and 10c (inclusion) 1b, 2a, 4b, 10a (cf. 1a ‫)יה‬ 1b, 2b, 7b, 10b 1c, 8b 2a, 4a, 6a, 7a, 8b, 10b (cf. 3a ‫)פעל‬ 3b, 10c 3b, 8a, 10c 4a, 5b 5a, 6b 5a, 9c, 10a 5b, 8a, 9b 5b, 9b 6a, 9a 7a, 7b, 8b

Most striking is the repetition of the two pairs of terms ‫( עמדת לעד‬vv. 3b and 10c) and ‫( לעולם בריתו‬vv. 5b and 9). To this list should be added the frequent repetition of the third person masculine pronominal suffix always with reference to Yhwh

7–8 + 9–10 (Scoralick, Psalm 111); 1 | 2–6 | 7–10 (Mays, Psalms, 356–357); 1–3 | 4–9 | 10 (Ravasi, Il libro dei Salmi, vol. 3, 306–308); 1–3 | 4–6 + 7–9 | 10 (Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 159–163; Zenger, Er hat geboten); 1aβb | 2–3 | 4–5 | 6–7 | 8–9ab | 9c-10 (Weber, Zu Kolometrie); 1 | 2–7a | 7b-10 (Allen, Psalms 101–150, 122–124; so too Schildenberger, Bemerkungen, 378–379); 1–2 | 3–7a | 7b-10 (Schildenberger, Das Psalmenpaar, 203–205). 14 In respect of Ps 111, Brettler speaks of a “riddle” (Brettler, Riddle ).

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 325

(13 times¹⁵: 3a, 3b [chiasmus], 4a, 5a, 5b [linear parallelism], 6a [twice], 7a, 7b [chiasmus], 9a, 9b, 9c [linear parallelism, rhyme], 10c¹⁶), and the characteristic presence of 7 (!) pairs of lexemes, 5 of which refer to Yhwh (‫הוד־והדר‬, v. 3a; ‫חנון‬ ‫ורחום‬, v. 4b; ‫אמת ומשׁפט‬, v. 7a; ‫לעד לעולם‬, v. 8a; ‫קדושׁ ונורא‬, v. 9c), and 2 to human beings (‫סוד ישׁרים ועדה‬, v. 1c; ‫אמת וישׁר‬, v. 8b). A scarcely observed phenomenon of repetition is the passage from verbal clauses (VC) to nominal sentences (NS) and vice versa. On the basis of this phenomenon, the psalm provides the following shape (cf. table 3). Table 3  ¹⁷ ¹⁸  v. 1 vv. 2–3 vv. 4–6 vv. 7–8 v. 9 v. 10

VC NS VC17 NS VC18 NS

Including v. 1a in the text leads us to consider our psalm, from the point of view of literary genre, as a hymn¹⁹, even if it is a hymn sui generis, with thanksgiving and sapiential elements²⁰. In so far as it is a hymn, the psalm may be structured into three basic parts: a) invitation to praise (v. 1); b) the body of the hymn, which provides the grounds for the praise (2–9); c) conclusion (v. 10). As we have already observed, v. 10 is disconnected from vv. 2–9, which have the work of God for their theme. While in vv. 2–9 God is the subject of the action –it is to him that the praise of his faithful ones is due– v. 10 speaks of the “work of man” (‫עשׂיהם‬, v. 10b). From the thematic point of view, an important observation is made by Schildenberger to divide the central part of the psalm, which he identifies as vv. 2–10, into two subsections. The first subsection (vv. 2–7a) treats of the works of Yhwh

15 In gematria, the number 13 corresponds to the word ‫אחד‬, “one”, which is one of the attributes of the God of Israel (cf. Deut 6:4), and is the half of 26, the numerical value of the tetragram ‫יהוה‬ (cf. van der Lugt, Cantos and Strophes, 85–86). 16 In my opinion, the pronominal suffix in ‫ תהלתו‬refers to Yhwh (mentioned in 10a), even if, grammatically, it would be possible to refer it, distributively, to the preceding ‫( עשׂיהם‬10b) (in this sense, cf. Wolff, Psalm 111, 239; Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 258). If this were so, we would have the interesting figure of 12 (=Yhwh) + 1 (= the one who fears Yhwh). 17 With the significant exception of v. 4b, which is a NS. 18 Here too, v. 9c, which is a NS, is an exception in parallel with 4b. 19 Cf. Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 488. 20 Cf. the observations of Zenger in Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 162–163.

326 

 Gianni Barbiero

in history, and the second (vv. 7b-10) treats of the law of Yhwh, the Torah (cf. v. 7b: ‫)פקודיו‬²¹. This distinction proves illuminating for understanding the dynamic of the psalm. On the basis of these observations, we propose a general structure, which will then be verified stanza by stanza (cf. table 4). Table 4 ‫בסוד ישׁרים ועדה׃‬

‫אודה יהוה בכל־לבב‬ ‫דרושׁים לכל־חפציהם׃‬ ‫וצדקתו עמדת לעד׃‬

‫הללו יה‬1 ‫גדלים מעשׂי יהוה‬2 ‫הוד־והדר פעלו‬3

Introduction: invitation to praise and statement of the motive: the works of God.

‫חנון ורחום יהוה׃‬ ‫יזכר לעולם בריתו׃‬ ‫לתת להם נחלת גוים׃‬

‫זכר עשׂה לנפלאתיו‬4 ‫טרף נתן ליראיו‬5 ‫כח מעשׂיו הגיד לעמו‬6

First part: the works of God in history.

‫קדושׁ ונורא שׁמו׃‬

‫נאמנים כל־פקודיו׃‬      ‫ עשׂוים באמת וישׁר׃‬ ‫צוה־לעולם בריתו‬

‫ מעשׂי ידיו אמת ומשׁפט‬7 ‫סמוכים לעד לעולם‬8 ‫פדות שׁלח לעמו‬9

‫תהלתו עמדת לעד׃‬

‫שׂכל טוב לכל־ עשׂיהם‬

‫ראשׁית חכמה יראת יהוה‬10

Second part: the work of the Torah.

Conclusion: the work of humanity, to observe the Torah.

In my opinion, Ps 111 is divided into three sections: a) an introduction (vv. 1–3), in which, after the classic invitation to praise, the motive for that praise is expounded: the works of God; b) a central body (vv. 4–9) in which these works are listed; and c) a conclusion (v. 10), in which the work of humanity is expounded as a response to that of God. The central part is divided, in its turn, into two sections: the first part tells of the works of God in history, the Exodus and the Conquest in particular (vv. 4–6); the second part speaks of the work of the Torah (vv. 7–9)²². The central theme of the psalm is that of the works of God. The lexeme ‫עשׂה‬ appears in it 6 times (3 times as a verb, 3 times as a noun), twice in each of the two central stanzas, once in the introduction and once in the conclusion. As we have mentioned, while the body of the psalm speaks of the works and of the action of God, in v. 10 the subject of the verb is humanity. This change of subject is already present in the participle ‫ עשׂוים‬of v. 8b, so that from the beginning to the end of

21 Schildenberger, Das Psalmenpaar, 204. 22 The result of our study comes close above all to the proposal of Ravasi and Zenger (cf., supra, note 13).

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 327

the psalm one can note a development: from the action of God to the action of humanity, thus anticipating what will be the theme of Ps 112. From a quantitative point of view, the division we are proposing gives these results for the four stanzas (cf. table 5)²³. Table 5 ²⁴   verses

words, with maqqeph24

words, without maqqeph

syllables

letters

1–3 4–6 7–9 10 total

18 20 20 10 68

21 20 22 11 74

52 49 57 25 183

85 82 93 43 303

In each case, we note the quantitative regularity of the stanzas: the first three exhibit more or less equivalent numbers, while the fourth shows half of them. What seems most interesting is the number of the words²⁵: taking account of the maqqeph, the two central stanzas each possess 20 words, and the fourth exactly half, 10, a number which corresponds to that of the verses of the psalm and could be alluding to the “ten words” of the law²⁶.

23 For these numbers, cf. Labuschagne, Psalm 111, 1–2; DeCaen, Theme, 104; Pardee, Acrostics, 119–120; Fokkelman, Major Poems, 217–218. Note that generally the authors cited do not include v. 1a in their count. 24 This calculation is that followed in the present article. Following the MT, the words joined by maqqeph are counted as only one. 25 We would agree with the conclusion of Houk: “The number of words, rather than the number of syllables, is the prior factor in the line length” (Houk, Acrostic Psalms, 57). 26 In addition, the number 10 is made up of 7 + 3, two numbers recurrent in Ps 111. On the presence of significant numbers such as 7, 3, 4, 22 in this psalm, cf. Scoralick, Psalm 111, 193– 194.204–205. According to this author, (a) counting the alleluia, the psalm has 74 words (70 + 4); (b) the lexemes used are 49 (7x7); (c) the words which are repeated, at least once, are 14 (2x7); (d) the most repeated word is ‫עשׂה‬, “to do”, which is repeated 6 times, and once the synonym ‫ פעל‬is used, which, added to the preceding, again forms the number 7; (e) the psalm has three monosyllabic particles: ‫ ו‬,‫ ל‬and ‫ב‬: the first, ‫ל‬, is used 14 times (2x7); the second, ‫ו‬, occurs 7 times; the third, ‫ב‬, is used 3 times; (f) the tetragram occurs 4 times (+ 1 in the abbreviated form ‫( ;)יה‬g) the verbs which have ‫ יהוה‬for their subject are, again, 7. Scoralick comments: “Das alphabetische Muster und die verborgene Wirksamkeit der Zahlen 3, 4 und 7 deuten beide auf einen Willen hin, Umfassendes und Vollkommenes auszudrücken” (204). In this sense, also, the count of words without taking the maqqeph into account offers interesting numbers, such as 22 (the letters of

328 

 Gianni Barbiero

3.2 The First Stanza: Invitation to Praise (vv. 1–3) That v. 3 marks the end of a literary unit is suggested first of all by the fact that the expression ‫עמדת לעד‬, with which the verse concludes, is the same as that which concludes the psalm (v. 10c): the term ‫לעד‬, indicating eternity, usually has a concluding function in Hebrew poetry²⁷. There is then the fact that v. 3b is the only one to be introduced by the conjunction ‫ו‬. It is true that this has to do with the acrostic, but undoubtedly it is the sign of a conclusion. Finally, there should be noted the inclusive function of the two wordpairs ‫סוד ישׁרים ועדה‬, v. 1c, and ‫הוד־‬ ‫והדר‬, v. 3a. Wordpairs function in our psalm as structural signals, as a glance at their distribution confirms: in fact, they are situated again in v. 4b, at the beginning of the second stanza, in vv. 7a and 9c, as inclusion for the third stanza, and in v. 8b, at the conclusion of the first strophe of this stanza. Within the first stanza, a further division is present between vv. 1 (strophe I) and 2–3 (strophe II)²⁸. Verse 1 is made up of two verbal clauses: the two verbs ‫הללו‬ and ‫ אודה‬form a classic invitation to praise, the first in plural form, the second in the singular. The play between singular and plural characterizes the verse, suggesting a chiastic structure for the tristich (cf. table 6). Table 6 Plural Singular Plural

‫הללו‬ ‫אודה‬ ‫בסוד ישׁרים ועדה‬

Thanking Yhwh is the psalmist (‫)אודה‬, but he is not alone. He is found to be surrounded by a group (‫)בסוד ישׁרים ועדה‬, which he therefore invites to unite with him in his praise (‫)הללו‬. From the rhythmic point of view, the tristich has a structural value, often marking the beginning or the end of a unit²⁹. Verses 2–3 have in common the fact that, by contrast with v. 1 and with vv. 4–6, they are made up of nominal sentences. From the point of view of content, they express what in the classic hymn is the motive of praise, in this case the

the alphabet) and 11 (the half of 22, equivalent to the sum of 7 + 4). Our research has convinced us that Scoralick’s list sins through omission. 27 According to van der Lugt, the words that indicate “eternity” function as “transition markers”; that is, they mark the end of a unit (van der Lugt, Cantos and Strophes, 80). 28 According to our count, strophe I has 8 words, strophe II 10 (5 + 5). 29 Cf. van der Lugt, Cantos and Strophes, 522–532.

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 329

“works” of God. The expression ‫( מעשׂי יהוה‬v. 2a) is the first of five other occurrences of the lexeme ‫ עשׂה‬in the psalm, something we have seen to be the Leitmotiv of the composition. Verses 2–3, therefore, function as an introduction to the body of the psalm, which will go on to list in extenso just what are the “works of Yhwh” which the psalmist is intending to praise³⁰. The passage from singular to plural, which is typical for the structure of v. 1, has a structural function also in vv. 2–3: in fact, v. 2 is characterized by the plural (‫חפציהם‬, ‫דרושׁים‬, ‫מעשׂי‬, ‫)גדלים‬, v. 3, instead, by the singular (‫פעלו‬, ‫)צדקתו‬. As an inclusion of the strophe, we can consider the tetragram in v. 2a and the third person pronoun referring to Yhwh in ‫( צדקתו‬v. 3b). Apart from the point of view of content (praise – motive for praise), vv. 2–3 are linked to v. 1 also by various lexemes: ‫( יהוה‬vv. 1b and 2a); ‫( כל‬vv. 1b and 2b). The semantic play is noticeable. In v. 1b, the universalizing particle is joined to the singular noun ‫לבב‬. The expression indicates, therefore, the totality, the wholeness of the person³¹. In v. 2b, it is joined to the plural participle ‫ ;חפציהם‬it denotes, therefore, the universality of those who love the works of God. A further cross-reference between the two strophes, with the value of an inclusion, is the repeat of the concept of “justice” from v. 1c (‫ )ישׁרים‬in v. 3b (‫)צדקתו‬: the “upright” participate in the “justice” of God. The association leads us to grasp another reason for distinguishing the two strophes: in v. 1, the subject of the verb is man, while, in vv. 2–3, the subject is God (with the exception of v. 2b). To this aspect, we shall have to return.

3.3 The Second Stanza: the Works of God in History (vv. 4–6) So, then, the body of the psalm (vv. 4–9) lays out the great works of Yhwh. The first stanza (vv. 4–6) lays out his deeds at the beginning of the history of Israel, the Exodus (v. 4), the desert journey (v. 5), and the gift of the Promised Land (v. 6). The stanza is characterized exclusively by verbal clauses (v. 4b is the exception), in which Yhwh is always the subject. As we have already mentioned, while the first part of the verse consists of verbal forms in the perfect (‫עשׂה‬, v. 4a; ‫נתן‬, v. 5a; ‫הגיד‬, v. 6a), the second part is made up either of NS (v. 4b) or of VC in the imperfect (5b) or in the infinitive (6b).

30 Of itself, the expression ‫ מעשׂי יהוה‬refers both to the works of creation (cf. Ps 8:4.7; 19:2; 145:9.10) and to those of history (cf. Deut 11:7; Jdg 2:7.10; Ps 107:22.24). It has a generic rather than a specific significance. 31 The particle ‫ כל‬appears 4 times in the psalm (vv. 1b.2b.7a.10a), always at the beginning of a strophe. Of itself, the number expresses totality (the cardinal points of the compass are four).

330 

 Gianni Barbiero

An inclusion for the stanza is provided by means of the two occurrences of the lexeme ‫( עשׂה‬vv. 4a and 6a), and the stanza is characterized by a double concatenation: on the one hand, v. 4a is joined to v. 5b by the lexeme ‫ ;זכר‬on the other hand, v. 5a is linked to v. 6b by the lexeme ‫נתן‬. Just as in the previous stanza, so too in this, the last verse reveals a close link between the first and the second stich, no longer expressed by the conjunction but by a subordinate clause (‫לתת‬, v. 5b). Like its predecessor, and notwithstanding its compact structure, this stanza too can be divided into two strophes: vv. 4–5 (III strophe) and v. 6 (IV strophe)³². This division is suggested chiefly by the presence of the expression ‫( יזכר לעולם בריתו‬v. 5b). In fact, on the one hand, the verb ‫ זכר‬forms an inclusion with v. 4a; on the other hand, the two terms ‫ לעולם‬and ‫ בריתו‬are repeated literally and in the same order at the end of the following stanza, v. 9b, with an important semantic play. Further, we have recognized a conclusive function in the expression of eternity ‫לעולם‬. Verse 6 constitutes the conclusion of the historical record of the beginnings of Israel, being closely joined, therefore, with the two preceding verses and forming a unit with them. On the other hand, it is set apart from vv. 4–5 by a chiastic inversion³³. In vv. 4 and 5, in fact, an action of God (Exodus, food in the desert) is evoked in the first stich, while in the second, what is being expressed is the attribute of God which this action reveals (grace and compassion, faithfulness to the covenant). In v. 6 the order is inverted: it is the first stich that highlights the attribute of God (might), while the second stich recalls the action performed by him (gift of the land) (cf. table 7). Table 7 A

B

v. 4 action (he has established a memorial) ↕

attribute (grace and mercy) ↕

v. 5 action (he has given food)                       × v. 6 attribute (might)

attribute (he remembers the covenant) action (he has given the land)

32 From the numerical point of view, strophe III has 12 words (6 + 6), strophe IV 8. 33 The particular position of v. 6 with respect to vv. 4–5 is underlined by Meynet: “this bimember is the only one having a second member which is a final clause subordinate to the main clause of the first member; it is also the mathematically central segment, both preceded and followed by ten members; it is also the only one in which ‘the nations’ appear” (Meynet, Un esercizio, 306–307). Labuschagne comments in the same sense (cf. Labuschagne, Psalm 111, 2–3). In my opinion, however, the two authors do not appreciate the links of v. 6 with the two preceding verses.

