Month: September 2025

September 29: Job 1:2-5

Job 1:2-5
Verse 2

“And there were born to him seven sons and three daughters.”

In a sense, verses 2-5 are expository, demonstrating the blessings that came to Job (Ayyab) as a result of his righteousness (v. 1b, see the previous note). The connection (i.e., between righteousness and blessing [from YHWH]) is only implied, but it is basic to the ancient Israelite religious worldview; indeed, this traditional view, otherwise fully rooted in the covenant and Torah precepts (see Deut 28:2-6), becomes a point of contention in the book of Job (viz., the ‘righteous sufferer’ theme within Near Eastern Wisdom Literature). As in Deut 28:4a, children top the list of promised blessings (cf. also, e.g., Psalm 127:3; 128:6).

In ancient Near Eastern (and Israelite) tradition, seven was an ideal number which could symbolize fullness and completion; seven sons was likewise viewed as a typical and ideal number (of sons) for a person to have (cf. Ruth 4:15; 1 Sam 2:5b; Jer 15:19). Sometimes, in this regard, seven is set (in poetic parallelism) with the number eight. For example, in the Canaanite (Ugaritic) epic of Kirta, the main character (Kirta) is declared to have had 7/8 sons (Tablet I [CAT/CTU 1.14], col. 1, lines 8-9); as in the case of Job (see below), these sons of Kirta also perished. It may be worth noting that Jesse had seven sons (1 Chron 2:13ff), plus an eighth (David). The 7+3 pattern also represents a traditional (and ideal) arrangement (10 also being a number symbolizing fullness). In the Canaanite Baal epic, the god Baal-Haddu has three daughters (Tablet III [CAT/CTU 1.3], col. 3, lines 6-8; col. 4, lines 50-52), and apparently also seven [7/8] sons (Tablet V [1.5], col. 5, lines 8-9ff), just as in the case of Job. The same numerical pattern applies to Job’s possessions (sheep and camels, 7000/3000; see below); cp. also the 700 wives and 300 concubines of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3). These traditional details were likely part of the ancient Job-tale, and probably were not invented by a later author.
See the article “Job’s Children” by Michael David Coogan in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller. HSS 37. (Scholars Press: 1990), 135–47; on parallels between the Prologue of Job and the Canaanite Kirta epic, cf. D. J. O’Connor, “The Keret Legend and the Prologue-Epilogue of Job”, Irish Theological Quarterly 55 (1989) 1–6.

Verse 3

“And there was his property (that he) acquired: seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred female donkeys, and a work-force exceedingly great. And (so) this man came to be (the) great(est) of all (the) sons of (the) east.”

Job is presented as an extremely wealthy chieftain, having gained vast holdings of livestock-property as well as servants; these are summarized as his “acquisition(s)” (hn#q=m!, vb hn`q*). Job is part of the same general milieu as the ancestral patriarchs of Israel, semi-nomadic chieftains whose wealth is defined mainly by cattle, sheep, and camels, etc. (Gen 12:16; 13:6; 24:35; 30:43; 46:32); on precedent for the large number of camels mentioned here, cf. the notice by Aristotle (De Historia Animalia 9.50.5) cited by Pope (p. 7) and other commentators. The noun hD*b%u&, means “service”, in the sense here of a work-force of servants (db#u#, plur.); as Seow (p. 267f) notes, the expression hB*r^ hD*b%u& (“great work/service-force”) occurs also in Gen 26:14 (the great wealth of Isaac). The similarity of v. 3 here to Gen 12:16 suggests that the author of the Prose Tale may have used that reference as a basis, expanding upon it by supplying some traditional numbers.
As Hartley (p. 68) notes, Job is not portrayed here in a nomadic lifestyle; rather, he is a rich settled city-dweller “who engaged in farming and commerce and employed pastoral nomads to tend his vast herds”. 

The declaration at the end of v. 3 further emphasizes the greatness (ldg) of Job’s wealth (and thus also his stature and prominence in society); cf. Gen 26:13-14; 1 Sam 25:2. The expression “sons of the east” (<d#q# yn@B=) is a general geographic (and cultural) designation. From an Israelite/Judean perspective, it refers to the territories east of (i.e., across) the Jordan river—that is, the Transjordan (and further east). The term <d#q# (qeḏem) properly denotes the place (or time) “in front” (i.e., “before”); in the geographical context of a river, it can signify the region (or bank) on the opposite side. Even the Egyptians made use of the semitic term qedem (Qedem) in reference to the Asiatic lands (and peoples) east of Byblos; this usage occurs, for example, in the Sinuhe tale (cf. Pope, p. 7; Seow, p. 268). The specific expression “sons of the east” occurs occasionally in the ancient historical narratives (e.g., Gen 29:1; Judg 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10; cf. also the prophetic references, Isa 11:14; Jer 49:28; Ezek 25:4, 10). As Seow notes (p. 268), the expression here (in its use of <d#q#) may also be alluding to the great antiquity of Job (and his story).

The verb of being/becoming (hy`h*) occurs twice in this verse (waw-consecutive, yh!y+w~); the second occurrence I have translated as “came to be” (“And [so] he came to be…”), emphasizing that Job’s ‘greatness’ was defined principally through the wealth that he acquired—wealth that he eventually lost.

Verse 4

“And his sons would go and make a drinking (feast), (in the) house of (each) man (on) his day; and they would send and call for (the) three of their sisters to eat and drink with them.”

This verse serves primarily to establish the setting for the disaster that will come in vv. 18-19. It describes how Job’s children would (on occasion) gather together in one house for a celebratory feast (lit. “drinking session”, but in the more general sense of a banquet or feast). The consecutive perfect verb forms function as imperfect forms (i.e., with imperfective aspect), indicating a regular or repeated (iterative) action. Possibly an annual festival is intended; in any case, each of the sons takes a turn hosting the family feast in his house. The fact that each son has his own house (and is able to furnish [“make”] a lavish feast) indicates that they are part of a very wealthy family; cp. the situation with David’s family, 2 Sam 13:7; 14:28. For more detail on the wording omoy vya! tyB@, cf. the discussion by Seow (p. 269).
Conceivably “his day” could refer to a birthday celebration, as suggested by the usage in 3:1 (cf. Hartley, p. 69).

Verse 5

“And it was, when (the) days of drinking came full circle, that Ayyab would send and purify them; and (then) he would shoulder at the break (of day) and would bring up (offering)s going up (to YHWH), (according to the) count of them all. For Ayyab said, ‘Perhaps my sons have sinned and {insulted} (the) Mightiest in their heart’. Thus Ayyab did (accordingly), all the days.”

It is not entirely clear whether the “days of drinking [i.e., feasting]”, which likely involves a period of seven days (cf. Judg 14:12, and note also Tobit 11:19), means seven days spent feasting at the chosen son’s house, or that each day the feast was held at a different son’s house. Verse 4 allows for both possibilities, but most likely the former scenario is intended. In any case, verse 5 describes Job’s activities, on behalf of his children, when the feast days had concluded (“come [full] circle”, vb [q^n` II). The heavy drinking on such occasions made for the possibility that one of the children may have inadvertently engaged in impious thoughts which were insulting to God (<yh!l)a$, “[the] Mightiest”). The actual verb used is Er^B* (“bless”), but it is generally acknowledged that this is a euphemism (for a verb such as ll^q*), apparently to avoid specifically mentioning (out loud) that a person insulted or ‘cursed’ YHWH, even if this were done unintentionally or without speaking it (i.e., “in their heart”). The same euphemism occurs in v. 11 and 2:5, 9 (cf. also 1 Kings 21:10, 13; Ps 10:3). And yet, as Seow notes (p. 271), there is no real evidence that scribes made ‘pious alterations’ to the text in these instances; it may be that “bless” is meant here in its antithetical (or antiphrastic) sense—i.e., doing the opposite of speaking well of God.
In a certain sense, there is a fine line, conceptually, between speaking good words (blessing) and doing the opposite, as can be seen even in the modern use of the word “God” (also “Jesus/Christ”) in profanity as well as in prayer, etc. Interestingly, in Ugaritic the verb ṣly means “to curse”, but the same (cognate) verb in Arabic means “to pray”. Cf. Michel, p. 15, citing earlier studies by M. Dahood. 

Thus, the sacrificial offerings that Job offers (on behalf of his sons) are for purification (vb vd^q* Piel, “make holy, sanctify, purify”)—the removal of any impurity that may have come about as the result of (unintentional) sin—with a burnt offering that seeks to ensure the favor of God (i.e., a propitiatory offering). Possibly a specific purification ritual was performed prior to the sacrificial offerings, as the grammatical sequence suggests; my translation above reflects this.

The translation “(offering)s going up” renders the plural tolou, the regular term for burnt offerings (whose smoke “goes up”, i.e., rises/ascends to God). The Hiphil of the related verb hl*u*, meaning “bring up” or “cause to go up”, is also part of the regular sacrificial vocabulary. For the prescribed burnt offerings (dealing with sin) in the Torah regulations, cf. Leviticus 4-5. Job, the head of the household, functions as the priest who offers the sacrifice. This, of course, is contrary to later Israelite practice, but it would accurately reflect the time of the patriarchal Age (i.e., the putative setting for the Job story) as well as the (non-Israelite) regions of the Transjordan (Edom and/or N. Arabia). Balaam, another famous/legendary Transjordanian figure, likewise made sacrificial offerings himself (Num 23:1ff); indeed, the offerings mentioned in 42:8 match those made by Balaam (vv. 1, 14, 29). Here, we are also presumably dealing with seven sacrificial offerings, i.e., one for each son (“[according to the] count of them all”); the number seven would also correspond (most likely) with the number of days spent feasting.

Apparently, Job himself refrained from the days of drinking/feasting with his sons. Regardless, it is his devout mindset and righteous conduct that is emphasized here, illustrating the general declaration made earlier in verse 1.

All of these narrative elements—the wealth of Job and his household, the practice of his children feasting together in a single house, Job’s righteous devotion to YHWH (and on behalf of his family)—set the stage for the disasters that are narrated in the remainder of the Prologue. These disasters are set in motion by the ‘wager’ made between YHWH and “the Adversary”, the scenario that frames the central narrative of the Prologue. In the next note, we will examine the opening of this narrative (v. 6).

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973). 
    • Those marked “Hartley” are to John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 1988).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Biblical Institute Press: 1987).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 11)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 11: The World (Part 6)

The three principal aspects, or levels, of meaning for the word ko/smo$ in the Johannine writings were discussed briefly in the previous study, as demonstrated by the usage in the Gospel Prologue (1:9-10). As we proceed throughout the Gospel, it will become clear that the last two aspects are particularly prominent for the Johannine author(s): (i) ko/smo$ as the inhabited world of human beings (i.e., human society); and (ii) ko/smo$ as a ‘fallen’ world, corrupted by sin, and dominated by darkness and evil. In this regard, the Johannine writings follow the early Christian usage of the term, but they also develop the ko/smo$-concept within a distinctive theological idiom (and worldview).

The orientation of the Johannine usage can be glimpsed by the first occurrences of the word ko/smo$ outside of the Gospel Prologue—in 1:29 and 3:16-17ff.

John 1:29

“See—the lamb of God, the (one) taking (away) the sin of the world!”

This announcement by John the Baptist begins the second section (1:29-34) of the initial arc (1:19-51) of the Gospel narrative. It serves to demonstrate the Baptist’s role as a witness to Jesus Christ. This thematic emphasis was established in the Prologue (vv. 6-8, 15), and in the first section of the narrative-arc (vv. 19-28); it runs throughout the entirety of chapters 1-3. The initial announcement in v. 29 is matched by the closing declaration in v. 34:

“And I have seen and have given witness that this (one) is the Son of God!”
As I have mentioned in prior notes and articles, a few manuscripts and versional witnesses read “the (one) gathered out [e)klekto/$, i.e., Chosen one] of God” instead of “the Son of God”. 

In narrating the baptism of Jesus, the Gospel of John is drawing upon well-established early Christian tradition (cf. the account[s] in the Synoptic Gospels) but has applied it within the distinctive context of the Johannine theology. Two points, in particular, must be noted: (a) the allusion to the incarnate Logos (Word/Wisdom) of God and the pre-existent Son (cf. the Prologue); and (b) the special significance of the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus. The identification of Jesus Christ as the “Lamb of God” (v. 29, cf. also v. 36) relates to both of these Johannine points of emphasis. With regard to the first point, note the formulation of the Baptist’s words in v. 30 (immediately following v. 29), which echo those earlier in the Prologue (v. 15). Three key aspects of the Johannine theology (and Christology) are expressed in this formulation, as indicated (primarily) by the three verbs used; these are all common verbs, but each takes on special theological (and Christological) significance in the Gospel of John:

    • e)rxomai (“come”)— “a man comes [e&rxetai] in back of me”; this common verb refers to the (incarnate) Son’s ministry on earth, in particular to his coming among human beings (i.e., into the inhabited world of human society), as he does at the moment of his baptism (which marks the beginning of his earthly ministry).
    • gi/nomai (“become, come to be”)— “who has come to be [ge/gonen] in front of me”; in the Prologue (esp. verse 14), this verb, when applied to the person of Jesus Christ, refers to the incarnation of the pre-existent Son (and Logos).
    • ei)mi (vb. of being)— “(in) that he was [h@n] (the) first of/for me”; the verb of being (esp. in the Prologue) is used of God (or of the Logos/Son of God), even as it is generally (throughout the Johannine writings) for a Divine subject (often the Son).

Thus, the pre-existent Son (use of vb ei)mi) has come to be (vb gi/nomai) a human being (i.e., incarnation), and has come (vb e&rxomai) into the domain of human beings, in order to begin his ministry, fulfilling the mission for which the Father sent him to earth (i.e., into the world [cf. below]).

At the same time, the baptism scene also has special importance because of the traditional detail (cf. Mk 1:10 par) of the descent of the holy Spirit upon Jesus—that is, the “coming down” (lit., “stepping down”, vb katabai/nw) of the Spirit upon him (vv. 32-33). In the Gospel of John, the verbs katabai/nw (“step down”) and a)nabai/nw (“step up”) have a unique Christological significance, referring to the earthly mission of the incarnate Son—who “steps down” to earth (from heaven), fulfills his mission, and then “steps up” back to heaven (with the culmination of his exaltation). The Johannine narrative of the baptism includes one other theological detail—the use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”); the Spirit steps down upon Christ, and then remains upon him: “I looked at the Spirit stepping down, as a dove, out of heaven, and it remained [e&meinen] upon him” (v. 32, cf. also v. 33). This verb is widespread in the Johannine writings and is a key piece of their theological vocabulary.

