Month: May 2026

May 30: Job 11:10-12

Job 11:10-12

Verses 10-12 constitute the second strophe of the Wisdom-poem of vv. 7-12 (see the prior note on the first strophe, vv. 7-9). The first strophe dealt with the reasoning behind God’s decisions (as Judge)—how human beings are not able to comprehend fully the Divine thought and wisdom involved. Here in the second strophe, it is God’s power and ability to act—that is, as the Judge, overseeing the legal and judicial processes—which is in view.

Verse 10

“If He should come by and shut (one) up (in prison),
and summon an assembly—who can turn Him back?”

As noted above, the thrust of this strophe, particularly here in the initial couplet, portrays God as the all-powerful Judge who oversees (and puts into effect) all aspects of the legal-judicial process. Three specific actions are mentioned, in sequence. First, is the verb [l^j* (I), “come/pass by”, viz., on a regular/periodic basis (i.e., in/by turns), and probably alludes to policing activity (such as we may speak of the police “making [their] rounds”); cf. the earlier usage of this verb (again with God as the subject) in 9:11. Several commentators (e.g., Michel, Seow) have suggested that the forceful sense of “sweep in” is appropriate here. In any case, the authorities, when they come along, will “shut up” (vb rg^s*) a person in prison (i.e., in custody) as needed, when one is guilty or suspected of a crime (cf. 12:14, and earlier in 6:12). The third action, which spills over into the second line (an example of poetic ‘enjambment’), is expressed by the verb lh^q* (“assemble”) in the Hiphil causative stem, “call/gather an assembly” —i.e., in the legal-judicial sense of a court of law, in which the guilty suspect’s case is heard and the sentence/punishment is announced. Clines (pp. 255, 265) would render lh^q* in the sense of “call (someone) to account”; while this correctly captures the judicial situation for the guilty suspect, it is not an accurate translation.

If God, as the overseeing judicial authority, chooses to bring these actions into effect, no one—and certainly no mortal human being—is able to make Him stop or to force Him to change course. The verb bWv (Hiphil, “[make someone] “turn back”) is used, as in 9:12 (by Job, in a similar context).

Verse 11

“Indeed, He (Himself) knows (the) men of emptiness,
and sees injustice—will He not then act with discernment?”

If God’s actions in overseeing the judicial processes cannot be altered (v. 10), so also His decisions and judgments made throughout the process cannot be overturned. This is because God has full knowledge and understanding of all things, and He always renders judgment in a completely just manner (viz., according to justice). Contrary to the implications made by Job in his complaint (chaps. 9-10), God does not bring judgment/punishment against a person unless it is justified and warranted (by that person’s guilt). In this regard, it would seem that both the initial yK! particle and the pronoun (aWh, “he”) are emphatic—emphasizing that what is stated in the remainder of the verse is absolutely true of God (as Judge).

God truly knows who is guilty (of sin) and wicked—with the clear implication that He does not punish the innocent (i.e., the righteous). The guilty/wicked are referenced here by the expression “men of aw+v*.” The noun aw+v* is a bit difficult to translate. It has the general meaning “emptiness” (also “pointlessness, uselessness”), but typically with the strong negative connotations of “worthlessness”, “deception/deceit”, etc., often implying that a measure of injustice is involved. It occurs numerous times (in a Wisdom-context) in the Psalms (14 times) and elsewhere in Job (7:3; 15:31; 31:5; 35:13; cf. also Prov 30:8). It should probably be translated here as “worthlessness”, with the expression “men of worthlessness” = “worthless men”; however, I have rendered it as “emptiness” (as I did in 7:3) in order to bring out the conceptual wordplay with bWbn` (“hollow[ness]”) in v. 12 (see below).

In 7:3, aw+v* was used parallel with lm*u* (“trouble”); here, a noun with a comparable meaning (/w#a*) is used, but having a rather different focus. The kind of “trouble” indicated by lm*u* is physical exertion (labor, toil, etc.) and the difficulties involved; whereas in the case of /w#a*, the sense is of harm (and potential disaster) that comes often as the result of sin and injustice. God knows the wicked and the trouble that they cause, bringing harm to others (viz., the injustice that they perpetrate). The noun /w#a* could be aptly translated here as either “trouble” or “injustice”; I have opted for the latter.

The way I read the couplet of verse 11, God’s knowing and seeing are paired together, being part of the same basic thought—continuing from the first line into the second, and thus being another example (as in v. 11) of poetic enjambment. The final phrase, /n`oBt=y! al)w+, thus is parallel to the question (“who can turn Him back?”) in v. 11, and should similarly be treated as a question (as recognized by Pope, Seow, and other commentators); for alternate ways of reading the line, cf. the summary given by Clines, p. 255; also Althann, p. 68*. The verb /yB! means “understand, discern”, while the force of the Hitpolel reflexive, in this context, is used to emphasize that God Himself is discerning in these matters (i.e., acts with discernment). In other words, as the Judge He acts properly, with wisdom and understanding; He does not accuse people without cause, nor does He bring them into court and pass sentence upon them, punishing them, unless they are truly deserving of it (i.e., are wicked and guilty of the crime).

Verse 12

“And (yet) a hollow man can be given a heart,
even (as) a wild ass can be born human!”

The final couplet is a proverbial saying, the sense of which is difficult to determine, mainly due the considerable ambiguity (and possible confusion) in the second line. The ancient translators clearly had difficulty in understanding and explaining the line, as can be seen by the divergent ways in which it was rendered (cf. the summary by Seow, p. 613).

The first point to note is the metrical irregularity (3+4) of the MT as it stands, which adds support to Seow’s argument (pp. 613-4) that the second line is overloaded, with the apposite nouns ry]u^ (“male donkey”) and ar#P# (“wild ass”) representing conflated variants. If one is to omit either word, it seems preferable to retain ar#P# (as Seow does) for the sake of the proverb. The simplified second line then reads (apparently) “and a wild ass is born (as) a man”. However, even if this is the correct way to read the line, there is still a question as to its relationship to the first line, with two main options:

    • “But a hollow man will receive a heart
      (only) when a wild ass is born human!”
      —implying that the situation in line 1 would be difficult or impossible
    • “And yet a hollow man can receive a heart
      even (as) a wild ass can be born [i.e., become] human!”
      —implying that the situation in line 1 is possible

The choice relates to the larger Wisdom-question as to whether (or the extent to which) a foolish person can learn and receive wisdom. That is the scenario sketched by the wording in line 1: “a hollow man receives a heart”. The verb bb^l*, denominative of the noun bl@ (“heart”), in the passive Niphal stem means “be given heart, receive heart”. It implies that a person is (previously) lacking heart, which, indeed, is an idea mentioned a number of times in Proverbs by the expression bl@ rs^j& (“lacking of heart”)—6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12, etc. In English, we would say “lacking sense”, since the noun bl@ in Hebrew can essentially mean “mind” as well as “heart”. The expression “hollow man” (bWbn` vya!) basically means “empty-headed person”, i.e., a foolish person, one lacking sense. The idea that a person “lacking sense” can still learn wisdom is expressed at a number of points in Proverbs (see esp. the context of chap. 9); and yet, in other instances, the expression “lacking of heart” is used for the person who has already departed from the right path of Wisdom and has travelled instead down the crooked paths of folly and wickedness (cf. 6:32; 10:21. Thus, it is possible to read the saying here as either optimistic or pessimistic on whether a “hollow man” can ever “receive a heart” (i.e., gain sense and wisdom).

There are further difficulties of interpretation surrounding the last two words of the second line—the noun <d*a* and the verb dl^y` (“give birth”, Niphal, “be born”). Seow connects <d*a* (“[hu]man”) to ar#P# as a construct expression, i.e., “wild ass of a man”, with the verb dl^y` (Niphal) in the sense of “be formed/developed”. This yields a fine parallelism for the couplet:

    • “and a hollow man | can receive a heart”
    • “and a wild ass of a man | can be developed”

This is an appealing approach, but it perhaps unduly softens the force of the proverb. It seems preferable to retain the roughness of expression as one speaks, paradoxically, of a “wild ass” becoming (lit. being born) human (<d*a*). In any case, the optimistic interpretation is to be chosen, as I have done in my translation above. The tone and sense in the following section of Zophar’s speech (vv. 13-16), to be discussed in the next note, confirms this line of interpretation. The implication in Zophar’s use of this proverb is that it is still possible for Job to cease acting/speaking foolishly and, instead, to be sensible—to recognize and accept the justness of God’s judgment against him, to repent and to seek mercy from God in an attitude of humility and devotion.

For other ways in which commentators and translators have sought to explain verse 12 (and especially the second line), see the summary comments by Michel (pp. 262-3), Clines (pp. 256, 266), Seow (pp. 613-4), and others.

    • 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 “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • 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, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).

May 29: Job 11:7-9

Job 11:7-9

The second section of the first half of Zophar’s speech is essentially a Wisdom-poem in two strophes (vv. 7-9, 10-12), emphasizing the incomparability of God (Eloah)—how His knowledge and wisdom far surpass  what a human being is able to comprehend. By extension, this implies that the decisions underpinning God’s justice (viz., His actions as Judge) cannot always be fully understood by mere humans. Even if the reasons for His judgments are difficult to grasp, they are still right and in accordance with justice.

The initial strophe (vv. 7-9) parallels the first unit (vv. 2-3) of the prior section in its use of a rhetorical question (addressed to Job); this effectively applies the tenets expressed in the Wisdom poem to Job’s particular situation.

Verse 7

“Can you find (out the) depth(s) of (the) Mightiest?
Can you find (the way) to Šadday’s furthest point?”

As the Creator, God’s power and knowledge, etc.—indeed, His very being—goes far beyond what a created human being is able to understand. As in v. 2, this is expressed by a double-rhetorical question, addressed to Job (viz., the general Wisdom-principle for all human beings is specifically applied to him). The double-question is formed the same way that it is in v. 2: line 1 utilizes the prefixed interrogative particle –h&, while line 2 uses the conditional particle <a! (usually rendered “if…”) as an interrogative (“can [you]…?”).
For more on the Job-poet’s employment of interrogatives, cf. the article by J. F. J. van Rensburg, “Wise Men Saying Things by Asking Questions: The Function of the Interrogative in Job 3 to 14” in Old Testament Essays 4 (1991), pp. 227-47.

The double-question is anchored by a dual use of the verb ax*m* (“find”), with differing nuances of meaning. In the first line the sense is “find out” (i.e., by searching out), while in the second line it is “find the way to” (i.e., reach, attain to); cf. the cognates, Ugaritic mṣʾ, Aramaic afm, etc. The nouns rq#j@ and tyl!k=T^ are also parallel (cf. Michel, p. 257). The first denotes a deep place (i.e., “depth[s]”) that a person might search out and explore. The second noun (derived from the root hl*K* I, “come to an end, finish, complete”) means something like “extreme/furthest end (point)”; cf. 26:10; 28:3; Psalm 139:22. In other words, a human being cannot reach the depths or limits of God’s knowledge, etc., and thus it is impossible for a mere mortal (like Job) to comprehend it. One should note that the interrogative particle in the first line is attached to the noun rq#j@ (“depth[s]”), in the first (emphatic) position: “Can you find (out the) depth(s) of (the) Mightiest?”
As Seow (p. 611) points out, the noun rq#j@, specifically when applied to God, is often accompanied by the negative particle al (or /ya), in the sense of being unsearchable (cf. 5:9; 9:10; 34:24; 36:26; Isa 40:28; Ps 145:3; Prov 25:3).

The Divine names H^ola$ and yD^v^ are also set in parallel. As in the earlier occurrences of the name yD^v^ (5:17; 6:4, 14; 8:3, 5), I have transliterated it (Šadday) rather than translating it (cf. the note on 5:17). The customary translation of “Almighty” would certainly make for a suitable parallel with H^ola$ (= <yh!l)a$, “[the] Mightiest”).

Verse 8

“(It is) <high(er) than> (the) heavens—what can you do?
(It is) deep(er) than Še’ôl—what can you know?”

The basic point made by the double-question in verse 7 is repeated, in a different manner, by the pair of questions here in verse 8. The depths of God’s understanding transcend all of creation—the entire cosmos—so, therefore, what can a human being possibly do to gain knowledge of it?