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 331

The link of vv. 4–6 with the preceding context is clear: in fact, these verses develop the programme delineated in vv. 2–3, that of expounding the works of Yhwh. The lexeme ‫ עשׂה‬of v. 2a is taken up again in vv. 4a and 6a at the stanza’s frame. A second link is the divine name (the only mention in the body of the psalm), which links v. 4b with vv. 1b and 2a. Finally, the wordpair ‫( חנון ורחום‬v. 4b) is joined with the preceding ‫( הוד־והדר‬v. 3a) by concatenation. Moreover, it forms a complementary parallelism with the “justice” of God, placed prominently at the end of v. 3b (‫)צדקתו‬.

3.4 The Third Stanza: the Work of the Torah (vv. 7–9) The third stanza begins by speaking of the “works of his hands” (‫)מעשׂי ידיו‬, an expression that closely recalls the ‫ מעשׂי יהוה‬of v. 2. However, from the fact that this expression is set in parallel with “his commandments” (‫פקודיו‬, v. 7b)³⁴, and that these are spoken of throughout v. 8, it is probable that they are alluded to here with the term “works”³⁵. And so the commandments are associated with the great works of God. Such a succession recalls the composition of the book of Exodus in which the gift of the law at Sinai follows on from the liberation from Egypt. Like the first stanza, an inclusion for the third too is provided by two wordpairs: ‫( אמת ומשׁפט‬v. 7a) and ‫( קדושׁ ונורא‬v. 9c). Moreover, the end of the stanza is marked both by the fact that v. 9 is a tristich³⁶, and by the presence in it of the expression of eternity ‫( לעולם‬v. 9b). Like the two preceding ones, the third stanza is also divided into two strophes, vv. 7–8 (strophe V) and 9 (strophe VI)³⁷. Strophe V is composed of NS,

34 The term is found only in the Psalter, where it appears exclusively in three other psalms: 19:9; 103:18 and 119 (21 times, 3x7!). It is one of the various terms used to indicate the commandments of the Torah. 35 This is the opinion of a growing number of authors. Cf. Brettler, A Jewish Approach, 149–150; Zenger, Er hat geboten, 275; Ravasi, Il libro dei Salmi, vol. 3, 313; Lorenzin, I Salmi, 2000, 432; Seybold, Die Psalmen, 442; van Grol, The Torah. The predicate ‫ אמת ומשׁפט‬appears again only in two passages, Jer 4:2 and Zech 8:16. Both times, the wordpair refers to speaking, so that there is confirmation of the reference to the commandments, presented as the paradigm of the “solidity, stability”, and, therefore “truth” (‫)אמת‬, and of the “justice, right” (‫ )משׁפט‬of the works of God. In such a context, the expression “works of his hands” could be alluding not, as in Ps 8:4.7 and 19:2, to the creation, but rather to the two tables of the law, written personally by the finger of God (cf. Exod 31:18). 36 Cf. van der Lugt, Cantos and Strophes, 528–530. 37 The number of words in the strophe is the same as in the previous stanza: 12 (6 + 6) for strophe V, 8 for strophe VI.

332 

 Gianni Barbiero

strophe VI of VC, with the exception of v. 9c, which, corresponding to v. 4b, is a NS. An inclusion for strophe V, vv. 7–8, is supplied by the lexeme ‫מעשׂי ידיו( עשׂה‬ [v. 7a] and ‫[ עשׂוים‬v. 8b]). It is interesting to observe the semantic transition. While the subject of “doing” in v. 7a, as in the whole of the preceding context, is Yhwh, the subject of the passive participle ‫ עשׂוים‬is humanity (the participle has the value of a gerundive: “to be performed”)³⁸. The same goes for the noun ‫אמת‬: in v. 7a it refers to the action of God, while in v. 8b it refers to that of humanity. So v. 8b anticipates the content of v. 9. The “doing” of humanity is an imitation of the “doing” of God. This interpretation is supported by the parallelism between the abstract noun ‫( ישׁר‬v. 8b)³⁹ and the plural ‫( ישׁרים‬v. 1c): in both cases, the term refers to human beings. The strophe is characterized by a double ternary parallelism. On the one hand, we have the lexeme ‫אמן‬, which joins together vv. 7a (‫)אמת‬, 7b (‫ )נאמנים‬and 8b (again ‫ ;)אמת‬on the other hand, we find the sequence of three wordpairs, the first two referring to God (‫אמת ומשׁפט‬, v. 7a; ‫לעד לעולם‬, v. 8a), the third referring to humanity (‫אמת וישׁר‬, v. 8b). The passage is, therefore, very compact⁴⁰. It concerns the commandments (‫פקודיו‬, v. 7b) and is, therefore, characterized by the plural (one notes the three adjectives, each in anaphoric position: ‫נאמנים‬, 7b; ‫סמוכים‬, v. 8a; ‫עשׂוים‬, v. 8b), while the following strophe is characterized by the singular (‫פדות‬, v. 9a; ‫בריתו‬, v. 9b; ‫שׁמו‬, v. 9c). So the juxtaposition of v. 2 with v. 3 is repeated. While the link among the different stichs of vv. 7–8 is anaphoric, that among those of v. 9 is epiphoric: ‫לעמו‬, v. 9a, ‫בריתו‬, v. 9b, ‫שׁמו‬, v. 9c. As for the stanza, so also for strophe V, the presence of the “eternalizing” particles ‫( לעד לעולם‬v. 8a) marks the conclusion of the unit. Verse 9 (strophe VI) has a conclusive value, not only for the third stanza, but also for the body of the psalm, vv. 4–9. The transition from NS in the plural, concerning the commandments, to VC in the singular, concerning God directly,

38 The passive participle ‫ עשׂוים‬can be understood in two ways: 1) “made, constituted”, and so the subject understood would be God, who gives faithful and just commandments (so, for example, Delitzsch, Die Psalmen, 687); 2) “to be made, to be carried out”, and so the subject understood would be humanity (in this sense, for example, Scoralick, Psalm 111, 199). The passive participle has gerundival value also in v. 2 (‫)דרושׁים‬, cf. Joüon-Muraoka, § 121i. This second meaning is better suited to the context. 39 The term ‫ ישׁר‬is to be vocalised as ‫( יושׁר‬cf. BHS). In fact, G, Syr, Tg, Vg have a noun and not an adjective here. 40 Brettler, who favours the monostich nature of Ps 111, has to make an exception for vv. 7–8, which he considers a single verse (cf. Brettler, Riddle, 62).

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 333

brings v. 9 close to vv. 4–6. Evident above all is the parallelism with v. 4, with which v. 9 shares the mixed structure VC + NS. This observation allows us to refer the term ‫ פדות‬in v. 9a, not, as Zenger would have it⁴¹, to the Torah which is spoken of in vv. 7–8, but to the Exodus, which is the subject of vv. 4–6. The marvels of the Exodus (v. 4), the journey through the desert (v. 5) and the gift of the land (v. 6) are summarized in this important term⁴². The lexeme ‫פדה‬, which originally referred to the redemption from slavery, was later crystalized with reference to the liberation of the Exodus, understood as being from the “house of bondage” (cf. Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18). In this last passage, we find the same logic that, in Ps 111, unites v. 9a with v. 9b: the liberation (‫ )פדה‬is the ground of the commandment (‫)צוה‬. It is the same logic that unites the prologue of the Decalogue with the ten words: “I am Yhwh, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me, etc.” (Exod 20:2–3, cf. Deut 5:6–7)⁴³. The connection of v. 9a with vv. 4–6 is suggested also by the repetition of the term ‫ לעמו‬from v. 6a (linear parallelism, both times at the beginning of the last verse of the stanza). If v. 9a summarizes the content of the second stanza, v. 9b, for its part, summarizes the content of vv. 7–8, that is, the discourse on the ‫פקדים‬. The closest parallel is Deut 4:13: “He declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform (‫)את־בריתו אשׁר צוה אתכם לעשׂות‬, that is, the ten words”. Here the ‫ברית‬ is understood as synonymous with the commandments⁴⁴. That means that with the expression “he has commanded his covenant for ever” (v. 9b), the author of the psalm links up with the discourse developed in vv. 7–8, precisely in the final stich: “(commandments) to be performed (‫ )עשׂוים‬with faithfulness and uprightness” (v. 8b). They are to be performed “with faithfulness” because God has commanded them “for ever”.

41 The noun ‫“( פדות‬redemption, liberation”) is rare. Other than in our passage, it appears again only in Exod 8:19; Isa 50:2 and Ps 130:7. The first passage is obscure, but here the term undoubtedly refers to the Exodus; the second refers to the second Exodus, the return from the Babylonian Exile; the third speaks of a spiritual liberation. On the basis of this last parallel, Zenger connects the term ‫ פדות‬with the commandments, which perform the liberation from the slavery of sin (Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 165). 42 The lexeme ‫ פדה‬belongs originally to family law, on the basis of which it was the duty of the nearest relation to redeem the family that had fallen into slavery (cf. Exod 21:8.30). From there comes the general meaning of “liberation” from slavery or dangers: in this sense, the term has God exclusively for its subject, and underlines the aspect of gratuity (cf. Cazelles, ‫פדה‬, 514–522). 43 In this sense, cf. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 125–126. 44 Cf., again, Deut 28:69; Josh 7:11; 23:16; Jdg 2:20; 1 Kgs 11:11; 2 Kgs 17:35; 18:12.

334 

 Gianni Barbiero

Between v. 5b ‫ יזכר לעולם בריתו‬and v. 9b ‫צוה־לעולם בריתו‬, there exists a parallelism that is interesting not only from a formal point of view (v. 5 concludes strophe III, vv. 4–5, v. 9 concludes stanza III, vv. 7–9) but also from a semantic one: because Yhwh remembers his covenant (v. 5b), he is in a position to seek their observance by Israel (v. 9b). It is always the logic of the demand founded on the gift. Verse 9c passes from the VC, which has characterized the two previous stichs, to a NS. With this, it is linked with vv. 7–8, but also forms an inclusion with v. 4b, the other NS at the beginning of the body of the psalm. The two NS are in parallel, because the noun ‫( שׁמו‬v. 9c) corresponds to the divine tetragram ‫( יהוה‬4b), and the two adjectives ‫( קדושׁ ונורא‬v. 10c) are antonyms to the two in v. 4b: ‫חנון ורחום‬, as if to highlight the two complementary aspects of the face of God, that of his condescension (v. 4b) and that of his transcendence (v. 9c) (cf. table 8). Table 8 v. 4b v. 9c

‫יהוה‬

‫חנון ורחום‬

↕

↕

‫שׁמו‬

‫קדושׁ ונורא‬

Moreover, the term ‫ נורא‬introduces the theme of v. 10, the “fear of God” (cf. v. 10a, concatenation).

3.5 The Fourth Stanza: the Work of Humanity, to Observe the Torah (v. 10) Verse 9c is linked with v. 10 not only by way of the lexeme ‫נורא‬, but also through being a NS, like v. 10. On the other hand, however, v. 10 is detached from the preceding context. The body of the psalm had God for its subject; it sang the praises of his works. It is true that v. 8b (‫ )עשׂוים‬already introduced the theme of the action of man, but then v. 9 returned to speaking of the action and being of God. In v. 10, on the other hand, the perspective is decidedly anthropological and sapiential. God passes from being the subject to being the object of the verb in the two outer stichs (‫יראת יהוה‬, v. 10a; ‫תהלתו‬, v. 10c⁴⁵); in the central stich too, the subject is humanity (‫עשׂיהם‬, v. 10b). The theme of v. 10 is the “fear of God” (v. 10a), a new theme in the psalm. Moreover, the “fear of God” of which it speaks has a very prac-

45 Cf., supra, note 16.

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 335

tical character; it is made concrete in the observance of the commandments⁴⁶. In fact, in parallelism with ‫( יראת יהוה‬v. 10a), v. 10b places the term ‫עשׂיהם‬, the object of which, if we intend to follow the MT, can be none other than the ‫ פקודים‬of vv. 7–8⁴⁷. Thus, v. 10 is, at one and the same time, the conclusion of the preceding discourse, while introducing a new element, that of human action⁴⁸. Verse 10 is constructed as a central pivot, around v. 10b. In fact, the object of man’s action in 10a and 10c is God, in the singular (‫יראת יהוה‬, 10a; ‫תהלתו‬, 10c), while in v. 10b it is his commandments in the plural. The “fear of God” and “his praise” are made concrete in the observance of his commandments, just as, vice versa, the observance of his commandments is not something impersonal, but a loving relationship with God. The correspondence between v. 10a and v. 10c is underlined by another type of parallelism. In fact, the beginning of v. 10a is just that, ‫ראשׁית‬, “the beginning”, while the end of v. 10c is ‫לעד‬, “for ever”: the two terms stand in antithetical and complementary parallelism⁴⁹. The term ‫ לעד‬appears three times (!) in the psalm: in vv. 3b, at the end of the first stanza; 8a, at the end of strophe V; and 10c, the last word of the psalm. It is interesting to note one of the many numerical wordplays in Ps 111: the synonym ‫ לעולם‬also appears 3 times: in v. 5b, at the conclusion of strophe III; in v. 8a, together with ‫לעד‬, at the conclusion of strophe V; and in v. 9b, at the conclusion of the third stanza. There is another term that appears 3 times: the lexeme ‫אמן‬, in vv. 7a, 7b and 8b. The three terms are semantically correlated, because the basic meaning of ‫ אמן‬is “to be stable, solid, true”, with which the notion of eternity (‫לעולם‬, ‫ )לעד‬can be coherently associated. We have observed that the expression ‫( תהלתו‬v. 10c) makes an inclusion for the entire psalm with ‫( הללו יה‬v. 1a). With this inclusion we should associate another: the last expression of the psalm ‫עמדת לעד‬, v. 10c, finds exact correspondence in the last expression of the first stanza, v. 3b. Here, it is “his justice” (‫)צדקתו‬ that is to “endure for ever”, in v. 10, it is “his praise” (‫)תהלתו‬, that is, the praise

46 In Ps 19:10 ‫ יראת יהוה‬is lined up with the other names given to the Torah, together with ‫פקודי‬ ‫ יהוה‬and ‫( מצות יהוה‬cf. Brettler, Riddle, 63–64). 47 Between vv. 7–8 and v. 10b, there is, however, v. 9 in the middle. Given the distance between the two terms, it is no wonder that various authors follow G, which changes the masculine plural to the feminine singular, referring the pronoun to wisdom (v. 10a): πᾶσι τοῖς ποιοῦσιν αὐτήν. For its part, Vg refers it to the fear of God: omnibus facientibus eum. Notwithstanding the difficulty, even precisely because of it (lectio difficilior), we choose to keep to the MT. 48 In the counting of strophes, v. 10 constitutes the only strophe in stanza IV, and, be it noted, strophe VII (!) of the psalm. Once again, a surprising play on numbers. 49 Cf. Auffret, Grandes, 185.

336 

 Gianni Barbiero

which the faithful render to God. Like faithfulness (cf. v. 8b), so too eternity passes from being an attribute of God to being an attribute of humanity. The fact that the last stich of the psalm takes up again the first and the last expression of the first stanza confirms the caesura, which we placed at the end of v. 3 (cf. table 9). Table 9 v. 10c

‫תהלתו‬ ‫עמדת לעד‬

→ →

‫הללו יה‬ ‫עמדת לעד‬

v. 1a v. 3b

The inclusion between the first and the last stanza of the psalm is also signalled by other significant repetitions, such as that of the tetragram, which appears only in vv. 1b, 2a (at the beginning of the first stanza), 4b (at the beginning of the second stanza) and 10a (at the beginning of the fourth stanza). Similarly, the universalising/totalising particle ‫ כל‬appears in vv. 1b, 2b (at the beginning of the first stanza), 7b (at the beginning of the third stanza) and 10b (at the centre of the final stanza). The correspondence between ‫( לכל־חפציהם‬v. 2b) and ‫לכל־עשׂיהם‬ (v. 10b) is particularly clear. To “all those who love” the works of God, searching them out passionately (‫( )דרושׁים‬v. 2) correspond “all those who perform” his commandments (v. 10). The author seems to be suggesting a unique correspondence between “loving/searching out” (v. 2) and “doing” (v. 10), and also, perhaps, between the “works of God” (v. 2) and “his commandments” (v. 10)⁵⁰, as we have observed also in v. 7. Verse 1, in particular, strophe I, corresponds to v. 10 (the fourth stanza and strophe VII) on account of their both being tristichs, and through their being the only two verses in which the subject of the action is humanity⁵¹. The alternation between singular and plural, which in v. 10 concerns the object (God – commandments – God), in v. 1 concerns the subject (group – individual – group). Another two clauses have humanity as their subject in a context where God is the subject. They are the two passive participles ‫( דרושׁים‬v. 2b) and ‫( עשׁוים‬v. 8b), the first close

50 This is the thesis of Brettler, according to whom Ps 111, behind the apparent mention of the “works”, intends to allude to the Torah (cfr. Brettler, Riddle; Id., A Jewish Approach). In fact, the “works” of which the psalm speaks always have an aspect which joins them to the Torah: the verb ‫דרשׁ‬, in v. 6, indicates the loving study of the Torah; the noun ‫זכר‬, in v. 4, seems to allude to the memorial of the marvels of God, i.e. the Torah; in v. 6, the verb ‫ הגיד‬in relation to the Conquest seems to allude to that “account” which is given to it by the word of God. In any case, the distinction between the two stanzas of the body of the psalm should be retained: in vv. 4–6, the Torah is seen as the account of salvation history, in vv. 7–9 as law. 51 Note also the lexical correspondences: ‫הלל‬, ‫יהוה‬, ‫כל‬.