The precise relationship of the descent of the Spirit (in the Baptism scene) to the Johannine Christology may be debated. However, at the very least, it should be viewed as a symbolic portrait of the Christology—viz., the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus (and remaining upon him) reflects the Father giving the Spirit to the Son, even as the Father’s own presence continues to remain/abide with the Son. In the early chapters of the Gospel, the key reference is 3:34-35 (at the close of the division covering chaps. 1-3):

“For the (one) whom the Father sent forth speaks the utterances of God—for it is not out of a measure (that) He gives the Spirit. The Father loves the Son and has given all (thing)s in(to) his hand.”

Thus, the narration of the Baptism scene, beginning with the Baptist’s declaration in v. 30, and concluding with the final declaration in v. 34, portrays Jesus Christ as the incarnation of the pre-existent Son of God, who has been given the Spirit by God the Father, and who has come ‘into the world’ (i.e., among human beings) in order to fulfill the mission for which the Father sent him. The initial “Lamb of God” announcement in v. 29 must be understood in this light. It alludes to the mission of the incarnate Son of God, a mission that is described as “taking (away) [ai&rwn] the sin of the world”. I have discussed this verse (including the Lamb-figure specifically) in an earlier note; here, I wish to focus on the use of the noun ko/smo$, in relation to the verb ai&rw and the direct object a(marti/a (“sin”).

The verb ai&rw here has the principal meaning “take away”, with the direct object of the verb being the noun a(marti/a (“sin”). Thus, the characteristic action (and result) of Jesus fulfilling his mission is indicated by the participle ai&rwn (“taking away” [sin]); the definite article shows that the participle here is a substantive verbal noun that specifically characterizes the person of Christ (the incarnate Son) in the fulling of his mission—i.e., “the (one) taking away…”. The noun a(marti/a is qualified by the genitive tou= ko/smou (“of the world”), yielding the participial expression, “the (one) taking away the sin of the world”. The sin mentioned here is the world’s sin—i.e., “of the world”, belonging to “the world”, and characteristic of it. If we understand ko/smo$ in the second semantic level (or aspect) highlighted above, then this “sin” is that of human beings (i.e., of the inhabited world). This Johannine view of sin (singular, a(marti/a), in relation to “the world”, can be understood two primary ways:

    • The singular noun is used in a collective sense, for all the sins of human beings (conventionally understood).
    • The singular usage reflects the idea that “the world” (collectively) of human beings has been corrupted by sin(fulness) and is now dominated by darkness and evil.

In fulfilling his mission, the Son thus accomplished two important things: (i) he took away the sins (with their guilt and harmful effects) of individual human beings, and also (ii) he freed the entire “world” of human beings from the power of sin and evil, taking away the sin that held them in bondage.

John 3:16-17

In these famous verses, the mission of the Son is described in a bit more detail, but just as firmly within the Johannine theological idiom:

“For thus did God love the world, such that He gave the only [monogenh/$] Son, (so) that every (one) trusting in him should not be destroyed, but should (instead) hold (the) Life of the Age(s).” (3:16)

The motif of “taking away” sin in 1:29 is here expressed in terms of saving human beings (“the world”) from destruction (vb a)po/llumi mid., “be destroyed, perish”); the verb sw/zw (“save”) is specifically used in the following v. 17. In accordance with the early Christian point of reference, this salvation from destruction refers primarily to the coming end-time Judgment, as is clear from vv. 17ff; verse 16 is essentially restated, along these lines, in verse 17:

“For God did not send forth the Son into the world (so) that he would judge the world, but (so) that the world would be saved through him.”

The world is not judged—it is saved from the Judgment. In these two verses, “the world”, in relation to its sinfulness (1:29), should be understood according to the same two interpretive aspects outlined above: (i) individual human beings are saved, and (ii) the entire “world” (of human beings) is also saved (and set free) from the power of sin. In this respect, “the world” in vv. 16-17 delineates the distinction between believers and non-believers—viz., those who respond in trust to the person of Christ (the incarnate Son) and those who do not. In verse 16, the salvation of “the world” is clearly qualified as referring to believers (and only they), as expressed in characteristic Johannine language— “every (one) trusting in him” (pa=$ o( pisteu/wn ei)$ au)to\n).

In verses 18-19ff, the points made in vv. 16-17 are further explained and expounded. In particular, it is made clear that the believer in Christ (“the [one] trusting in him”) is not judged (v. 17) but has been saved from the Judgment, as the result of his/her trust in Jesus (as the Son of God). By contrast, the person who does not (i.e., refuses or is unwilling to) trust in Jesus, is already judged—that is, has effectively already experienced the sentence of the end-time Judgment. Verse 19 brings together these theological points, along with a fundamental statement regarding the true nature of sin (from the Johannine standpoint): it is unbelief, viz., a failure/refusal to accept the Gospel and trust in Jesus Christ. It is here that the aspect of “the world” (o( ko/smo$) in the negative sense of a domain of darkness and evil, fundamentally opposed to God (and to His Son), so central to the dualistic nature of the Johannine theology, comes prominently into view:

“And this is the judgment: that the Light has come into the world, and (yet) the men (of the world) loved the darkness more than the light—for their works/deeds are evil!” (v. 19)

Non-believers belong to the darkness of the world (and thus, they hate the light, v. 20); by contrast (v. 21), believers belong to the Light (of God and His Son). This fundamental dualistic contrast is basic to the Johannine theology, and runs all through the Johannine writings, as we shall see.

As a final point, it is worth considering how the message of 3:16-17ff is positioned within chapter 3 as a whole. In particular, the two key Christological tenets highlighted above (with regard to the Baptism scene [in the context of 1:29]) apply just as well to statement regarding the Son’s mission (here in 3:16-17ff). The chapter begins and ends with important references to the Spirit, alluding to the idea that God, through the Son, gives the Spirit to believers. There are, first, the sayings by Jesus (in the Nicodemus Discourse) about coming to be born “of the Spirit” (vv. 5-8, cf. 3-4); then, at the close of the chapter, we have the verses (34-35) cited above, about God giving the Spirit (and “all things”) to the Son, with the implication that the Son, in turn, is able to give the Spirit to others (cf. the Baptist’s witness, in relation to the key baptism-saying[s] of 1:26, 31-33).

Nested within these Spirit-references are specific references to the incarnation of the Son. First, we have the “Son of man” sayings in vv. 13-15, which lead directly into vv. 16-17ff and the statements regarding the Son’s mission (see above). Then, at a comparable point at the close of the chapter (vv. 31-33), we find similar allusions to Christ as the Son who has come down to earth from heaven, speaking the words of God and possessing the Spirit of God.

Thus, Christ’s mission with regard to “the world” is rooted in these two Christological principles: (1) his identity as the incarnate Son, sent to earth from heaven by God the Father; and (2) that he is given the Spirit of God (and, indeed, all things from God the Father), and is able to give the Spirit, in turn, to those who trust in him (believers).

In our next study, we will examine how this nexus of theological principles is developed elsewhere in the Gospel. In particular, we will look at occurrences of the term ko/smo$ in the Discourses of Jesus in chapters 4-12.

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 1:20-33

First Wisdom Poem: Proverbs 1:20-33

Between the ten lectures (lehrreden) of chapters 1-9 (see the previous study on the first lecture [1:8-19]) there are interspersed a number of Wisdom-poems, along with at least one short proverb-collection (6:1-19). Commentators such as Fox (pp. 95ff, 322ff) designate these as interludes. Meinhold (pp. 43ff) offers a more precise delineation, distinguishing between four Wisdom-poems (Weisheitsgedichte, including 1:20-33) and three “in-between pieces” (zwischenstücke). I also recognize four Wisdom-poems, but somewhat differently from Meinhold (as I include 3:13-20 among them).

These poems feature the praise of Wisdom, but also allow Wisdom (personified as a woman) to speak. Even though she provides teaching and instruction, she is not the mother-figure mentioned in verse 7; rather, she is portrayed as a lover, offering enticement and allure to a young man. And yet, there is a definite contrast, running through the Wisdom-poems of chaps. 1-9, between the allure of Wisdom’s virtuous teaching and the seductively wicked wiles of the ‘Strange Woman’ of the city. This contrast is established here in the first poem, though without (yet) specifically mentioning the other Woman.
The depiction of Wisdom as a female figure is based primarily upon the fact that the noun hm*k=j* (ḥokmâ, “wisdom”) is grammatically feminine. This particular literary (and rhetorical) device has been given extensive treatment by scholars; it will be discussed in further detail as we proceed through chaps. 1-9.

The poem has two parts (vv. 22-27, 28-33), in each of which Wisdom speaks.

Introduction: Verses 20-21

“Wisdom in the narrow (lanes) rings out,
in the wide (square)s she gives forth her voice;
at (the) head of (the) roaring (street)s she calls out,
at (the) openings of (the) gates in the city
her utterances she utters:”

The words of Wisdom that comprise the main parts of the poem are introduced here with a portrait of Wisdom (as a woman, see above) crying out her message throughout the city. Indeed, it is an urban setting that is portrayed, just as in the first lecture. It has tight spaces (JWj, sing.), i.e., narrow streets and lanes, cramped areas where people gather, pressing tightly together; it also has wide spaces (bj)r=, plur.) for gathering, i.e., squares and courtyards, plazas, etc. It is a relatively large and busy city, with streets and squares that are noisy and bustling with people. This would seem to be the meaning of the substantive verbal adjective toYm!h) (perhaps to be vocalized toYm!h$), from a root (hmh) meaning “roar” and also connoting noise (generally), turbulence and agitation, etc.; however, Dahood (p. 4f) believes that this word should be read as tymj, a form of the plural of hm*j) (= hm*oj), “wall”.

The city gate, and the wide square/plaza in front of it, was a traditional locale for schools and public teaching in the ancient world; thus, it is appropriate for Wisdom to stand there shouting out her message. Ironically, however, it would have been rather scandalous for a lone woman to take up such a public position; a woman standing at the “head of a street” is suggestive of a prostitute, as is indicated, for example, in Ezek 16:25 (at the “head of [the] path/road”), and as is alluded to elsewhere in chaps. 1-9 (e.g., 7:12; 9:14). As noted above, the details regarding Wisdom’s activity here establish (and foreshadow) the contrast, between Wisdom and the ‘Strange Woman’, that will feature prominently in the remaining Wisdom poems.

Curiously, the noun hm*k=j* (“wisdom”) in line 1 is a plural form (tomk=j*). In 24:7 (cf. also Ps 49:4[3]), this same form is an ordinary (numeric) plural, but here (and in 9:1) it is used for the personification of Wisdom (as a [singular] woman). This has been explained as a ‘plural of majesty’ or the like, but it is perhaps better treated as a plural functioning as an abstract singular; cf. the examples cited by Fox (p. 97), along with a brief discussion of other explanations for tomk=j*.

Metrically, these verses represent a pair of 3-beat (3+3) couplets, with an additional 2-beat line extending the final couplet; this extension creates a certain dramatic tension leading into the presentation of Wisdom’s words (vv. 22ff). The 3+3 meter is generally followed throughout the poem (with a few exceptions).

First Part of the Poem: Verses 22-27
Verse 22

“Until when, O youths, will you love youthful folly,
even (as) scoffers find delight for them(selves) (in) scoffing,
and stupid (dolt)s will (ever) hate knowledge?”

In this initial (4+4+3) tricolon, Wisdom declares her public message. It is addressed principally to the <y]t*P=, “youths, youthful (one)s”, of the city—the very ones mentioned (implicitly) in the Prologue (v. 4) and also represented by the adolescent son in the lecture(s) (vv. 8ff, etc). The rhetorical question “Until when…?” (yt^m* du^, i.e., “How long…?”) serves as a way of exhorting the (potential) pupil to embrace/accept the teaching of Wisdom. A naive and callow (i.e., foolish) child (yt!P=, cf. on v. 4 in the earlier study) cannot remain so forever (the second occurrence of yt!P= in the line is used in an abstract sense, i.e., “youthful folly”, cf. Fox, p. 98); he/she must ‘grow up’ by accepting the discipline and teaching (of parents, etc), and, through the learning of wisdom, begin to curb/avoid foolish and wicked tendencies and to cultivate virtue and righteousness. The youth should not wish to be(come) like the wicked scoffer (verbal noun, from the verb JWl) who continually takes delight in scoffing, nor like the ‘stupid’ person (lys!K=) who always seems to hate knowledge and learning.

I have translated the initial w-conjunction of the second line in the emphatic-comparative sense of “even (as)…”, in view of the grammatical-syntactical shift in address, between second person (line 1) and third person (lines 2-3). The idea that the second and third lines should be deleted (as suggested by a few commentators) is misguided. Nor is it necessary to posit (as Dahood does, p. 5f) that the verb in the first line (wbhat) be parsed as a third person form.

Verse 23

“(If) you turn back to my rebuke, (then) see—
I will make my spirit bubble (forth) to you,
(and) will make known my words to you!”

The second verse of the address is another (3-beat) tricolon. The poetic pattern generally matches that of v. 22: with an initial exhortation (line 1) further expounded or qualified by a pair of parallel lines (2 & 3). On both formal and grammatical grounds, Murphy’s alternative approach to the parsing/division of vv. 22-23 (pp. 457f, cf. also his commentary) seems off the mark.

The main question is whether the imperfect verb form (of the vb bWv, “turn around, turn back”) should be treated as a jussive (with imperatival force), as many commentators render it (“Turn back to my rebuke…”). The parallel with v. 22 rather suggests a conditional statement, much as Dahood (p. 6) treats it— “(If) you turn back…”. The exhortation in v. 22 was for the young person not to continue in youthful foolishness, while here the same message is presented in the positive direction—viz., an exhortation to “turn back” to the teaching of Wisdom. This use of the verb bWv (“turn back”) implies that the young person had, at one point, been listening (and heeding) Wisdom’s instruction, but then may have turned away from it (or, was tempted to). The language of returning could also have rhetorical force, as a way of urging and convincing the young person not to go away from the teaching of Wisdom in the first place.
Fox (p. 99) cites similar wording (in a Wisdom context) from an Egyptian letter, with a father addressing his son: “Look, turn back to examine my words. You will find my words excellent. Set your face to hear my instruction, so as to do all I advise.”