Most commentators emend the text in the first line to match the comparison (“deeper than Sheol”) in the second; see the discussion by Seow (p. 611). This requires emending MT <y]m^v* yh@b=G` (“heights of [the] heavens”) to <y]m^V*m! hh*b)G+ (“high[er] than [the] heavens”, utilizing the comparative /m! [prefixed –m], “than”, as in line 2). This emendation may find support in the Greek versions (except for Aquila), which reads “high (is) the heaven” (u(yhlo$ o( ou)rano$); Seow plausibly suggests that the original text of <ymvm hhbg was incorrectly divided (with haplography of h) as <ymv <hbg. He further argues that the variant(s) of the MT, Targum, and Aquila could have been derived from the same original text.
Michel (p. 258) is one of the few modern commentators who retains the MT (cf. his analysis and treatment of the verse). Althann (p. 68*) also argues (though none too vigorously) for the MT reading.

On this Wisdom-context of this parallel emphasizing the heights of heaven and the depths of Sheol, cf. Psalm 139:8. The “heavens” here represent the highest portion of the upper half of the cosmos (also called by the term “heaven[s]”), while Sheol is the deepest/lowest portion of the lower half. For more on the possible use of Psalm 139 by the Job-poet, including here in chapter 11, cf. Will Kynes, My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 437 (De Gruyter: 2012), pp. 101-21.

Verse 9

“(It is) long(er) than (the) earth (in) measure,
and wide(r) than (all the) sea!”

If the depths and extent of God’s knowledge, etc., transcend the entire cosmos (v. 8), then it certainly far surpasses the limits of the surface of the earth (viz., the inhabited land where human beings dwell). This is a roundabout way of reasserting that it transcends human understanding. The surface of the earth is expressed by the regular noun Jr#a# (“earth, land”), though used here in tandem with <y` (“sea”) it is perhaps meant to designate specifically the “(dry) land”. The horizontal dimensionality of this (flat) surface (cf. the vertical dimensionality in v. 8) is expressed in terms of “length” (adj. Er)a*) and “width” (adj. bj*r*).
Much less likely is the possibility that Jr#a# here designates the regions below the surface of the earth (i.e., the ‘netherworld’, parallel to Sheol in v. 8); cf. Michel, p. 259. 

As in v. 8, the preposition /m! is used in its comparative sense, which in English must be translated as “(more) than”. Its use in both lines here adds a further argument for the textual emendation in v. 8a (see above) that restores the comparison for both lines in v. 8 as well.

The MT HD*m! in line 1 is anomalous. It is perhaps better to read the text simply as hD*m! (“measure”), in an adverbial sense (i.e., “in measure”, cf. Seow, p. 612), rather than to assume that the MT H– reflects the possessive (feminine) suffix, which would seem to require the form Ht*D*m! (“her [i.e., its] measure”). Clines (p. 255) suggests that the MT kethib Hd*m! may be meant to indicate the qere Ht*D*m!.

In the next note, we will examine the second strophe (vv. 10-12) of this ‘Wisdom-poem’.

    • 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 “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 10:8-14

Proverbs 10:8-14

In the previous study, the grouping of proverbs in vv. 1-5 was noted, marked by its demonstrable chiastic structure. According to my division of the chapter, this unit is capped by the two blessing-proverbs of vv. 6-7 to form an introductory section (to the collection of chapters 10-15ff) akin to the prologue of chapters 1-9 (1:1-7). The remaining proverbs of chapter 10 are arranged in less clearly defined or discernable groupings, though they are dominated thematically by an emphasis on a person’s speech (with the motif of the “mouth / lips” occurring in a significant number of the sayings). I recognize verses 8-14 as a loose proverb-grouping, framed by the parallel sayings in verses 8 and 14 which feature the warning that the “lips” of the foolish will bring them to ruin. However, other commentators (e.g., Schipper, Heim [pp. 113, 117-9]) prefer to treat verses 6-11 as a distinct grouping (with a comparable pair of parallel sayings [in vv. 6 and 11] that frame the cluster). This is an equally valid way of dividing the text. The method of grouping the proverbs of chapter 10, such as may have been employed by the author/editor of the collection, appears to have been loose enough to allow for various approaches of delineation.

Verse 8

“(The one) wise of heart receives directives,
while (the one) foolish of lips is thrown down.”

As in vv. 1-7, the couplets of vv. 8-14 (and throughout chapter 10) feature a fundamental contrast between the wise/righteous and the foolish/wicked. Here the regular adjectives (as substantives) <k*j* (“wise”) and lyw]a$ I (“dull, foolish”, lit. “thick”) are used for this contrast. Interestingly, the point of the contrast is not presented in a precise formal parallelism; rather, it is varied here in a couplet of different ways. First, it is the “lips” (i.e., outward speech) of the foolish person that are set in parallel with the “heart” (i.e., inward thought/intention) of the wise. The expression “wise of/in heart” similarly occurs in other proverbs (e.g., 11:29; 16:21; cf. also 16:23; 18:15; 23:15, 19); for the equivalent of “foolish of lips” (i.e., one who speaks folly and/or in a foolish manner), cf. 13:3; 18:6-7, also the idea of lying/deceitful or wicked lips, 12:22; 17:4; 24:2, 28. The one who says foolish things (or speaks foolishly) will likely come to say evil/wicked things (cf. Qoh 10:13-14). Foolish/wicked speech reflects a foolish/wicked heart (24:2; 26:23-24, etc.); in the same way, the one who is “wise in heart” will speak wisdom.

There is also variation in the way that the characteristic behavior of the wise (“receiving directives”) is here contrasted with the result/effect of the foolish person’s behavior (esp. his/her speech). In a Wisdom-context, the noun hw`x=m! (“directive, command”) refers to the teachings of Wisdom (such as the instruction and discipline given by one’s parents); cf. the use of hw`x=m! earlier in chapters 1-9 (2:1; 3:1; 4:4; 6:20, 23; 7:1-2). To “receive” (or “take [in]”, vb. jq^l*) such teaching means that the wise person accepts it and assimilates it (in the “heart”) so that it becomes part of his/her regular and habitual behavior. The implication (which is clear from the message of the lectures and poems throughout chaps. 1-9) is that the foolish person does not receive/accept the teachings of Wisdom, but rather rejects, neglects, and/or ignores them. The result is that such a person is “thrown down” (vb fb^l*, Niphal, also in v. 10). This verb is quite rare in the Scriptures, occurring elsewhere only in Hos 4:14 (cf. also 1QHa 2:19; 4:7). Its apparent meaning (“press down”) can be discerned by the cognates in Arabic (labaṭa “throw to the ground”, labiṭa “trample”) and Syriac; cf. HALOT, p. 517. The basic sense is rightly captured by the general translation “go/come to ruin”, matching the parallel in v. 14 (see below). On the references and occurrences of fbl in Rabbinic Hebrew, see the note by Fox, p. 516.

Verse 9

“(The one) walking in completeness walks secure,
but (the one) twisting his paths will be known.”

In this proverb, the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked person is contrasted by use of the path/walking idiom so common in Wisdom literature (and which features so prominently throughout chapters 1-9). The path of Wisdom is straight, and the wise/righteous person walks the path straight (without bending off or turning aside); by contrast, the paths of folly/wickedness are crooked. Here, this aspect of ‘crookedness’ is expressed by the verb vq^u* (“twist”), cf. 28:18; Job 9:20; also Mic 3:9; Isa 59:8; used as a substantive participle, the verb characterizes the behavior of the wicked/foolish ones (viz., they “twist” and make crooked their paths). The characteristic of the righteous, on the other hand, is “straightness”, expressed here by the noun <T) (“completeness”, 2:7), cf. the adjective <T* (“complete”) and the verb <m^T* (“be complete”). To be “complete”, in an ethical-religious sense, connotes acting and speaking in an upright manner, with honesty, faithfulness, and personal integrity; the exact expression here is “in the completeness”, which should probably be taken as a shorthand for “in the completeness of the path”, i.e., walking completely straight (staying on the straight path).

The result of such faithfulness is that the wise/righteous person will walk “(in) security” (jf^B#), i.e., “secure” (cf. 1:33). His feet will not stumble, nor will he fall cf. 3:23; 4:26); instead, God will watch over such a person, providing him with protection. The proper parallel for contrast was already given in v. 8b (see above)—viz., the wicked person will be “thrown down” (cf. 28:18). Here, the parallel term is a passive (Niphal) of the verb ud^y` (“know”, i.e., “be known”). Probably the sense is that the wicked, through their falling and being “thrown down” (that is, by God, in judgment), will have their true nature and identity become known (cf. Jer 28:9; Sirach 12:8; Fox, p. 517).

However, a number of commentators, unsatisfied by the parallelism of the couplet, would emend the MT from u^d@W`y! (“will be known”) to u^ory@ (“will experience evil”, “will suffer harm”, cf. 11:15; 13:20), presumably as a result of metathesis and scribal confusion (between the letters r and d), as noted by Waltke (p. 449). On this basis, such a modest emendation of the text would not be objectionable, though it is perhaps not necessary.

Note the alliteration between the two phrases of the line, creating a fine poetic balance (cf. Schipper, p. 372):

    • <T)B^ El@oh (hôlēk batōm)— “(the one) walking in completeness”
    • jf^B@ El#y@ (yēlek bēṭaḥ)— “walks (in) security”
Verse 10

“(The one) winking (his) eye gives (people) grief,
[and (the one) foolish of lips is thrown down].”

The MT of this proverb is rather peculiar, as it is lacking the expected contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked. Moreover, the second line is identical with that of v. 8 (just two verses prior). All of this makes the second line of the MT here highly suspect, with the strong likelihood that it is the result of scribal error (dittography). It is probable that the LXX and Syriac (Peshitta) preserve something like the Hebrew original, which Fox (p. 517, Textual Commentary, p. 176f [so also a number of earlier commentators, cf. Heim, p. 115]) suggests might be reconstructed as <wlv hcuy jykwmhw (or something similar), so that the couplet would then read:

“(The one) winking (his) eye gives (people) grief,
while the (one) giving a rebuke makes peace.”

It seems rather reckless, however, simply to replace the received text (to the extent of an entire stich) with a hypothetical reconstruction of the Hebrew, even if it has the support of the Versions. Unfortunately, the Qumran scrolls are of no help in resolving the difficulty, since very little of Proverbs survives (and nothing of chapter 10). I have retained the MT, while marking off the second line with square brackets to indicate the possibility (even likelihood) that it is not original. The duplication of the second line (from v. 8b) is not as problematic as the lack of the expected contrast in the couplet, since we see similar duplications elsewhere in the collection (cf., for example, v. 6b / 11b, or 26:7b / 9b).
Yet, as Meinhold (p. 163) and Heim (p. 115) note, there are other non-contrastive couplets in the collection (including in chapter 10, cf. vv. 18, 22, 26), so the lack of a contrast in the MT version of the couplet cannot be used to make a decisive judgment against its originality.

As for the first line, the action of “winking” (or “squinting”, vb Jr^q*) one’s eyes is suggestive of troublemaking and deceit (cf. 6:13f; 16:30; Sir 27:22), characteristic of the wicked; cf. the discussion by Heim, pp. 115f. The LXX makes this clear by adding “with deceit” (meta\ do/lou). The idiom of “giving/causing grief” occurred earlier in verse 1, though with the noun hg`WT (“[cause for] worry, concern” [often the sense of “sorrow, grief”]), rather than tb#X#u^ (“pain, hurt, grief”, cf. also 15:13; Job 9:28; Ps 16:4; 147:3).

Verse 11

“A wellspring of life (is the) mouth of (the) righteous,
but (the) mouth of (the) wicked covers violence.”