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 337

to v. 1, the second close to v. 10. Their presence is explained by the phenomenon of “attraction”⁵².

4 Conclusion At the conclusion of our study, it seems that we are in a position to deny the claims of Pardee. Psalm 111 has compositional units (stanzas and strophes) that are clearly delineated, whether from the thematic or the formal point of view. The refinement of the form (the play on numbers is surprising) corresponds to the profundity of the thought. Between the beginning and the end of the psalm, one can observe a coherent development: from the works of God to the works of humanity, which find their fulfilment in the “imitatio Dei”. It could be said that the psalm presents a progressive concentrating and focusing of the perspective: the first stanza speaks of the “works of God” in a general sense, such as to make us think of the creation; the second focuses the attention on the historical works of God; the third, finally, concentrates on the work of the law. Here is inserted the work of humanity, which consists in doing the law. In the last verse, at its centre, the psalmist condenses his message into a practical maxim: “Do the commandments”⁵³. By carrying out the commandments, humanity enters into the “doing” of God. In fact, this is the beginning of the twin Ps 112: “Blessed is the man who fears the Lord and has great delight in his commandments” (v. 1)⁵⁴.

Bibliography Allen, Leslie C., Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21), Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Auffret, Pierre, Essai sur la structure littéraire des psaumes CXI et CXII: VT 30 (1980) 257–279.

52 Semitic thought avoids the clear cut passage between two literary units, so that some elements of the second unit are anticipated at the end of the first unit, and, vice versa, some elements of the first unit are repeated at the beginning of the second unit (on this principle, cf. Barbiero, L’asino del nemico, 143, note 53, and 146, note 67). The phenomenon of concatenation, which is often observed in the Psalms, follows the same principle. 53 It does not seem fortuitous that the psalm concludes with verse 10, and that this has 10 words: it is probably a reference to the “ten words” of the commandments. 54 I wish a heartfelt blessing for dear Fr. Gilbert, master and colleague in the study of wisdom.

338 

 Gianni Barbiero

Auffret, Pierre, ‘Grandes sont les oeuvres de Yhwh’: Étude structurelle du Psaume 111: JNES 56 (1997) 183–196. Barbiero, Gianni, L’asino del nemico. Rinuncia alla vendetta e amore del nemico nella legislazione dell’Antico Testamento (Es 23,4–5; Dt 22,1–4; Lv 19,17–18) (AnBib 128), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Becker, Joachim, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament (AnBib 25), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1965. Brettler, Marc Z., The Riddle of Psalm 111, in: Deborah A. Green – Laura S. Lieber (eds.), Scriptural Exegesis. The Shape of Culture and the Religious Imagination, Fs Michael Fishbane, Oxford: University Press, 2009, 62–73. Brettler, Marc Z., A Jewish Approach to Psalm 111, in: Marianne Grohmann – Yair Zakovitch (eds.), Jewish and Christian Approaches to Psalms (HBS 57), Freiburg: Herder, 2009, 141–159. Cazelles, Henri, ‫פדה‬, TWAT, vol. 6, 514–522. DeCaen, Vincent, Theme and Variation in Psalm 111: Metrical Phrase and Foot in Generative Perspective: JSS 54 (2009) 81–109. Delitzsch, Franz Julius, Die Psalmen (Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament 4/1) Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1894. Fokkelman, Jan P., Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis, vol. 3: The Remaining 65 Psalms (SSN 43), Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003 . Girard, Marc, Les Psaumes redécouverts. De la structure au sens, vol. 3: Psaumes 101–150, Québec: Bellarmin, 1996. van Grol, Harm, The Torah as a Work of Yhwh. A Reading of Ps 111, in: Janet W. Dyk et al. (eds.), Unless Some One Guide Me… Fs Karel A. Deurloo (ACEBTS 2), Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2001, 229–236. Gunkel, Hermann, Die Psalmen (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 2/2. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar – Erich Zenger, Psalms 3. A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011. Houk, Cornelius B., Acrostic Psalms and Syllables, in: Jack C. Knight – Lawrence A. Sinclair (eds.), The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament. Fs Joseph I. Hunt, Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Seminary, 1990, 54–60. Joüon, Paul – Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 27), Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2009, 2nd reprint of the 2nd ed., with corrections. Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalmen (BK. Altes Testament 15/1–3), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1961–1979. Labuschagne, Casper J., Psalm 111 – Logotechnical Analysis, www.labuschagne.nl/ps111. pdf; Lorenzin, Tiziano, I Salmi (I libri biblici. Primo Testamento 14), Milan: Paoline, 2000. van der Lugt, Pieter, Strofische structuren in de Bijbels-Hebreeuwse poëzie. De geschiedenis van het onderzoek en een bijdrage tot de theorievorming omtrent de strofenbouw van de Psalmen, Kampen: Kok, 1980. van der Lugt, Pieter, Cantos and Strophes in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, with Special Reference to the First Book of the Psalter, vol. 1 (OTS 53), Leiden – Boston, MA: Brill, 2006. Mathys, Hans-Peter, Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Mays, James L., Psalms (Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching), Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

The Structure of Psalm 111 

 339

Meynet, Roland, Un esercizio di analisi retorica. Il Salmo 111, in: Jacek Oniszczuk – Roland Meynet (eds.), Retorica biblica e semitica I: atti del primo convegno RBS (Retorica biblica 12), Bologna: EDB, 2009, 299–314. Pardee, Dennis, Acrostics and Parallelism. The Parallelistic Structure of Psalm 111: Maarav 8 (1992) 117–138. Pardee, Dennis, La structure du Psaume 111 – Réponse à P. Auffret: JNES 56 (1997) 197–200. Ravasi, Gianfranco, Il libro dei Salmi. Commento e attualizzazione (Lettura pastorale della Bibbia 12.14.17), Bologna: EDB, 1981–1985. Schildenberger, Johannes, Bemerkungen zum Strophenaufbau der Psalmen: Estudios eclesiásticos 34 (1960) 673–687. Schildenberger, Johannes, Das Psalmenpaar 111 und 112: Erbe und Auftrag 56 (1980) 203–207. Scoralick, Ruth, Psalm 111 – Bauplan und Gedankengang: Bib 78 (1997) 190–205. Seybold, Klaus, Die Psalmen (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/15), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Weber, Beat, Zu Kolometrie und strophischer Struktur von Psalm 111 – mit einem Seitenblick auf Psalm 112: BN 118 (2003) 62–67. Weiser, Artur, The Psalms (OTL), London: SCM, 1962. Wolff, Hans Walter, Psalm 111, in: Georg Eichholz (ed.), Herr, tue meine Lippen auf. Eine Predigthilfe, vol. 5, Wuppertal-Barmen: Emil Müller, 1961, 229–242. Zenger, Erich, ‘Er hat geboten in Ewigkeit seinen Bund’: Weisheitliche Bundestheologie in Psalm 111, in: Christoph Dohmen – Christian Frevel (eds.), Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel (SBS 211), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 271–280.  

Renato De Zan 

PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers* Renato De Zan: Pontifical Athenaeum S. Anselmo, Rome, Italy

1 Introduction This short study concentrates on the use of PsG 117:22–23 in Matt 21:33–41.42–45, Mark 12:1–9.11–12 and Luke 20:9–16.17 (the synoptic parable of the wicked vinedressers). After a brief look at the psalm, we shall analyse the Greek translation of the text and, afterwards, the New Testament use of PsG 117:22 (Luke) or PsG 117:22– 23 (Matthew, Mark), trying to point out the connections with the parable at the level of the historical Jesus or at the redactional level.

2 Psalm 118H PsH 118 is classified as a “thanksgiving liturgy”, a “thanksgiving psalm of a king”, a “thanksgiving psalm of Israel” or as a “liturgy of the temple gate of Yhwh” (PsH 118:20, “This is the Lord’s gate, the righteous will enter through it”)¹. It comes at the end of the Egyptian Hallel (PssH 113–118), a long prayer for days of celebration and, particularly for the Passover meal², where the six psalms deal with the topic of pilgrimage in an atmosphere of praise and gratitude³. PsH 118 is closely connected to PsH 117, sharing with it the topic of mercy/benevolence, ds,x, (PsH 117:2 // PsH 118:1.2.34.29) and of the nations, ~yIAG-lK' (PsH 117:2 // PsH 118:10). The ~yIAG are called upon to praise the Lord (PsH 117), even if defeated (PsH 118). We are not faced with any theological novelty in the psalm. The concept is clearly expressed in Isaiah’s theology (Isa 37:20), in the theology of Deuteronomy (1 Kgs 8:43.60; 2 Kgs 19:19) and by Ben Sira in the great victory prayer of SirH 36:1–19. In this case, the people praying ask for the defeat of the nations, not so as to bring them

* With thanks to Professor Elena Dado for the translation from the Italian. 1 Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 227–246. 2 Lorenzin, I Salmi, 447. 3 Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters, 80–84.

   PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

 341

low, but to have them join the victors in recognizing no other God than Yhwh (SirH 36:5)⁴. The structure of the psalm has been identified in different ways. It is a text with an important inclusion (PsH 118:1–4 // 118:29), and its central part (PsH 118:5– 28) can be subdivided into two units: vv. 5–18 (a twofold story of distress and redemption) and vv. 19–28 (a feast of the redeemed within a great festive gathering in “the house of Yhwh”)⁵. Others agree with the inclusion but prefer to consider an identical structure with different titles: PsH 118:5–18 (First tôdah hymn, “in the tents of the just”), vv. 19–28 (Second tôdah hymn, “in the tents of the just”)⁶. Others, again, agree with the inclusion but prefer to subdivide the central text into “separate stages of choral comment”⁷ with quite a complex result: PsH 118:5–7 (First phase: it recalls the plea and the response; it expresses its trust); vv. 8–9 (Response [by a choir?] with double declaration in proverbial style); vv. 10–14 (Second phase: it describes the attack and the deliverance in detail); vv. 15–16 (Voices praising the Lord’s answer); vv. 17–18 (Third phase: it interprets suffering as an experience serving as a lesson); vv. 19–21 (A ceremony in front of the gate: the psalmist requests admission; they grant it to him. He gives thanks [lets others speak]); vv. 22–24 (Reflection on what has happened, interpreting it as an action on the Lord’s part); vv. 27–27a (New ceremony: supplication and blessing); and vv. 27b-29 (Closing procession with alternating voices)⁸. Our short study focuses on vv. 22–23. These two verses are placed in the second part of the psalm’s structure (vv. 19–28) or, more specifically, they are part of the reflections on what happened considered as a real intervention by Yhwh (vv. 22–24). While v. 22 is preferably seen as a proverb, v. 23 could be classified as a theological interpretation of the event itself. This event seems to be a desperate situation that, owing to divine intervention (v. 14b: “…he has become my salvation”), changes into a victory (over death?, cf. v. 17a). What has just been said can help us to understand the reason why PsH 118:22– 23 was used in the New Testament. In fact, we are dealing with a text that interprets an event outside normal experience. In PsH 118:22–23 there are no particular textual problems⁹, though there could be some problems of interpretation in two cases. The first case concerns

4 Cf. Palmisano, “Salvaci, Dio dell’universo”, 174–179. 5 Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 233; cf. 236. 6 Ravasi, Il Libro dei Salmi, vol. 3, 417–421. 7 Alonso Schökel – Carniti, I Salmi, vol. 2, 578. 8 Alonso Schökel – Carniti, I Salmi, vol. 2, 578. 9 Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 229–230.

342 

 Renato De Zan 

the expression hN"Pi varol (v. 22), generally understood as either keystone or corner stone¹⁰. The second case deals with the word tal'p.nI (v. 23), which can be read either as a verb or as a noun¹¹. Given that the participle can be used as a noun, it is preferable to read tal'p.nI as a verb. We shall now analyse the Greek translation of our text.

3 The Greek Translation of PsH 118:22–23 The Greek text of Ps 117:22–23 has been transmitted in quite a faithful way and, for this reason, there are no textual problems to be solved. On the other hand, compared to the Hebrew text, there are some features to be noted in the Greek translation¹². 22a 22b 23a 23b

~ynIABh; Wsa]m' !b,a, `hN"Pi varol. ht'y>h' taZO ht'y>h' hw"hy> taeme `WnynEy[eB. tal'p.nI ayhi

   

The Hebrew text of Ps 118:22 states: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone¹³. This is from the Lord¹⁴. It is awesome in our sight”¹⁵. The Greek text, however, introduces an unusual –though well-known– structure in v. 22a. Here we have a case of attractio inversa¹⁶. The noun , which should be in the nominative (), is assimilated into the relative pronoun, as in 1 Cor 10:16b: [= , ] . The Greek text of Ps 117:22a repeats the same structure:(= , ). In v. 22b the nominative pronoun –not present in the Hebrew text– can represent an

10 Cahill, Not a Cornerstone!, 345–357. Cahill has influenced Lorenzin, I Salmi, 440: top of the tower. Alonso Schökel – Carniti, I Salmi, vol. 2, 573 prefers corner stone; Ravasi, Il libro dei Salmi, vol. 3, 408, choses corner capital; Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 229 proposes “keystone” (Schlussstein). 11 Hossfeld – Zenger, Psalms 3, 230. 12 Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis. 13 Cf. Jer 51:26; Job 38:6; Isa 28:6. 14 For the “neutral” use of taZO and of ayh, cf. Waltke – O’Connor, An Introduction, 301 § 16.3.5c. 15 Cf. Jenni, Vom Herrn dies gewirkt, 55–62. 16 Blass – Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, § 295 (154–155).

   PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

 343

emphatic use or a simple return to the previous dependent clause¹⁷. As regards v. 23, we have to solve the problem of  (fem. pronoun) and of  (fem. adjective). What do they refer to? These feminine forms can be an ad litteram translation of the Hebrew. For this reason, it seems reasonable to give them a “neutral” meaning as in the corresponding Hebrew term¹⁸. The following is a suggested translation of the Greek text: “The stone that the builders rejected, this real one, has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is awesome in our sight”. The Greek text of Ps 117:22–23 has been dealt with in the New Testament in different ways. In Acts 4:11, we find a simple allusion to v. 22. In 1 Pet 2:7, however, there is a real quotation explicitly noted as taken from our psalm (cf. 1 Pet 2:6, , because that is written in Scripture). PsG 117:22 is also mentioned in Luke 20:17 where the evangelist explicitly notes that we are dealing with a passage from the Scriptures (Luke 20:17:  …?, Then what is the meaning of what is written [in the Scriptures]?). In Matt 21:42 and in Mark 12:10–11 there is another real quotation from PsG 117:22– 23 (Matt 21,42: …?, Have you never read in the Scriptures…?; Mark 12:10: …?, Have you never read this Scripture…?). In Matt 21:42, Mark 12:10–11 and Luke 20:17, the psalm is mentioned at the end of the parable of the wicked vinedressers. The quotation is actually taken from the Greek text and not from the Hebrew one¹⁹. As regards the textual tradition of Mark and Luke, there is no problem. However, there is a slight variant to be noted in the Matthew tradition ( instead of) in a few manuscripts, but that is not the topic of the present

17 Blass – Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, § 290.3 (151). 18 See note 14. 19 The quotation from IsaG 5:2 is present in Matthew and in Mark at the beginning of the parable. In Luke we just have a hint of it. The Hebrew text and the Greek text are quite different. Among the differences, we may note the inappropriate correspondence between WhqeZ>[;y>w: and, and the change of grammatical person (in the Hebrew text: third masculine singular; in the Greek text: first masculine singular). The two Synoptics depend on a text close to the LXX, even though they use the third person (as the Hebrew text) and have the variant instead of . This fact shows the prophetic quotation as not belonging to the original parable. This is stressed by the following observations: in Isaiah, the vineyard is the main feature of the poem, while in the parable it plays a secondary role; in Isaiah, the love of the beloved for his vineyard stands in the foreground, while in the parable it is not mentioned; in Isaiah, it is the vineyard that does not give the crop, while in the parable it is the vinedressers that refuse to give the crop from the vineyard. Consequently, there is no real harmony between the quotation from Isaiah and the parable where it is inserted.

344 

 Renato De Zan 

study. This variant can be explained as mimesis of  because, in the following verse we read:, Therefore I tell you (Matt 21:43). The fact that in the parable of the wicked vinedressers the quotation from PsG 117:42–43 is taken straight from the Greek text and that the same passage is a Testimonium²⁰ also used elsewhere (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:7), can lead us to suppose that the psalm quotation is more a reflection of the primitive Church rather than a real quotation spoken by Jesus.