I have rendered the noun tj^k^oT (cf. also the related hj*k^oT) as “rebuke”. The translation “reproof” or “chastisement” perhaps better captures the idea of correction, but these terms sound stilted (and are relatively rare) in modern English; “reprimand” is somewhat preferable, but still makes for an awkward poetic line. The basic meaning (from the root jky) is of an argument that proves someone (or something) right (and the other side wrong); in a pedagogical context, it connotes the correction and discipline of a young person. Of the 24 Scriptural occurrences, 16 are in the book of Proverbs.

Listening and paying attention to the voice of Wisdom allows the opportunity for Wisdom to give a person further teaching and (deeper) insight, with the implication that this may entail exposure to Divine revelation. This is expressed by the parallel lines 2 & 3. Wisdom’s “spirit” (or “breath”, j^Wr) is parallel to her “words” (<yr!b*D=); the rendering “breath” makes for a better match for “words” in the context of Wisdom speaking, though “spirit” better captures the idea of Wisdom’s intent and desire, her heartfelt wish that people would come to embrace her teaching. The verb ub^n` (“bubble/spring/gush [forth]”) is parallel to ud^y` (“know”), both in the Hiphil (causative) stem—i.e., “make bubble forth”, “make known”. Wisdom will ‘pour out’ her spirit and thus make her inspired words known to the young person, if he/she will only listen and pay attention.

Verses 24-25

“Because I have called and you refused (to listen)—
I stretched out my hand, and there was none giving heed—
and (because) you let loose of all my counsel,
and my rebuke you were not willing (to accept),”

In verses 24-25, Wisdom returns to the rhetorical standpoint of v. 22, effectively positioning the young person in relation to the wicked and foolish ones—viz., those who ignore and reject the call of Wisdom. She announces publicly—we might say, to the entire ‘city’ of humankind—that because they have rejected her, she will also reject them. The conditional aspect of this declaration is presented here in vv. 24-25, beginning with the adverbial particle /u^y~, which in this context basically means “in response (to the fact that)”, but for poetic concision is rendered simply as “because”. Because people have done these things and acted this way, there will be certain consequences.

Three of the four lines are in second person address, with one (v. 24b) in third person. The “you” of the address refers to all of the people (esp. the young people) in the ‘city’; and, indeed, virtually all of them have rejected wisdom, a point emphasized by the third person clause utilizing the privative particle (of non-existence), /ya@— “there was no (one)”.  Four parallel kinds of action (in response to Wisdom’s call) are mentioned:

    • People refused (vb /a^m*) to listen when Wisdom called
    • They would not pay attention (vb bv^q*) when she “stretched out” her hand to them
    • They let loose of (vb ur^P*), i.e., let go of, would not hold on to, the counsel she gave
    • They were not willing (vb hb*a*) to accept correction from her (same noun, tj^k^oT, from v. 23 [cf. above]).
Verses 26-27

“(so) also I will laugh at (the coming of) your disaster,
will stammer (derisively) at (the) coming of your fear;
at (its) coming like a breaking (storm), your fear,
and your disaster like a devastating (storm when) it arrives,
in (the) coming upon you (of) distress and (dire) straits!”

Syntactically, verses 26-27 continue the sentence begun by the conditional clauses in vv. 24-25. In them Wisdom declares what will happen to the people who reject her when she calls to them. The wording in the initial line (v. 26a) suggests that the reference is to the “scoffers” mentioned in v. 22 (see above). More than simply ignoring or refusing to accept the voice of Wisdom, they actually laugh (qj^c*) at it, mocking her instruction. To such people, Wisdom declares that she also (<G~, the explicit inclusion of the first person pronoun is emphatic) will laugh at them—that is, specifically will laugh when (B=) disaster comes upon them (“at the coming of…”, cf. Waltke, p. 199). This may reflect the ancient lex talionis principle, whereby a person’s punishment matches the crime (in its nature and kind). On the general correspondence of vv. 24-25ff to prophetic announcements of judgment, cf. Murphy, pp. 458-9. Indeed, the motif of God (and/or the righteous) mocking the wicked (as part of their judgment) is attested in both the Prophets and the Psalms—e.g., Isa 37:22; Ps 2:4; 37:13; 52:8[6]; 58:11[10]; 59:9[8] (cf. Fox, p. 101). Nel (p. 81) makes the point that there is a close connection between the Prophetic and Wisdom ethos, particularly in the post-exilic period (if, indeed, chaps. 1-9 stem from this period).
On other possible (literary and intertextual) connections with Prophetic pronouncements of impending judgment, see Fox, p. 104-5, and (for a more detailed analysis) chapter 3 (pp. 67-109) of the monograph by Scott L. Harris, Proverbs 1-9: A Study of Inner-Biblical Interpretation, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 150 (Scholars Press: 1995).

This mockery is no doubt expressed (poetically) by the overloaded (and repetitive) declarations in the five lines of vv. 26-27. Fox (p. 101) particularly notes both the chiastic parallelism and the alliteration in these lines. In terms of the chiastic parallelism, note the following highlights:

    • “…at your disaster [dya@]
    • …at the coming of your fear [dj^P^]
    • at the coming of your fear [dj^P^] like a breaking (storm)
    • and your disaster [dya@] like a devastating (storm)…”

As for the alliteration, cf. the sequence of similar sounding nouns: ha*ov [Qere, cf. Waltke, p. 199] (šô’â, “outbreak [of a storm]”); hp*Ws (sû¸â, “devastation, destruction”); hr*x* (ṣārâ); and hq*Wx (ṣûqâ)—the last two terms both have a similar meaning, denoting “tightness, narrowness”, in the sense of “distress” or being in a “tight spot” and “tight [i.e., dire] straits”. The conjunction of these two terms (which may represent a hendiadys) I have translated above as “distress and (dire) straits”. Also notable in these verses is the three-fold repetition of the verb aoB (“come”), as if to emphasize the certainty of the judgment that is coming upon the wicked (cf. also the use of the verb ht*a*, “come, arrive”); the temporal prepositional expression ab)B= (“in/at [the] coming of”) reinforces this point of emphasis.

Second Part of the Poem: Verses 28-33
Verse 28

“Then they shall call on me, but I will not answer;
go around looking for me, but they shall not find me.”

Only when disaster (at the time of judgment) comes upon the wicked/foolish ones will they at last turn to Wisdom, but it will then be too late. She will not answer them when they call (ar*q*, as in vv. 21, 24); again, this follows the lex talionis principle of punishment (see above)—her refusal to answer when they call matches their refusal to respond to her call. Similarly, they were not to be found (“no one”, v. 24b) when she sought them out; now she will not be found when they finally seek her out. The relatively rare verb rj^v* [II] specifically means “go around (looking)”; of the 12 Scriptural occurrences, 8 are in Wisdom texts (with 5 in Proverbs, cf. 7:15; 8:17; 11:27; 13:24).

Verse 29

“(This is) in place of how they hated knowledge,
and (the) fear of YHWH they would not choose.”

The reason for this judgment is given here in vv. 29ff (matching that of vv. 24-25, cf. the diagram below). The preposition tj^T* means “under[neath]”, but here in the common figurative sense of “in place of”, and (specifically) “in exchange for”. The noun tu^D^ (“knowledge”) is used (as often in Proverbs) as a general Wisdom-term; but the reference here also alludes specifically back to v. 22 and the idea that the wicked/foolish ones hate (vb anc) knowledge (i.e., wisdom). On the fundamental association of Wisdom with the “fear of YHWH”, see the discussion on v. 7 in the earlier study. This connection makes clear that the people who hate (and reject) Wisdom truly are wicked and impious—they do not revere YHWH as they ought to.

Verse 30

“They were not willing to (accept) my counsel,
(and) spurned every (one) of my rebuke(s)!”

This couplet more or less reproduces the statement in v. 25 (see above), using the same verbs and terms. Only the verb Ja^n` (“despise, spurn”) is added here, with its strong double-connotation of both avoiding and dishonoring something (i.e., treating with dishonor/disrespect).

Verse 31

“And (so) they shall eat from (the) fruit of their path,
and from their own counsels they shall be stuffed!”

Again, the lex talionis principle applies in this reformulated judgment declaration. The wicked/foolish ones rejected the right path (of Wisdom), choosing instead to follow their own path, eating from its ‘fruits’. They will become bloated (a negative/pejorative use here of the verb ub^c*, “fill up” oneself) on these wicked fruits, and it will result in their own destruction. These ‘fruits’ are expounded by the parallel use of the noun hx*u@om (“counsel, advice, plan”, plur.) in the second line; their own wicked thoughts and plans, which they consume on a regular basis, ultimately will consume them. The related noun hx*u@ was used in v. 30 (and earlier in v. 25), referring to the counsel/advice that Wisdom offers; here this is clearly contrasted with the counsels taken by the wicked/foolish ones.

On the path [Er#D#] motif, a key Wisdom theme (and root/structuring metaphor) that features prominently in Proverbs 1-9, cf. its earlier use in Lecture 1 (vv. 8-19, previous study).

Verse 32

“For (the) backwardness of (foolish) youths will slay them,
and (the) carelessness of (the) stupid will destroy them;”

The poem concludes with a moral lesson, framed as a proverbial maxim. The first couplet of this proverb focuses on the foolish ones who ignore, neglect, or turn away from Wisdom. These are identified by two of the three characteristic terms used in v. 22: the naive/foolish youth (yt!P=), and the ‘stupid’ person (lys!K=). They are to be distinguished from the truly wicked, the “scoffers” (<yx!l@) of v. 22. For various reasons, both the foolish youth and the stupid fool are unable or unwilling to accept the call and teaching of Wisdom. Two main reasons are given here, which are meant to apply to the young person who is the focus of the instruction in chaps. 1-9. The first I have rendered as “backwardness”, translating a noun hb*Wvm= that is related to the verb bWv (used earlier in v. 23). The verb itself means “turn around, turn back”, and in v. 23 it was used in the (positive) context of turning back (i.e., returning) to the teaching of Wisdom. Here the noun, which denotes the verbal act of “turning back” (either in the sense of regular behavior, or of a characteristic tendency/inclination), is used in a negative sense, in the context of a person turning back (and away) from Wisdom (but cf. Dahood, pp. 6-7). The second explanatory term is hw~l=v^, which denotes being “at ease/rest”, often in the negative sense (as here) of feeling at ease, to the point of carelessness and complacency. Such a person, who is careless and neglectful in relation to the teachings of Wisdom, must truly be regarded as a fool.
The two nouns under discussion here are both relatively rare. The noun hb*Wvm= occurs just 12 times in the Scriptures; interestingly, 9 of the other occurrences are in Jeremiah, which could be a relative indication of the date of our poem (i.e., in the exilic [or post-exilic] period). The Jeremiah references certainly reinforce the sense of a prophetic judgment announcement in these verses (cf. above). The other noun, hw~l=v^, occurs 8 times (once more in Proverbs, 17:1), and 5 of these are similarly in exilic (or post-exilic) prophetic texts (Jer 22:21; Ezek 16:49; Dan 8:25; 11:21, 24). 

As in verse 31, the judgment is: that a person’s own foolishness (and rejection or disregard of Wisdom) will be the cause of his/her destruction.

Verse 33

“but (the one) listening to me shall dwell in security,
and shall be at rest, (free) from (all) fear of evil.”

The one who hears/heeds (i.e., listens to) Wisdom, in contrast to the foolish person, will experience blessing. Instead of destruction, such a person will dwell (vb /k^v*) in safety and security (jf^B#). They will also be at rest (vb /a^v* [note the alliterative similarity to /k^v*])—a secure and blessed rest, in contrast to the indolent and careless ease of the foolish (cf. verse 32). None of the evils (i.e., disaster, etc) prophesied against the foolish/wicked ones (vv. 26-27) will come upon those who devote themselves to Wisdom; rather, they will be completely free from [privative /m!] any fear of such evil coming to them.

As a final note on vv. 20-33, I would like to reproduce a diagram from an article by Phyllis Trible (“Wisdom Builds a Poem: The Architecture of Proverbs 1:20-33” in Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 95 [1975], pp. 509-18 [the diagram is on p. 511), illustrating the structural chiasm of this passage. I believe it reflects a reasonably sound analysis of the text, and is similarly quoted by Fox (p. 104):

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015). 
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, 2 vols., Zürcher Bibelkommentare 16 (Theologischer Verlag: 1991).
    • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1963).
    • Those marked “Murphy” are to Roland E. Murphy, “Wisdom’s Song: Proverbs 1:20-33” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 48 (1986), pp. 456-60. See also his Commentary on Proverbs in the Word Biblical Commentary series, vol. 22 (1998). 
    • Those marked “Nel” are to Philip Johannes Nel, The Structure and Ethos of the Wisdom Admonitions in Proverbs, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 158 (Walter de Gruyter: 1982).

 

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 143 (Part 2)

Psalm 143, continued

The first stanza (vv. 1-6) was examined in Part 1 of this study.

Stanza 2: Verses 7-12

Verse 7a

“Be quick (and) answer me, O YHWH,
(for) my spirit is finished!”

Even though the first stanza (Part 1) represented the lament portion of the Psalm, it began just like the second stanza here, with the protagonist calling out to YHWH for help. Each stanza is thus framed as a prayer; and yet, the prayer-for-deliverance proper occurs here in the second stanza.

The urgency of the protagonist’s situation is well-expressed here in the initial couplet, joining an imperative of the verb rh^m* (“be quick, hurry”) to that of the verb hn`u* (“answer”). The allusions elsewhere in the Psalm to the protagonist being on the verge of death (v. 3, and see below on 7b) are here indicated in more conventional physical (or metaphysical) terms, as the protagonist declares that his “spirit” is finished (or, at an end, vb hl*K*); cf. the statement in v. 4.

Verse 7a is a 3+2 couplet, which is the dominant meter of the second stanza. Interestingly, this meter is often associated specifically with lament, but in the lament portion of the Psalm (stanza 1) a 3+3 couplet pattern was generally followed.

Verse 7b

“May you not hide your face (away) from me,
or I will be like (those) going down (to the) Pit!”

In this second couplet (which shifts back to the 3+3 meter of the first stanza), the protagonist particularly pleads with YHWH that He not turn away from him. The verb used is rt^s*, which occurs in this same context in a number of prayer-Psalms (10:11; 13:1; 22:25[24]; 27:9; 69:18[17], etc). In many of these instances (as here), Dahood (III, p. 325) reads the rts morphology as a t-infixed form of the verb rWs (“turn [away]”), rather than the verb rt^s* (“hide”), but the overall meaning is much the same in either case. Dahood also has a very different way of understanding of the initial word of the verse (la), reading it as la@ (“Mighty [One]”, i.e., God) rather than the negative particle la^; he would also include la@ with the second line of v. 7a, effectively turning v. 7b into a conditional sentence (which is, admittedly, grammatically smoother):

“(If) you should hide [or turn away] your face from me,
then I will be like (those) going down (to the) Pit!”