This proverb has the central position in the grouping of vv. 8-14; it makes for a precise contrast between the “mouth” of the righteous (cf. verse 31; Ps 37:30) and the wicked, respectively. As with the “lips” in v. 8b, here the “mouth” represents a person’s speech. For the righteous, their speech (“mouth”) is a source of life, utilizing a traditional expression (<yY]j^ roqm=) that occurs a number of times elsewhere in Proverbs (13:14; 14:27; 16:22); cf. also Psalm 36:10[9]. The noun roqm* denotes a place where one digs for water—that is, a well, along with the underground source of water (spring); cf. the earlier use of the noun in 5:18. Wisdom is implicitly being described by the image of life-giving water, with the mouth of the righteous as a source for this wisdom; through the words and teachings of the righteous, others receive the teachings of Wisdom (which lead to life).

By contrast, the mouth of the wicked “covers up” lawlessness and violence (sm*j*), which leads to death; cf. on v. 6b in the previous study. For a comparison between vv. 6b and 11b, cf. Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 218-23.

There is a chiastic structure to this couplet (which is fitting for its position as the central proverb of vv. 8-14):

    • “A wellspring of life (is)
      • (the) mouth of (the) righteous,
      • but (the) mouth of (the) wicked
    • covers violence.”
Verse 12

“Hatred awakens (many kinds of) conflicts,
while love covers over all breeches (of trust).”

The same verb hs*K* (“cover”) is used here (in the second line) as in v. 11b, as an example of the kind of ‘catchword’ bonding method by which certain proverbs were joined together. In v. 11, the verb was used in a negative sense (viz., covering up [i.e., hiding/concealing] violence) as a characteristic of the wicked; here, by contrast, it has a positive sense, as a characteristic of the righteous. The love shown by the righteous can “cover” —in the sense of forgiving and ‘healing’ —all kinds of instances where the faith/trust between individuals has been broken (i.e., disruptions of the bond of friendship, etc.); this is the primary significance of the noun uv^P# (“breech [of faith/trust]”), which can also apply to a person’s relationship with God (thus referring to sins and religious transgressions). A similar conjunction of terms—hs*K*, uv^P#, hb*h&a^—occurs in 17:9, though with a different message; cf. Schipper, p. 374.
Verse 12b line is apparently quoted by the New Testament authors in both James 5:20 and 1 Peter 4:18, but not according to the LXX Greek.

The hatred characteristically shown by the wicked (in contrast to the love shown by the righteous) has entirely the opposite effect—that is, it stirs up conflicts (<yn]d*m=), rather than resolving them. The verb rWu II (“stir [up]”) properly (and typically) refers to stirring someone out of sleep (i.e., waking them up). This is the only instance of the verb in Proverbs, though it occurs with some frequency in the Psalms and Job, as well as (famously) in the Song of Songs (2:7, et al.).

As with v. 11, the couplet in verse 12 has a chiastic structure (which for the sake of poetic clarity I did not reproduce in the translation above):

    • Hatred
      • awakens
        • (many kinds of) conflicts,
        • while over all breeches
      • covers
    • love.”
Verse 13

“On (the) lips of (the) discerning is found wisdom,
but a rod (is) for (the) back of (the one) lacking heart.”

In this proverb, the contrastive parallel is presented in a rather creative and oblique way, viz.:

    • wisdom is on the lips of the one who is discerning (i.e., wise)
    • a rod is on the back of the one who lacks discernment (lit., “heart”), i.e., who is foolish

That is, a “rod” (of discipline/punishment) is applied to the back of the foolish (cf. 19:29b; 26:3b); such a person can still be corrected and learn wisdom, though, if he/she neglects the discipline and instruction, that person will come to be among the wicked. In this regard, cf. the context of chapter 9, and the specific use of the idiomatic expression “lacking of heart” (bl@ rs^j&) in 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16 (and further in v. 21; 11:12; 12:9, 11; 15:21, etc.). In English idiom, we would say “lacking sense”.

The offbeat parallel between “lips” and “heart”, reflecting the outward expression (speech) and inward state (thought/intention), respectively, also featured in verse 8 (see above), but in reverse order. Both outward and inward aspects are implicitly in view (for both the righteous and the wicked). On one’s “lips” (i.e., words/speech) functioning as a rod (of discipline/punishment, etc.), cf. 14:3; Isa 11:4.
Indeed, the LXX seems to understand the lips of the wise as the “rod” that strikes the foolish: “The (one) who brings forth wisdom out of his lips strikes with a rod (the) man without heart”. 

On the prominent mention of disciplining a young man (with the rod) in Near Eastern Wisdom tradition, cf. the Egyptian examples cited by Schipper, p. 374f.

Verse 14

“(Those who are) wise hide away knowledge,
while (the) mouth of a fool (is) near to ruin!”

As noted above, this proverb is parallel to the couplet in v. 8, the two proverbs providing a framing inclusio for the grouping of vv. 8-14. The image of the wise “hiding/storing away” (vb /p^x*) knowledge is parallel to their “taking in” instruction (lit. “directives”) in v. 8a. Cf. the similar use of the verb /p^x* (in the sense of hiding/storing away treasures) in chapters 1-9 (1:11, 18; 2:1, 7; 7:1). The second lines of vv. 8 and 14 are also parallel:

    • “(the one) foolish of lips is thrown down”
    • “(the) mouth of a fool (brings him) near (to) being broken”

The expression hb*r)q= hT*j=m! is difficult to translate. The noun hT*j!m= denotes a “shattering, breaking”, while the addition of the modifying adjective borq* (“near”) suggests the meaning “near (to) breaking”, or, passive, “near (to) being broken”. The noun can be understood more abstractly in the sense of “ruin, destruction”, which seems to apply to the Wisdom-context here in Proverbs (cf. v. 29; 13:3; 14:28; 18:7; also Psalm 89:41[40]). For poetic concision, I have translated hT*j!m= here as “ruin”.
The figurative meaning of “terror” (i.e., being psychologically or emotionally “broken/shattered”), while apparently attested elsewhere in Scripture (21:15; Isa 54:14; Jer 17:17; 48:39), is inappropriate to the context here (contra Waltke, p. 449).

    • 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).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).

May 26: Job 11:4-6

Job 11:4-6
Verse 4

“So you have said: ‘Clear (is) my give and take,
and (to be considered) pure am I in your eyes!'”

Following the initial rhetorical questions posed in vv. 2-3 (see the previous note), Zophar’s rebuke of Job continues here in vv. 4ff, as he addresses the substance of Job’s appeal (and complaint) to God (chaps. 9-10). Two different but near synonymous adjectives—Ez~ and rB^ (II)—are utilized to express the idea behind Job’s claim that he is, in fact, “clean/clear” of any wrong-doing (viz., of the kind that would justify the apparent judgment/punishment brought against him). As with the use of the verb qd^x* (cf. 2b), these adjectives entail both an ethical-religious (“pure”, “clean”) and legal-judicial dimension (“clear [of guilt]”, i.e., innocent).

In the first line, Zophar mentions Job’s claim in terms of his “give-and-take” (jq#l^)—that is, the things that he regularly says and does, perhaps with an emphasis on his speech (cf. vv. 2-3); Seow (p. 609f) translates yj!q=l! as “my discourse”, while the LXX clearly has Job’s deeds (“works”, toi=$ e&rgoi$) in mind. According to Zophar, Job thus claims to be clear of any serious wrong in his speech and conduct. This also means, as according to the wording in line 2, that Job should be considered righteous and pure in God’s eyes (“in your eyes”). On the legal-judicial level, with God as the Judge, Job claims that he ought to be considered clear of any guilt. God should not judge (and punish) him as though he were one of the wicked, guilty of serious wrongdoing. Yet, of course, that is just what God appears to have done, and this inexplicable behavior (on God’s part) is at the heart of Job’s complaint.

The initial w-conjunction is both exclamatory-emphatic and consequential (cf. the prior note on v. 3): i.e., “So (then)…”.

Verse 5

“O, but who will give (that the) Mightiest should speak,
and would open up His (own) lips (to deal) with you—”

Zophar recognizes that Job, in his complaint, is effectively impugning the justice of God. Thus, he expresses the wish, fueled by a certain ‘righteous indignation’, that God (Eloah) Himself would speak and answer Job’s reckless complaint. The answer, ideally, should come from God’s own lips (even as it does at the close of the Dialogue, chaps. 38ff). The same idiom of “opening (one’s) lips” occurs in 32:20 (cf. also Psalm 51:17[15]).

As Seow (p. 610) suggests, the peculiar wording (and word order) in the first line is probably intended to emphasize God as the speaker (in contrast to another human); cf. Gordis, p. 121. One would normally expect the phrasing to be H^ola$ rB@D^… or H^ola$ rB@d^y+w]… .

Michel (p. 254), following Pope (p. 83) and Blommerde (p. 60), may be correct in rendering the preposition <u! (“with”) here as “against”. I have kept the translation more general (“[dealing] with”), while still allowing for the oppositional nuance (in a legal-judicial context) of “against”.

Verse 6

“and let Him put in front of you (the) secrets of wisdom—
for (indeed there are) two sides to (any) success—
and know that (the) Mightiest has kept you unaware of your guilt.”

This concluding verse (tricolon) of the section is quite difficult, particularly in the second and third lines. Central to the difficulty is the exact meaning of the noun hY`v!WT in the second line. This noun has a rather wide semantic range, but principally it seems to mean either: (a) “success”, or (b) the “skill, ability” to achieve success. It is a Wisdom-term, with ten of its twelve Scriptural occurrences being in the book of Job (6) and Proverbs (4). It was used earlier in 5:12 in reference to the success of a person’s plans (particularly, those of the wicked), while in 6:13 it seems to refer generally to the source of a person’s strength/ability (to do something). It occurs again in 12:16; 26:3; 30:22; similarly, it occurs three times in Proverbs 1-9 (2:7; 3:21; 8:14) and again in 18:1. It can be explained three different ways here, as referring to: (1) Job’s (prior) success, (2) a person’s skill/ability (and resourcefulness, etc.), or (3) to a person’s (spec. Job’s) wisdom and understanding. These, I think, can be reduced to two lines of interpretation, in connection with the dual noun <y]l^p=K! (“two sides”, “two-sided, double edged”, etc.):

    • “(there are) two sides to (a person’s) success”
    • “(there are) two sides to (a person’s) wisdom/understanding”

I have adopted the first of these, as referring to the “two sides” of Job’s prior success (and prosperity).

The second main difficulty involves the meaning and sense of the verb form (MT) hV#y` in the third line. This would appear to be a Hiphil (causative) form of the verb hv*n` (“forget, disappear [from one’s mind]”), so that the line would read: “and know that (the) Mightiest has made disappear (from the mind) for you…”. A related problem involves how this phrase connects with the final prepositional expression ;n#ou&m@ (“from your crookedness”). One line of interpretation, held for example by Pope (p. 85) and Clines (p. 254f), maintains that the sense of the statement is: “…the Mightiest causes to be forgotten [i.e., overlooks] for you (some portion) from your crookedness” —i.e., God only considers (and punishes) Job for part of his guilt. A different approach, taken by Seow (p. 611), emphasizes how God has caused Job to be oblivious of his guilt (i.e., of the reasons for why he has been punished); this seems a more fitting explanation within the immediate context of Zophar’s speech. For poetic concision, I have translated the line, somewhat conventionally, as “and know that (the) Mightiest has kept you unaware of your guilt”. Job claims adamantly that he is innocent of any wrongdoing; this is because, as suggested by Zophar, God has caused (or allowed) him to be unaware of his guilt.

Michel (p. 256) has proposed an intriguing interpretation, following an earlier suggestion by M. Dahood, explaining the verb form as being derived from a root hvw (“be victorious”) and understanding the preposition /m! in a temporal sense (i.e., “from [the time before]”, “before”). The line thus would mean: “…the Mightiest granted success to you before your crookedness”. In other words, in the time when Job was righteous and faithful to God, he was blessed and allowed to prosper; then, when he turned to wicked/crooked ways, God subsequently punished him. Other commentators parse hV#y~ as a form of av*n` I (“lend”), with the Hiphil here in the sense of “exact payment (for money borrowed)” —i.e., “know that (the) Mightiest makes you pay for your crookedness!”. 

Regardless of the precise interpretative approach that one adopts, the basic thrust of Zophar’s message is the same, encompassing two main points: (a) Job’s current suffering is the result of God’s judgment/punishment upon him for wrongdoing; and (b) by claiming his innocence, Job is either ignoring (or is unaware) of the wrongs that he has done.