4 From the Triple Redaction of the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers to the Historical Jesus Attempts at the restoration of the parable of the wicked vinedressers to the level of the historical Jesus are few in number²¹. The actual parable is contained in Matt 21:33–41, Mark 12:1–9 and Luke 20:9–16. The three versions are influenced by the style and theology of the early Church. Moreover, there is further evidence that leads us to conclude that the evangelists wanted to transform the original parable told by Jesus into an allegorical tale of salvation history. In Matthew, this process is more obvious. Among the many remarks that should be made²², two examples are suitable for our purposes. The first example is the mistreatment of the servants according to the gospel of Matthew (Matt 21:35– 36). To express the mistreatment of the servants, the author uses the same verbs used by Jesus in Matt 23:37 to describe the mistreatment of the prophets and of the “messengers” meted out in Jerusalem. In Matt 21:35 Jesus says:  … (the tenants seized his servants; they… killed another, and stoned a third). Matt 23:37 reports the words of Jesus: … (Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you…). In the unusual sequence in Matt 21:35 the verbs are inverted in their logical sequence, –  (to kill – to stone) as in Matt 23:37.

20 Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 35–36. 21 As an example, cf. Hubaut, La Parabole des vignerons homicides; Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 139–164. Cf. also De Zan, La parabola dei vignaioli omicidi, 77–89. A variant of this parable appears in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (§ 65). 22 De Zan, La parabola dei vignaioli omicidi, 79–88.

   PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

 345

The second example of allegorisation is to be found in Matt 21:39, the narrative of the death of the vineyard owner’s son. The words used by Mathew to express the death of the landowner’s son are impressive because of their pointed allusion to Jesus’ death:  (…so they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him). If we are aware of the symbolic value of noun (see EzekG 15:6 where is referred to Jerusalem), we spontaneously associate the son’s death with Jesus’ death. The Son is prosecuted in Jerusalem and, later, led out of Jerusalem to be put to death. Reconstruction of the text of the parable as it existed at the pre-editing stage easily leads us back to the historical Jesus. The following represents such a primitive text²³:    [   [  

A man planted a vineyard

  

At the end (the man) sent them his son,

       .

“This is the heir.

And he gave it to the vinedressers and went away. At the right time he sent a servant to the [vinedressers To get the crop from the vineyard, But after seizing him, they beat him and sent him [back empty-handed. And again he sent another servant. They beat that servant too, on his head, and they [insulted him. saying: “Perhaps they will respect my son”. The vinedressers, however, discussed among [themselves: Let us kill him And the heritage will be ours”. After that, seizing him, they killed him And they threw him out of the vineyard. What will the vineyard owner do? He will go there and he will destroy the vinedressers And he will give the vineyard to others.

At the pre-editing stage, the parable presents the features of a parable spoken by Jesus. Drawn from the triple synoptic evidence by analysing each evangelist’s style, this hypothetical form of the pre-edited parable sounds like the Semitic way

23 De Zan, La parabola dei vignaioli omicidi, 88–89. In this study, owing to a printing mistake, a verse is lacking: .

346 

 Renato De Zan 

of speaking. Besides this fact, there are others factors that lead one to consider the parable’s pre-edited text as mirroring Jesus’ original parable. Let us briefly analyse the data. The general setting perfectly fits the situation in Palestine in Jesus’ time. There were frequent cases of latifundia, and frequent contracts between landowners and tenant farmers. The rent was paid in the form of crops. In this potentially rebellious atmosphere, we can also set the rebellious attitude of the tenants. It arose out of economic reasons and was patterned on the rebellion of Judas the Galilean in 6 A.D. The vinedressers’ hope to become landowners after the death of the only heir is firmly based on the current laws regarding the right to property at that time²⁴. There are other elements to be taken into account besides these. In Hebrew figurative language, the vineyard owner is a common metaphor to denote God. The vineyard is a common metaphor too. It indicates the people of God, i.e. Israel (Isa 5:7; Deut 32:32; Ps 80:9–17; Jer 2:21; etc.) and even Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 15:6). At the end of the parable, however, the judgement delivered is quite original compared with Jewish expectations. Old Testament theology may decree a punishment for the infringement of the Covenant, but not in the form of depriving someone of a kingdom so as to give it to others. The firmly-held belief of Judaism is clear: the words of God are truth (2 Sam 7:28); human beings change, not God (Mal 3:6). Besides, the Jews always had the certainty of being the heirs of God. Their heritage was not a probability but a certainty. God’s outlook, however, is much more subtle. He does not go against the Old Testament theology. He is aiming at something else. But why did Jesus recount this parable? An answer can be given by means of a fact reported by Matt 21:45, Mark 12:12 and Luke 20:19. The high priests and the Pharisees (scribes) understood that the parable was directed against them. Why was it against them? If the parable of Jesus had been a simple allegory of the history of salvation, the tale would not have been against anybody: it would have simply taken the form of a prophecy. Jesus’ parable, however –in the way it emerges from the reconstruction– was not an allegory and, for that reason, we need to direct our research elsewhere. The tertium comparationis can help to give an answer. The vinedressers have to pay the rent, and their refusal to pay and their desire to become the vineyard owners is not in keeping with any contract, law or common sense. They agreed to be employees of the vineyard owner, not inde-

24 These data were taken from Bammel, Das Gleichnis von den bösen Winzern, 14–15; Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 75, note 97; Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 96, note 3 and 97, note 1; Oldenhage, Spirali della violenza, 576–580.

   PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

 347

pendent of him. This wrong attitude of theirs explains the outspoken answer given by the crowd in Matt 21:41: the vineyard owner has to put the wicked vinedressers to death and give the vineyard to productive vinedressers. In other words, Jesus accuses the “vinedressers”, alluding to the people of Israel (and of Jerusalem) as responsible somehow for repeating Adam’s sin: they set aside the commandments of God in order to observe their own traditions (cf. Mark 7:8–13). Jesus, however, did not go against Old Testament theology. Had that been his intention, he would have said something against all the people of God and not “against them”.

5 The Link between the Quotation from PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable as Recounted by the Historical Jesus The quotation from PsG 117:22–23 is connected with the son, the last messenger sent by the vineyard owner. Let us ask ourselves some questions about this son. Is it reasonable that the father should send his son to carry out a mission when the servants, on that same mission, had received such harsh treatment? Is it reasonable that the father, before taking any action, should have waited for his son to be put to death? Of course not. So, what part does the son play? He is the last one to be sent, the son, the heir and the only character that dies (still according to the reconstructed parable at the level of the historical Jesus). Certainly these are of course pre-Easter and not allegorised characteristics²⁵. In fact, it is well known that Jesus was aware of his special relation with his Father²⁶. To be a son meant to be an heir too²⁷. It is also recognised that Jesus knew that God had sent him²⁸. It is also clear that Jesus knew he would face death, even though the details of that topic are still very much open to discussion²⁹. If the early Church had made any changes in these characteristics, we would have found a different description of the death: we would have found some hint about the sepulchre, so fully highlighted by the evangelists. Therefore, in introducing the character of the vineyard

25 Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 141. 26 Theissen – Merz, The Historical Jesus, 526–527; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 148–153. 27 Foerster – Hermann, , 767–785, esp. 781–782. 28 Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3, 156–157, esp. note 105. 29 Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 144.

348 

 Renato De Zan 

owner’s son, Jesus could indeed have been alluding to himself³⁰, but that was certainly not his main purpose. His aim is brought out by the tertium comparationis in the parable as recounted by the historical Jesus. However, we cannot deny the presence of the allusion to PsG 117:22. In fact, the psalm does not highlight the parable’s message, but highlights the character of the son. Surprisingly, the quotation of the psalm is not the same in the three synoptics. We have already seen that Matthew and Mark quote PsG 117:22–23, while Luke quotes only PsG 117:22. Why is the psalm quoted in the Greek text? Why is there not uniformity in the quotation among the synoptics? It is not difficult to answer the first question: if the psalm quotation is connected to the edited parable and not to the version spoken by the historical Jesus, we explain the Greek quotation by the fact that the primitive Church had adopted the Greek text (of the LXX) as the Old Testament text. It is more difficult to answer the second question. In the parable, the quotations of a text are given with some measure of freedom. In this connection, we may analyse the quotation of IsaG 5:2 at the beginning of the edited parable. Isa 5:2

Matt 21:33

Mark 12:1

     





 

 

 

 

And I fenced (it)

He planted a vineyard.

A man planted a vineyard.

I planted a special vineyard,

He fenced (it),

He fenced (it),

I built a tower

dug a pit for the winepress

dug a pit for the winepress

and built a watchtower.

and built a watchtower.

He rented the vineyard to some

He rented the vineyard to some

farmers

farmers

I put a wall around (it),

In the middle of it And I dug a pit for the winepress.

The variants between the Greek text of the LXX and of the two Synoptics are certainly either in favour of an ad mentem quotation or of a quotation coming from a Vorlage different from the present text of the LXX. The quotation is not dependent

30 This is clearly the opinion of Dunn, Flusser and others mentioned by Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 142.

   PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

 349

on the Hebrew text, and that is evident —a remark that is also valid for Matt 21:33 and Mark 12:1. On the other hand, concerning Luke 20:9, the third Gospel gives only an allusion to IsaG 5:2, , a man planted a vineyard. Luke’s moderation in giving the text from Isaiah can be explained by the fact that Luke finds himself in a community probably not very familiar with the Old Testament. The other hypothesis is that adding IsaG 5:2 may be due to Mark’s or Matthew’s editing, unless Luke has taken something away from the tradition. Could this latter hypothesis also be applied to Luke 20:17 where only PsG 117:22 is quoted? It is hard to say. However, owing to the different lengths of the quotations from PsG 117 given by the threee Synoptics, we might think that the early Church’s tradition has allegorised the parable and has transmitted the psalm quotation in the limited form of PsG 117:22. While Luke in some way follows this, Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, have enriched the original quotation by adding v. 23. This hypothesis could explain Luke’s simplicity (Luke 20:9.17) and the richness of Matthew (Matt 21:33.42), and Mark (Mark 12:10). Finally, we need to take into account one last fact. The text of Luke 20:18³¹ // Matt 21:44³² is a redacted Lucan verse interpolated into Matthew³³. The verse seems to come from a reflection on Dan 2:34.45 and Isa 8:14–15; cf. the midrash of Esther 3:6 (if the stone falls on the pan [of fired clay], woe to the pan! If the pan falls on the stone, woe to the pan! In any case, woe to the pan!)³⁴.

6 Brief Conclusion After this short examination, we can state that the text of PsG 117:22–23 is certainly connected with the parable related by the historical Jesus. This link, however, does not appear to be original. In fact, it does not look like a further explanation by Jesus himself, a comment on the parable, as it were. The parable as spoken by the historical Jesus highlights the question of the autonomy of the vinedressers as

31  , Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 32                                , And the one who shall fall upon this stone will be broken; but he on whomsever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 33 Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 224.322. 34 Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 197.

350 

 Renato De Zan 

opposed to the dependence required from them. This autonomy had already been criticized by Jesus, setting the demand for true purity in opposition to human tradition (Matt 15:1–9.10–20 // Mark 7:1–13.14–23). With the parable, Jesus’ reproach becomes a lesson for the people and no longer purely academic. The religious establishment reacts to this lesson. The link with PsG 117:22 seems to follow naturally when, according to the tradition, the need was felt to highlight the son’s role in the allegorical (history of salvation) reinterpretation of the parable. This link was probably taken up by Luke as he found it, while Matthew and Mark enriched the text with PsG 117:23. Luke, however, who did not change the quotation coming from the tradition (Luke 21:17 // PsG 117:22), inserted another wisdom thought (20:18) by way of commentary on the text of the Psalm.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis – Cecilia Carniti, I Salmi (Commenti biblici), vol. 2, Rome: Borla, 1993. Bammel, Ernst, Das Gleichnis von den bösen Winzern (Mk. 12,1–9) und das jüdische Erbrecht: Revue International des Droits de l’Antiquité 6 (1959) 11–17. Blass, Friedrich Wilhelm – Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Revision of the Ninth-tenth German Edition Incorporating Supplementary Notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk, Cambridge: University Press, 1961. Cahill, Michael, Not a Cornerstone! Translating Ps 118,22 in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures: RB 106 (1999) 345–357. Charlesworth, James H., Jesus within Judaism. New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (The Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York: Doubleday, 1988. De Zan, Renato, La parabola dei vignaioli omicidi a livello del Gesù storico. Contributo alla ricerca dello stadio preredazionale, in: Santi Grasso – Ermenegildo Manicardi (eds.), “Generati da una parola di verità” (Gc 1,18). Scritti in onore di Rinaldo Fabris nel suo 70° compleanno (RivBS 47), Bologna: EDB, 2006, 77–89. Dodd, Charles H., The Parables of the Kingdom, New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1961. Dodd, Charles H., According to the Scriptures. The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (Fontana Books 2005), London: Nisbet & Co., 1965. Foerster, Werner – Johannes Hermann, , TDNT, vol. 3, 767–785. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar – Erich Zenger, Psalms 3. A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011. Hubaut, Michel, La Parabole des vignerons homicides (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 16), Paris: J. Gabalda, 1976. Jenni, Ernst, Vom Herrn dies gewirkt. Ps 118:23: TZ 35 (1979) 55–62. Jeremias, Joachim, The Parables of Jesus, London: SCM, 1955. Lorenzin, Tiziano, I Salmi. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I Libri biblici. Primo Testamento 9), Milan: Paoline, 2000.

   PsG 117:22–23 and the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

 351

Manson, Thomas W., The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Gospel according to St. Matthew and St. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Commentary, London: SCM, 1949. Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 3: Companions and Competitors (Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York: Doubleday, 2001. Millard, Matthias, Die Komposition des Psalters. Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz (FAT 9), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Oldenhage, Tania, Spirali della violenza (I vignaioli malvagi), in: Ruben Zimmermann (ed.) in collaborazione con Detlev Dormeyer… (et al.), Compendio delle parabole di Gesù. Edizione italiana a cura di Flavio Dalla Vecchia, Brescia: Queriniana, 2011, 576–580. Palmisano, Maria Carmela, “Salvaci, Dio dell’universo!”. Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H,1–17 (AnBib 163), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. Rahlfs, Alfred, Psalmi cum Odis (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum X), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Ravasi, Gianfranco, Il Libro dei Salmi. Commento e attualizzazione, vol. 3 (Sal 101–150) (Lettura pastorale della Bibbia 17), Bologna: EDB, 1984. Snodgrass, Klyne R., The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation (WUNT 27), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Theissen, Gerd – Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus. A Comprehensive Guide, London: SCM, 1998. Waltke, Bruce K. – Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

 

Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)¹ 2000 “Sagesse et histoire”, in M. Hermans – P. Sauvage (eds.), Bible et histoire. Écriture, interprétation et action dans le temps (Bruxelles – Namur: Éditions Lessius – Presses Universitaires de Namur, 2000) 57–82. “Wisdom of Solomon and Scripture”, in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History and Its Interpretation, I/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 606–617. “El Padre Lagrange, exégeta”, Teología espiritual 44 (2000) 163–178.

2001 “Immortalité? Résurrection? Faut-il choisir? Témoignage du judaïsme ancien”, in P. Abadie – J.-P. Lémonon (eds.), Le Judaïsme à l’aube de l’ère chrétienne. XVIII congrès de l’ACFEB, Lyon, septembre 1999 (LD 186; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2001) 271–297. “M.-J. Lagrange et F. Cumont. L’histoire des religions et la Bible”, Les études classiques 69 (2001) 3–22. “Il concetto di tempo (‘et) in Qohelet e in Ben Sira”, in G. Bellia – A. Passaro (eds.), Il libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia (ed.) (Cammini nello spirito. Sezione Biblica 44; Milan: Paoline Editoriale Libri, 2001) 69–89. “La sapienza biblica”, in S. Petruccioni (ed.), Storia della Scienza, I: La scienza antica (Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana; Rome: Marchesi, 2001) 373–377. “Les livres sapientiaux de l’Ancien Testament. Présentation générale”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 38, 14-19. “Le livre des Proverbes (1)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 39, 13-18. “Le livre des Proverbes (2)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 40, 11-15. “Le livre des Proverbes (3)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 41, 14-20. “Le livre des Proverbes (4)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 42, 16-19. “Le livre de Job (1)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 43, 13-17. “Le livre de Job (2)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 44, 14-20. “Le livre de Job (3)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 45, 12-16. “Le livre de Job (4)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 46, 12-17.

1 For a complete bibliography, cf. Nuria Calduch-Benages – Jacques Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert (BETL 143), Leuven: University Press – Peeters, 1999, xiii-xxiii (1970–1998) and Françoise Mies (ed.), Toute la sagesse du monde – Hommage à Maurice Gilbert, pour le 65e anniversaire de l’exégète et du recteur (Le livre et le rouleau 7), Brussels: Lessius, 1999, 705–731 (1960–1999).