The second line can also be found in Ps 28:1b (and cf. also the similar comparison in 88:5[4]a). The “Pit” (roB) is a traditional designation for Sheol, the realm of Death (and the dead), alluding back to the lament-description in v. 3; cf. the same terminology in 30:4[3].

By hiding (or turning His face) away from the protagonist, YHWH essentially would be refusing to hear and answer his prayer. If YHWH were to do this, then the protagonist believes that he will come very near to death, being likened together with (vb lv^m* + <u!), i.e., being very close to, those who have already died (“[those] going down [to the] Pit”), just as indicated in v. 3.

Verse 8a

“Let me hear of your goodness at the break (of day),
for in you (indeed) I will be secure;”

As the protagonist points out in the second line of v. 8a, if YHWH does answer his prayer, then he knows that he will be safe and secure. Effectively, this is a statement of trust in YHWH, using a verb (jf^B*) that features prominently in the prayer-Psalms; it has the basic meaning “be/feel secure, have confidence (in)”. The protagonist is faithful/loyal to YHWH, and is confident that YHWH will answer his prayer. He hopes (and expects) that he will experience the goodness (ds#j#) of YHWH with the morning light (“at the break [of day]”). This noun (ds#j#), which occurs frequently in the Psalms, denotes “goodness, kindness”, but it also connotes the idea of “faithfulness, loyalty, devotion” (see below on v. 12a), especially in the context of the covenant-bond between YHWH and His people. The protagonist trusts/expects that YHWH will be faithful to the covenant and will thus answer the prayer of a loyal servant (see v. 12c), providing deliverance and protection to him in time of need. The Hiphil (causative) form of the verb um^v* (“hear”), “make/cause me to hear”, for the sake of poetic concision has been translated “let me hear”.

As Dahood suggests (III, p. 325), there may be a modest bit of wordplay here, contrasting roB (bôr, the “pit”, in its darkness) with rq#B) (bōqer, “daybreak”, and its light). On the morning-motif elsewhere in the Psalms, cf. 5:4[3]; 30:6[5]; 59:17[16]; 90:14; 130:6 (Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 575).

Metrically, this is another 3+2 couplet.

Verse 8b

“Let me know (the) path in which I should walk—
for (indeed it is) to you (that) I lift up my soul!”

Verse 8b follows the syntactical pattern of v. 8a, though the meter is different (3+3 [cf. v. 7b] vs. 3+2). In line 1, the request is made to YHWH using an imperative of a verb in the Hiphil (causative) stem; here it is the verb ud^y` (“know”)—i.e., “make/cause me to know”, rendered “let me know” (for poetic concision, as in v. 8a). The second line contains an emphatic-declarative statement of faith/trust in YHWH, that begins with a yK! particle— “for…”, but also with emphasis (i.e., “for indeed…”). The “lifting up” (vb ac*n`) of the protagonist’s soul to YHWH is another way of saying that he trusts in YHWH (for protection and deliverance, etc); in English idiom, we might say that the protagonist is ‘putting his soul in God’s hands’. Yet the direction of his soul to(ward) [la#] YHWH also indicates his devotion (and faithfulness/loyalty, etc) to Him. On the particular Hebrew idiom, cf. Ps 25:1-2; there are many points of similarity between Ps 25 and our Psalm, as noted in the introduction (Part 1) and this could indicate a literary dependence.

The path/walking motif is a traditional component of ethical-religious instruction and features prominently in Wisdom literature, occurring similarly in a good number of Psalms (see especially throughout Ps 119); it was used in the prior Ps 142 (v. 4[3]). The deliverance that the protagonist expects from YHWH includes the idea of ethical-religious direction (i.e., hr*oT)—viz., that YHWH would help him to know the “path” which he should walk throughout his life. This same sort of request, blended together within the genre-specific context of rescue/protection from hostile enemies, occurs a number of times in Psalm 119 (cf. the earlier study and note-set).

Verse 9

“Snatch me away from my hostile (foe)s, O YHWH,
(for) unto you I (come to) seek cover!”

The prayer here matches the form (and rhythm, 3+2 meter) of the requests in vv. 7a and 8a (see above); an initial yK! particle for the second line is absent, but essentially implied. The request utilizes the verb lx^n` (“snatch away”), which occurs frequently in the prayer-Psalms (59:3[2], etc), in the sense of “rescue”; it occurs 44 times in the Psalms, and almost always (as here) in the Hiphil causative stem. Often, the plea is that YHWH would specifically rescue the protagonist from his enemies (“[one]s hostile” <yb!y+a) to him).

The Piel form of the verb hs*K* (“cover”) creates an apparently awkward (and grammatically questionable) line: “to you I cover” [?] This has led to a number of suggestions for emending or revocalizing the text at this point; unfortunately, this portion of the Psalm was not preserved in the surviving Qumran manuscripts so those texts cannot be used for comparison. Kraus (p. 535) suggests vocalizing as a suffixed noun form (yt!s%K= = yt!WsK=), “my cover” (i.e., my protection), so that the line might be rendered “with you (is) my protection”. Allen (p. 352) prefers vocalizing as a passive verbal form (used reflexively), yt!S@K%, “I am covered,” “I cover myself”, with the preposition la# in the sense of “among, in the midst of”. However, it seems that it might be possible to retain the MT vocalization, understanding the Piel of the verb in the sense of “seek cover”, similar to a reflexive meaning (“cover oneself”) that occurs occasionally for this stem (cf. Gen 38:14; Deut 22:12; Jon 3:6). I have rendered it above in the sense of “come to seek cover”; cf.  Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 569. This sense corresponds to the second line of v. 8a (see above)—viz., the protagonist trusts in YHWH, and looks to Him for protection and deliverance.

Verse 10a

“Teach me to do (what is) your delight—
for you (are) my Mighty (One).”

This couplet has a match in v. 8b (though with a different meter, 3+2 vs. 3+3 in 8b). The shift, from the traditional genre-specific theme of rescue/protection (from enemies) to the Wisdom/instructional theme of being guided (on the right path) by YHWH, was discussed in the note on v. 8b above. Here, again, the protagonist specifically asks YHWH to direct him (vb dm^l*, “teach”, cp. ud^y` Hiphil, “cause/make to know”, in v. 8b). For the righteous, the “path” that they are to walk corresponds with what pleases YHWH (i.e., His “delight” [/oxr*]); cf. Ps 25:4f; 40:9[8]. Also, as in v. 8b, in the second line the protagonist expresses his faithfulness and (covenant) loyalty to YHWH: “you (are) my Mighty (One) [<yh!l)a$, i.e., God]” (cf. 140:7[6]); a corresponding predicative declaration occurs at the close of Psalm (v. 12c)— “I (am) your servant”.

Verse 10b

“Your good spirit, may it (ever) guide me
on (the) land of a straight (path).”

There is a formal and grammatical shift in the following couplets of vv. 10b-12, utilizing imperfect/jussive (rather than imperative) verb forms, and with the verb in final (rather than first) position in the line.

As for the protagonist’s request, it generally follows that of v. 10a (see also v. 8b), as he asks that YHWH would guide him (vb hj*n`) on the right path (cf. Ps 27:11; 139:24, also 5:9[8]; 23:3). The MT expresses this awkwardly in the second line—viz., “in/on a land of a straight place”, or “…of straightness”. It has been proposed that the text here be emended from Jr#a#B= (“in a land”) to jr^a)B= (“in/on a path”), as in Ps 27:11; cp. rovym! on its own (“straight place”) in Ps 26:12. Perhaps the concrete idea of the level ground (“land”) of the straight path (lit. “straight place”) is intended.

On the unusual expression referring to the “good spirit” of YHWH, cf. Neh 9:20. As Hossfeld-Zenger note (p. 575f), there may be an Exodus allusion here, to the role of YHWH’s spirit (or Spirit) in guiding His people into the land of promise (and salvation); cf. Isa 63:11-14; Hagg 2:5.

Verse 11

“For the sake of your name, YHWH, may you keep me alive—
in your rightness, bring my soul out from (the) tight spot;”

With the unusual shift to an elongated 4+4 meter, the lines of this couplet suddenly seem overloaded; doubtless it is better read as a pair of 2-beat (2+2) couplets:

“For the sake of your name,
please keep me alive, YHWH!
In your righteousness, bring out
my soul from (the) narrow (place);”

The two verbs are imperfect forms but would seem to require a jussive sense (see v. 10b). However, it is possible to translate them as future tense verbs, expressing the expectation (and trust) that the protagonist in what YHWH will do (and is about to do) for him; cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 569f.

Indeed, the protagonist’s trust in YHWH, and his faithfulness and devotion to Him, is expressed by the initial prepositional phrases in both 11a and 11b: (i) “for the same of your name”, (ii) “in/by your right(eous)ness”. These are both traditional expressions emphasizing the covenant-bond between YHWH and His people. An emphasis on the name of YHWH can be found with some frequency in the Psalms (see, most recently in 140:14[13] and 142:8[7]); on the religious and theological significance of the name-concept, see the introductory article in the series “And You Shall Call His Name…” and also throughout the series of notes on Solomon’s Prayer (in 1 Kings 8). On the specific expression “for the sake of [/u^m^l=] your name”, cf. Ps 106:8; 109:21.

As for the noun hq*d*x= (cf. also qd#x#), it is a common term, used regularly as a Divine attribute. It literally means “rightness”, often in the ethical-religious sense of “righteousness”, but also in the social-legal sense of “justice”; however, in the context of the covenant, it can also connote faithfulness and loyalty, etc, overlapping in meaning with ds#j# (with which it is often paired, see v. 12).

The “tightness” (hr*x*) refers to the protagonist’s distress, generally; it can mean a tight/narrow place, such as in the English idiom “a tight spot”. An allusion to the realm of Death (i.e., Sheol and the “Pit”, vv. 3 and 7b) is likely; the ‘tight spot’ that the protagonist finds himself in has put him on the verge of death, in danger of dying.

Verse 12

“in your faithfulness, destroy my hostile (foe)s
and make perish all (those) attacking my soul!—
for I (truly am) your servant.”

Syntactically, verses 11 and 12 belong together, though the rhythmic and poetic relationship of the lines is complex and difficult to parse. Clearly, the 3-beat first line of v. 12 is parallel to the second line (or couplet) of v. 11 (see above), reflecting the two sides of the protagonist’s plea for deliverance (and Divine protection):

    • “in your righteousness [hq*d*x=], bright out my soul from the tight spot”
    • “in your faithfulness [ds#j#], destroy (those) hostile to me…”

Rescue of the protagonist (out of his distress) entails destruction of his enemies. This makes verse 12 (the first two lines, at least) an imprecatory curse-wish, of the sort we see frequently in the prayer-Psalms; the protagonist calls on YHWH to bring judgment down upon his enemies. The second line of v. 12 is parallel to the first and builds upon it, heightening the intensity of the imprecation:

    • “…may you destroy (those) hostile to me
    • and make perish all (those) attacking my soul!”

The common plural verbal noun “(those) being hostile” (i.e., enemies, adversaries) is parallel to the expression “all (those) attacking my soul”, utilizing the verb rr^x* [II] (“be hostile toward, oppose, attack”). The verbs used in the curse-wish are also parallel (and more or less synonymous): (a) tm^x* (“destroy”), and (b) db^a* (Hiphil, “make/cause to perish”). On the question of whether the imperfect verb forms in vv. 11-12a should be translated as jussives or as future tense verbs, see above; the framing jussive forms in vv. 10b and 12b strongly suggest that the imperfects should indeed be rendered as jussives (with imperatival force).
On the verbal forms in Ps 143 as a whole, and their role in governing the poetic structure of the Psalm, see the discussion in Dhanaraj, pp. 229-44.

In the final short (2-beat) line, the protagonist affirms again his faithfulness and loyalty to YHWH (and to the covenant), with the simple (emphatic) declaration: “for (indeed/truly) I (am) your servant”. This closing statement matches the earlier use of the term db#u# (“servant”) in v. 2, and functions to frame the entire Psalm according to the contextual theme of loyalty to the covenant. Some commentators (e.g., Dahood, III, pp. 322, 326) would see in the use of this terminology a reference to the Israelite/Judean king, or at least to the royal background of the Psalm.

Metrically, v. 12 is a 3+3+2 tricolon, representing an expansion of the 3+2 meter of the second stanza.

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).
    • Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150, translated by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2011).
    • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
    • Those marked “Dhanaraj” are to Dharmakkan Dhanaraj, Theological Significance of the Motif of Enemies in Selected Psalms of Individual Lament, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 4 (Verlag J. J. Augustin Gmbh: 1992).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 10)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 10: The World (Part 5)

Having examined Paul’s use of the term “the world” (o( ko/smo$), it is now time to turn our attention to the Johannine writings. In these writings—primarily the Gospel and First Letter—the term ko/smo$ takes on a far greater prominence than elsewhere in the New Testament. This can be gauged simply on the basis of the number of occurrences: more than half (101) of the New Testament occurrences of ko/smo$ (186) are found in just two Johannine writings—the Gospel and First letter. If we add the one occurrence in 2 John, and include the three in the book of Revelation (counted as a Johannine work), then the total number (105) is even higher. Even more striking is the fact that ko/smo$ occurs 78 times in the Gospel of John compared with just 15 in the Synoptic Gospels combined. Clearly, this is an important Johannine keyword, and, indeed, as we shall see, it features prominently within the Johannine theological idiom and worldview. The latter term literally applies: it is a worldview—a view of “this world”, the current world-order (ko/smo$).

Introduction to ko/smo$ in the Johannine Writings (Jn 1:9-10)

First, it is important to realize that, in the use of the term ko/smo$, the Johannine writings are generally following the early Christian usage (even as Paul did). All of the main aspects of the meaning and connotative significance attached to the word by first-century Christians—and which we have examined in the prior studies—apply to the Johannine usage as well. Three principal aspects, all well-established, are in view:

    • It refers to the created universe (‘heaven and earth’) as a whole, viz., the ordered universe and the current order of creation
    • It refers specifically to the inhabited world of human beings, both in a geographic and socio-political (& cultural-religious) sense
    • It refers to the fallen/corrupted order of creation, and particularly of humankind, currently dominated by darkness and evil (with the Devil, the “chief of this world”, as its ruler) and fundamentally opposed to God.