    • 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 “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 17 (1989).
    • 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, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Shavuot/Weeks (Part 4)

Shavuot/Weeks (Pentecost) as the Setting for Acts 2

In Part 3, we examined the themes established in the narrative episodes of Acts 1, particularly as they relate to the Shavuot festival (i.e., Pentecost). These themes are further developed in chapter 2, the main narrative of which involves the sending of the Spirit to the first believers (gathered in Jerusalem) during Shavuot. This narrative (Acts 2:1-13) may be outlined as follows:

    1. Introductory statement (unity of the Disciples), verse 1.
    2. Manifestation of the Spirit, verses 2-4.
    3. Reaction of Jews in Jerusalem (united voice of the crowds), verses 5-13.
1. Introductory statement (unity of the Disciples), Acts 2:1:

“And in the Fiftieth day’s being filled completely, they were all at one upon the (same) thing [or, place]”

In a more conventional translation, the verse reads:

“And when the Fiftieth day had been fulfilled, they were all together in the same place.”
[As C. C. Torrey and other scholars have noted, the Greek may reflect an Aramaic expression “when the Weeks had been fulfilled” (e.g., aY`u^Wbv* <l^v=m!b=W), which is more intelligible]

As discussed in the prior portions of this study (Part 1, 2, 3), the Shavuot festival was traditionally associated with the Sinai theophany and giving of the Law (Exod 19:1ff). In the Exodus narrative, the entire camp of Israel was gathered together beneath the mountain “to meet God” (Exod 19:17). Here, the disciples, too are gathered together in the same place (at the ‘mountain’ of Zion, i.e., Jerusalem) and will “meet God”. Elements of the Sinai theophany also have their parallel in the manifestation of the Spirit, as we shall see. The united assembly of the people, called to consecrated themselves as they wait for the coming of God’s manifest presence (Exod 19:9-15), is paralleled by certain details applied to the Jerusalem believers here in v. 1 (cf. also 1:14); note the wording:

    • h@san (“they [i.e. the Disciples] were”)
    • pa/nte$ (“all”—all of them, together)
    • o(mou= (“as one” or “at one”, i.e., together, the same; see the similar o(moqumado\n [“of one impulse”] in 1:14)
    • e)pi\ to\ au)to/ (“upon the [same] thing”—this phrase occurs repeatedly in the early chapters of Acts, though somewhat obscured by conventional translations; it is indicative of the unity of the believers)
2. Manifestation of the Spirit, Acts 2:2-4:

Here the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God) is recorded in dramatic fashion, in the language and imagery of theophany (Grk qeofa/nia, lit. “shining forth [i.e., manifestation] of God”). The aforementioned correlation with the manifestation of God at Sinai (occurring at Pentecost, by tradition) is worth looking at in more detail, in terms of the elements of that theophany:

    • Thunders (lit. “voices”) and lightnings (Exod 9:16)
    • A thick cloud
    • Fire went down upon the mountain; smoke (as of a furnace) went up from it (19:18), perhaps parallel to the cloud in v. 16.
    • The mountain “trembled” (or “quaked”); in v. 16 it is said the people trembled (same verb, drj)
    • The sound (lit. “voice”) of a horn (rp*ov, shofar) (19:19, also mentioned in v. 16), which sounded long and grew louder

Consider also the theophany to Elijah (1 Kings 19:11-12)—

    • A great and strong wind (or “breath”, “spirit” j^Wr = pneu=ma) which swept through and tore at the mountain
    • An earthquake (“quaking”, “shaking” vu^r^)
    • Fire (va@)

all of which occur as God (hwhy) is “passing over” (or “passing by” rb@u), but God Himself is not in (b) the wind, quaking or fire. Then comes a quiet, thin voice.

Here is the manifestation of the Spirit as recorded in Acts (note the theophanic details in italics, with specific parallels in bold):

    1. “And suddenly there came to be out of the heaven a sound as of a violent wind [pnoh/] being carried (along) and it filled the whole house (in) which they were sitting” (2:2)
    2. “And there was seen [i.e. appeared] unto them tongues as if of fire divided through(out), and it sat upon each one of them” (2:3)
    3. “And they all were filled of/by (the) holy Spirit [pneu=ma] and began to speak in other tongues even as the Spirit gave (to) them to utter forth” (2:4)

Clearly, there is wordplay with “tongues (as if) of fire” [glw=ssai w(sei\ puro/$] anticipating “with other tongues” [e(te/rai$ glw/ssai$] in v. 4. There is at least one other occurrence of the phrase “tongues of fire” from roughly the same period in a Qumran text (represented by fragments of 1Q29 and 4Q376: these with 4Q375 and 1Q22 may all be part of the same work). 1Q29 fragment 1 can be restored on the basis of 4Q376 (ellipses indicate gaps [lacunae] in the text):

“…the stone, like… they will provide you with light and he will go out with it with tongues of fire [va twnwvlb]; the stone which is at its left side will shine to the eyes of all the assembly until the priest finishes speaking. And after it [the cloud?] has been removed… and you shall keep and do all that he tells you. And the prophet … … who speaks apostasy … … YHWH, God of …”

Another tiny fragment reads: “… the right stone when the priest leaves … … three tongues of fire … … And after he shall go up and remove his shoes ….” (translations taken from García Martínez & Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Brill/Eerdmans 1997/2000, vol. 1 pp. 108-9). The words (possibly spoken by Moses) refer to an anointed Priest; the stones on the right and left (urim and thummim?) are associated both with light and the voice of the Priest as he addresses the assembly. It is possible the “three tongues” are also “divided out”, one over each stone, and one directly over the Priest in the middle.

There is some uncertainty whether the “other tongues” refer to an ecstatic ‘heavenly’ language or ‘earthly’ foreign languages. Other New Testament references (Acts 10:46; 19:6, and those in 1 Cor. 12-14) suggest the former, while the context here (cf. Acts 2:11) indicates the latter. Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional, in order to reflect both: (a) heavenly origin, and (b) the languages of the nations. Returning to the Sinai theophany, there is an old Jewish tradition that as the Torah (each word of God) went forth it was split into the seventy languages of the nations (Babylonian Talmud, Šabbat 88b); that is, each nation could hear the voice of God (the “thunderings”) in its own language (cf. Exodus Rabbah V.9). A tradition along these lines seems to be at least as old as Philo of Alexandria (On the Decalogue §46), and so nearly contemporary with the book of Acts.

3. Reaction of Jews in Jerusalem (united voice of the Crowd), Acts 2:5-13:

The following outline indicates the main elements of this section:

    • Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)
    • Response of the crowd (vv. 6b-11) in two aspects:
      1) Each person hears in his/her own language
      2) Nations respond in a (symbolic) united voice
    • Confusion (v. 12, see also in vv. 6-7)— “What does this wish to be?”

The mocking retort in v. 13 serves as a lead-in to Peter’s address in vv. 14-40. Let us look at each element in a little more detail:

a. Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)

The mention of “Jews” ( )Ioudai=oi) being in Jerusalem may seem unnecessary, but it is significant for at least two reasons: (1) to emphasize the underlying religious and cultural unity of the ‘nations’ present in the city, and (2) it draws attention to the (post-exilic) reality of the current situation. When Israel, and particularly the southern kingdom of Judah (centered at Jerusalem), was taken into exile, the people were dispersed among the nations; and it was in the “dispersion” (diaspora) that a distinctly Jewish identity developed. It is generally assumed that these Jews are sojourning in Jerusalem for the festival of Weeks (Pentecost); the verb katoike/w often implies a more permanent residence, but here may simply mean generally “to dwell”. These Jews are “from every nation under heaven”, and have come together in the city (for the festival). At the coming-to-be of “this voice” (th/ fwnh/), again Jews, symbolized as a specific crowd (plh=qo$), “come together” (sune/rxomai) in confusion (being “stirred together” [sugxe/w]). It is interesting that, just in the tradition regarding the Sinai theophany, the multitudes are hearing different languages but one voice.

b. Response of the Crowd (v. 6b-11)

V. 6b and 7a reprise the confusion—they “stood out of (their minds)” and “wondered” in amazement as they heard the disciples speaking. It is unnecessary to ask just how, when, or where these people heard the disciples—and altogether beside the point. The author has crafted a marvelous dramatic scene, with events (at the historical level) certainly having been compressed together into a single moment. Similarly, it is rather unlikely that a single person or group of persons in the crowd would have said precisely what the crowd is recorded as saying here. Instead, various reactions and responses are represented by one voice. This is important thematically, and, one might say, theologically as well. Often a creative literary device conveys far more truth than a ‘sober’ record of events. Consider several of the themes inherent in the crowd’s response:

    • The reference to the disciples as “Galileans” (Galilai=oi), while serving to emphasize the wonder of the situation, also creates a subtle shift stressing ethnic (and geographic) identity. Most of the disciples, and certainly the Twelve were Galileans (“men of Galilee”, 1:11). The early Christian mission began in Galilee (cf. 1:1-2), is centered in Jerusalem (by the united community of the Disciples), and will spread from there into all nations (1:8).
    • Two key references to hearing the voices speaking “in our own language” (th=| i)di/a| dialek/tw| h(mw=n, v. 8, cf. also v. 6) and “in our tongues” (tai=$ h(mete/rai$ glw/ssai$, v. 11) bracket the list of nations in vv. 9-11a. The importance of this description should by now be apparent. It may be useful to consider the qualifying phrase accompanying each reference:
      (1) V. 8: “in our own language in which we came to be born” [e)n h! e)gennh/qhmen]
      (2) V. 11: “(hear speaking) in our tongues the great (work)s of God” [ta\ megalei=a tou= qeou=]
      The first phrase clearly indicates ethnic sense; the second echoes Old Testament language whereby news of the great and glorious deeds of God is spread into the surrounding nations (cf. Ex. 15:11ff, and many others)—geographic sense.
    • The list of nations (vv. 9-11) has been a source of some confusion, as indicated by the number of textual variants and proposed emendations. However, much of the difficulty disappears when its literary nature is recognized, rather than simply being a list rattled off by someone in the crowd. The inclusion of “Judea” has seemed strange (since Jews are speaking, and they are already in Judea!) as well as its position, leading to many suggested emendations; however, as a separate geographical list it actually makes sense—moving from East (Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia) to West (Anatolian/Asian provinces, Egypt, Lybia, Cyrene and Italy) with Judea in the middle. While still a bit uneven (the final two, Cretans and Arabs, don’t fit in order as well) and not without difficulties, its significance as a list of the (known and relevant) surrounding nations is obvious.
c. Confusion (v. 12, cf. also vv. 6-7)

The confusion of the crowd is re-iterated, stating that they all were beside themselves (again e)ci/sthmi, lit. “stand out of [one’s mind]” v. 7) and “thoroughly at a loss” (diapore/w). Their summary response is: ti/ qe/lei tou=to ei@nai; (literally “what does this wish to be?”), often translated more conventionally as “what does this mean?” —however a more literal rendering preserves better a sense of the strange, dynamic nature of the situation in which the crowd finds itself: events almost seem to have a will of their own! The ironic, mocking retort that closes the crowd’s response (“they are filled with sweet [wine]!”), of course, serves to lead into Peter’s great Pentecost speech (vv. 14-40). The disciples are indeed “filled” (plh/qw) with the Spirit (v. 4), rather than “filled” (mesto/w, a somewhat cruder verb which can indicate “stuffed”, “intoxicated”) with ordinary wine.