354 

   Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)

“Qohélèt (1)”, Esprit et Vie 111 (2001) n. 47, 18-22. “Biblia sagrada”, in C.E. O’Neill – J.M. Domínguez (eds.), Diccionario Histórico de la Compañía de Jesús. Biográfico-temático, I (Rome – Madrid: Institutum Historicum – Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2011) 437–443. “Bíblico, Pontificio Instituto”, C.E. O’Neill – J.M. Domínguez (eds.), Diccionario Histórico de la Compañía de Jesús. Biográfico-temático, I (Rome – Madrid: Institutum Historicum – Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2001) 443–445. “Šira, Josef”, in C.E. O’Neill – J.M. Domínguez (eds.), Diccionario Histórico de la Compañía de Jesús. Biográfico-temático, IV (Rome – Madrid: Institutum Historicum – Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2001) 3582. “Tierra santa”, in C.E. O’Neill – J.M. Domínguez (eds.), Diccionario Histórico de la Compañía de Jesús. Biográfico-temático, IV (Rome – Madrid: Institutum Historicum – Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2001) 3796–3802. “Il Pontificio Istituto Biblico di Gerusalemme”, Vinea electa (Bollettino informativo dell’Associazione ex-alunni/e del PIB), n. 1, anno 2001, 2–3. “Gli studi biblici in Sicilia”, Notiziario (del Centro per lo Studio della Storia e della Cultura in Sicilia della Facoltà teologica di Sicilia) 2 (2001) 49–52.

2002 “Qoélèt (2)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 49, 11-15. “Qoélèt (3)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 50, 16-21. “La Sagesse de Ben Sira (1)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 51, 19-24. “La Sagesse de Ben Sira (2)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 52, 11-15. “La Sagesse de Ben Sira (3)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 53, 19-23. “La Sagesse de Ben Sira (4)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 54, 18-23. “La Sagesse de Ben Sira (5)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 55, 14-18. “La Sagesse de Ben Sira (6)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 56, 14-18. “La Sagesse de Ben Sira (7)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 57, 16-20. “La Sagesse de Salomon (1)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 58, 13-17. “La Sagesse de Salomon (2)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 59, 10-14. “La Sagesse de Salomon (3)”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 60, 23-27. “Conclusion générale”, Esprit et Vie 112 (2002) n. 61, 16-21. “La lumière dans le textes de Qumrân”, in J. Ries – C.-M. Ternes (eds.), Symbolisme et expérience de la lumière dans les grandes religions. Actes du Colloque tenu à Luxembourg du 29 au 31 mars 1996 (“Homo religiosus”, série II, 1; Brepols: Turnhout, 2002) 149–156. Madrosc Salomona, I-II (Mysl Theologiczna 37–38; Cracovia: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2002): Polish translation of La Sapienza di Salomone, I-II (Roma: Edizioni ADP, 1995). “Textes exclus, textes inclus: les enjeux”, in J.-M. Poffet (ed.), L’autorité de l’Ecriture (LD, Hors série; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2002) 51–70. “Textes bibliques dont l’Eglise a défini le sens”, in J.-M. Poffet (ed.), L’autorité de l’Ecriture (LeDiv, Hors série; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2002) 71–94. “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11–18:14”, in R. Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002) 118–135.

   Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)

 355

2003 Les cinq livres des Sages. Proverbes – Job – Qohélet – Ben Sira – Sagesse (Lire la Bible 129; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2003). “Qohélet ou la difficulté de vivre”, Études 398 (2003) 639–649 = “Qoelet o la difficoltà di vivere”, Civiltà Cattolica 154 II (2003) 450–459. “Les chemins de la Sagesse”, Biblia (Paris: Éditions du Cerf), n. 20 (juin-juillet 2003) 6–14; 18–19; 22–23. “La Présence au coeur du monde”, Vie Spirituelle n. 747 (juin 2003) 145–148. “Giovinezza e vecchiaia: il poema conclusivo (Qoh 11,7–12,7)”, Parole di Vita 3 (2003) 42–48. “Des proverbes pour vivre”, Biblia (Paris: Éditions du Cerf), n. 21 (août-septembre 2003) 8–19. “Riches et pauvres. Réflexions des sages de la Bible”, in F. Mies (ed.), Bible et économie. Servir Dieu ou l’argent (Connaître et croire 10 – Le livre et le rouleau 17; Bruxelles: Presses Universitaires de Namur – Lessius, 2003) 11–40. “Sg 3,7-9; 5,15-23 et l’apocalyptique”, in F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168; Leuven: Peeters – University Press, 2003) 307-322. “Venez à mon école (51,13–30)”, in I. Fischer – U. Rapp – J. Schiller (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. FS Johannes Marböck (BZAW 331; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003) 283–290.

2004 “À l’école de la sagesse. La pédagogie des sages de l’ancien Israël”, Gregorianum 85 (2004) 20-42. “La struttura letteraria del Libro della Sapienza. Analisi di alcune divergenze”, in G. Bellia – A. Passaro (eds.), Il Libro della Sapienza. Tradizione, redazione, teologia (Studia Biblica 1; Rome: Città Nuova, 2004) 33-46. “Sapienza e storia”, in M. Hermans – P. Sauvage (eds.), Bibbia e storia. Scrittura, interpretazione e azione nel tempo (Studi biblici 45; Bologna: EDB, 2004) 55-79. “La morte del giusto nel fiore degli anni. Sap 4,7-14b”, Parola, Spirito e Vita 49 (2004) 107-118. “La pedagogia dei saggi nell’antico Israele”, Civiltà Cattolica 155 (2004, III) 345-358. “A pedagogia dos sabios no Antigo Israel”, Cultura e Fé n. 107 (2004) 18–31. “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira. Function and Relevance”, in R. Egger-Wenzel – J. Corley (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5-9 July 2003 (DCLY; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004) 117-135.

2005 “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1–11”, in J. Corley – V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (CBQMS 38; Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005) 89–99. “Il padre Lagrange: L’esegesi scientifica al servizio della Chiesa”, Rivista di teologia dell’Evangelizzazione 9 (2005) 461-476.

356 

   Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)

“Les différents livres de la Bible”, in AA.VV., Vocabulaire raisonné de l’exégèse biblique. Les mots, les approches, les auteurs (Outils bibliques; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2005) 9–36. La Sapienza del cielo. Proverbi, Giobbe, Qohèlet, Siracide, Sapienza (Parola di Dio – Seconda serie 53; Cinisello Balsamo, MI: Edizioni San Paolo, 2005). “Potenza e mitezza nella Sapienza di Salomone”, Parola Spirito e Vita 51 (2005) 81–92. “The Literary Structure of the Book of Wisdom. A Study of Various Views”, in A. Passaro – G. Bellia (eds.), The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLY; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005) 19–32.

2006 “La Sapienza e il culto secondo Ben Sira”, Rivista di scienze religiose 20 (2006) 1-14. “«La vostra sovranità viene dal Signore» (Sap 6,3): ambivalenza del potere politico nella tradizione sapienziale”, in E. Manicardi – L. Mazzinghi (eds.), Il potere politico: bisogno e rifiuto dell’autorità (RicStBib 18; Bologna: EDB, 2006) 117-132. “I diversi libri della Bibbia”, in AA.VV., Lessico ragionato dell’esegesi biblica. Le parole, gli approcci, gli autori (Brescia: Queriniana, 2006) 7-36. “The Origins According to the Wisdom of Solomon”, in N. Calduch-Benages – J. Liesen (eds.), History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Early Period (DCLY; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006) 71-85.

2007 “Biblical Proverbs and African Proverbs”, Afrika Yetu. Jesuit Journal 12 (April 2007) 1-12. Jean Lévêque, Job ou le drame de la foi. Essais édités par M. Gilbert et Fr. Mies (LD 216; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2007). “Otec Lagrange. Vedecka exegéza v sluzbe Cirkvi”, Studia Biblica Slovaca 2006 (2007) 4-18: Slovachian translation of “Il padre Lagrange. L’esegesi scientifica al servizio della Chiesa”, Rivista di teologia dell’Evangelizzazione 9 (2005) 461-476. “Proverbes bibliques et proverbes africains”, in J.-B. Matand Bulembat (ed.), Sagesse humaine et sagesse divine dans la Bible. Human Wisdom and Divine Wisdom in the Bible. Mélanges offerts à S.E. Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya à l’occasion de ses 25 ans d’épiscopat, Kinshasa, du 4 au 11 septembre 2005 (Nairobi: Association Panafricaine des exégètes catholiques, 2007) 325-332.

2008 Review of: F. Laplanche, La crise de l’origine. La science catholique des Évangiles et l’histoire du XXe siècle (Bibliothèque de l’Évolution de l’humanité; Paris: Éd. Albin Michel, 2006), in Biblica 89 (2008) 297–300.

   Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)

 357

“Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends in Modern Exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira”, in A. Passaro – G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) 1–20. “The Vetus Latina of Ecclesiasticus”, in G.G. Xeravits – J. Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Center, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May 2006 (JSJS 127; Brill: Leiden – Boston, 2008) 1–9. “Le antifone maggiori dell’Avvento”, Civiltà Cattolica 159/3802 (2008 IV) 319–332.

2009 L’Institut Biblique Pontifical. Un siècle d’histoire (1909–2009) (Rome: P.I.B., 2009); Il Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Cento anni di storia (1909–2009), translated by C. Valentino; The Pontifical Biblical Institute. A Centenary of History (1909–2009), translated by L. Arnold, S.J. “L’étude des livres sapientiaux à l’Institut Biblique”, in J.-N. Aletti – J.L. Ska (eds.), Biblical Exegesis in Progress. Old and New Testament Essays (AnBib 176; Rome: P.I.B., 2009) 151–171. “Da un secolo alla ricerca di una Parola da insegnare. Il 7 maggio 1909 Pio X fondava il Pontificio Istituto Biblico”, L’Osservatore Romano, 7 maggio 2009, 4. “Joseph Bonsirven (1880–1958)”, Henoch 31 (2009) 238–240. “1909–2009: San Paolo al Biblico”, Paulus 1/12 (2008–2009) 70–71. “Il centenario del Pontificio Istituto Biblico”, Civiltà Cattolica 160 (2009 II) 540–549. “Les enseignements magistériels sur le sens littéral”, in O.-T. Venard (ed.), Le sens littéral des Ecritures (LeDiv, Hors série; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2009) 27–46. “Why Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration”, Rivista Biblica 57 (2009) 217–222. Le sette note del Natale. Le antifone «O» (Collana Bonsai 3; Milan: Ancora 2009) = Civiltà Cattolica 159/3802 (2008 IV) 319–332. “Bíblia e cristianismo”, in F. Mies (ed.), Bíblia e religiões. Judaismo, cristianismo, islamismo (São Paulo: Loyola, 2009) 93–117.

2010 “Le centenaire de l’Institut Biblique”, Jésuites de France 2010, 44–48. “Siracide 51,1–30” (in collaboration with F. Mies), in La Bible en ses Traditions. Définitions suivies de douze études, sous la responsabilité de l’Ecole Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem (BEST 1; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 128–149. “The Centenary of the PBI”, in Parole del Centenario, 1909–2009 (Rome: GBPress, 2010) 59–66. “Pontifical Biblical Commission”, in D. Patte (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 976. “El Dissabte Sant de Maria”, Des de Sant Benet 4/12 (2010) 4–7 (translated by Sr. Olga Nicolau).

358 

   Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)

2011 La Sagesse de Salomon. Recueil d’articles – The Wisdom of Solomon. Collected Essays (AnBib 189; Rome: GBPress, 2011). “Introduction to Kearns’ Dissertation”, in C. Kearns, The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus. Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin (ed. P.C. Beentjes) (DCLS 11; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011) 9–21. “Préface”, in R. De Zan, Il culto che Dio gradisce. Studio del «Trattato sulle offerte» di Sir(gr) 34,21–35,20 (AnBib 190; Rome: GBPress, 2011) 7–8. “The Review of History in Ben Sira 44–50 and Wisdom 10–19”, in J. Corley – H. van Grol (eds.), Rewriting Biblical History. Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes (DLCS 7; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011) 319–334. “Où en sont les études sur le Siracide”, Biblica 92 (2011) 161–181. Review of: C. Arnold – G. Losito (eds.), Le censure d’Alfred Loisy (1903). Les documents des Congrégations de l’Index et du Saint Office (Fontes Archivi Sancti Officii Romani 4; Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2009), in Rivista Biblica 59 (2011) 127–132. “La liberté religieuse selon l’Ancien Testament”, Esprit et Vie, n. 240 (October 2011) 11–20.

2012 “Le cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. In memoriam”, Rivista Biblica 60 (2012) 435–441. “L’uomo nella teologia sapienziale della creazione. Confronto con Gen 1–11”, in E. Manicardi – L. Mazzinghi (eds.), Genesi 1–11 e le sue interpretazioni canoniche: un caso di teologia biblica. XLI Settimana Biblica Nazionale, Roma, 6–10 Settembre 2010 (RicStBib 24; Bologna: EDB, 2012) 101–118. “Alla fine della vita. La morte come limite estremo e compimento”, in A. Polat (ed.), Nascere e morire nella Bibblia (Quaderni tà biblia 11; Centro di studi biblici di Sacile, 2012) 23–38. C.M. Martini, L’Evêque. Au jour le jour, traduit de l’italien par M. Gilbert, sj (La part-Dieu 20; Lessius, Bruxelles 2012). Review of: B.C. Gregory, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring. Generosity in the Book of Ben Sira (DCLS 2; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), in Biblica 92 (2012) 291–295.

2013 “L’idée de création dans la sagesse biblique”, in Fr. Mies (ed.), Que soit! L’idée de création comme don de pensée (Donner raison 41; Bruxelles: Lessius, 2013) 41–50. L. Alonso Schökel, Manuel de poétique hébraïque, traduit du castillan par M. Gilbert, sj (Le livre et le rouleau 41; Bruxelles: Lessius, 2013). “La structure des Psaumes des Montées (Ps 120–134)”, in M. Milani – L. Mazzinghi (eds.), “Ricercare la Sapienza di tutti gli antichi” (Sir 39,1). Miscellanea in onore di Gian Luigi Prato (RivBS 56; EDB, Bologna 2013) 227–234. Review of: A.T. Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10. A Jewish Hellenistic Interpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses (DCLS 9; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), in Biblica 94 (2013) 304–308.

   Bibliography of Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ (2000–2014)

 359

2014 Review of: M. Edwards, Pneuma and Realized Eschatology in the Book of Wisdom (FRLANT 242; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), in Biblica 95 (2014) (forthcoming). Review of: B.K. Zabán, The Pillar Function of the Speeches of Wisdom. Proverbs 1:20–33, 8:1–36 and 9:1–6 in the Structural Framework of Proverbs 1–9 (BZAW 429; Berlin – Boston: Walter de Gryuter, 2012), in Biblica 95 (2014) (forthcoming).

List of Abbreviations ABE ACEBTS AnBib ANRW

AOAT APOT ATD AUU.SSU BBB BEHE.R BEST BETL BHS Bib BibInt BJS BK BN BOT BVC BZAR BZAW BZWANT CBET CBQ CBQMS CCG CCL CSCO CUFr DBS DCH DCLS DCLY DOTE EB EHS ETL

Asociación Bíblica Española Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese van de Bijbel en zijn tradities. Supplement Series Analecta Biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (ed. by H. Temporini – W. Haase, Berlin, 1972–) Alter Orient und Altes Testament The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (ed. by R.H. Charles) Das Alte Testament. Deutsch Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia Bönner biblische Beiträge Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences religieuses La Bible en ses traditions Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Interpretation Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar Biblische Notizen Boeken van het Oude Testament Bible et vie chrétienne Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium Collection des Universités de France Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplément Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (ed. by D.J.A. Clines, Sheffield, 1993–) Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literary Studies Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. by W.A. VanGemeren, Gran Rapids, Mi, 1997). Études bibliques Europäsche Hochschulschriften Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses

   List of Abbreviations

EÜ FAT FOTL FRLANT Ges.-Ka. GHAT GNO GOF HAL HCOT HSM HTKAT HTR HUCA ICC Int ITQ JBL JNES JNSL Joüon-Muraoka JPS JSJS JSOT JSOTSS JSPS JSS LCL LD LHB/OTS LLS NAB NABRE NBE NCB NEB NETS NICOT NRSV NRT NSK OBO ÖBS OLA

 361

Einheitsübersetzung Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments H.F.W. Gesenius – É.-F. Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1962 (Leipzig 281909). Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Gregorii Nysseni Opera Göttinger Orientsforschung The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Historical Commentary of the Old Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpretation The Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of New Eastern Studies Journal of Northern Semitic Languages P. Joüon – T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia biblica 14/1 und II), Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993. Jewish Publication Society Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Loeb Classical Library Lectio Divina Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Los Libros Sagrados New American Bible New American Bible Revised Nueva Biblia Española New Century Bible Die Neue Echter Bibel A New English Translation of the Septuagint (A. Pietersma – B.G. Wright) The New International Commentary on the Old Testament New Revised Standard Version Nouvelle revue théologique Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Österreichische biblische Studien Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta

362 

OTE OTL OTS PAAJR PG PL PLS

   List of Abbreviations

TZ VT VTS WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW

Old Testament Essays Old Testament Literature Oustestamentische Studiën=Old Testament Studies Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Patrologia Graeca (ed. by J.-P. Migne, 162 vols., Paris, 1857–1886). Patrologia Latina (ed. by J.-P. Migne, 217 vols., Paris, 1844–1864). Patrologia Latina Supplementum (ed. by A. Hamman, 5 vols., Paris, 1958–1974). Revue biblique The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford, 1989) Revue des études grecques Revue d’études latines Ricerche Storico Bibliche Rivista Biblica Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica Revised Standard Version Revue théologique des Bernardins Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature. Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society for Old Testament Study. Monograph Series Studia Semitica Neerlandica Semitic Study Series Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible (Paris, 1975) Trierer theologische Studien Theologische Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. by G. J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren, Stuttgart, 1970–) Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. by G. Kittel – G. Friedrich, Stuttgart, 1932–1979) Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum World Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