All three of these aspects are present with the first occurrence(s) of ko/smo$ in the Gospel of John, in the Prologue (vv. 9-10); verse 10, in particular, contains them:

    • “he was in the world” —referring primarily to the inhabited world of human beings
    • “the world came to be through him” —a reference to the creation of the universe (heaven and earth)
    • “the world did not know him” —alluding to the darkness of the current world-order, and its fundamental opposition to God

All three of these phrases refer back to v. 9, and the idea that the “true light” (viz., the Divine Logos) came into the world. Some commentators understand the phrase “coming into the world” (e)rxo/menon ei)$ to\n ko/smon) as qualifying the two prior words “every man” (pa/nta a&nqrwpon)—that is, “every man coming into the world” (every person that is born, i.e., every human being). However, I do not believe that this way of reading the verse is correct; I agree with commentators who view the phrase “coming into the world” as modifying the predicative subject of the main clause, “the true light” —viz., “the true light…coming into the world”. This is a reference to the dual manifestation of the Divine Word/Wisdom (Logos) of God in the world of humankind: (i) Wisdom’s appearance generally, throughout human (and esp. Israelite/Jewish) history; and (ii) its appearance specifically, in the person of Jesus Christ. The latter is the primary point of orientation in the Prologue, but it is not made explicit until verse 14 (along with the intervening vv. 12b-13).

Indeed, if we read vv. 9-10ff in the light of vv. 14-18ff, it establishes the narrative and thematic framework of the Gospel: the Son of God (the one responsible [as God] for creating the world) was born (as a human being) and came into the inhabited domain of human beings, and yet, because of the condition of the current-world order (dominated by darkness and evil), human beings (on the whole) refused or were unwilling to accept him (viz., trust in him).

Of all the New Testament writings, the Johannine writings give the greatest emphasis to the third aspect of meaning (outlined above)—namely, the harshly negative connotative meaning of ko/smo$ as a domain of darkness and evil (ruled by the Devil) that is fundamentally opposed to God. As we have seen, this understanding of “the world” is basic (and very much distinctive) to early Christian thought; and yet, Johannine Christianity appears to have developed and enhanced considerably the use of this terminology, within the powerful dualistic framework of the Johannine theology. The following studies will examine closely how these writings—the Gospel and Letters (mainly the First Letter)—develop (and apply) the early Christian world-concept (ko/smo$) as part of their distinctive theological idiom (and message). We will begin, in the next study (Study 11), with the key references in Jn 1:29 and 3:16-17ff, using these as a starting point (and framework) for an examination of the occurrences of ko/smo$ in the first half of the Gospel.

September 19: Job 1:1

Job 1:1

“A man there was in (the) land of ‘Ûṣ, ’Ayyab (being) his name; and this man was complete and straight, and (also was one) fearing (the) Mightiest and turning (away) from evil.”

This establishing sentence in 1:1 begins the Prologue (chaps. 1-2, see the previous note) and the book of Job as a whole. The opening words, “A man there was…” (hy`h* vya!), represent a variation of the normal syntax (…yh!y+w~) at the opening of many books (e.g., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Esther, Ezekiel), i.e., “And there was a man” (vya! yh!y+w~). This variation in word order, which also is found in 2 Sam 12:1 and Est 2:5, is thought to have been used when introducing “an event in a context [that is] known to the reader” (Seow, p. 263). In particular, it is an independent narrative, one that is not tied to the larger ‘meta-narrative’ of Israel’s history. It is to be noted that the books of the Deuteronomic history (Joshua-Samuel) all begin with the yh!y+w~ formulation; interestingly, the LXX of Samuel begins (1 Sam 1:1) with the variant formulation, which could be an indication that the book represents a once-independent narrative that was subsequently included as part of the larger Deuteronomic history (cf. Pope, p. 3). The predication in the second phrase introduces the character of Job by name (“Ayyab [being] his name”, or “[and] Ayyab [was] his name”). This is also a regular feature in narrative introductions (1 Sam 1:1, etc); the atypical predicate-subject word order is probably for emphasis (“Ayyab was his name”), highlighting and making more dramatic the introduction of this particular individual (cf. Weiss, pp. 18-20).

There has been considerable scholarly debate regarding the location of the “land of ‘Ûṣ [Uz, JWu]“ (even the Rabbinic Jewish scholars were divided on the question, cf. Seow, p. 264). It is generally acknowledged as being located in the Transjordan (i.e., the territories east of the Jordan river), but uncertainty remains as to whether the point of reference is the north (Bashan) or south (Edom). The Biblical evidence, as regards occurrences of the name, is equivocal, with around half suggesting a northern (Syrian/Aramaean) locale (Gen 10:23; 22:21; 1 Chron 1:17), and the other half a southern (Edom/Arabian) locale (Gen 36:28; Jer 25:20; Lam 4:21). The extrabiblical evidence favors the northern locale. There is the reference by Josephus (Antiquities I.6.4), which builds upon the genealogical notices in the Scriptures, stating that Uz founded Damascus. Subsequent Byzantine and Arabic tradition also locates Job’s homeland in the Hauran—the territory around Damascus and eastward, a domain and sphere of influence extending southward into northern Galilee and further east into the Bashan. This tradition is attested, for example, by the monastery Deir Ayyub (near Damascus), as well as by the association of the Egyptian stela (from the reign of Rameses II) at Sheikh Sa‘ad (Qarnayim) with Job (and known as the “Stone of Job”). Cf. Pope, pp. 3-4.

On the other hand, evidence from within the book of Job itself argues strongly for a southern (Edomite or N. Arabian) locale. First, there are the references to raiders from the adjacent territory of Sheba (1:15), as well as to caravans of traders from Tema and Sheba (6:19). Second, the other characters of the Dialogue (i.e., Job’s ‘friends’) would seem to stem from Edom or the surrounding regions—e.g., Eliphaz from Teman, Bildad the Shuhite (if the reference is to Shuah [Gen 25:2], associated with Sheba and Dedan), and Elihu the Buzite (cf. the connection of Buz with Dedan and Tema [as well as Uz] in Jer 25:23). There is evidence (in Safaitic inscription) for a NW Arabian tribe named ‘Auḍ which might correspond to ‘Ûṣ; meanwhile, ‘Ûṣ has also been identified with the Arabian site of el-‘Iṣ (in Arabic, the name for Esau [associated closely with Edom] is el-‘Iṣ). In additional to all these considerations, it must be pointed out that Lam 4:21 does specifically identify the “land of Uz” with Edom.
See the documentation in Seow (pp. 264-5), Pope (p. 4), and the article by John L. Day (“How Could Job Be an Edomite”, in Beuken, pp. 392-9), as well as E. A. Knauf, “Supplementa Ismaelitica” [4. Hiobs Heimat] in Biblische Notizen 22 (1983), pp. 25-33; cf. also the articles on Uz and Job’s homeland by Manfred Georg (Biblische Notizen 12 [1980], pp. 7-12) and Götz Schmitt (Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins [ZDPV] 101 [1985], pp. 56-63.

With regard to the Hebrew name boYa! (’Iyyôḇ), typically transliterated in English (rather inaccurately) as “Job”, it is now generally recognized that it corresponds to the NW Semitic name ’Ayyabu(m), for which there are a number of occurrences attested from the 2nd millennium B.C. These were first documented (and connected with the Biblical ’Iyyôḇ) in a ground-breaking article by W. F. Albright (“Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves” in Journal of the American Oriental Society [JAOS] 74 [1954], pp. 222-33). This evidence may be summarized as: (1) the name of a ruler in Bashan, from Amarna Letters [EA] 256 & 364 (mid-14th century); (2) an occurrence in a list of personnel from the palace of Ugarit (same time-frame); (3) earlier occurrences in Akkadian from the Mari and Alalakh texts (early-2nd millennium); (4) and an even earlier instance (c. 2000 B.C.) in the Egyptian Execration Texts. The original form of the name ’Ayyābu(m) would appear to be ’Ayya-’abu(m) (in Akkadian syllabic spelling, a-ya-a-bu), acknowledged as meaning “Where-is-the-Father?” (or “Where-is-[my]-Father?”), akin to similar names such as ’Ayya-’aḫu(m) (“Where-is-the-Brother?”). Eventually, in Hebrew, the (nominative) case ending –u(m) would have dropped out; the initial short vowel may have become shortened further (a > i), while the long vowel was correspondingly lengthened (ā > ô)—and thus, ’Ayyāb > ’Iyyôḇ. Cf. Pope, pp. 5-6; Michel, pp. 12-13; and Seow, pp. 265-6.
Johannes de Moor goes so far as to identify the ’Ayyāb of Amarna Letters 256 & 364 (see above), ruler of Aštartu (= Ashtaroth) in Bashan, with the historical Job. It is an intriguing (if highly speculative) theory, which de Moor set forth in a 1994 essay, an expanded version of which can be found in the second edition of his The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Leuven University Press: 1997), pp. 131-61. Very few scholars have followed de Moor’s theory; but, if his identification were to prove correct, it would confirm unequivocally that the “land of Uz” is to be located in the north (Bashan).

It is possible that “Where is the Father?” could mean “Where is the (Divine) Father [i.e., God]?”; if so, then the name has a certain pregnancy and poignant relevance for Job’s situation (viz., the suffering of the righteous and devout person), though Hebrew-speakers of the mid-1st millennium probably would have been unaware of this etymological significance of the name (but note a Hebrew name such as dobk*-ya! [’Iy-kabôd], “Where is the glory?”, 1 Sam 4:21f). In any case, the aforementioned discoveries have rendered rather moot the earlier connections between ’Iyyôḇ (boYa!) and the root bya (“be hostile, be an enemy”) or an Arabic root (’wb) meaning “return/repent” (Pope, p. 5), though possibly the Hebrew author(s) of the book (and their readers) could have made such an association.

In the second part of verse 1 (b), we find a statement of ‘essential predication’, in which the essential character of Job is summarized (“and this man was…”), utilizing traditional ethical-religious terminology that indicates his fundamental righteousness. The first two terms are the adjectives <T* (“complete”) and rv*y` (“straight”, i.e., [up]right) which feature prominently in Wisdom texts and other ethical-religious instruction. The second two are verbal expressions, the first of which utilizes an adjective (ar@y`) with verbal force (“fearing, [one] who fears”)—that is, “fearing God [Elohim]” (cf. the recent note on Prov 1:7); the second expression involves a participle of the verb rWs (“turn [away]”), used in a moral context, “turning away from evil”. Thus, it is established that Job was devout and reverent toward God, but that he also regularly (and consistently) turned away from evil. This righteous-character terminology recurs at a number of points throughout the book and is central to the idea of the test of Job’s character.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973). 
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Beuken” are to The Book of Job, edited by W. A. M. Beuken, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 114 (Leuven University Press: 1994).
    • Those marked “Weiss” are to Meir Weiss, The Story of Job’s Beginning. Job 1-2: A Literary Analysis, Publications in the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (The Magnes Press: 1983).

September 18: Introduction to Job

This is the beginning of a series of notes on the Book of Job, which are adjunct to the current Wednesday Wisdom studies on the Book of Proverbs.

Critical issues related to the book of Job will be addressed at various points in these notes, and then in a more thorough manner at the conclusion of the series. However, before proceeding with the exegesis, a few introductory comments regarding the structure and composition of the book are in order.

The book of Job, as it has come down to us, is comprised of a poetic-dramatic Dialogue with a framing narrative (chaps. 1-2 + 42). The primary Dialogue, which consists of a cycle (or cycles) of speech-poems, covers chapters 10-31, and includes a unit (chap. 28) that may have originated as a separate Wisdom-poem. The Elihu-speeches of chaps. 32-37 form a distinct division of the book, and many commentators regard them as a secondary addition to the primary Dialogue. Much the same may be said of the Yahweh-speeches of chaps. 38-41, though there is considerably more debate regarding the extent to which these speeches may (or may not) have been part of the original Dialogue. The framing narrative is in prose, but it also contains certain poetic (or prosodic) features.

Opinions vary greatly as to the date of composition for the book, ranging from the 11th century B.C. to the Hellenistic period (as late as the 3rd century). In actuality, one can detect both apparent ‘early’ and ‘late’ features in the book, both in the framing prose-narrative and in the poetic Dialogue. The matter will be discussed in greater detail, but for the moment the discussion by Seow in his recent Commentary (pp. 17-26) provides an excellent summary of issues involved, documenting a number of the archaic (or archaistic) elements as well as possible indications of Late (Biblical) Hebrew. There are two explanations, broadly speaking, for the apparent (and often seemingly sporadic) mixture of early and late features or linguistic details in the book. The first is that archaic material has been preserved, having been included and adapted by a later author; the second is that the ‘early’ elements are actually intentional archaistic details, “literary affectations in the poetic language” (as Seow puts it) meant to “give the impression of an ancient book”. The evidence for foreign linguistic influence on the book—including Arabic, Aramaic, Canaanite (Ugaritic), and even the Transjordanian (Canaanite) dialect represented by the Deir ‘Allā inscriptions—has been similarly explained, viz., as an intentional literary effort to give the poetry (and the narrative) a foreign and exotic feel. The prose narrative, in its final form, almost certainly dates from the late 6th or early 5th century; however, the question remains whether (or to what extent) other parts of the book—and particularly the primary Dialogue—might have been composed earlier.

The Job-tale itself would appear to be an ancient story. This impression is confirmed by several lines of evidence: (1) the setting of the book (i.e., its narrative), more or less in the Age of the Patriarchs (early-mid 2nd millennium); (2) the proverbial reference to Job in Ezek 14:14, 20 (cf. also Sirach 49:9) as an ancient/legendary figure of the past (along with Noah and Dan[i]el); and (3) occurrences of the name (corresponding to Hebrew boYa!) from the mid-late Bronze Age (see the note on 1:1). An early form of the Job-tale certainly could have been in existence during the late Bronze Age. If so, it is also probable that, from early on, the tale was already being associated with the ‘innocent/righteous sufferer’ type-figure and its accompanying Wisdom-genre. This figural and genre type, which occurs in both the book of Job and in a considerable number of lament- and prayer-Psalms, was a part of Near Eastern Wisdom tradition from at least the mid-2nd millennium, as it is attested in a number of surviving texts, including (most notably) the Akkadian-Babylonian work known by its opening words “I will praise the Lord of Wisdom…” (Ludlul bēl nēmeqi). This text will be discussed at various relevant points in the notes, and also in a separate article (Ancient Parallels).