As we conclude this study, it is perhaps worth considering again the theme of the “restoration of Israel” in light of the Pentecost narrative:

    • The disciples have returned (turned back) to Jerusalem
      • The Twelve have been reconstituted and are gathered together (in Jerusalem) in one place
        • Jews from all nations (the Dispersion) also are gathered together in Jerusalem
      • They again hear the voice (word of God) in the languages of the nations, spoken by the Twelve and other disciples (echo of the Sinai theophany)
    • The disciples go out from Jerusalem into the nations (even to the Gentiles)

In terms of the symbolism and religious-theological significance of the Shavuot festival itself, the following points should be reiterated, in closing:

    • The Sinai event (Exodus 19ff) marked the (re-)establishment of the covenant between God and his people; for God’s people in the New Age, a new covenant (which also represents a renewal of the covenant) was established through the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ (cf. the parallel between Mark 14:24 par and Exod 24:8).
    • The people of God are gathered together in one place, at the ‘mountain’, in a state of consecrated/holy readiness. 
    • The manifest presence of God (theophany) comes upon the people; for the believers, this is realized through the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them. 
    • God’s Word is proclaimed to the people—and, further, to Moses the appointed minister, who proclaims it to all of the people. Similarly, with the coming of the Spirit, the Gospel is proclaimed to all the people (from all different nations)—viz., the beginning of the Christian mission. 
    • The inauguration of the early Christian mission, and the theophany which accompanies it, fulfills several important tenets related to the religious identity of God’s people:
      (1) God’s Kingdom (on earth) is realized through the mission of His people (cf. Exod 19:6, in connection with Acts 1:3, 6ff), and His manifest presence (theophany) among them (i.e., His Spirit).
      (2) The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of the (eschatological) New Age (cf. in Peter’s sermon-speech, vv. 16-21) and a New Covenant between God and His people.
      (3) God’s presence and His word is no longer revealed to His people through an appointed mediator (such as Moses); instead, it comes directly to all of the people, equally and together, abiding in and among them (through the Spirit). 

May 25: Job 11:1-3

First Zophar Speech: Chapter 11

Job 11:1-3
Verse 1

“Then Ṣôpar the Na‘amahite answered and said:”

The first speech of Ṣôpar (Zophar) is introduced with the same formula as the prior speeches (cf. 4:1; 6:1; 8:1; 9:1). For the specific personal and place names, which I transliterate (rather than translate), see the earlier note on 2:11ff.

The first half of Zophar’s speech is comprised of two sections (vv. 2-6 and 7-12), each of which contains 12 lines (6 couplets). The first section can be further divided into two sub-section units—vv. 2-3 and vv. 4-6.

Verse 2

“Can a multitude of words not be answered,
and shall a man of lips be (proven) right?”

Zophar’s speech begins much as Bildad’s (8:2), with a rebuke to Job for his many words (i.e., the lengthy speeches of chaps. 6-7 and 9-10, respectively), as though Job expects to win his argument (and his appeal) through sheer verbosity. The verb expression <yr!b*D= br) (note the alliteration), “a multitude of words”, has a negative pejorative sense (cf. Prov 10:19; Qoh 5:2). The Greek versions and the Targum seem to parse br as the adjective (br*^, so that the expression reads “(one) abundant in words”, which would certainly be appropriate to the context and thus is favored by a number of commentators (e.g., Dhorme, Duhm, Fohrer). The abstract noun br) is to be preferred on the basis of the parallel with dB^ in v. 3a (see below).

From the abundance of Job’s words, the second line focus on Job himself (i.e., his verbosity and/or the impassioned eloquence of his speech), by referring to him as “a man of lips”. Based on the wording in Isa 29:13, it is possible that this expression suggests a superficiality or insincerity on Job’s part (cf. Driver-Gray, p. 105; Seow, p. 609), though the principal point of reference is to the length of Job’s speech and to the presumptuousness that (in Zophar’s mind) characterizes it.

The verb hn`u* (“respond, answer”) is also used in the introductory line (v. 1); in order to highlight the connection, I have translated the verb as “answer” in both instances. The fact that Zophar is answering Job means that the answer to the rhetorical question here in v. 2 is a resounding “no!” He is unwilling to let Job’s lengthy speech, in which he seriously questioned (and even impugned) God’s justice, go unanswered.

On the use of such questions by the Job-poet, including here in chapter 11, see the articles by R. Koops, “Rhetorical Questions and Implied Meaning in the Book of Job”, The Bible Translator 39 (1988), pp. 415-23; J. F. J. van Rensburg, “Wise Men Saying Things by Asking Questions: The Function of the Interrogative in Job 3 to 14”, Old Testament Essays 4 (1991), pp. 227-47; and L. J. de Regt, “Implications of Rhetorical Questions in Strophes in Job 11 and 15” in Beuken, pp. 321-8.

The verb qd^x* (“be right”, along with the corresponding uv^r* [“be wrong”]) occurred a number of times in Job’s speech (cf. 9:2, 15, 20), in a dual religious-ethical and judicial-legal sense—i.e., “be right(eous)” and “be (in the) right”, or “be (proven/declared) right”. It is the legal aspect that is primarily in view here—viz., that Job be considered right in his legal position and in his view of God’s justice (i.e., God’s handling of Job’s case). The implication of Zophar’s rhetorical question is that Job’s long and bitter complaint, with the numerous lines of argument that he employed, scarcely serves to prove him right. Indeed, the force of conventional wisdom and orthodox religious teaching argues strongly against him (as Zophar will attempt to demonstrate).

Verse 3

“Will your rantings (indeed) make men stay silent,
and when you yammer, is there none putting (you) to shame?”

Zophar is even more derisive toward Job in his next pair of rhetorical questions. The noun dB^ (IV), which also occurs in Isa 16:6 and Jer 48:30, probably means something like “rant(ing), raving” (cf. Ugaritic bd); however, as Seow (p. 609) notes, it may also be associated with ad^B* (“devise, invent”), in which case there could be an allusion to the idea that Job is inventing wild and reckless lines of argument in a bitter and desperate attempt to make his case. Some Rabbinic commentators (e.g., Ibn Ezra, Rashi) felt that the word here implied the telling of lies (viz., that Job was being a liar). The parallel between the first lines of v. 2 and 3, respectively, was noted above, with Job’s “rantings” being thus identified with his “multitude of words”. The supposed inability of people to respond to Job’s arguments was expressed in v. 2 in negative terms (i.e., vb hn`u* + negative particle al), “not answer”), while here it is in positive terms (vb vr^j* II, “be silent”, Hiphil “make [someone] stay silent”).

The LXX translation eu)loghmeno$ (i.e., “blessed”) is almost certainly the result of a graphical confusion between the letters d and r, as also between y and w, so that the LXX translator was apparently rendering iwrb instead of iydb. Cf. Seow, p. 609; Althann, p. 67*.

The parallel to Job’s “rantings” in line 2 is the verb gu^l* (“stutter, stammer”), which is best understood here in the pejorative sense of “yammer, jabber” (i.e., babble, talk away). Possibly there is the intended connotation of “mock, deride”, by which Zophar would probably be implying that Job was effectively mocking God by his words. As noted by Clines (p. 254) and Seow (p. 609), the wayyiqtol form after yiqtol indicates a consequential/resultant situation, which would be brought out by the translation, “so that (when) you yammer, then there is no one putting (you) to shame?”.

I treat the second w-conjunction in the line as emphatic, “and (when) you yammer, is there then no one putting (you) to shame?”; I have omitted it in translation for the sake of poetic concision. The sense is, “is there no one able to put you to shame?” (that is, by effectively answering Job’s arguments). Seow (p. 609) claims that the verb <l^K* (“[put to] shame”) here properly means “expose” or “show”, viz., show that someone is in the wrong; cf. Akkadian kullummu. One must compare particularly the Wisdom usage of the verb in Prov 25:8; 28:7 (note esp. the legal/judicial context of the former reference).

    • 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 “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • Those marked “Driver-Gray” are to Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T. & T. Clark: 1921).
    • Those marked “Beuken” are to The Book of Job, edited by W. A. M. Beuken, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium [BETL] CXIV (Leuven University Press: 1994). 

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Shavuot/Weeks (Part 3)

Shavuot/Weeks in the New Testament (Acts 2)

There are only three specific references to the festival of Shavuot/Weeks in the New Testament, two of which are simply calendric references (Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8), indicating that Jewish Christians (such as Paul) would have been cognizant of the festal calendar and likely were still observing the key festivals (in some manner) even after becoming believers. However, we learn little from such passing references about how first-century Christians understood the festival (and its significance). The Gospel of John mentions a number of festivals—Passover, Sukkot (Booths), and Hanukkah (Dedication)—presenting them as the setting for important narrative episodes and discourses by Jesus, applying aspects of their ritual detail and symbolism to the person of Christ. Unfortunately, Shavuot does not appear to be included among these festivals, unless it is the otherwise unspecified festival mentioned in 5:1 (as the setting for the miracle episode and discourse of chapter 5).

The other reference to Shavuot is Acts 2:1, where it is called (as in the other two NT occurrences) by the Greek term penthkosth/ (pentēkostḗ), “fiftieth” —that is, the festival of the ‘fiftieth day’ (see the discussion in Part 1). At first glance, this seems to be just a passing calendric reference (as in 20:16); however, it soon becomes clear that the setting of the festival is of profound symbolic importance for the author of Luke-Acts. The festival itself plays a central role in the narrative, and of the Lukan author’s understanding of the early Christian mission.

Shavuot (Pentecost) in light of the narrative themes in Acts 1

In this regard, the chapter 2 (Pentecost) narrative fulfills and develops certain themes established in the prior episodes. Indeed, each of sections 1-4 (which make up Acts 1) is important thematically for an understanding of the Pentecost Narrative.

Section 1: Lukan Introduction (Acts 1:1-5):

The historical summary (vv. 2-4a) has at its heart the double phrase:

oi!$ kai\ pare/sthsen e(auto\n zw=nta meta\ to\ paqei=n au)to\n e)n polloi=$ tekmhri/oi$,
di’ h(merw=n tessera/konta o)ptano/meno$ au)toi=$ kai\ le/gwn ta\ peri\ th=$ basilei/a$ tou= qeou=
“…and to whom [i.e. the disciples] he stood himself alongside [i.e. presented himself] alive after his suffering in many fixed marks [i.e. signs/proofs],
through forty days being seen by them and recounting/relating the (things) about the kingdom of God”

The narration continues in v. 4a and blends into an address (in direct speech) of Jesus to his disciples. Note the key elements:

a. Stay in (do not depart from) Jerusalem (see Luke 24:52; Acts 1:12)
b. Remain about (i.e. wait) for the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49) which you have heard from me (see Acts 1:13-14, also Luke 24:53)
c. Reprise of John’s testimony:
“(On the one hand), John dipped/dunked in/with water, but (on the other hand), you will be dipped/dunked in the Holy Spirit after not many (of) these days”

There are a number of motifs which seem to echo the traditions of Exodus 19ff, suggesting that the early Christian mission represents a new establishment of the covenant (between God and His people), accompanied by the theophanic presence of God and the proclamation of the Law (Torah). The four most prominent motifs, in this regard, would seem to be:

    • Disciples having seen the coming of the New Age in the resurrection of Jesus, and having heard his witness of God’s word to His people—cf. Exod 19:4ff
    • The idea of the disciples waiting (in Jerusalem/Zion) for the fulfillment of God’s promise, the coming of His manifest presence upon His people—cf. Exod 19:11-15ff
    • A period of forty days (culminating in Jesus’ ascension), prior to the coming of God’s word and presence among His people—cf. Exod 24:15-18 (Moses’ ascent of the mountain, cf. also 19:20b)
    • The anticipation of the mission of believers—entailing (i) the proclamation of the Gospel and (ii) the coming of the Spirit (1:6-8, cf. below)—as representing and embodying the Kingdom of God—cf. Exod 19:6

For the traditional connection of Exodus 19ff with the festival of Shavuot, cf. Part 1 and the discussion regarding the development/application of this tradition within the Qumran texts (in Part 2).

Section 2: The Ascension (Acts 1:6-11):

There are two components to the episode in vv. 6-11: (1) the disciples’ question to Jesus regarding the Kingdom (vv. 6-8), and (2) the narration of Jesus’ ascension (vv. 9-11). The idea of God’s Kingdom being established (on earth) through the early Christian mission was noted above. This is clarified as a key Lukan theme by the prominence given to the tradition in vv. 6-8. The disciples’ question to Jesus is:

ku/rie, ei) e)n tw=| xronw=| tou/tw| a)pokaqista/nei$ th\n basilei/an tw=| )Israh/l;
“Lord, in this time will you set down again the kingdom to Israel?”