G G Narr G PK

Septuagint, Greek Text (Ben Sira) Grundstamm Narrativ Grundstamm Präfixkonjugation

RB REB REG REL RicStBib RivB RivBS RSV RTB SBAB SBLEJL SBLSCS SBLSymS SBS SBT SJOT SOTSMS SSN SSS TDOT TLOT TOB TTS TWAT TWNT

   List of Abbreviations

Ga GI

Septuagint, Alexandrinus Greek I of Tobit and Greek I of Sirach

GII Gpass Ptz s,m GSc H H PK L, La M, MT Ms, Mss NS OG Syr, S(P) Tg Th Vg VL

Greek II of Tobit and Greek II of Sirach Grundstamm passiv Partizip singular, maskulin Septuagint, Sinaiticus, corrector Hebrew Text (Ben Sira), Masoretic Text H-Stamm (Hifil) Präfixkonjugation Old Latin Masoretic Text Manuscript(s) Nominalsatz Old Greek Peshitta Version of Sirach Targum Theodosion’s version Vulgate Vetus Latina

 363

Index of Authors Aalders, G.J.D. 287 Abegg, M.G. 310, 318 Ackroyd, P.R. 62, 67, 68, 71,74, 82 Adorno, T.W. 37, 48 Aichele, G. 201, 215 Allen, L.C. 295, 307, 323, 324, 333, 337 Alonso Schökel, L. 50, 54, 57, 85, 86, 94, 193, 196, 197, 199, 211, 212, 213, 215, 341, 342, 350, 358 Amir, Y. 287 Andersen, F.I. 96, 97, 103, 310, 318 Anderson, W.H.U. 128, 196 André, J.-M. 281, 282, 287 Asurmendi, J.M. 132, 143 Auffret, P. 294, 299, 307, 321, 323, 335, 337, 338, 339 Backhaus, F.-J. 128, 146, 150, 154 Baker, D.L. 176, 183 Balla, I. 188, 191, 193, 196, 198, 199 Bammel, E. 346, 350 Barbiero, G. 337, 338 Bardski, K. 156, 163, 164, 165, 167 Baumgartner, W. 48, 82, 310, 319 Beauchamp, P. 251, 257, 258, 267, 270 Beck, A. 35, 48, Becker, J. 322, 338 Beentjes, P.C. 136, 143, 173, 183, 187, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 208, 215 Begg, C.T. 173, 183 Bellia, G. 52, 56, 57, 134, 135, 143, 155, 249, 261, 267, 268, 270, 271 Bellincioni, M. 287 Ben Yehuda, E. 96, 103 Benedict XVI 164, 165, 167 Berardi, G. 204, 215 Berger, B.L. 120, 128 Bergman, J. 61, 82, 83 Bermann, M. 124, 128 Berthelot, K. 277, 287 Bertram, G. 220, 232 Bertrand, J.-M. 287 Bethge, E. 44, 45, 46, 48 Beuken, A.M. 83

Beyer, K. 311, 318 Blasi, A.J. 105, 116 Blass, F.W. 342, 343, 350 Blenkinsopp, J. 126, 128, 312, 318 Blum, E. 19, 20, 27 Boccaccio, P. 204, 215 Böckler, A. 294, 307 Bœspflug, F. 62, 82 Bohlen, R. 173, 183, 184 Bolyki, J. 174, 183 Bonhoeffer, D. 30, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 Bovati, P. 86, 87, 90, 94, 287 Box, G.H. 190, 199, 214, 215 Braulik, G. 25, 27 Bräumer, H. 97, 103 Brecht, B. 48 Brettler, M.Z. 321, 322, 324, 331, 332, 335, 336, 338 Bringmann, K. 287 Brueggemann, W. 313, 318 Brunner, H. 32, 48 Brunschwig, J. 278, 287 Buber, M. 34, 42, 48 Bückers, H. 97, 103 Buhlman, A. 134, 136, 144 Bussino, S. 198, 199, 219, 229, 231, 232 Cahill, M. 342, 350 Calduch-Benages, N. 147, 154, 200, 216, 217, 225, 232, 264, 265, 270 Camp, C.V. 187, 199 Capponi, L. 317, 318 Carniti, C. 341, 342, 350 Carpenter, E. 218, 232 Carr, D.M. 24, 27, 121, 128, 317, 318 Carrière, J.-M. 22, 27 Cazelles, H. 288, 333, 338 Charles, R.H. 185, 199, 215, 315, 318 Charlesworth, J.H. 344, 347, 348, 350 Charlesworth, M.P. 287 Chaumartin, F.-R. 287 Christianson, E.S. 148, 154 Cicourel, A.V. 105, 116

Index of Authors

Clamer, A. 181, 184, 200 Clifford, R.J. 51, 57, 129 Clines, D.J.A. 29, 43, 73, 76, 78, 82, 84, 85, 91, 94, 311, 318 Collins, J.J. 191, 193, 195, 196, 199, 213, 215, 270 Cook, J. 3, 4, 5, 6, 17 Cooke, G. 89, 94 Corley, J. 148, 151, 155, 199, 216, 220, 232 Cornely, R. 266, 270 Coulon, A. 105, 116 Couturier, G. 89, 94 Cross, F.M. 89, 94 D’Agostino, F. 287 d’Hamonville, D.-M. 4, 17 Dahood, M.J. 80, 82 Dalley, S.M. 21, 27 Davidson, A.B. 100, 103 Day, P.L. 89, 90, 94 de Fraine, J. 212, 216 de Jong, S. 120, 129 de Romilly, J. 288 de Vaux, R. 181, 185 De Zan, R. 344, 345, 350 Debrunner, A. 342, 343, 350 DeCaen, V. 323, 327, 338 DeGuglielmo, A. 73, 82 Deissler, A. 297, 307 Delatte, L. 243, 248 Delcor, M. 62, 82, 248, 288 Delitzsch, F.J. 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 332 DeVries, S.J. 90, 94 Dhorme, É.P. 62, 82, 100, 103 Di Lella, A.A. 145, 150, 153, 155, 174, 175, 176, 179, 181, 184, 185, 190, 191, 195, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 204, 217, 226, 232 Dick, M.B. 4, 5, 9, 17 Dieterich, A. 203, 215 Dion, P.-E. 294, 295, 307 Dittenberger, W. 242, 248 Dodd, C.H. 344, 346, 350 Donner, H. 316, 317, 318 Dor-Shav, E. 122, 129 Draaisma, S. 201, 215

  

 365

Driver, S.R. 21, 27, 96, 103 Dubach, M. 179, 184 Duesberg, H. 186, 193, 199, 212, 214, 215 Dutcher-Walls, P. 22, 27 Eberharter, A. 204, 215 Egger-Wenzel, R. 103, 107,154, 184, 199, 232 Ego, B. 27, 174, 184 Ehrlich, A.B. 100, 103 Eliade, M. 203, 215 Emerton, J.A. 129, 313, 318 Engel, H. 224, 232, 237, 248 Enns, P. 128, 129 Eynikel, E. 180, 184, 258 Fele, G. 105, 110, 116 Ferrary, J.-L. 287 Fewell, D.N. 201, 215 Finan, T. 287 Fitzgerald, A. 62, 82 Fitzmyer, J.A. 171, 175, 177, 179, 181, 184, 200, 309, 310, 318 Flint, P. 146, 155 Foerster, W. 347, 350 Fohrer, G. 97, 103 Fokkelman, J. 294, 307, 323, 327, 338 Forbes, A.D. 310, 318 Fox, M.V. 5, 6, 12, 14, 17, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 49, 50, 54, 57, 120, 121, 123, 125, 128, 129, 147, 149, 155 Fragnelli, P.M. 193, 199 Fransen, I. 186, 193, 199, 214, 215 Frazier, F. 287 Freedman, D.N. 91, 94 Fritsch, C.T. 3, 17 Gahler, S. 300, 307 García López, F. 22, 28 García Martínez, F. 217, 232, 309, 319, 355 Garfinkel, H. 109, 110, 115, 116 George, S. 287 Gerleman, G. 4, 14, 17 Gerstenberger, E.S. 299, 307 Gesenius, H.F.W. 42, 49 Gianto, A. 126, 129 Gibson, E.C.S. 100, 103

366 

   Index of Authors

Gilbert, M. 3, 57, 83, 84, 96, 105, 116, 128, 129, 132, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 155, 163, 197, 199, 200, 201, 205, 208, 216, 223, 226, 232, 237, 239, 242, 248, 251, 252, 253, 255, 257, 258, 260, 261, 264, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 284, 286, 287, 288, 293, 299, 307, 337 Ginsberg, H.L. 122, 129 Girard, M. 294, 298, 308, 321, 323, 338 Goethe, J.W. 32, 49 Goldman, Y.A.P. 151, 155 Goodenough, E.R. 288 Gordis, R. 62, 82, 119, 125, 129 Grabbe, L.L. 312, 319 Granerød, G. 309, 310, 311, 319 Gray, G.B. 96, 100, 103 Grech, P. 156, 167 Greenstein, E.L. 124, 129 Griffin, M.T. 288 Griffin, P.J. 180, 184 Grimal, P. 288 Grotius, H. 214, 216 Guerra Martínez, A.J. 226, 232 Gunkel, H. 19, 28, 321, 325, 338

Höffken, P. 124, 129 Holmes, J.S. 6, 17 Holtz, S.E. 86, 94 Hoppe, L.J. 173, 184 Hossfeld, F.-L. 67, 71, 72, 82, 101, 104, 311, 319, 322, 324, 325, 333, 338, 340, 341 Houk, C.B. 327, 338, 342, 350 Hubaut, M. 344, 350 Humbert, P. 67, 82

Habel, N.C. 69, 82, 85, 91, 94, 97, 101, 103 Hackenesch, C. 36, 49 Hahn, H.A. 100, 103 Hake, E. 288 Hamp, V. 204, 216 Handy, L.K. 89, 90, 92, 94 Hanhart, R. 171, 184 Harkis, E.M. 288 Harrington, D.J. 175, 184, 269, 270 Hartley, J.E. 91, 92, 94, 100, 101, 104 Hartmann, P.W. 102, 103 Hasel, G.F. 71, 82 Haspecker, J. 187, 197, 199, 202, 209, 216 Hauspie, K. 180, 184, 258 Hegel, G.W.F. 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 49 Heidt, W.G. 89, 94 Hengel, M. 224, 232 Henze, M. 201, 216 Hermann, J. 347, 350 Hieke, T. 177, 184 Himbaza, I. 318, 319 Hirzel, L. 96, 104

Kaiser, O. 119, 129, 193, 200, 221, 225, 232 Kalthoff, B. 71, 72, 82 Karrer, M. 17 Kautzsch, É.F. 49 Kieffer, R. 82, 83 Kingsbury, E.C. 89, 94 Knight, D.A. 90, 94 Knoppers, G.N. 23, 28 Köckert, M. 19, 21, 28 Koh, Y.-V. 133, 144 Köhler, L. 310, 319 Kolarcik, M. 267, 270 Koosed, J.L. 120, 130 Kraus, H.-J. 298, 308, 321, 338 Kraus, W. 11, 17 Krüger, T. 119, 120, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 144, 145, 148, 151, 155 Kugel, J.L. 125, 1340, 215, 314, 315, 319

Imray, K. 122, 129 Irwin, W.A. 136, 144 Isaksson, B. 51, 57 Iwanski, D. 84, 94 Jackson, B. 21, 28 Jacobs, W.G. 35, 49 Jacobsen, T. 89, 94 Janzen, J.G. 120, 129 Jenni, E. 342, 350 Jeremias, J. 346, 350 Jones, S.C. 136, 144 Joüon, P. 42, 49, 62, 73, 76, 82, 310, 319, 332

Labuschagne, C.J. 125, 130, 323, 327, 330, 338 Lanchester, H.C.O. 100, 103

   Index of Authors

Lange, A. 153, 155 Larcher C. 241, 242, 248, 251, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 263, 266, 270, 284, 285, 288 Le Déaut, R. 81, 82 Lee, E.P. 119, 130 Lemaire, A. 24, 28, 320 Lemcke, M. 36, 49 Lenger, M.-T. 288 Leproux, A. 277 Letourneau, I. 61, 83 Lévêque, J. 73, 76, 83, 106, 116 Lévi, I. 204, 216 Levinson, B.M. 23, 28 Levison, J.R. 201, 208, 11, 216 Liesen, J. 182, 184, 202, 216 Limburg, J. 299, 308 Linde, J.W. 214, 216 Lohfink, N. 21, 28, 51, 57, 119, 127, 130, 136, 139, 144, 145, 149, 155, 298, 308 Löhr, M. 209, 216 Long, A.A. 288 Lorenzin, T. 299, 308, 331, 338, 340, 342, 350 Lust, J. 184, 256, 258 Luther, M. 34, 49 Macatangay, F.M. 183, 184 Machinist, P. 126, 130 MacKenzie, R.A.F. 196, 197, 200 Maiberger, P. 69, 83 Maier, G. 204, 216 Maneschg, J. 238, 242, 248 Manfredi, S. 269, 270 Manson, T.W. 349, 351 Manzi, F. 309, 312, 319 Marböck, J. 146, 155, 191, 193, 195, 197, 100, 202, 216, 232 Marttila, M. 153, 155 Masqueray, P. 233 Mathys, H.-P. 298, 308, 325, 338 Mays, J.L. 334, 338 Mazon, P. 233 Mazzinghi, L. 248 McKane, W. 38, 40, 42, 49 Meier, J.P. 347, 351 Meinhold, A. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 49

 367

Méridier, L. 233 Merz, A. 347, 351 Metzger, M. 294, 308 Meynet, R. 323, 330, 339 Michaelis, W. 265, 270 Michon, C. 281, 288 Middendorp, T. 147, 150, 155, 208, 216 Mies, F. 66, 70, 71, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83 Miles, J. 124, 130 Millard, M. 340, 351 Miller, D.B. 122, 130 Miller, P.D. 86, 89, 94, 95 Minissale, A. 193, 195, 200 Mittmann, S. 61, 83 Moberly, R.W.L. 19, 28 Moore, C.A. 171, 175, 181, 184 Morla Asensio, V. 197, 200, 251, 259 Mühling, A. 18, 28 Mulder, O. 152, 155 Müller, H.P. 126, 130 Muraoka, T. 42, 49, 310, 319, 332, 338 Murray, M.J. 124, 128 Nardoni, E. 141, 144 Nel, P.J. 309, 311, 312, 319 Neumann, P.H.A. 47, 49 Nicklas, T. 177, 184 Niehoff, M.R. 99, 1091, 104 Nielsen, K. 76, 83 Nock, A.D. 242, 249 Nodet, É. 316, 317, 319 Norin, S.I.L. 62, 63, 70, 83 Nyberg, B. 203, 216 O’Brien, M. 22, 28 O’Connor, M.P. 310, 320, 342, 351 Oeming, M. 305, 308 Oesterley, W.O.E. 190, 193, 199, 200, 214, 215 Oldenhage, T. 346, 351 Otto, E. 23, 28 Otzen, B. 120, 121, 130 Pahk, J.Y.-S. 51, 57 Palmisano, M.C. 226, 233, 341, 351 Papadaki-Oekland, S. 79, 83 Pardee, D. 321, 323, 327, 337, 339

368 

   Index of Authors

Passaro, A. 51, 52, 56, 57, 143, 155, 249, 251, 259, 270, 271 Passoni Dell’Acqua, A. 242, 249 Pelletier, A.-M. 288 Perdue, L.G. 72, 73, 83, 130, 135, 144, 270 Péter-Contesse, R. 62, 83 Peters, N. 97, 104, 189, 190, 193, 197, 200, 202, 204, 216 Petersen, A.K. 99, 104 Petersen, C. 300, 308 Phillips, G.A. 201, 215 Philonenko, M. 61, 81, 83 Pietersma, A. 17 Piras, A. 250, 259 Piwowar, A. 223, 233 Podechard, E. 150, 155 Pohlenz, M. 209, 216, 224, 233, 242, 249 Pope, M.H. 91, 95 Prato, G.L. 309, 319 Preisker, H. 276, 288 Priotto, M. 238, 249 Puech, É. 147, 153, 155 Rackham, H. 233 Rahlfs, A. 3, 166, 214, 216, 256, 261, 309, 342, 351 Ravasi, G. 324, 326, 331, 339, 341, 342, 351 Rea, M.C. 124, 128 Reese, J.M. 261, 270, 285 Reiterer, F.V. 176, 184, 185, 212, 216, 218, 233 Rengstorf, K.H. 238, 249 Reuss, E.W.E. 97, 104 Reymond, E.D. 194, 200 Rickenbacher, O. 202, 217 Ricœur, P. 81, 83, 251, 259 Rignell, L.G. 76, 83 Ringgren, H. 218, 233 Roberts, J.J.M. 62, 63, 67, 83 Robinson, T.H. 89, 95 Rofé, A. 20, 22, 28 Römer, T. 312, 319 Rooke, D.W. 311, 319 Rowley, H.H. 97, 100, 104 Rudman, D. 126, 130 Rüger, H.-P. 206, 217 Rüterswörden, U. 22, 28