The Prologue to the Book of Job (Chapters 1-2)

Introductory/summary comments on the Prologue, and its place within the framing narrative (i.e., the Job prose-tale), will be offered following the exegetical notes on chaps. 1-2.

The Prologue (and Prose-tale) begins as follows (1:1, to be examined in the next note):

“A man there was in (the) land of ‘Ûṣ, ’Ayyab (being) his name; and this man was complete and straight, and (also was one) fearing (the) Mightiest and turning (away) from evil.”

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).

 

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 1:8-19

There is a general agreement that chapters 1-9 of Proverbs, apart from the Prologue (1:1-7, see the previous study), are comprised of ten lectures (or ‘instructional talks’, Germ. lehrreden) that are interspersed with a number of other Wisdom-poems and additional sayings; cf. Whybray, Composition, pp. 11-61; Fox, pp. 322-30; Meinhold, pp. 43-6, and others. Prov 1:8-19, discussed here in this study (below), is the first of these lectures, each of which follow a similar format (cf. Fox, p. 45). This format will be examined as we proceed through each of the lectures.

Lecture 1: Proverbs 1:8-19

The instruction for this lecture might be summarized as “Avoid Gangs!” (Fox, p. 78)—a message that will seem so obvious to many readers that they might be inclined to skip over this section. However, even apart from the situational-ethical instruction it provides, this lecture has value as an example of how one can approach the proverbial sayings in the Book—sayings the meaning of which might seem enigmatic on the surface (v. 6). The lecture exemplifies a certain methodology toward a such a proverb (v. 17, see below), so as to interpret it, applying its meaning to a specific life-situation and drawing forth important moral lessons from it.

Exhortation: Verses 8-9

“Hear, my son, (the) correction of your father,
and do not leave (the) instruction of your mother—
for a (wreath) woven of favor they (are) for your head,
and (precious) neck-chains for your throat.”

Each of the lectures begins (cf. 2:1; 3:1, 21; 4:1, 10, 20; 5:1; 6:20; 7:1) with a similar exordium (address and exhortation): a father’s address to his son (“My son…”), utilizing one or more imperative by which the father calls upon his son to “hear” —i.e., listen, pay attention, and obey—the instruction which he provides. A positive outcome and blessing are promised if the son does so.
A few commentators (e.g., Gemser, Plöger) would group vv. 8-9 together with v. 7 as a distinct unit; however, the structure-pattern of the lectures argue strongly against this. It is much better to treat vv. 8-9 as the beginning of a section (i.e., the first lecture), while including v. 7 as part of the Prologue. 

This framing idiom, presenting the Wisdom-teaching as a father’s instruction to his son, is a regular feature of ancient Near Eastern Wisdom literature (and particularly the Proverb-collections), going back to the earliest surviving examples from Mesopotamia and Egypt from the mid-3rd millennium B.C. For example, in the Sumerian Instructions of Šuruppak, “the man from Šuruppak” (an ancient/legendary ruler) is presented as giving instruction to his son (Ziusudra), lines 6-8, beginning with the exhortation:

“My son, let me give instruction;
let my instructions be taken!
Ziusudra, let me speak a word to you;
let attention be paid to them!”
(lines 9-10, translation B. Alster)

This serves as a rubric that runs throughout the text, marking the divisions; even in the portions of the earlier (Abu Salabikh and Adab) versions that survive, his same father-son idiom frames the work. Similarly, the Egyptian Proverb-texts from the late Old Kingdom period, utilize the same framing device—cf. the opening of the Instruction of Hardjedef and the conclusion of the Instruction of Kagemni. The much longer Instruction of Ptahhotep is somewhat closer in form to the book of Proverbs, since it contains a Prologue that expresses the purpose of the collection (lines 29-42), before proceeding with the proverbs as the instruction of Ptahhotep to his son (lines 43-50ff).
For a convenient translation of the aforementioned Instructions from Egypt, see M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (University of California Press: 1975), pp. 58-80.

The imperative of the verb um^v* (“hear”) occurs a number of times throughout Proverbs (including at the beginning of the fifth and sixth and lectures (4:1, 10). The verb itself is a keyword in Proverbs, featured in the Prologue (v. 5), and occurring 30 times in all. Here it is paired (in v. 8b) with the verb vf^n` in negative formulation (“and do not…”). This verb, which is relatively rare (and even rarer in a Wisdom-context), basically means “let/leave alone, leave behind”, in the sense of forsake, abandon, neglect, etc. It occurs again, as an imperative with the negative particle, in 6:20. Thus, the exhortation is expressed from both sides: positive (“Hear/listen…!) and negative (“Do not leave/forsake…!”).

What the son is exhorted/commanded to “hear” is rs*Wm (“correction”), a regular Wisdom-term in Proverbs that featured prominently in the Prologue (occurring 3 times, vv. 2-3, 7); the same command to “hear correction” is found at the beginning of the fifth lecture (4:1). The genitival construct-expression “correction of your father” means the correction which the father gives, i.e., coming from the father. Such correction is an intrinsic part of the (parental) discipline of a child, curbing or helping the child to avoid/prevent improper and unhealthy (i.e., evil/wicked) behavior.

This concept of “correction” is paired in the second line with hr*ot (tôrâ, “instruction”, in the basic sense of “direction, guidance”). This is another regular Wisdom-term, which must be understood here (and throughout Proverbs) primarily in a general sense, rather than specifically as the Torah (precepts, regulations, requirements, etc) of the covenant. Both kinds of instruction—Wisdom-teaching and Torah—are taught and transmitted to children by their parents, and reflect the Wisdom of God, but it is the former that is in view here.

Typically, this Wisdom-teaching is presented as coming from the father, but here (in verse 8) the mother is included as well. Certainly, a child’s mother is represented in Proverbs as a source of wisdom (see esp. chapter 31, and note the references in 23:22 and the parallel to 1:8b in 6:20b), even though she is not particularly emphasized throughout. The command to obey (i.e., hear) one’s mother (along with the father) is part of the Decalogue (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16), and thus is a core component of Israelite/Jewish ethical and religious instruction. Since the mother is included here at the beginning of the lectures, it is reasonable to assume that, elsewhere in Proverbs, when the father is presented as the one giving instruction, he represents the wisdom/teaching of both parents. Cf. Fox, pp. 82-3.

In the second couplet (v. 9), the promise of blessing for the child, if he will “hear” his parents’ instruction, is given. The wisdom-teachings—and, specifically, the correction (rs*Wm) and guidance (hr*oT) that they bring—will come to adorn the child, bringing beauty to his person. The teaching is compared with a wreath or garland that is “woven” (lit., twisted, turned) and surrounds a person’s head, as well as with fine “neck-chains” that surround a person’s throat (or neck). The first noun (hy`w+l!), denoting the woven wreath/garland, is extremely rare, occurring only at Prov 4:9 (in a similar context). The parallel noun qn`u& I (plur.) is also quite rare, occurring only twice elsewhere in the Scriptures (see esp. Song 4:9); it denotes something that goes around a person’s neck (i.e., necklace, neck-chain). The final noun (plur. torG+r=G~) is similarly rare, with all four occurrences being in Proverbs 1-9 (3:3, 22; 6:21)—the last of these precisely parallel to the usage here in v. 9. The noun itself seems to denote the throat (spec. as the organ that gurgles/gargles and swallows, etc).

The description of Wisdom-teachings as ornaments which a person wears may allude to Deut 6:6-9, and the idea that a person should wear the Torah precepts, etc, on the head and hand, both as a reminder of the covenant-bond and to symbolize a person’s faithfulness and adherence to that bond. They are to be held close at all times, always kept in mind and close to one’s heart. There are certain ancient Near Eastern parallels to such symbolic adornment, such as (in Egypt) an icon of Ma‘at (representing Truth and Justice) that would be worn as a necklace by the vizier and other high officials; cf. Kayatz, pp. 107-18; Fox, p. 84f.

Situation-Ethical Application of the Proverb (v. 17): Verses 10-16

The application (which precedes the proverb [v. 17]) is framed as an instruction that follows the pattern of the initial exhortation (vv. 8-9). It is given in simple form first in v. 10:

“My son, if sinful (one)s would beguile you,
you must not be willing (to follow).”

The verb in line 1, ht*P* [I] is (presumably) related to the noun yt!P# [I] (used in v. 4); as such, here it refers to the enticing, alluring, beguiling, etc, of one who is young and naive (and gullible). The terminology occurs with some regularity in Proverbs (the verb is less frequent, occurring 5 times), as a warning to the youthful (adolescent) son. The warning here is against being persuaded by “sinners” (or “sinful [one]s”, substantive plural adjective <ya!F*j^) to follow their ‘path’. The word “sinner” in English carries a pious moralizing tone that is perhaps not entirely appropriate to the teaching context here. The idea of people who regularly (and habitually) err by going astray from the right path is perhaps closer to the mark.

The verb in the second line is hb*a* (“be willing”), a second person imperfect/jussive form (ab@T), “you should/must [not] be willing…”). However, some manuscripts instead read aobT*, a form of the verb aoB (“come”), i.e., [with the negative] “you must not come/go [with them]”. The use of the verb hb*a* indicates that an act of will is involved; no matter how alluring or persuasive the invitation of such “sinful (one)s” might be, the boy can still choose not to go along with them.
The LXX translation boulhqh=$ (“you should [not] be willing”) supports the MT reading ab@T), (from the verb hba). 

This instruction is essentially repeated in vv. 11-15, but in an expanded (expository) form. Note the similarity in the framework (vv. 11a + 15):

“If they should say, ‘(Come) walk with us…’
my son, you must not walk on (the) path with them;
(rather,) hold back your foot from their pathway!”

In vv. 11b-14, the words of the “sinful (one)s” are presented, in dramatic fashion:

“11…(Come) walk with us,
and let us lie in wait for blood,
hide (to ambush the) clean, without cause!
12Let us swallow them like Sheol,
living and complete,
like (those) going down (to the) Pit!
13Every valuable possession we find,
we shall fill our houses (with) plunder!
14Let your lot fall in the midst of us—
one sack there shall be for us all!”

This invitation is not realistic; that is, it does not represent what the “sinful (one)s”, in attempting to persuade the boy to join them, actually would have said to him. This is especially so with regard to the wording in vv. 11-12. As Fox notes (p. 86), the quotation is a rhetorical device which implants “a moral evaluation of the act in the evildoers’ own words”. It presents the actual conduct of these people (and the result of their acts) as though it reflected their intention—which, in a sense, it surely does. In terms of the social situation involved, the portrait is that of gang of youths, within an urban setting, who, as a result of their own unchecked wicked and lawless tendencies, have turned to a life of crime—i.e., violent robbery and ‘muggings’ of unsuspecting (innocent) victims. In their conscious mind, it is more likely that young hoodlums of this sort simply have no real care or concern about their victims, than that they would express a desire to attack and harm innocent people.

In point of fact, the language used to portray the actions (and underlying evil intent) of these youths is typical of that used to describe the wicked—especially in the Psalms, many of which were strongly influenced by Wisdom-traditions. In the lament- and prayer-Psalms, the protagonist regularly describes the behavior and mindset of his wicked adversaries (who can represent the wicked, generally); nearly all of the terms used here apply—the verb br^a* (“lie in wait”, viz., to ambush someone, Ps 10:9[8]; 59:4[3]), the willingness to commit violence (expressed by the noun “blood” [<D*]), especially violence against one who is innocent (yq!n`, “clear/clean [of any wrongdoing]”, Ps 10:8[7]; 94:21, etc), so that the violence is “without cause” (<N`j!, Ps 35:7, 19; 69:5[4]; 109:3). Similarly, the comparison in v. 12, to Sheol, the realm of Death who desires to “swallow” (ul^B*) everyone and everything that lives, is also found in the Psalms (35:25; 69:16[15]; 86:13; 124:3).
The LXX adds a fourth line to v. 12 (creating a parallel set of couplets, rather than a chiastic tricolon), which Fox (Textual Commentary, p. 87) reconstructs in Hebrew as wrkz Jram tyrknw (“and let us cut off from [the] earth his memory [i.e., memory of him]”). The addition is presumably derived from Ps 34:17[16]b (= 109:15b). 

In vv. 13-14, we are brought closer to the genuine purpose and intent of the gang-members. They are mainly interested in the wealth, the “valuable possession(s)”, that unsuspecting passers-by might be carrying. Their interest is in acquiring wealth for themselves, by lawless means, without any concern about the harm that might come to their victims. The allure for a young man would surely be this promise of wealth (“we shall fill our houses with plunder [ll*v*]!”), and of being part of a community of fellow youths wrapped up in the excitement of acquiring money. The final v. 14 encapsulates the sense of belonging to a group—and this doubtless contains the primary appeal for many boys: “Let your lot fall in the midst of us; there shall be one sack [syK!, i.e., money-bag, purse] for us all!”

This leads to the warning in v. 15 (see above), exhorting the son not to walk “in the path” of such young men who exhibit sinful/wicked tendencies; in fact, the boy should “hold back” (un`m*) his foot from ever stepping on such a path. This path/walking motif is traditional, featuring prominently in Wisdom-literature (and in many Psalms, cf. especially throughout Ps 119). It is used in an ethical-religious sense, in reference to a person’s characteristic behavior and daily/habitual conduct. Here the common verb El^h* (“walk, go”) is used, along with two regular terms for “path” —Er#D# (line 1) and hb*yt!n+ (line 2); the second term is less common, but occurs a number of times in Proverbs (including four more times in chaps. 1-9 [3:17; 7:25; 8:2, 20]).

The situational instruction concludes with a declaration in v. 16, regarding the violent tendencies of such sinful/wicked people:

“For their feet run to(ward) the evil,
and they hurry to pour out blood!”

This couplet occurs almost verbatim in Isa 59:7a, with a close parallel in Prov 6:17-18. Paul cites a version of the couplet (conflating the two lines) in Romans 3:15, using it as part of a chain (catena) of Scriptures that demonstrate the wickedness of humankind generally. The Old Greek version lacks v. 16, which has led some commentators to suspect that the verse might represent a secondary addition to the text; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 88.

Proverb: Verse 17

“Indeed, for no purpose is the net being spread
in (the) eyes of every master of (the) wing.”