A more literal rendering of the verb a)pokaqisth/mi would indicate setting (i%sthmi) the Kingdom down (kata/) from (a)po/) where it is currently, back to its former condition; conventionally, we could translate “reconstitute” or “restore”. This is most important, in light of the eschatological theme of the restoration of Israel that informs much of the narrative in chapters 1-2.

Jesus’ reply comes in two parts: first—

“It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has set in (his) own e)cousi/a“

e)cousi/a (from e&cestin), almost impossible to translate literally, has the sense of “ability” or “authority” to do something. Jesus effectively dispenses with their question, without necessarily denying its validity—however, the brusque response may suggest a misunderstanding on their part. Earlier it is stated that Jesus, during the days following his resurrection, related to his disciples “the things concerning the Kingdom of God” (v. 3). Almost certainly this involved more than the sort of eschatological Messianic kingdom common in popular religious thought. Yet this is what they ask about here. If the first part of Jesus’ reply does away with their question, the second part, in some sense re-establishes it:

“But you shall receive (the) power of the holy Spirit (which is) coming upon you, and you shall be my witnesses (both) in Jerusalem, and [in] all Judea and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.”

Indeed, the idea of the “restoration of the kingdom”, or, one may say, the “restoration of Israel” is an important idea both in Jesus’ teaching and in the book of Acts.

Section 3: Summary narrative (1:12-14):

There are several themes of note found in this short passage which reinforce the eschatological and interpretive points of emphasis mentioned above:

    • The disciples “return (or turn back) into Jerusalem”, v. 12. On the surface this is a simple description; however, consider the language in light of the implied motif of the “restoration” of Israel: a) The dispersed Israelites will return to the land, and to Jerusalem b) The restoration of Israel is often tied to repentance (turning back)
    • The Twelve disciples are gathered together in one place (upper room), v. 13. If the Twelve represent Israel (see below), then here we also have an image of the twelve tribes gathered together again.
    • The initial words of v. 14 contain a number of related, seminal motifs:
      • ou!toi (“these”—the twelve, along with the other disciples)
      • pa/nte$ (“all”—that is, all of them, together)
      • h@san proskarterou=nte$ (“were being strong” [sense of “endurance”, “patience”] “toward” their purpose/goal)
      • o(moqumado\n (“with one impulse”—a key phrase that occurs throughout Acts, cf. 2:46; 4:24, et al. qumo/$ is often translated as “soul”, “mind” [“with one mind”], but also as “passion”, “desire”; the primal sense of the word was something like a “[violent] stirring”)
      • th=| proseuxh=| (“in prayer”)

The description of devotion and unity in v. 14 may be seen as corresponding to the consecration of the assembled people (of Israel) in preparation for the coming of God—His presence and His word—to them in Exod 9:9-10ff.

Section 4: The Reconstitution of the Twelve (1:15-26):

Here it is important to emphasis again the theme of the Twelve. On purely objective grounds, the Twelve represent one of the earliest Christian traditions—a fixed tradition and symbol, separate, it would seem, from much of the actual historical detail. This appears clearly enough from passages such as 1 Cor. 15:5 and Matthew 19:28, where “the Twelve” are mentioned, even though only eleven disciples could be involved (Judas being dead or disqualified). Also, note the variant lists of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1-14; Mark 3:14-19; and Luke 6:13-16 / Acts 1:13). Most likely the Twelve were chosen (by Jesus) in part to represent the tribes of Israel. This is not stated directly, but note Matthew 19:28 (and the Lukan parallel 22:30) and the sending out of the Twelve in Matthew 10:5f. It is possible too, at least in early Christian tradition, that the twelve baskets in the miraculous feeding came to be thought of as symbolic of Israel re-gathered, as well as an image of Church unity (see Didache 9:4 on the Eucharist). In the book of Revelation 21:12-14, the twelve apostles are also identified in terms of the twelve tribes.

So here, in Acts, the choosing of a twelfth apostle, to take the place of Judas Iscariot, takes on great significance. According to the logic of the narrative, Israel (the Twelve tribes) cannot be restored until the Twelve are reconstituted. This may seem strange to modern thinking, but the symbolism was powerful indeed to early Christians, for whom Israel and “the Church” were closely connected.

Thus, at the close of chapter 1, the Lukan author has described (symbolically) the seminal “restoration of Israel” through the reconstitution of the Twelve apostles. The noun a)po/stolo$ itself denotes one who is “sent forth” (vb. a)poste/llw)—which, in the early Christian context, means one sent forth by Jesus (viz., as his disciple) to continue and extend his mission (i.e., the early Christian mission), vv. 7-8. The first believers, gathered in Jerusalem (mount Zion), thus resemble the assembled people of Israel at mount Sinai in Exod 19, awaiting the coming of God to them.

In the concluding Part 4 of our study, we will examine the continuation of the Lukan narrative in chapter 2, in which the association with Shavuot/Weeks (i.e., Pentecost) becomes explicit.

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Shavuot/Weeks (Part 2)

Shavuot/Weeks in the Qumran Texts

In Part 1, we discussed the longstanding tradition connecting the time/date of the festival of Shavuot/Weeks with the establishment of the covenant at Sinai. The chronological notice in Exodus 19:1 provides the basis for this association, setting the revelation at Sinai (chap. 19) and the giving of the initial Torah (chaps. 20-23), followed by the ratification of the covenant (chap. 24), during the third month—which is the month (“new moon”) during which the festival of Shavuot/Weeks would have been celebrated. To this may be added the historical notice in 2 Chronicles 15:8-15 mentioning a covenant-renewal ceremony, during the reign of Asa, which took place in the third month, doubtless under the influence of the Sinai Covenant Tradition. As noted, the pilgrimage festivals would the best time for such a large public ceremony, when considerable numbers of people would be present in Jerusalem; cf. the dedication of the Temple (in the reign of Solomon, 1 Kings 8 par) which took place in connection with the Sukkot festival.

This basic line of tradition, associating the third month (and thus Weeks/Shavuot) with the covenant between God and His people, is also found in the book of Jubilees (2nd century B.C.), which presents not only the Sinai covenant (1:1), but also the Noahic (6:10) and Abrahamic (14:1ff) covenants, as being established in the third month. The mountain on which Noah built an altar to God (leading to the establishment of the covenant, 6:4ff) is further identified (symbolically and typologically) with the mountain where the covenant was renewed during the time of Moses (1:1; 6:11ff). Instructions regarding the further celebration of the Shavuot festival follow (6:17-22ff), making clear the connection between the festival and the renewal of the covenant—that is, the people’s continued commitment and faithfulness to the covenant. The historical scenario described in 6:18-19, though set (pseudepigraphically) in the time of Moses, applies properly to the contemporary situation at the time when Jubilees was written: i.e., the people “kept it [i.e., the covenant] until your days, but in your days the children of Israel forgot it until you renewed it for them on this mountain” (italics mine). In other words, the book of Jubilees presents a situation whereby the people have largely neglected and abandoned the covenant (and the associated Torah precepts and regulations, etc.), but it is being renewed among the faithful/devout ones of Israel today.

A similar religious worldview and eschatological orientation can be found, with further development and emphasis, in the Qumran texts (and the Community associated with those texts). Even though specific references and allusions to the festival of Shavuot/Weeks are few (11QTemple 18:10-14ff, and cf. below), it is generally agreed among scholars and commentators that the Qumran Community celebrated a ‘covenant renewal’ ceremony, central to the Community’s religious life and identity, that was held in connection with Shavuot.

The two primary texts that describe and expound the religious identity of the Community are the Community Rule (1QS, etc.) and the ‘Damascus Document’ (CD and the various Qumran manuscripts [QD]). The Community Rule describes an initial covenant-ceremony for those entering the Community (1QS 1:16-2:18), which then is to be repeated each year (2:19ff). The ceremony involves a confession (both of sin and of faith/commitment), along with ritual blessings and curses inspired by the ceremony described in Deuteronomy 27-28 (cf. Josh 8:30-35). Those who are faithful to the covenant (viz., the members of the Community) are blessed, while those who are unfaithful (and who thus belong to the ‘lot of Belial’ rather than to the holy ones) are cursed. The remainder of 1QS (5:1-10:4) gives the Community rules and regulations that members are to follow (beyond the Torah precepts and regulations, etc.). In addition, the famous ‘Treatise of the Two Spirits’ (3:13-4:26) and the confessional hymn of 10:5-11:22 provide a vital description of the Community member’s religious and spiritual identity.

The Damascus Document (CD/QD) also provides rules and regulations that the Community is to follow (chaps. 9-16), including instructions regarding the “dweller[s] of the camps” (twnjmh yb?wm), 12:23ff—that is, members of the Community as they dwell/reside in various locations throughout the land. In several Qumran manuscripts that are thought to be part of CD/QD, there is a reference to the assembly of these “dwellers of the camps” during the third month (presumably an allusion to the Shavuot festival):

“And all [those who dwell in] the camps will assemble in the third month and will curse whoever tends to the right [or to the left of the] law.” (4Q266 fragment 11, lines 16b-18a; cf. 4Q270 fragment 7 col. ii., lines 11-12a; 4Q269 fragment 16, lines 15-18)

In 4Q275 (fragment 1), there is a similar reference to the “third month”; fragments 2 and 3 seem to resemble 1QS in its description of a covenant ceremony for the Community, along with related rules/regulations.

According to the calendar followed by the Qumran Community, the festival of Shavuot/Weeks began on the 15th of the third month (Sivan), and it does seem likely that a ‘covenant renewal’ ceremony was held, in connection with that festival, in which all members of the wider Community gathered together. It has even been suggested that the famous facility excavated on the site of Khirbet Qumran was utilized primarily as a pilgrimage site for this annual gathering; cf. the article by Daniel Vainstub.

Given the apparent importance of the Shavuot festival for the Qumran Community, we would expect it to feature prominently in the Community’s religious ritual and liturgy. Unfortunately, the Qumran liturgical texts are preserved in only a highly fragmentary (and thus limited) form. There are likely traces of liturgical prayer-texts for Shavuot in the 1/5QFestivalPrayers (1Q34/34bis, 4Q507-509 + 505). From the surviving fragments, it can be difficult to identify precisely which festival is in view; however, the prayer in 1Q34/34bis 3ii [+ 4Q509 97-98] (cf. Davila, pp. 22-4) may well be for Shavuot, given the covenant reference and allusions to Exodus 19ff etc.:

“But you have chosen a people for yourself in the period of your favor, for you have remembered your covenant and you have [set] them apart for yourself as holy out of all the peoples, and you have renewed your covenant for them with the vision of glory…” (translation Davila)

Other likely or possible fragments of Shavuot prayers are 4Q508 13 (with a reference to the ‘first fruits’ of “grain and new wine and oil”), 4Q509 5-6 (note the [covenant?] curses), and 4Q505 124. The highly fragmentary prayer in 4Q509 131 + 132ii is definitely for the festival of ‘firstfruits’ (<yrwkb), i.e., Shavuot.

Some of the liturgical and hymnic blessing texts of 4QBerakhot (4Q286-290) may be associated with the Shavuot festival. In particular, one may note the festal context of the heavenly throne-room scene in 4Q286 1ii, given the comparable throne-vision in the “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (Songs XI-XII) which is definitely connected with Shavuot (see below). The communal curses against Belial (and all those who belong to his lot) in 4Q286 7i [+ 4Q287 6.1-11] (cf. Davila, pp. 59-62) are also suggestive of the covenant (renewal) ceremony for the Community (in 1QS, etc.; cf. above). In 4Q280, which may be part of the same Berakhot document (see Davila, pp. 47, 78-82), there are similar communal curses against “Melchiresha” and his followers.

The fascinating collection of hymns known as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-407, 11Q17, Mas1K), ties richly detailed visionary scenes (of the heavenly palace/temple and sanctuary) to a ritual/liturgical celebration of the various Sabbaths of the year. Songs XI and XII are for the 11th and 12th Sabbaths, respectively. The 12th Sabbath is identified as the 21st day of the third month (Sivan), which means that the 11th Sabbath is presumably the 14th of Sivan, corresponding generally with the festival of Shavuot (15 Sivan, according to the Qumran calendar). Both Songs have a climactic place in the cycle, providing a visionary depiction of the throne-room of God (in the heavenly sanctuary).