Saebø, M. 24, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38, 39, 40, 49 Salamon, G. 281, 289 Sasse, M. 305, 308 Sauer, G. 193, 196, 200, 204, 214, 217 Scarpat, G. 261, 262, 270, 285, 289 Scharer, J.R. 100, 104 Schatz, W. 312, 319 Schenker, A. 155, 317, 318, 319 Schildenberger, J. 323, 324, 325, 326, 339 Schmidt, L. 20, 28 Schnabel, E.J. 195, 200 Schneider, J. 238, 249 Scholnick, S. 87, 88, 95 Schoors, A. 51, 57, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 143, 155 Schöpflin, K. 19, 28 Schreiner, J. 91, 95, 190, 196, 200, Schwertner, S. 120, 130 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. 119, 122, 130, 133, 135, 144 Scolnic, B.E. 317, 319 Scoralick, R. 321, 324, 327, 328, 332, 339 Sed-Rajna, G. 61, 62, 83 Sedley, D.N. 288 Seely, D.R. 80, 83 Segal, A. 18, 28 Segal, M. 314, 319 Seibert, E.A. 124, 130 Seow, C.L. 119, 120, 125, 130 Seybold, K. 331, 339 Shaffer, A. 157, 167 Sharp, C.J. 128, 130 Shlomo Ben Yitzhak 160, 162, 165 Sicre Díaz, J.L. 85, 86, 94 Sievers, J. 316, 319 Simpson, D.C. 171, 185 Ska, J.L. 312, 320 Skard, E. 242, 249 Skehan, P.W. 145, 150, 153, 155, 175, 179, 181, 185, 190, 191, 195, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 204, 207, 217 Smend, R. 152, 155, 189, 190, 200, 204, 214, 217, 249 Snaith, J.G. 197, 200 Sneed, M.R. 125, 128, 130 Snodgrass, K.R. 344, 351 Soggin, J.A. 20, 28, 309, 316, 320

   Index of Authors

Spicq, C. 193, 200, 238, 249, 289 Spieckermann, H. 294, 308 Squilloni, A. 242, 249 Strack, H.L. 204, 217 Suc Kee, M. 89, 91, 95 Sumner, P.B. 95, 90, 95 Swanepoel, M.G. 73, 83 Swete, H.B. 214, 217 Szczygiel, P. 100, 104 Tamez, E. 119, 130 Tauberschmidt, G. 14, 15, 16, 17 Termini, C. 242, 245, 246, 249 Terrien, S. 79, 83, 215, 299, 308 Theissen, G. 347, 351 Tidwell, N.L.A. 90, 95 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 309, 319 Torczyner, H. 100, 104 Trenchard, W.C. 186, 187, 191, 195, 196, 197, 200 Tromp, N.J. 299, 308 Tur Sinai, N.H. 34, 42, 49 Uehlinger, C. 128, 130 Umbreit, F.W.C. 100, 104 Vaihinger, J.G. 100, 104 Valdenberg, V. 289 van den Born, A. 202, 209, 215 van den Broek, R. 99, 104 van der Lugt, P. 321, 323, 325, 328, 331, 338 van der Toorn, K. 121, 126, 130, 131 van der Velden, F. 67, 82 van Seters, J. 20, 28 VanderKam, J. 146, 155, 314, 315, 316, 320 Vattioni, F. 204, 207, 217 Vermeylen, J. 57, 53, 200, 216, 217, 270 Vignolo, R. 260, 271 Vílchez Líndez, J. 50, 54, 57, 252, 253, 259 Vincent, J.M. 297, 308 Vogels, W. 241, 249 von Harnack, A. 288 von Nordheim, M. 309, 320

 369

von Rad, G. 22, 108, 116, 127, 130, 182, 185 von Soden, W. 62, 82 Wahl, O. 226, 233 Waltke, B.K. 310, 320, 342, 351 Walton, B. 317, 320 Weber, B. 322, 324, 339 Weber, T.H. 197, 200 Weinfeld, M. 21, 22, 23, 24, 29 Weiser, A. 321, 339 Weisman, Z. 134, 137, 144 Wellhausen, J. 19, 29 Wenham, G.J. 27, 29 Wénin, A. 209, 217, 320 Westermann, C. 27, 29, 202, 217 Whitelam, K.W. 21, 29 Whybray, R.N. 38, 40, 42, 49, 89, 95, 119, 131 Wicke-Reuter, U. 225, 233 Williamson, H.G.M. 22, 29 Wilson, R.R. 105, 116 Winston, D.S. 241, 246, 249 Winther-Nielsen, N. 210, 217 Wischmeyer, O. 224, 233 Witte, M. 298, 299, 305, 308 Wolff, H.W. 141, 142, 144, 323, 325, 339 Wright B.G. 17 Wright, A.G. 150, 151, 155 Wright, G.E. 89, 95 Wright, W.A. 100, 104 Yadin, Y. 207, 217 Zappella, M. 171, 185 Zeller, M. 62, 83 Zenger, E. 104, 298, 299, 300, 308, 311, 319, 322, 324, 325, 326, 331, 333, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 350 Zerafa, P. 89, 95 Ziegler, J. 173, 185, 188, 200, 209, 210, 214, 217, 261, 284 Zunz, L. 34, 49 Zwickel, W. 312, 320

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 1–3: 210, 211, 212, 215, 253, 255 1,1–2,4a: 222 1: 304 1,1–3: 210 1,1: 151, 210 1,2: 151 1,9: 301 1,11: 210 1,21: 210 1,24: 210 1,26–27: 255 1,26: 214 1,26a: 211, 213, 214 1,27a: 211 1,28: 211 1,28a: 213, 214 2–3: 255, 256 2,7: 204, 205, 211, 212, 305 2,7a: 214 2,4–7: 151, 210 2,16: 253 3,19: 211, 213 3,19b: 203 3,20: 201, 202, 203 3,21: 204 6,3: 211 6,14: 99 6,17: 207 12,1–3: 19 12,2: 19 12,3: 19 12,7: 19 12,11–15: 312 12,15: 42 13,14–18: 19 14: 314 14,17–24: 313 14,18–20: 309, 313, 317 14,18: 309 14,20: 315

15,1–6: 19 15,6: 27 15,9: 158 15,18–21: 19 18,1–16: 19 18,1–5: 18 18,4: 42 18,10: 19 18,14: 19 18,17–19: 19 18,18: 19 18,19: 18, 20, 23, 26, 27 18,21: 19, 20 21,22: 19 22,1–19: 19 22,12: 68 22,15–18: 19, 27 22,17: 29, 99 24,7: 177 24,27–28: 177 25,8–10: 174 26,4–5: 19 26,5: 19, 27 28,1–9: 177 29,19: 177 30,23: 257 31,9: 43 31,16: 43 31,42: 71 32,12: 43 32,13: 99 32,21: 40 37–50: 134 38,25: 42 41,19: 99 47,29–31: 174 Exodus 2,12: 100 2,23: 86 3,7: 86 3,8: 43

3,9: 43 3,14: 253 3,20: 67, 68 7,25–8,11: 240 7,14–24: 239 8,2–15: 240 8,15: 63 8,16–28: 240 8,19: 333 9,3: 63 9,15: 67 10,15–19,22: 267 12,26–27: 23 13,8: 23 14–15: 301 14,4: 301 14,5: 301 14,8: 301 14,9: 301 14,11: 41 14,17: 301 14,23: 301 14,28: 301 15,1: 301 15,4: 301 15,8: 301, 301 15,17: 263, 266 16,13: 240 17,1–7: 239 17,7: 252 20: 113 20,2–3: 333 20,12–16: 153, 173 20,14: 113, 195 20,19: 245 21,8: 333 21,12: 40 21,14: 40 21,30: 333 22,27: 21 23,2: 41 23,30: 275

Index of References   

24,11: 67 25,9: 263 25,40: 283 27,8: 263 27,21: 263 28,43: 263 29,10ff: 263 29,30: 263 29,32: 263 29,42: 263 29,44: 263 30,16: 263 30,18: 263 30,20  ff.: 263 30,23: 265 30,26: 263 30,34: 265 30,36: 263 31,7: 263 31,18: 63, 331 33–34: 295 33,7: 263, 265 34,7: 44 34,11: 114 35,21: 263 37,5: 263 37,19: 263 38,26: 263 38,27: 263 39,7: 263 39,9: 263 39,21: 263 40,2: 263 40,5: 263 40,6: 263 40,22: 263 40,24: 263 40,26: 263 40,34: 263 40,35: 263 Leviticus 9,23: 161 10,11: 22 11,1: 161 18,7: 113 19,13: 178

19,35: 274 20,10: 113 20,14: 113 24,21: 40 Numbers 11,31: 240 21,4–9: 240 24,21: 99 35,30–31: 40 Deuteronomy 4,13: 333 4,19: 114 4,34: 62 5,5: 62 5,6–7: 333 5,10: 195 5,16: 173 5,16–20: 153 5,29: 147 6,1–3: 19 6,1–2: 25 6,4: 325 6,6–9: 20, 24 6,7–9: 24 6,10: 252 6,20: 23 7,8: 333 7,22: 275 8,2: 174 8,3: 268 8,5–16: 278 8,17–18: 108 9,10: 63 9,26: 333 11,2–4: 278 11,7: 329 11,18–20: 24 13,5: 147 13,6: 333 14,18: 114 15,9: 86 15,15: 333 16,1: 114 16,14: 114 17,18–20: 22

19,11–13: 40 19,16: 41, 43 21,7: 87 21,8: 333 21,22: 43 22,6: 98 22,11: 113 22,23: 113 24,14–15: 178 22,14: 113, 153 23,2: 257 24,15: 86 24,17–21: 114 24,18: 333 26,8: 62 26,13: 174 26,14: 180 27,4: 317 27,19: 114 28,13–14: 174 28,29: 333 29: 278 29,3: 55 30,15–20: 174 30,15: 250, 253 30,19: 100 30,20: 198 31,12–13: 26 31,13: 26 32,9: 159 32,11: 98 32,22: 346 32,39: 69, 71, 72 32,46–47: 21 32,46: 23 33,1–29: 161 33,10: 22 33,19: 99, 100 Joshua 3,16: 311 7,11: 333 11,4: 99 23,16: 333 24,14: 275

 371

372 

   Index of References

Judges 2,6–3,6: 20 2,22: 20 7,12: 99 10,15: 40 17,1: 114 17,2: 42 19,16: 114 Ruth 1,20–21: 124 1 Samuel 1,6: 257 12,16: 41 13,5: 99 13,9–5: 311 13,14: 311 15,16–23: 311 16,13: 311 24,8–22: 88 2 Samuel 6: 262 7,28: 346 8,15: 20 8,17: 313 11–12: 159 17,11: 99 19,23: 90 24,10–17: 63 24,11: 159 24,18–25: 262 1 Kings 1,8: 313 1,14: 158 1,33: 158 2,3: 147 2,12: 149 3,1: 268 3,9: 132 4,20: 99 5, 9–14: 149 5,9: 99 5,15–9,25: 262 6,3: 263

6,5: 263 6,17: 263 6,33: 263 6,36: 263 7,7: 263 7,36: 263 8,43: 340 8,60: 340 8,64: 263 9,10: 149 9,25: 263 10,9: 20 10,12: 149 10,21–22: 149 10, 23–24: 149 11,1–13: 268 11,1–3: 149 11,11: 333 11,43: 149 12,8: 149 21,10: 21 22,19–20: 89

28,11–19: 266 28,11  ff.: 263 28,18  ff.: 263

2 Kings 3,4–37: 140 4,1–7: 140 4,8–37: 140 4,38–41: 140 4,42–44: 140 5,1–27: 140 6,1–7: 140 6,8–23: 140 6,24–7,20: 140 8,1–6: 140 13,20–21: 226 17,35: 333 18,12: 333 19,19: 340 23,2b: 23 23,21: 23 25: 109

Tobit 1,4: 262 1,16–18: 174 4,3–19: 171, 183 4,3–4: 173 4,4: 174 4,5: 174 4,6: 175 4,7: 175, 183 4,8–11: 176 4,12: 176 4,13: 176 4,14: 178 4,15: 179 4,16: 179 4,17: 180 4,18: 181 4,19a: 182 4,19b: 182 6,15: 174 12,12: 174 12,8: 175

1 Chronicles 16,35: 41 18,14: 20 21,15–30: 262 23: 312

2 Chronicles 1,18–7,10: 262 3,1: 262 3,17: 263 4,1: 263 4,7  ff. : 263 4,22: 263 6,20: 262 8,12: 263 9,8: 20 15,3: 22 17,7–9: 22 22,11: 158 Ezra 4,17: 145 5,3: 145 6,1: 145

   Index of References

Judith 16,23: 174 Esther 3,6: 349 8,12c: 238 9,5: 39 Job 1–2: 90, 91 1,6–9: 90 1,6–7: 256 1,10: 74 1,11: 67, 68 1,12: 68, 90 2,1–4: 90 2,1–2: 256 2,1: 261 2,5: 68 2,6–7: 90 2,6: 68 3: 69 3,20: 121 4,18: 91 5,1: 84, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93 5,2: 85 5,4: 71 6,3: 99 7,10: 44 8,18: 306 9,5–10: 103 9,6: 268 9,33: 88, 90 10,8–9: 102 10,8: 70 10,3: 71 10,12: 68 11,7: 71, 72 12,9: 73 13,22: 87, 88 14,1–2: 254 14,10–12: 254 14,15: 74 15: 75 16,19: 90 18: 75

20,24: 102 29–31: 105 29: 96 29,11–12: 106 29,13–17: 106 29,18–20: 97, 103 29,18: 96, 99, 101, 103 29,18b: 98, 99, 100 29,18c: 99 29,19: 100, 101 29,20a: 101 29,20b: 102 30,1–15: 106 31,1: 113 31,11–12: 113 31,13: 88 31,26–28: 114 33,1–8: 124 33,6: 102 33,23–24: 84 33,23: 90 34,19: 74 36,2–1: 124 37,1: 69 37,21: 114 38–42: 277 38,6: 342, 268 39,26: 98 39,27: 98 42,4–6: 79 42,5: 110 Psalms 1: 108, 293 3,4: 86 4,1: 86 4,3: 86 7: 127 7,2: 40, 41 7,15–18: 127 7,15: 121 7,16–17: 127 8,4: 63, 74, 329, 331 8,7: 74, 329, 331 9–10: 293 10,7: 121 12,6: 238

 373

14,1–3: 153 14,1: 262 15,5: 208 17,6: 86 18,31: 54 19,2: 74, 329, 331 19,10: 335 20,2: 38 22,2: 86 22,21: 40 25: 293 25,19–20: 40 25,20: 68 27,7: 86 28,5: 74 30,8: 86 31,1: 47 31,3: 40 31,6: 206 31,10: 73, 284 31,16: 40, 47, 73 31,24: 44 32: 293 33: 293, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 303, 304, 305, 307 33,5: 21 34: 293 35,10: 41 35,11: 41 37,12: 53 37,14: 53 37,16: 53 37,32: 53 38: 293 39,9: 40 47,2: 262 50,15: 38 50,17: 32 51,16: 40 53,2–4: 153 56,3: 238 59,2–3: 41 59,2: 40 59,3: 40 69,9: 41 69,15: 40 71,11: 76

374 

   Index of References

72,4: 142 73,5: 121 73,16: 121 75,4: 268 78: 55, 278 78,27: 99 79: 317 80,9–17: 346 82,3: 41 82,4: 41 84,4: 98 85,5: 277 86,2: 68 88,9: 86 89,14: 63, 80 90,2–6: 306 92,5: 74 92,8–11: 306 94,21: 53 97,10: 68 102,26: 74 103: 278, 293, 294, 295, 297, 297, 300, 301, 303, 305, 306, 307 103,16: 306 104: 295 104,5: 268 105,44: 121 107,22: 329 107,24: 329 109,6: 90 109,21: 40 110: 310, 316 110,4: 309, 310, 311, 312, 317 110,10: 334, 335, 336, 337 111: 293, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 111,1–3: 328, 329 111,4–6: 329, 330, 331 111,7–9: 331, 332, 333, 334 111,7: 74 112: 293, 321, 327, 337 114,7: 238 115: 297 115,9  ff.: 297 117: 340

117,22–23: 340, 347, 348, 349, 350 118: 340, 341, 342 118,22–23: 342, 343, 344 119: 293 119,64: 297 119,70: 40 119,71: 32 119,73: 70 120,2: 40 121,7: 68 127,1: 121 127,3–5: 102 128,2: 71 130,7: 333 138,7: 67, 68, 80 138,8: 70, 74, 75 139: 71 139,13: 203 139,15: 203 139,18: 99 140,10: 127 143,5: 74 142,7: 40 143,9: 40 144: 297 144,7: 40, 67, 68 144,11: 40 144,15: 297 145: 293 145,9: 329 145,10: 329 Proverbs 1,1–4: 25 1,2–7: 31 1,3: 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37 1,5: 143 1,7: 26, 34 1,23: 15 1,24: 15 2,11: 7 2,16: 187 2,17: 189 3,9: 7 3,12: 278 3,16: 80