This is a wonderful example of how a proverbial saying, with a rather simple (and seemingly obvious) surface meaning, can be used to illustrate a deeper moral and religious-spiritual lesson. The gist of the saying is that it is foolish and ineffective to lay a snare for a bird while the bird can see you doing it; the implication is that the bird will simply fly away. The language used is rather more colorful, even a bit awkward in its syntactical emphasis. The same adverb <N`j!, used earlier in v. 11 (see above), occurs here. It denotes something done “as a favor”, though the term came to take on a more generalized meaning, “for nothing, for no cause”, which could be used in a positive or negative (or neutral) sense; here it means “for no purpose” (i.e., in vain). The verb hr*z` (“scatter”) is rather odd when used in the context of a net (tv#r#); possibly the participle should be derived from a root rzm meaning “stretch out” (HALOT, p. 536; cf. Fox, p. 88), though more likely it is simply a specialized use of hr*z` (i.e., “scatter” in the sense of “spread”). The bird is idiomatically referred to as “master of (the) wing” ([n`K* lu^B^), emphasizing its ability to fly (and to fly away). This is peculiar terminology, unattested elsewhere in Scripture, though the manner of expression “master of…” (construct lu^B^) occurs with some frequency in Proverbs (cf. below on v. 19).

Explanation of the Proverb: Verse 18

“And (so) the(se people) for their (own) blood lie in wait,
(and) hide (in ambush) for their (own) souls!”

The wording of the wicked’s invitation in verse 11 is essentially repeated here, making the provocative (and unexpected) point that the people who lie in wait “for blood”, and who hide themselves ready to ambush the innocent, are actually preparing to harm themselves. This gives an intriguing spin on the proverb (v. 17) as it occurs in context of the application-instruction (vv. 10-16). We are perhaps meant to imagine that the person laying the trap, upon realizing that the bird is flying off, runs after it and inadvertently falls into the very net that he had spread out. In this sense “the evil” that such a person “runs after” (v. 16), ends up being an evil thing (i.e., misfortune, disaster) that comes upon him. This line of thinking is actually quite common to the Wisdom tradition and occurs in a good number of Psalms. The setting of traps and snares is a typical description of the activity of the wicked, seeking to harm and to lead astray the righteous (Ps 119:110, et al). Other occurrences of this motif in Proverbs will be discussed in turn. Schipper (p. 75f) notes instances of the hunting/fowling and net/trap-setting motif in the context of Egyptian Wisdom literature, and thus the imagery is clearly part of a tradition that goes beyond the Biblical texts.

The expectation is that the wicked will fall into the very traps/snares that they have set. This sentiment occurs frequently in the Psalms, sometimes as part of an imprecatory curse-wish whereby the protagonist calls down judgment (from God) upon his wicked adversaries; cf. Ps 7:16-17[15-16]; 9:16-17[15-16]; 35:7-8; 57:7[6]; 69:23[22]; 141:10. This reflects the ancient lex talionis principle, such that the punishment assigned to a person matches the nature and manner of the crime; the principle is enhanced by the ironic detail that the punishment takes the form of the wicked person falling in to the very ‘trap’ that he has set for the righteous.

Like the bird of the proverb, it is hoped that the son, through heeding such Wisdom-instruction (from his parents), will become a “master of the wing”, trained in wisdom so that he can exercise sound judgment. He will be able to “fly away” from the snares that the wicked set, and will not even venture down the sinful path, no matter how enticing it might seem at first glance.

The LXX gives a highly interpretive (and moralizing) rendering of verse 18, which may be translated as: “For they themselves, the (one)s holding (a share) with murder, store up for themselves bad (thing)s, and the downturn [i.e., downfall] of men (act)ing alongside [i.e., outside] the law (is) bad”. V. 19 (see below) is given a similar moralizing expansion in the LXX (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 89). 

Moral Lesson: Verse 19

“Thus (are the) ways of every(one) cutting off (his) cut—
it takes (away the) soul of its master!”

The lecture closes with a moral lesson (v. 19), drawn from the proverb and its interpretation/application within the ethical situation established in vv. 10-16. The proverb is here applied more directly to the situation of the gang of bandit/mugger youths. These are people “(desir)ing to cut off (their) cut” —an idiom using the verb ux^B* (“cut [off]”) and the related noun ux^B#. It can occur in the context of acquiring unjust profit (ill-gotten gain), sometimes with an added sense of causing injury or harm to someone. In English idiom we might refer to a criminal “taking his cut” of the loot, etc (cf. verse 14). Ironically, in so doing, the wicked person unknowingly cuts off his own life. By holding such wickedly obtained wealth, a person’s very soul is taken away; one might compare the famous saying by Jesus (Mk 8:36 par) to similar effect.

The application of the proverb is confirmed by the recurrence of the idiom –lu^B^ (“master of…”), a wordplay that is completely lost in translation if one renders [n`K* lu^B^ (“master of [the] wing”) flatly (and dully) as “bird”; typically, the expression “master of it” (wyl*u*B=) is also rendered pedantically as “the one who holds/acquires it”, or something similar.

In terms of the instruction as a whole, the path/walking motif continues to feature prominently, utilizing still another regular path-term, jr^a), which can refer specifically to a journey (and path) that one takes in the company of others (e.g., caravan, etc). It can also allude to the idea of being guided on the way by another. By following the wise guidance of his parents, the young man will, it is hoped (and expected), be able to avoid the evil/wicked guidance of others in the world.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015). 
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, 2 vols., Zürcher Bibelkommentare 16 (Theologischer Verlag: 1991).
    • Those marked “Whybray, Composition” are to R. N. Whybray, Composition of the Book of Proverbs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 168 (JSOT Press: 1994).
    • Those marked “Kayatz” are to Christa Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1-9, WMANT 22 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1966). 
    • “Alster” refers to the treatments by Bendt Alster of Sumerian Proverb-collections, particularly his monograph The Instruction of Šuruppak, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 2 (Akademisk: 1974), and the larger volume Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (CDL Press: 2005).

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 2:18ff

Daniel 2:18ff

The reference to prayer in the second chapter of Daniel is extremely brief, but is worth examining. As was discussed in the previous study, the sense of conflict facing the Judeans who lived in exile in the Babylonian (and later Persian) empire was established in the narrative of the opening chapter. In the episodes that follow (in chaps. 3-6), the conflict turns into an open persecution against the Judeans who seek to remain faithful to their own cultural-religious identity and loyal to the covenant with YHWH. The devout and faithful Judean is represented by Daniel and his three companions—all servants at the royal court. Even though the narratives have a royal/courtly setting, they serve as an exemplary paradigm for the Judean/Jewish people as a whole. Many ordinary people would face similar kinds of challenges (and tests to their faith) while living in exile ‘among the nations’.

The narrative-dramatic theme of persecution is foreshadowed in chapter 2, with the violence threatened by king Nebuchadnezzar against the sages of the royal court (and throughout Babylon) for their failure/inability to provide an inspired interpretation of his dream. Following the narrative introduction in v. 1, the drama (with its point of conflict) is established in vv. 2-12. This portion of the narrative climaxes with the order “to make perish [i.e., kill/destroy] all (the) wise (one)s [i.e., wise men, sages] of Babylon” (v. 12). At a transitional point in the narrative (vv. 13-16), it is explained that Daniel and his (three) companions would be among the sages that were to be put to death (v. 13). This dramatic detail is based upon the information provided at the close of chapter 1 (vv. 17-21), emphasizing how these four young Judean men were granted (by God) great knowledge, skill and learning, and that Daniel (in particular) was also given a special ability to discern and interpret all kinds of dreams and visions.

It is said of Daniel that he then responded (lit. made a return) with “counsel and (good) taste”, i.e., wise/sound judgment. The pair of Aramaic nouns are af*u@ and <u@f=, the latter literally meaning “taste”, in the sense somewhat of the English idiom “(have/use) good taste”. The noun af*u@ occurs only here in the Aramaic portions of Scripture, but <u@f= occurs 30 times (in Daniel and Ezra), effectively used as a wisdom-term and an attribute of the wise/righteous ones. The initial temporal expression /y]d^aB@ (“in that moment, at that time”) suggests that Daniel acted quickly, with a sense of urgent immediacy. One might describe the immediate action taken by Daniel as political action—as he sought, through governmental channels, to gain time (and a temporary reprieve) for those who were about to be put to death (vv. 14-16). By some means that are not exactly explained, Daniel was able to gain a hearing with Nebuchadnezzar (v. 16), promising that an interpretation of the king’s dream would be provided to him.

Yet the political action taken was only a temporary expediency that would allow Daniel the opportunity to seek from God (i.e., through prayer) the inspired dream-interpretation that he would give to the king. Indeed, the real and central focus was not on political action, but on prayer.

Daniel begins (v. 17) by meeting with his three companions (introduced in chapter 1, cf. the previous study), in order to explain the situation to them, and to inform them that they needed

“to seek out (act)s of compassion from before (the) Mighty (One) [i.e., God] of the heavens over [i.e., regarding] this secret” (v. 18a)

The LXX adds the detail that Daniel urged them to engage in “fasting and prayer/supplication”, the latter term (de/hsi$) specifically denoting the act of making one’s needs known to God. Thus, the Greek version makes explicit what is clearly implied in the Aramaic—namely, that Daniel and his friends were to spend time in prayer, speaking out to God and making their needs known to Him. The purpose of the prayer, obvious from the dramatic setting of the narrative, is specified in v. 18b:

“…(so) that they should not be made to perish, Daniel and his companions, (along) with (the) remainder of (the) wise (one)s of Babylon.”

They were praying for their own sakes, but also for the sakes of many other (non-Judean) sages all throughout Babylon.

There is perhaps the implication that this time of prayer lasted the rest of the day and into the night, as the next verse (19) mentions Daniel “at night”; one might well envision Daniel in the midst of a night-time prayer vigil, though this is not clearly indicated in the text. In any case, it is at this time (on the same day) that the prayer of Daniel (and his three companions) is answered by YHWH: “Then (it was), to Daniel in a vision of the night, (that the) secret was uncovered [i.e., revealed]”. In response, Daniel gave a blessing to “the Mighty (One) [i.e., God] of the heavens”.

This expression, “Mighty (One) of the heavens” (aY`m^v= Hl*a$), is of theological significance, particularly in relation to a certain missionary orientation that pervades the narrative of chapters 1-6. Daniel and his companions pray to God (YHWH) according to this title; then, once the prayer has been answered, Daniel gives praise to God by the same title (v. 19, cf. vv. 20-23). Finally, in the midst of the dream announcement (vv. 28-45), and just prior to its interpretation, Daniel declares to Nebuchadnezzar the power and sovereignty of God (YHWH) using this title (v. 37, cf. also v. 44). This demonstration of the God’s power leads Nebuchadnezzar to admit/confess, in an attitude of worship and reverence (v. 46), that Daniel’s God truly is “Mightiest of Mighty (one)s [i.e., God of gods] and Lord of kings” (v. 47). Thus, prayer to YHWH, in the midst of a missionary context (‘among the nations’), results in an answer from Him, in such a manner that even prominent members of the surrounding nations are forced to acknowledge (and worship) Him as the one true God. This narrative pattern is repeated in several other episodes within chapters 1-6 (to be discussed).

The Aramaic title “Mighty (One) of the heavens” (aY`m^v= Hl*a$) deserves some additional comment. It occurs twelve times in the books of Daniel and Ezra (Dan 2:18-19, 37, 44; Ezra 5:11-12; 6:9-10; 7:12, 21, 23 [twice]), while the corresponding Hebrew <y]m^V*h^ yh@l)a$ occurs nine times (Gen 24:3, 7; Jonah 1:9; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4-5; 2:4, 20; 2 Chron 36:23) and <y]m^V*h^ la@ once (Ps 136:26). With the seeming exception of the two instances in Genesis, the occurrences are all in late texts (i.e., exilic or post-exilic), and/or in settings where Israelites/Jews are relating to people of the surrounding nations. The missionary context of Jonah 1:9 is obvious, as the prophet ends up proclaiming the truth of YHWH in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh even as Daniel does in the Babylonian capital. As for Psalm 136, the praise address to YHWH at the beginning and close of the Psalm resembles the language used here in Daniel 2.

It has been suggested that the use of the title by Jews (esp. in the Persian empire) was specifically intended as a religious declaration within a foreign setting, using terminology that even the Babylonian and Persian leaders would understand, but which also preserved the core Israelite confessional belief in El-YHWH’s identity as the Creator—the High God and Sovereign over all the universe (heaven and earth). It is noteworthy that there are nine occurrences of the Aramaic title in the papyri of the Jewish colony of Elephantine, including an instance where the Persian governor (Bigvai) in Judah (Yehud) was replying to a petition from the Jews of Elephantine.
For more on the subject of this title, see the article by D. K. Andrews, “Yahweh the God of the Heavens” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T. J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough (University of Toronto Press: 1964), pp. 45-57.

In a number of the Psalms (see esp. Pss 93-100) we find an expectation that even the surrounding nations will eventually follow Israel in acknowledging and worshiping YHWH. This seems to have become a religious and theological emphasis already in the late pre-exilic period, but it takes on considerably greater prominence in the exilic and post-exilic periods, often within a distinctly eschatological worldview. In the New Age of Israel’s restoration, the nations will come to join Israel—whether willingly or by compulsion—in giving worship to YHWH as the supreme God (“God of gods”, as Nebuchadnezzar declares). The book of Daniel is certainly in accord with this religious-missionary tendency.

In our next study, we will turn to chapter 3, to examine the role of prayer in the famous episode of the statue and the ‘fiery furnace’.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 143 (Part 1)

Psalm 143

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 1-8); 11QPsp (vv. 2-4, 6-8)

Psalm 143 is a lament-Psalm, with a certain similarity (in both structure and detail) to the prior Ps 142 (see the previous study), as well as the other Psalms of this ‘last David collection’ (138-145). There may also be points of contact with other (earlier) Psalms as well, such as Pss 25, 69, 77, 86, and 119. See the summary in Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 577.

The parallels to Ps 142 are particularly to be noted, including how the basic structure of Ps 143 resembles that of 142. Each composition can be divided into two parts (stanzas) with an introductory petition (for each stanza) made by the protagonist to YHWH. Also, in each Psalm, the lament proper is found in stanza 1, while the focus in stanza 2 is on the protagonist’s prayer for deliverance. Other similarities in detail will be mentioned in the notes. One obvious example is the declaration by the protagonist that his “spirit” grows weak/faint all over him, utilizing the verb [t^u* +  the preposition lu^; this idiom occurs in 142:4[3], and also here in 143:4.

The division between the two stanzas (vv. 1-6, 7-12) is marked by a hl*s# (Selah) pause-marker. Here it clearly serves as an indicator for the poetic structure of the Psalm; this is not always the case. The pause-marker (hl*s#) is largely absent from the last two books of the Psalter (following Ps 89), occurring only in Ps 140 (cf. the earlier study) and here in Ps 143.