These Songs draw upon apocalyptic-visionary Enoch traditions as well as the Merkabah mysticism underlying the Hekalot literature. It is significant in this regard that the heavenly-vision scenes in Ezekiel 1 and Psalm 68:18[17], featuring the presence of both heavenly chariots and kerub-beings (i.e., cherubim), came to be associated in Jewish tradition with the festival of Shavuot/Weeks. These elements are also prominent in the throne-visions of Song 11 (4Q405 18-22 + 11Q17 vi-vii) and Song 12 (4Q405 20ii-23i + 11Q17 vii-viii); see Davila, pp. 141-56. An interesting detail, related to the Enoch tradition, is that, according to 2 Enoch 68:1-4 [J], Enoch was born on the 6th of Sivan, at the beginning of Shavuot, and ascended to heaven (after a life of 365 years) on the very same day. The throne-vision in Songs 11 and 12 owes much to the vision in 1 Enoch 14:8-25.

In Part 3, we shall turn our attention to the festival of Shavuot/Weeks as it came to be interpreted and applied by early Christians—particularly in relation to the central role that it plays in the Acts 2 (Pentecost) episode. At the same time, we will explore the range of contemporary Jewish traditions that influence and inform this new understanding (among early Christians) of the festival’s significance.

    • References above marked “Davila” are to James R. Davila, Liturgical Works, Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000).
    • Unless otherwise noted, translations of the Qumran texts are from Florentino García Martínez & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Brill / Eerdmans: 1997-8). 
    • Quoted translations of the book of Jubilees are by O. S. Wintermute in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1985).

 

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Shavuot/Weeks (Part 1)

Weeks (Shavuot)

This is the latest installment of a periodic series examining the ancient Israelite (and Jewish) festivals—their origins, ancient practice, development within Jewish tradition, and their relation to early Christianity. The first set of articles dealt with the festival of Passover (Part 1, 2, 3, 4).

Name and Origin

The designation “weeks” is a loose English translation of the Hebrew plural noun toub%v* (š¹»¥±ô¾). The noun is derived from the root ubv, indicating the number seven (ub^v#, hu*b=v!); it denotes a period of seven days, thus corresponding with a “week” of days in English parlance. In Exodus 34:22, there is mention of a “festival of seven-day periods” (toub%v* gj^), utilizing the noun gj^, as a specialized term for a processional or pilgrimage festival—that is, involving a procession of pilgrims attending the festival at a centralized location. It is one of three such festivals mentioned in Exodus 23:14-17 and 34:18-24. The festival is sometimes referred to as Shavuot, an anglicized transliteration (š¹»¥±ô¾) of the plural noun toub%v*. Greek-speaking Jews came to refer to the festival as penthkosth/ (pent¢kost¢¡), the “fiftieth (day)” (see below).

Like the Passover festival, the festival of “Weeks” has agricultural origins, marking the time of the (wheat) harvest. This is clear from the name given in Exod 23:16, “festival of the gathering [i.e. harvest],” where the noun ryx!q*, refers to the gathering/collecting of the grain (and binding it in sheaves). It specifically refers to the beginning of the harvest, as the qualifying phrase indicates: “the first-fruits [<yr!WKB!] of your activities [spec. works/labors] which you have sown in the field”. In 34:22, the wheat (plur. <yF!j!) harvest is specified.

As a pilgrimage festival (gj^), all adult males are expected to travel to the central religious shrine of the Community, and to appear before YHWH (“be seen before [the] face of the Lord YHWH”, 23:17; 34:23). This implies the presentation of sacrificial offerings, dedicated to YHWH, at the shrine. The short notices in Exodus make no mention of any specific offerings that are required. However, Leviticus 23:15-21 provides detailed instructions for the grain offering that represents the “first-fruits” of the harvest, in the form of two baked loaves that are to be waved ([Wn, noun hp*WnT=) back and forth, in a ritual manner, before YHWH (vv. 16b-17). Other offerings of sacrificial animals (seven year-old lambs, two rams, one bull) are prescribed, as burnt offerings from the Community, along with a sin-offering (he-goat), and a <l#v# offering [cf. chap. 3] (two year-old lambs), accompanied by the required grain and drink offerings (vv. 18-20). Numbers 28:26-31 gives similar instructions. These elaborate sacrificial offerings unquestionably represent a development of an earlier (simpler) ritual tradition associated with the harvest.

Leviticus 23:15-16a also indicates the time-frame for the festival, as it came to be established. Once the first sheaf of grain from the harvest is presented as an offering before YHWH (vv. 9-14), seven šabbats (totB*v^), or ‘weeks’, are counted off (v. 15), resulting in a period of 49 days—to which an additional day is counted (the day after the final ‘week’), viz., the fiftieth day (v. 16). It is this tradition which led to the festival of Weeks/Shavuot being called the “fiftieth (day)” (penthkosth/ [pent¢kost¢¡] in Greek).

In the Levitical code, as in the older Exodus traditions (see above), the festival of Weeks/Shavuot is closely connected with the festival of Passover and the days of ‘unleavened bread’. Following the instructions for Passover (vv. 4-8), the ritual offering for the first sheaf of grain is described (vv. 9-14), and then the instruction regarding the harvest festival (Weeks/Shavuot) itself (vv. 15-21) is given.

The offering of the first sheaf is to be made on the “day after the šabbat [i.e. Sabbath]” (v. 15)—but which šabbat is meant? The connection with the Passover, in light of its agricultural origins, seems to suggest that the šabbat day immediately following the days of Unleavened Bread is intended. However, a different line of rabbinical interpretation understands this šabbat in a more general, symbolic sense, applying it to the first day of the Unleavened Bread festival. Thus, the counting would begin from the second day of that festival (Nisan 16), with the festival of Weeks/Shavuot then being celebrated on Sivan 6. This allows for celebration on a fixed day of the calendar, whereas the beginning of harvest itself could occur on various days from year to year.

Deuteronomy 16:9-12 provides a simpler presentation of the festival. It mentions only a voluntary offering (hb*d*n+) from each person/family, based on one’s means (and the success of the harvest). How this relates to the prescribed offerings of Lev 23:16-20 par may be debated.

Old Testament Tradition

There is no other direct reference to the festival of Weeks/Shavuot in the Old Testament Scriptures. However, there is a longstanding tradition, connecting the time/date of the festival with the establishment of the covenant at Sinai. The chronological notice in Exodus 19:1 provides the basis for this association, as it indicates that the people of Israel arrived in the Sinai outback in the third month—which is the month (“new moon”) during which Weeks/Shavuot would have been celebrated. The revelation at Sinai (chap. 19) and the giving of the initial Torah (chaps. 20-23), followed by the ratification of the covenant (chap. 24), thus, according to tradition, were thought to correspond to the time of the festival.

Similarly, 2 Chronicles 15:8-15 mentions a covenant-renewal ceremony, during the reign of Asa, which took place during the third month, doubtless under the influence of the Sinai Covenant Tradition. It may well be that this ceremony took place during the Weeks/Shavuot festival, even as the dedication of the Temple in the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 8 par) took place in connection with Sukkot. The pilgrimage festivals would the best time for such a large public ceremony, when considerable numbers of people would be present in Jerusalem.

This basic line of tradition, associating the third month (and thus Weeks/Shavuot) with the covenant between God and His people, can also be seen in the book of Jubilees (2nd century B.C.). This work presents not only the Sinai covenant (1:1), but also the Noahic (6:10) and Abrahamic (14:1ff) covenants, as being established in the third month. The Sinai covenant tradition also informs the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2, as we shall examine in Part 3 of this article.

In Part 2, we shall further explore the festival of Weeks/Shavuot in Jewish tradition, focusing on references and allusions to the festival in the Qumran texts.

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 10:1-7

Proverbs 10:1-15:33

The core of the book of Proverbs, chapters 10-29, represents a large collection of individual sayings (usually in the form of poetic couplets) and other proverbial material. It is generally thought that this work grew and developed over stages, likely involving the incorporation of earlier (smaller) collections. Commentators have isolated numerous such possible collections and divisions within chaps. 10-29, with the proposed delineations varying to some degree. However, it is relatively common to treat chapters 10-15 as a distinct collection (and division of the text), and, indeed, it makes sense to do so here as well. Issues and theories regarding the composition and redaction, etc., of the book of Proverbs will be discussed in an upcoming article (or set of articles) once the exegesis of text has been completed.
The thematic and didactic-rhetorical coherence of chapters 10-15 has been analyzed by several scholars, most notably in the study by Ruth Scoralick, Einzelspruch und Sammlung: Komposition im Buch der Sprichwörter Kapitel 10-15, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 232 (De Gruyter: 1995); this study will be cited on a number of occasions throughout these notes. Cf. also the brief discussion by Schipper, p. 342.

Chapter 10

It is possible to divide the text of chapters 10-15 further into sections and units that are structurally and thematically distinct. The smallest unit of distinction is the proverb-grouping—that is, the grouping of several (or more) proverbs, with individual sayings often, it would seem, having been joined together through thematic or ‘catchword’ bonding. Particular words, concepts, or thematic emphases tend to be shared among the sayings in each grouping. In chapter 10, the initial verses 1-5 (+ 6[-7]) form such a grouping (see below).

Proverbs 10:1-7

Proverbs 10, and the collection(s) of chaps. 10-15ff as a whole, begin with a superscription attributing the proverbs (contained therein) to King Solomon:

“(The) mešalim of Šlomoh”

This heading could have been included at any point or stage during the composition and redaction/editing of chapters 10-29. It is akin to the longer heading set at the beginning of chapters 1-9 (and the book of Proverbs as a whole). On this earlier heading, as well as the meaning of the word lv*m* (māšāl) and my reasons for transliterating (rather than translating) it, see the note on 1:1.

Most commentators regard the Solomonic attribution (implying that Solomon was the author and/or originator of all the individual proverbs) as traditional-redactional, much like the superscriptions of the Psalms, and not to be taken as an authentic indication of historical-literary authorship. However, even on entirely objective grounds, one can assume that many of the proverbs in chapters 10-15ff are quite old, often representing versions or variations of sayings rooted in the ancient Israelite (and wider Near Eastern) Wisdom Tradition. There is no reason why any number of the sayings, and even certain of the (earlier) collections, could not date back to the time of Solomon (10th century B.C.). On the likelihood that the proverbs and collections, in the form that they have (largely) come down to us, date from the Kingdom period, see the discussion by Fox, pp. 499-506. It seems quite plausible that chapters 10-15, as well as chaps. 10-29 as a whole, were composed and in circulation by the late Kingdom-period (i.e., 7th-early 6th centuries B.C.), if not earlier.
Waltke (pp. 31-36) is one of the few critical commentators who accepts the traditional-conservative view of Solomonic authorship, supported (in part) by earlier arguments provided by Kenneth A. Kitchen (“Proverbs and Wisdom Books of the Ancient Near East”, Tyndale Bulletin 28 [1977-8], pp. 69-114) that the collection of Proverbs 1-24 is to be dated to the early 10th century. Cf. Fox, p. 505f.

Verses 1-5 comprise a distinct unit (proverb-grouping), framed by the thematic references in vv. 1 and 5 to the effect that the son’s behavior (whether wise or foolish) has on his parents. This son-parent relationship is part of a traditional genre-framework that informs much of the ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Tradition. We saw it demonstrated throughout the Lectures of chapters 1-9, with each lecture being framed as Wisdom-instruction given by a father to his son.

At the same time, verses 1-5 establish the parallelistic (and dualistic) contrast between the wise/righteous and the foolish/wicked person. This antithetic parallelism occurred frequently throughout chapters 1-9 and it informs the couplet-sayings of chapters 10-29 as well, being particularly a governing thematic emphasis in chaps. 10-15. In our notes on the various sayings, we shall see how this contrastive parallel is expressed and reproduced in many different nuanced ways.