3,34: 9 4,9: 261 4,27: 12, 13 5,3: 187 5,4: 12 5,9: 9 6,3: 9 6,8: 13 6,10–11: 36 6,11: 13 6,20–23: 24 6,20–22: 24 6,24: 187 6,30: 7 7,1–3: 24 7,3: 24 7,5: 187 8,1–18: 55 8,21: 13 8,22–31: 55 8,27: 12 8,34: 24 9,1: 7, 9, 268 9,3–6: 269 9,10: 34 9,13: 10 9,17: 8 9,18: 13 10,1–22,16: 150 10–31: 268 10,2: 7 10,9: 7 10,13: 32 10,18: 10 10,21: 268 10,30: 43, 208 12,2: 7 12,3: 43 12,6: 11 12,23: 10 13,1: 31, 33 13,3: 44 13,9: 13 13,14: 9, 32 13,22: 124 14,7: 7 14,11: 11

   Index of References

14,33: 15 15,33: 31 16,11: 14 16,12: 10 16,17: 44 16,26: 121, 122 16,28: 11 17,4: 15 17,28: 14 18,18: 9 18,22: 8 19,20: 181 19,22: 8 21,2: 44 21,3: 21 21,22: 8 22,1: 106, 150 22,3: 9 22,9: 13 22,11–12: 44, 47 22,13: 14 22,14: 14 22,15: 32 22,16: 8 22,22: 106 23,2: 11 23,22: 173 23,31: 11 24,2: 121 24,8: 7 24,10–12: 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48 24,11: 44 24,13–14: 268 25,13: 12 25,19: 38 25,21: 13 25,22: 14 25,26: 43 25,28: 13 26,3: 32 26,7: 10 26,27: 14 27,9: 16 27,18: 44 27,24: 11 28,7: 44

28,25: 9 30,1–9: 50, 51 30,1: 56 30,3: 10 30,4: 57 30,5: 54 31: 47 31,6: 15 31,10–31: 293 31,10: 10 Qoheleth 1,2–18: 141, 147 1,5–7: 146 1,12–2,26: 124, 132, 148, 149 1,12–18: 146 1,13: 51 2,13–15: 145 2,18–23: 123 2,18–22: 145 2,20: 149 3,1–8: 151 3,1: 145, 151 3,2–8: 151 3,9–10: 145 3,14: 150, 151 3,16–22: 254 3,21: 150, 154 4,1–12: 1557 4,7–12: 156 4,7–8: 157 4,9–12a: 162 4,9: 161 4,10: 159 4,12: 159 4,12a: 158 4,12b: 156, 157, 160, 162 4,13–16: 124, 134 5,6: 147 5,7–8: 135 5,8: 136 5,14: 203 6,2: 153 7,1: 106, 150 7,20: 153 8,1–9: 136

8,5: 147 8,8: 149 8,10–13: 145 8,11: 145 8,15: 153 8,16–9,10: 51 8,16–17: 51 9,9: 151 9,10: 150, 154 9,13–10,1: 137 9,13–18: 143 9,13–16: 124, 145 10,4–7: 138 10,8: 127 10,16–20: 139 11,9: 147 12,1–7: 119 12,3: 147 12,13–14: 146, 151 12,12–14: 147, 148 12,13: 147, 197 12,14: 147, 153 Song of Songs 2,6: 80 8,3: 80 Wisdom of Solomon 1,1–6,21: 251 1,1: 251 1,13: 253 1,15: 256 2,5: 254 2,19: 277 2,24: 253 3,1–9: 150 3,1: 73 3,4–5: 237, 239 3,5: 238 5,20–23: 277 6: 277 6,6–8: 275 6,9: 276 6,10: 276 7–9: 242, 260 7–8: 277 8,15: 277

 375

376 

   Index of References

9–19: 277 9,3: 132 9,6: 269 9,7–8: 260, 268, 269 9,8: 260, 265 10–19: 258 11–19: 247 11,1–14: 272 11,5: 237, 238, 239 11,6: 274 11,13: 237, 238, 239 11,15–12,27: 245, 272, 273, 276, 283 11,15–12,18: 277 11,15–12,2: 273 11,15: 274, 276, 284, 285 11,16: 276 11,17  ff.: 274, 276 11,20: 276 11,23: 244, 274 12,2: 274, 275, 278 12,3–18: 273 12,3–7: 273, 275 12,4–5: 275 12,6: 273 12,7: 274 12,8–18: 273 12,8: 273, 275, 283 12,9: 274, 275 12,10: 273, 275 12,18: 274 12,19–22: 273, 276, 283 12,19: 273, 285 12,20: 285 12,22: 272, 273, 277, 285, 286 12,23–27: 273, 274 12,25: 274 12,26: 273 12,27: 274 13–15: 272 13,2–5: 56 16–19: 272 16,1: 276 16,2: 237, 238, 239 16,9–11: 237, 239 16,11: 238

16,24: 237, 238, 239 18,15: 276, 286 18,21: 286 19,1: 276 19,6: 276 19,13: 277 19,14: 238 19,22: 276 Sirach 1–23: 219, 220 1: 220 1,1–10: 146, 147 1,6–10: 146 1,26–28: 174 3,1–10: 173 3,30–31: 180 4,1: 153 4,1–5: 180 4,4–5: 176, 183 4,15: 261 4,29: 221 5,11: 145 6,18–30: 32 6,29–31: 261 7,27–28: 174 7,33: 181 8,9: 145 9,5: 113 9,8–9: 177 9,8: 113 10,6–9: 178 10,10–11: 149 11,9: 178 11,15b: 219 11,22: 227 14,11–19: 146 14,16: 150, 154 14,16cd: 150 14,20–15,10: 209 15,11–18,14: 209 15,11: 209 15,13–20: 209 15,15: 175 16–18: 222 16,1–14: 209

16,16: 206 16,16b: 208 16,26–17,4: 208, 209, 215 16,26–30: 209, 210 16,26: 209 16,27–28: 213 16,27: 212 16,29–20: 213 16,30: 213, 214 17,1–4: 213 17,1: 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 17,2: 213, 214 17,3: 211, 213, 214 17,4: 211, 213, 214 17,17–28: 150 17,24–18,14: 209 18,6: 150 18,7: 146 18,13: 278 18,32: 145 21,4: 178 23,8: 178 23,16–19: 177 23,16–27: 187 23,18–21: 186 23,22–27: 186, 187, 188 23,22–23: 190 23,24–26: 192 23,27: 186, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 23,28: 198 24,1–39,11: 223 24: 152, 223, 266, 268 24,10: 264, 265 24,15: 265 24,19–22: 269 24,22: 219 24,23: 26 25,8: 145, 208 25,21: 187 29,8–9: 176 29,12–13: 176

   Index of References

30,10: 223 32,14: 179 33,10: 212, 226 33,15: 145 33,23: 223 33,28–29: 178 35,26: 145 36,15: 227 37,11: 224 37,16: 224 37,25: 213 38,16: 174 38,21: 150 39,12–35: 202, 305 39,14–43,33: 220, 224 39,14–35: 202 39,16–35: 202 40,1–17: 201, 202, 205, 208, 215 40,1: 201, 202, 203, 205 40,3: 203, 204 40,4: 203, 204 40,10: 206 40,11: 204, 205, 207 40,17: 202, 207, 208 41,3–4: 150 41,4: 150 41,11: 207 41,13: 150 41,17: 177 41,21  ff.: 177 42,15–43,33: 202, 305 42,15: 202, 225 42,21: 150, 177 42,24: 145 43,25: 210 43,27–33: 147, 148 44,1–50,29: 202 44,1–50,24: 151 44,1–15: 152 44,17–45,26: 152 44,17: 206, 207 44,9: 145 45–49: 220, 225 45,10–12: 225 46,1–49,16: 152 47,12–23: 148, 149

47,17: 148 47,22–25: 134 47,23: 124 50: 225 50,1–24: 152 50,25–27: 147, 148 50,27: 31 51,13–30: 220, 269 51,13–29: 293 51,22: 227 51,30: 147, 148, 226 Isaiah 5,2: 248, 349 5,7: 346 5,12: 74 8,14–15: 349 10,14: 98 10,22: 99 11,4–5: 142 11,6–8: 257 16,2: 98 18,4: 114 19,25: 74 24–27: 205 24,4: 205 24,28: 205 24,21: 205 24,23: 114 27,7: 39 28,6: 342 29,19: 53 29,21: 53 29,23: 74, 226 30,25: 39 37,20: 340 40,10: 278 40,12–26: 250 40,14: 278 40,22: 12 41,1–7: 250 41,20: 73 42,5–9: 250 43,8–12: 250 43,13: 71, 72 44,6: 250 44,17: 40

44,24: 73 45,9–10: 77 45,11: 226 48,13: 70 49,24: 42 50,2: 333 51,3: 207 51,4: 261 51,9–11: 250 52,5: 42, 44 52,13–53,12: 111 53,8: 42, 44 55,1–3: 268 57,1: 53 59,21: 160 60,21: 74 63: 278 64,4: 174 64,6–7: 75 64,7: 74 64,8: 226 66,1: 12 Jeremiah 2,21: 346 2,30: 32 4,2: 331 5,22: 99, 100 7,28: 32 7,44: 114 8,2: 114 9,23: 20 13,16: 78 15,8: 99 16,7: 181 16,21: 62 17,8: 100 17,17: 38 17,23: 32 18,6: 226 18,18: 22 21,12: 41 22,3: 20, 41 22,13–19: 142 22,13: 178 22,15: 20 23,5: 20

 377

378 

   Index of References

23,29: 48 23,39: 30 28,11: 43 28,16: 43 32,33: 32 33,15: 20 33,22: 99 35,13: 32 40,9–11: 109 49,16: 98 51,20: 342 51,50: 174 Lamentations 1–4: 293 5: 293 Baruch 2,27: 277 6,26: 181 Ezekiel 8,3: 67 8,16: 114 8,18: 55 14,7: 114 15,6: 345, 346 18,5: 21 18,19: 21 18,21: 21 18,23: 253 18,26–27: 253 18,27: 21 22,7: 114 22,29: 114 24,17: 181 26,15: 39 31: 100 31,4  ff.: 101

31,7: 100, 101 31,14  ff.: 101 33,14: 21 33,16: 21 33,19: 21 37,1–14: 250 44,15: 316 47,22: 114 Daniel 2,34: 349 2,45: 349 3,42: 277 4,27: 277 7,27: 257 9,26: 206 Hosea 2: 278 2,1: 99 4,6: 22 6,1: 69 9,14: 257 13,10–11: 141 Amos 3–6: 141 7,9: 141 7,13: 142 Obadiah 1,4: 98 1,14: 38 Jonah 1,21: 203 4: 278 4,2–3: 124 4,10: 121

Micah 3,5–8: 143 Nahum 1,7: 38 1,8: 206 Habakkuk 1,9: 100 2,9: 99 3,4: 114 Haggai 1,1: 71 Zechariah 3,1–2: 90 8,16: 331 Malachi 2,7: 22 3,5: 178 3,6: 346 1 Maccabees 2,1: 317 14,35: 312, 316 2 Maccabees 2,22: 277 4,2: 238, 243 6,12–17: 240, 243 6,12: 243 6,16: 32, 243 7,6: 277 9,26: 238 10,9: 277 10,38: 238

New Testament Matthew 7,12: 179 15,1–9: 350 15,10–20: 350

21,33–41: 340, 344 21,33: 348, 349 21,35–36: 344 21,35: 344

21,39: 345 21,41: 347 21,42–45: 340 21,42: 343, 344, 349

   Index of References

22,3: 9 31,44: 349 21,45: 346 23,37: 344 Mark 7,1–13: 350 7,8–13: 347 7,14–23: 350 10,19: 153 12,1–9: 340, 344 12,1: 348, 349 12,10–11: 343 12,10: 343, 349 12,11–12: 340 12,12: 346 Luke 6,31: 179 12,16–21: 153 12,19: 153 12,20: 153

20,9–16: 340, 344 20,9: 349 20,17: 340, 343, 349 20,18: 349 20,19: 346 21,17: 350 22,25: 242 Acts of the Apostles 4,11: 343, 344 24,4: 277

Hebrews 1,1: 276 5–7: 309 5,6: 309 5,8: 32 5,10: 309 6,20: 309 7,1: 309 7,10–17: 309 7,15: 311 12,5–11: 32

Romans 3,10–12: 153 3,10: 153

1 Peter 2,6: 343 2,7: 343, 344

1 Corinthians 10,16b: 342

1 John 5,6–8: 163

2 Corinthians 5,10: 153 10,1: 277

New Testament Apocrypha Gospel of Thomas 65: 344

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Sedrach III,7: 226

Jubilees XIII, 22–29: 315

Aristeas 188: 244 190: 244 207: 277 208: 244 290: 277

1 Enoch 2,1–5,3: 146 97,8–10: 154 3 Maccabees 3,15: 277

Qumram 4Q109: 146 1QapGen ar XXII,15: 309 4QProva (4Q102): 3

4QProvb (4Q103): 3 4QPsq: 299 11QPsa: 227

6,24: 238 4 Maccabees 8,6: 238, 243, 247 8,17: 238 Psalms of Solomon 5,12: 277

 379

380 

   Index of References

Rabbinic Literature Abot of Rabbi Natan, 14: 158 b. B. Ba. 59a: 160 b. Ber. 48a: 154 b. Ber. 8a: 8 b. Ket. 62b: 160 b. Meg. 7a: 154 b. Men. 43b: 162 b. Qid. 40b: 162 b. Yeb. 63b: 8 Demut Kisse Shlomo ha-Melech, 6: 158 Divre ha-yamim le-Moshe Rabbenu, 12: 162 Gen.R. 19.5: 101 m. Ab. 1,1: 22

m. Ed. 5,3: 154 m. Yad. 3,5: 154 Midrash Devarim Rabbah 11,4: 162 Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer, 28,2: 158 Midrash Qohelet Zuttah, 4,12: 159 Midrash Qoheleth Rabbah, 4,9,1: 158, 159, 160, 161 Midrash Shoḵer Tov 151ab: 8 Midrash Tanchuma, Vezothaberacha, 2: 162 Midrash Tehillim, 59,1: 160 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 15,3: 161

Sifre Devarim, Haazinu, 7: 159 Sifre Devarim, Netzavim Vayyelech, 2: 159 t. Yad. 2,13: 154 Tanna de-be Eliyahu, 3,11: 159 y. Ber. 7,2: 154 y. Naz. 5,3: 154 y. Peah 5b: 161 y. Qid. 22b; 23a:  162 y. Sanh. 10,1: 154 y. Sanh. 49a: 161 y. Shevu. 7b: 161

Hellenistic Jewish Literature Josephus Ant. 15,182: 277 Philo Abr. 133–146: 245 Abr. 137: 245 Abr. 144: 245 Abr. 145: 245, 246 Abr. 175: 246 Conf. 171: 246 Deus 76: 244

Deus 77–81: 244 Deus 80: 244 Ebr. 32: 246 Flacc. 81: 244 Fug. 65–66: 246 Fug. 74: 246 Gig. 47: 246 Her. 112: 263 Her. 166: 246 Leg. 3,46: 265 Legat. 149: 242

Mos. 1, 94.174: 246 Mut. 129: 245 Opif. 46: 246 Post. 20: 246 Prov. 2, 82: 242 Sacr. 131.133: 245 Somn. 1, 143: 245 Spec. 1, 282: 246 Spec. 1, 307: 246 Spec. 4, 127: 246

Early Christian Sources Aelred of Rievaulx: 163 Ambrose: 163 Augustine: 163 bar Salibi: 163 Basil the Great: 163 Bernard of Clairvaux: 163 Burchard of Bellevaux: 163 Chromatius of Aquileia: 163 Didymus of Alexandria: 163 Dionisius: 163 Gilbert of Hoyland: 163 Gregory of Agrigento: 163

Gregory of Elvira: 163 Gregory the Great: 163 Guibert of Nogent: 163 Jerome: 163 John Chrysostom: 163 John of Forda: 163 Olympiodorus: 163 Origen: 163 Pacian of Barcelona: 163 Paschasius Radbertus: 163 Paulinus of Nola: 163 Petrus Cellensis: 163

Philastrius of Brescia: 163 Salonius: 163 The Venerable Bede: 163 Thomas Aquinas: 280 William of St. Thierry: 163

   Index of References

 381

Greek and Roman Authors Aeschylos Agamemnon 176: 32

Euripides Alcestis 339: 221

Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics V, 1137b: 280 Politics 1280a: 275

Hesiod Fragments 304: 99 Theogony 525f: 102 Works and Days 217, 320–341: 227

Cicero On the Nature of the Gods II 14 37: 221 Pro murena 30: 281 Diodorus Siculus I, XXV, 2  f.: 242 Diogenes Laertius VII,123: 279 Diotogenes 265,20–21: 243 267,8  ff.: 243

Herodotus Histories 2.73: 99 Homer Iliad XXIII,246: 378 Menander Gnomai Monostichoi 422: 32 Plato Laws VI, 757a: 278 VI, 757e: 279 Republic 2, 379de: 241 Timaeus 29e-30a: 241

Plutarch SVF II, 323 frag. 1115: 241 SVF II, 338 frag. 1176: 242 Cato the Younger, 4: 281 Seneca Ad Lucilium 20: 281 De clementia I,14,2: 282 II,7,3–4: 282 Epistulae Morales 95, 47: 242 Sophocles Electra 358: 221 Oedipus Tyrannos 517:  221 Tacitus Annales 6,28: 99 Theognis 409–410: 150

Other Literature Instruction of Ptahhotep: 136

Gilgamesh Epic: 126 Ludlul bēl nēmeqi: 102

Papyrus Insinger (Phibis): 32, 126, 136