As in Ps 142, the protagonist is apparently being persecuted by enemies (a typical feature of the lament- and prayer-Psalms), and yet the references are general and rather slight (in comparison with other lament-Psalms). In fact, in the first stanza, there is no real indication that specific human enemies are in view; only at the close of the second stanza (v. 12), with the imprecatory curse-wish, is there any evidence for a distinct group of (human) adversaries. Dahood (III, pp. 322ff) would view these references as figurative, applied to the generalized setting of the protagonist being on the verse of death (or in danger of death); the singular hostile ‘foe’ in v. 3 is interpreted as Death, while the plural ‘enemies’ in v. 12 likewise are Death and his minions.

Other commentators (H. Schmidt, Kraus) have suggested the specific scenario of an individual who is in prison (v. 3), having been incarcerated (cf. the commentary by Goulder, pp. 265-70), presumably on the basis of false charges/accusations from hostile adversaries. The same line of interpretation was applied to Ps 142 (see the previous study), and I find it no more convincing here than I did in the case of Ps 142. All of the relevant language and imagery in the Psalm is traditional to the genre and does not require that one resort to reconstructing a specific historical or circumstantial scenario in order to explain it. If the protagonist were genuinely being depicted as in prison or in the midst of legal proceedings (based on false accusations), one would expect to see more evidence of strong appeal-language whereby the protagonist protests and affirms his innocence/loyalty to YHWH; apart from the slight references at the beginning and end of the Psalm (vv. 2, 12), such language is virtually absent. Even less likely is a cultic scenario, in which the investigative proceedings are taking place in the Temple sanctuary; cf. Beyerlin, pp. 36-7, 139-40.

As with Ps 142 (cf. the previous study), the date of this Psalm is uncertain. The prayer-form utilized is relatively straightforward, though perhaps exhibiting a bit more genre development than was evident in Ps 142. The linguistic evidence is equivocal, with clear indications for an early (pre-exilic) date being rather slight (such as the use of the relative pronoun Wz in v. 8, cf. in v. 142:4[3]). The apparent intertextuality (see above), if taken as evidence for dependence upon earlier Psalms (including those of the David-collection 138-145), might be an indication of a relatively late (post-exilic?) date.

Like all of the Psalms 138-145, the heading attributes Ps 142 to David (“[belonging] to David”). Also included here is the traditional designation of the work as a musical composition (romz+m!). Some commentators have understood the Davidic ascription, along with the proximity to the following Ps 144, as indication of a royal Psalm—viz., that the depiction is of a king who is in danger/distress, and who makes his covenant-appeal to YHWH on the basis of being His “servant” (vv. 2, 12).

The meter of this Psalm is irregular, though the first stanza largely uses 3-beat couplets (3+3) and tricola (3+3+3), while the second stanza tends to follow a 3+2 format.

In Roman Catholic and Western liturgical tradition, Psalm 143 is the last of the seven so-called Penitential Psalms, which have inspired splendid musical settings from composers such as Andrea Gabrieli and Roland de Lassus.

Stanza 1: Verses 1-6

Verse 1

“O, YHWH, hear (now) my prayer!
Give ear to my request for favor—
in your firmness
answer me
in your rightness!”

This initial verse, marking the stanza (and the Psalms) as a prayer to YHWH (for deliverance), features a series of verbal imperatives, using traditional prayer-verbs (that occur frequently in the prayer/lament-Psalms)—um^v* (“hear”), /z~a* (Hiphil, “give ear [to]”), and hn*u* (“answer”). The verbs um^v* and /z~a* are frequently joined together as a traditional pairing (Ps 17:1, etc; cf. Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2 regarding the formal use in a covenant-appeal setting); the verb /z~a* was used in the prior Pss 140:7[6] and 141:1. Also traditional are the nouns hL*p!T= (“prayer, petition”) and /Wnj&T^ (“request for favor”, i.e., to be shown favor), the latter occurring in 140:7 (along with the verb /z~a*). The verbal root /nj indicates a covenantal context, whereby a vassal or servant seeks favor from a superior.

Also indicative of a covenantal context is the pair of nouns, used as attributes of YHWH, in the third line: hn`Wma$ (“firmness”, in the sense of faithfulness, trustworthiness) and hQ*d*x= (“rightness”, often connoting faithfulness and loyalty). These are regular covenant-terms, used frequently in the Psalms. The protagonist is appealing to YHWH’s covenant loyalty, hoping and expecting that YHWH will be faithful to His covenant obligations, and will answer His servant’s prayer so as to provide protection and deliverance for him. The three-beat line has a chiastic structure, which I have sought to indicate in the translation above (cf. Dahood, III, p. 323):

    • “in your firmness
      • answer me
    • in your rightness”

The imperative yn]n@u& (“answer me!”) is bracketed between the two parallel prepositional expressions—and the imperative applies/relates to both expressions.

Verse 2

“And do not come into judgment with your servant—
for every(one) living will not be right before your face!”

Even though the protagonist identifies himself as the faithful servant of YHWH, and thus implicitly makes his appeal on that basis, he also asks that YHWH not respond to his prayer in His role as Sovereign Judge; rather, the hope is that YHWH will show favor to him (v. 1). The parallel in Job 14:3 utilizes a Hiphil form of the verb aoB (“make come”, i.e., “bring”): “…you bring me in(to) judgment with you”. Some commentators have suggested that v. 2 here be emended to have a similar reading: “And do not bring your servant in(to) judgment…!”. Dahood (III, p. 323) argues that this, in fact, is the force of the Qal -stem form of the verb here (i.e., “bring”, rather than “come”), and requires no emendation. For poetic concision, I have rendered the jussive form of the verb (“And may you not come…”) as an imperative (“And do not come…”).

The second line, famous from its effective adaptation/application by Paul in Romans 3:23, represents a traditional mode of address to YHWH—as the servant humbly beseechs his Sovereign to show him favor. He readily admits that no human being will (or can) prove to be right(eous) when standing in YHWH’s presence (“before your face”)—on this devout sentiment, cf. Psalm 130:3, and, as a Wisdom-tenet, Job 9:2; 15:14; 25:4; Eccl 7:20. The thought expressed here is actually rather rare in the Psalms, even in the prayer-Psalms, though occasionally the protagonist will admit (and confess) to sin in an attitude of repentance (see esp. 51:5-6[3-4]ff).

Metrically, this verse, along with the following v. 3a, is a 3+3 couplet.

Verse 3a

“(See) how (the) hostile (one) has pursued my soul
(and) has crushed to the earth my (very) life!”

The lament of stanza 1 properly begins here with the first couplet (3+3) of verse 3. I take the initial yK! as demonstrative and emphatic, so as to make vividly clear to YHWH the distress that the protagonist now faces (“See how…!”). The verb [d^r* (“pursue”, i.e., with hostile intent) features regularly in the lament/prayer-Psalms, describing the oppressive actions of the wicked adversar(ies) toward the righteous protagonist (or of the wicked toward the righteous generally). It was used in the prior Psalm 142 (v. 7[6]).

The second line indicates that the wicked enemy (by@oa, lit., “[one] being hostile”, “hostile [one]”), in pursuing the protagonist, has actually caught and assaulted him, “crushing” (vb ak^D*) his very life “to the earth” (cf. Psalm 7:6[5]). The prepositional expression Jr#a*l* (“to the earth”) presumably means simply “to the ground”; however, the noun Jr#a# can sometimes refer specifically to the region(s) below the surface of the earth—the underworld or netherworld, the traditional location for the realm of the dead (i.e., Sheol). The references to “dark places” and the ‘dead’ in v. 3b would seem to confirm that Jr#a# does, indeed, allude to Sheol here; cf. Dahood (III, p. 323), who suggests the expression “land [Jr#a#] of darkness” from Job 10:21.

Verse 3b

“He has made me to sit in (the) dark places,
like men of (the) distant (past)!”

The hostile enemy pursuing the protagonist has brought him to the very point of death, as indicated by the second line of v. 3a. The protagonist feels as though he is already sitting in the “dark places” (i.e., of Death’s domain, Sheol), along with those who are actually dead. The MT of the second line here reads “like (the) dead of (the) distant (past)”, with a substantive verbal adjective (participle) from the verb tWm (“die”). The construct plural form of this participle is yt@m@; however, Dahood (III, p. 323f) suggests that ytm should be vocalized as yt@m=, a form of the noun tm^ (“man”)— “like men of (the) distant (past)”. I have tentatively followed Dahood; however, the basic sense is the same in either case: it is a reference to the people of generations past, who are now dead and dwelling in the “dark places” of Sheol. For a comparable comparison, see Psalm 88:4-7[3-6], 11-13[10-12]; cf. Allen, p. 355f).

Metrically, v. 3b is a shortened 3+2 couplet, which is the dominant meter in Stanza 2. Some commentators (e.g., Kraus, p. 535) would omit the 2-beat line as being metrically inconsistent, thus producing another 3-beat (3+3+3) tricolon (for v. 3 as a whole). Indeed, Kraus suggests that the line may represent “an accretion” from the nearly identical line in Lam 3:6; however, it seems just as likely that Lamentations could be quoting from the Psalm.

Verse 4

“So my spirit has become weak (all) over me,
(and) within me my heart is (now) desolate.”

The external reality of the protagonist’s distress (v. 3) is now matched internally, in terms of its physical, psychological, and emotional effect upon him. It has caused his “spirit” to become weak (and faint) all over him; and within him his “heart” has become desolate (vb <m@v*)—that is, the distress has left him desolate. As noted in the introduction above, the idiom in the first line also occurred in Psalm 142 (v. 4[3]a, see the note in the previous study); cf. also Ps 77:4[3].

Metrically, this verse is another 3+3 couplet.

Verse 5

“I have kept in mind (the) days from (long) before,
I meditate on all of your (mighty) deed(s),
(and) on (the) work of your hands I converse.”

In the midst of his distress, the protagonist still has YHWH in mind (vb rk^z`)—including all of the great things that He has done in times past (the temporal expression <d#Q#m!, “from [times long] before”, matches the use of <l*ou, “[of the] distant [past]”, in v. 3b). These mighty “deed(s)” and the “work of (His) hands” could well span the entire history recorded in Israelite religious and Scriptural tradition, covering all of the deeds performed on behalf of His people and extending even back to His work as Creator. Such a declaration reflects the protagonist’s devotion to YHWH, as well as his faithfulness/loyalty to the covenant. It also alludes to YHWH’s faithfulness and covenant loyalty (see above), since the great deeds He performed on behalf of His people throughout their history are reflective of the covenant bond that He holds with them.
Some MSS (also reflected by the LXX) naturally ‘correct’ the singular “work of” (hc@u&m^) to the plural “works of” (yc@u&m^). This is also the reading of the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa. 

The verb hg`h* properly means “murmur, mutter, utter”, though Dahood here, largely on this basis of its cognate in Ugaritic, proposes the meaning “count, number” (III, p. 324). The sense of “murmur” occasionally connotes (contextually) the idea of “meditate”, especially in the Psalms and when used with the preposition b=—i.e., “meditate on”, which makes for an elegant and appealing translation in English (cf. Ps 1:2, etc.). In this particular instance, the sense of “meditate” is actually appropriate to the poetic context, providing a transition (in the central line 2) between the mental (“have in mind, remember”) and spoken (“speak, converse”, vb j^yc!) aspects. In the musical-poetic context of the Psalms, the verbs hg`h* and j^yc! can also allude specifically to the composing of songs, etc, in praise of YHWH (i.e., upon His mighty deeds and works).

Overall, the thought expressed in this verse seems to echo Psalm 77 (vv. 6[5]ff, 12-16[11-15]ff), and may indicate a dependance upon that (earlier) Psalm.

Metrically, this verse is a 3-beat (3+3+3) tricolon, like the initial verse 1 (see above).

Verse 6

“(Here) I spread out both my hands unto you,
my soul, like parched earth, (longing) for you.”
Selah

The protagonist’s devotion is also expressed by the worshipful gesture of spreading out (vb cr^P*) his hands to YHWH. For this idiom, using the specific verb cr^P*, see Job 11:13, and also cf. Ps 44:21[20]. At the same time, the raising of his hands also symbolizes the protagonist’s prayer to YHWH (cf. Ps 141:2); thus, the close of the stanza refers back to its beginning, specifically referencing the prayer/petition to YHWH for deliverance.

The openness and sense of longing that this motif of “spreading out” both hands reflects is further expressed by the image in the final line. The protagonist’s soul, exhausted and left desolate by his distress (cf. verse 4, above), is compared to a land (or earth, Jr#a#, cf. verse 3a) that is weary and exhausted (adj. [y@u*). This sense of exhaustion, when applied to the earth (i.e., land, ground, soil), specifically connotes the idea of dryness (cf. Isa 32:2; 63:2), i.e., parched, ‘thirsting’. A comparable application of this idiom to a person’s soul can be found in Prov 25:25; Jer 31:25. The basic thought is similar to Ps 63:2[1]; and cf. 84:3[2].
Some MSS read the preposition B= (“in”), rather than K= (“as, like”), i.e., “in a parched/weary land”; cf. Kraus, p. 535.

Stefan Pass, in a short article (“A Textual Note on Ps 143,6…” in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 113 [2001], pp. 414-8) argues that the adjective hp*y@u& here is to be derived, not from the root [yu I (“be[come] tired, weary”), but from a second root ([yu II) meaning “be dark” (in the context of a darkened/clouded sky). The reference thus is to a “dark land”, alluding to the netherworld. 

It is important to recognize the wordplay that is involved here with the noun vp#n#. This noun is usually rendered in the rather abstract sense of “soul, life”, and yet it also carries the more concrete (and primitive) meaning, preserved almost exclusively in poetry, of “neck, throat”. Similarly, one can speak of a person’s soul (figuratively) as parched and thirsting, or of his/her “throat”, in the more concrete (and physical) sense. A dry and weary throat is also appropriate to the contextual scenario of a person crying out to YHWH in his distress (cf. especially the wording [use of the verb qu^z`] in Ps 142:2[1] and 6[5]).

*      *      *      *      *

Stanza 2 (vv. 7-12) will be examined in Part 2 of this study.

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).
    • Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150, translated by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2011).
    • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
    • Those marked “Goulder” are to Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-50) [Studies in the Psalter, IV], Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 258 (Sheffield Academic Press: 1998).
    • Those marked “Beyerlin” are to Walter Beyerlin, Die Rettung der Bedrängten in den Feindpsalmen der Einzelnen auf institutionelle Zusammenhänge untersucht, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1970).