The coherence of verses 1-5 is further confirmed by a demonstrable chiastic structure for this unit (cf. Schipper, p. 354; Krüger, p. 200):

    • Contrast between the wise and foolish son (and the effect he has on his parents), v. 1
      • Treasures of wickedness contrasted with (those of) righteousness, v. 2
        • YHWH’s contrasting responses to the righteous and wicked, v. 3
      • Poverty of the foolish contrasted with the riches of the righteous, v. 4
    • Contrast between the wise and foolish son (and the effect he has on his parents), v. 5

This unit is capped by vv. 6-7, which describe the contrast (between righteous and wicked) in terms of the blessings that will come to the wise/righteous one (with the opposite for the foolish/wicked). It is possible to view vv. 6-7 and transitional, viz., between vv. 1-5 and the following unit (vv. 8-14), but in my view they belong more fittingly with vv. 1-5 so as to form an introductory section (vv. 1-7) for chaps. 10-15, rather akin to the introductory section (1:1-7) of chapters 1-9.

Verse 1

“A wise son make (his) father glad,
but a foolish son (is) his mother’s grief.”

As noted above, these opening proverbs establish the contrastive (antithetical) parallel between the wise/righteous person and the foolish/wicked one. This dualistic contrast represents a fundamental thematic orientation of the Wisdom tradition—one which we saw expressed throughout chapters 1-9, including the specific juxtaposition of the adjectives <k*j* (“wise”) and lys!K= (“stupid, foolish”)—cf. 3:5; 9:8; and the use of the individual terms in 1:5-6, 22, 32; 3:7; 8:5; 9:9.

The son-parent relationship is also central to the Wisdom tradition, having been utilized as a genre-framework in the Lectures of chaps. 1-9. Often, just the father is mentioned; but on occasion (e.g., 1:8; 6:20), as here, both parents are specified. A wise son makes his parents glad (vb jm^c*), while a foolish son (viz., one who ignores/neglects their instruction and the teaching of Wisdom) is a source of sadness to them (cf. 29:3, 15). The noun hg`WT properly denotes a “(cause for) worry, concern”, but often with a clear connotation of “sorrow” or “grief”; it is a rare term, occurring just four times in the Scriptures (3 of which are in Proverbs; cf. 14:13; 17:21, also Ps 119:28).

This proverb is very similar to the one in 15:20 (to be discussed), an example of the recurrence of particular traditional proverbs (often with slight variations of form and wording) throughout the collection. For more on these “twice-told” proverbs, see the studies by Daniel C. Snell (Twice-Told Proverbs and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs [Eisenbrauns: 1993]) and Knut M. Heim (Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry [Eisenbrauns: 2013), as well as the convenient table provided by Schipper (pp. 344-8).

Verse 2

“Gathered (rich)es of wickedness give no benefit,
while righteousness snatches (one) from death.”

In vv. 2 and 4 (see below), the contrast between the righteous and wicked (i.e., the wise and foolish) is made in terms of wealth/riches—with particular emphasis on the benefits that wisdom provides (cf. verses 6-7, below). All that a foolish/wicked person gathers and stores away (rx*oa, plur.)—i.e., worldly/material wealth—will ultimately be of no benefit (vb lu^y`) to him. It is probably to be inferred that these riches have been obtained through wicked means, as in 21:6; Mic 6:10; cf. Meinhold, p. 166; Schipper, p. 366.

The implication of this statement is clarified in the second line, which refers to the moment of death. Generally, such references in Proverbs are to an untimely or premature death, which comes upon the wicked—who may otherwise have prospered for a time—usually in the form of calamity or disaster that is typically viewed as a judgment from God. Only righteousness—viz., following the right path of Wisdom—secures for a person long life and salvation from (an untimely) death. This promise of long life (and protection/security from death) featured as a regular point of emphasis in chapters 1-9 (see esp. 3:2, 16, 18, 22; 4:10, 13, 22-23; 8:35; 9:11).

The feminine noun hq*d*x= (“right[eous]ness”) is parallel with the masculine uv^r# (“wickedness”); on this contrastive use of gender in Biblical poetry, cf. Waltke, p. 447; Waltke-O’Connor, p. 106; A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (2008), pp. 41-50.

The proverb in 11:4 is quite similar and confirms that the “death” mentioned here is to be understood as being the result of God’s judgment (upon the wicked)—viz., the “day of (His) anger”; cf. Fox, p. 511. One might note the apparent application of the proverb (LXX) in Tobit 4:10; 12:9.

Verse 3

“YHWH will not let (the) soul of (the) righteous go hungry,
but (the) desire of (the) wicked He thrusts away!”

This central proverb has a theological orientation, aligning the precepts and practical wisdom (of the sayings in vv. 1-2, 4-5) with the individual’s religious faithfulness and devotion to God (or lack thereof). We saw a similar orientation at key points in chapters 1-9 (cf. the references to YHWH in 1:7, 29; 2:5-6; 3:5ff, etc.); in particular, the blessings provided by Wisdom were presented as those very blessings promised by YHWH to those who are faithful to the covenant (and to His Instruction [Torah]). These blessings are indicated here in v. 3, being stated more directly in vv. 6-7 (see below). YHWH will not allow the righteous to go hungry (cf. Psalm 34:10-11 [9-10]; 37:25)—that is, He will providentially care for the righteous, blessing them and providing for their needs. It is a general promise and principle, to which there may be occasional (and temporary) exceptions.

The noun vp#n#, normally translated “soul”, can sometimes carry the more concrete physiological meaning of “appetite”, which is certainly fitting here (cf. Deut 12:15, 20; Hos 9:4); the saying in 13:2 has similar sort of contrast. The use of the causative Hiphil stem (of the verb bu^r*, “be hungry”) here is permissive (i.e., “let/allow to go hungry”), as also noted by Waltke, p. 448.

The use of vp#n# (in the sense of “appetite”) is paralleled the second line by hW`h^ (I), “desire” (cf. 11:6), presumably with the nuance of “craving”. However, the LXX has the noun zwh/ (“life”) which suggests the Hebrew is hY`j^ (II), “life, living”. Fox (p. 512; Textual Commentary, p. 173) follows the LXX and would emend the MT accordingly. This is certainly plausible, particularly given the attested parallels between hY`j^ and vp#n# elsewhere in Biblical poetry (see esp. Job 33:20, where the context is similar). In any case, while YHWH satisfies the desires of the righteous, He ultimately “thrusts away” (vb [d^h*, i.e., frustrates and denies/refuses to fulfill) the longings of the wicked.

The substantive adjective qyD!x^ (“right[eous]”) is singular, while uv*r* (“wicked”) is plural—a poetic variation in number comparable to that of gender in v. 2 (see above). The same singular/plural variation occurs in v. 4 (cf. below).

Verse 4

“Poor (is the one) acting (with) a loose hand,
while (the) hand of (the) diligent makes rich.”

The motif of wealth/riches from v. 2 is repeated here in v. 4, with a clear contrast between the result/effect of the actions of the foolish vs. those of the wise. The characteristics of wise/foolish are described in terms of the nature and quality of their behavior: viz., the foolish acts or does things (i.e., works) with a “loose hand”. This expression may be translated “hand of looseness”, though one should probably treat hY`m!r= here as an adjective (“loose”, i.e., “slack”); it implies a lazy or careless approach to one’s work (cf. 6:6-11, and in a number of other proverbs [e.g., 12:24]). The noun hY`m!r= can also mean “falsehood, deceit”, though this meaning may derive from a separate verbal root hm*r* (cf. Fox, p. 512). The substantive adjective var* (apparently a participle of the vb vWr), denoting someone who is poor (“being poor”), likely has a double-meaning here: (a) the lazy/idle worker will ultimately become poor (i.e., in poverty), but also (b) such a person is already poor (viz., in character, wisdom and virtue).
Fox (p. 513) further argues that the “loose hand” is the subject of the line: “A loose hand makes (one) a poor (man)”. This requires a different vocalization of the verb (hc*u) rather than hc#u)). 

The adjective JWrj* VI [so HALOT] apparently means something like “attentive, diligent”, perhaps also with the Wisdom-connotations of cleverness (cf. Syriac ḥarrīʿā), ‘sharpness’, and (having) discernment. It only occurs in the book of Proverbs (cf. 12:24, 27; 13:4; 21:5). The one who works in an attentive and diligent manner is wise and will “make riches” for himself (and others). As with many of the proverbs, this is a general promise/principle which also refers to the ultimate fate for the righteous and wicked, respectively. There may, of course, be numerous instances—in the short term and temporary—when wicked/foolish people prosper and possess considerable wealth, while the righteous/wise experience a measure of poverty.

The adjective JWrj* (“diligent”) is plural (cf. uv*r*, “wicked”, in v. 3), while the description of the foolish (“[one] acting [with] a loose hand”) in line 1 is singular.

The LXX contains here an additional couplet: “A son being disciplined [i.e., instructed] shall be wise, / and he will use the senseless (one) for a servant” (cf. 11:29).

Verse 5

“(The one) gathering in the summer (is) a son showing insight,
but (the one) sleeping in the harvest (is) a son bringing shame.”

There is a greater formal parallelism in this couplet than in the prior vv. 1-4:

      • “(one) gathering | in the summer [Jy]q^] | (is) a son | showing insight
      • (one) being asleep | in the harvest [ryx!q*] | (is) a son | bringing shame”

As in v. 1, the contrast is between a wise and foolish son, and the effect that his behavior has on his parents. Just as in v. 4, the fundamental character (i.e., wise vs. foolish) is represented by specific behavior (relating to work and duty): “gathering [i.e., working diligently]” vs. “being fast asleep” when the summer-work of harvesting is taking place (cf. 6:8ff). The relatively rare verb <d^r* suggests being in a dazed or stunned/numbed state, i.e., in a stupor, manifest on occasions by being in a deep slumber.

The Hiphil of the verb lk^c* would normally mean something like “give/bring insight” (see the note on the earlier occurrence in 1:3); however, here the sense would seem to be that of “having [i.e., possessing, having gained] insight”. The parallel use of the Hiphil (of the vb vWB) in line 2 is more properly causative— “bring shame/disgrace” (that is, to one’s parents, cf. 19:26; 29:15)—though it also reflects the character of the foolish son (viz., as one who is shameful/disgraceful). The parallelism of the lines would be better served by the translation “showing (himself to be) shameful”.

Verse 6

“Blessings (come) to (the) head of (the) righteous,
while (the) mouth of (the) wicked covers violence.”

This is the first of two blessing-couplets, describing the blessings (from YHWH) that will come upon the wise/righteous ones, while the opposite (i.e., curse and lack of blessing) awaits the foolish/wicked ones. On blessings coming to/for a person’s head, cf. 11:26; Gen 49:26.

The Hebrew word order of the second line suggests that the noun hP# (“mouth [of the wicked]”) is the subject of the verb hs*K* (“cover”, Piel). However, the parallelism of the couplet would be better served by taking sm*j* (“violence”) as the subject:

“Blessings (come) to (the) head of (the) righteous,
while violence covers (the) mouth of (the) wicked.”

The author/editor of the proverb may be intentionally distorting the expected phrasing, so as to give emphasis to the behavior of the wicked, and (perhaps) tying that behavior to the judgment (from God) that will come upon them. The focus on the mouth of the wicked (parallel to “head” in line 1) emphasizes the evil/harmful speaking by the wicked and anticipates the numerous references to a person’s “mouth/lips” (i.e., speech) in the proverbs of vv. 8ff.

As in v. 3 (see above), the adjective qyD!x^ (“right[eous]”) is singular, while uv*r* (“wicked”) in the second line is plural; so also in v. 7 (below).

Verse 7

“(The) memory of (the) righteous (is) for blessing,
while (the) name of (the) wicked shall rot away!”

This second blessing-couplet refers, not to the blessings per se that come upon the righteous, but to the fact that the memory of them will be blessed (by others); cf. Psalm 112:6b. The righteous will be well spoken of by people, both during their lifetime and after they have died. By contrast, the memory (lit., the “name”) of the wicked will “rot”. This use of the verb bq^r* (“rot, decay”) likely has a two-fold meaning here: (i) the memory of wicked will fade and dissolve, but also (ii) it will be regarded as something rotten. Probably this fate for the wicked should be seen as part of YHWH’s judgment (and curse) against them (cf. Psalm 9:6[5]).

    • 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).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Krüger” are to Thomas Krüger, Kritische Weisheit: Studien zur weisheitlichen Traditionskritik im Alten Testament (Pano-Verlag: 1997).