Friday, December 11, 2015
NET Bible Note on Proverbs 2:22
Heb “the guilty.” The term רְשָׁעִים (rÿsha’im, “the wicked”) is from the root רָשַׁע (rasha’, “to be guilty”) and refers to those who are (1) guilty of sin: moral reprobates or (2) guilty of crime: criminals deserving punishment (BDB 957 s.v. רָשָׁע). This is the person who is probably not a covenant member and manifests that in the way he lives, either by sinning against God or committing criminal acts. The noun sometimes refers to guilty criminals who deserve to die (Num 16:26; 35:31; 2 Sam 4:11). Here they will be “cut off” and “torn away” from the land.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Duncan, I'm not trying to denigrate Jeff, but the method used here has been challenged. Why should we assume that Hebrew or Hebraic thought is inherently concrete? All humans (generally speaking) have the potential to think abstractly and use abstract terms when communicating. Hebrew is no different.
As for 2 Sam 22:22, NWT 2013 has "For I have kept the ways of Jehovah, And I have not wickedly abandoned my God."
"For I have kept the ways of the LORD and have not wickedly departed from my God" (ESV).
"Because, I kept the ways of the Lord, and did not wickedly depart from my God" (Septuagint)
There's probably a scholar or exegete somewhere, who doesn't like "wicked" for rasha, but I've found numerous sources that favor this rendering--both Jewish and non-Jewish works.
It is late here now, but I will just repeat that wicked does not always connote intent. Immoral or depraved actions may be wicked, regardless of intent.
Do you mean any other path but God's path?
Dysfunction and wickedness may be related, but are not the same thing.
The "do wickedly" from the Hebrew is 7561 in the Hebrew text. Here are Lange's comments on 2 Sam 22:22:
2 Samuel 22:22. He proved his righteousness by the affirmation: I have kept the ways of the Lord. “Have observed, held to,” so Job 22:15. “The ways of the Lord” are the rules of human conduct given in His law, which David’s enemies had wickedly transgressed.—And have not wickedly departed from my God, as he has kept God’s ways, so he has not sinned himself away from God Himself. The phrase is literally: “to be wicked from God,” that is, to fall away from God by wickedness. Not (as Grotius): “to be wicked against (מִן) God,” nor is it a designation of judgment or decision proceeding from God, as if the sense were: “I have not sinned according to God’s decision, according to His judgment I am guiltless” (Hupf.); comp. Job 4:17; Jer. 51:5. Against this is both the “keeping the Lord’s ways” in the first member, to which corresponds “not departing from” the Lord, and the following reference [2 Samuel 22:23] to his abiding in God’s statutes and judgments.
The underlying Hebrew likely explains the LXX treatment of the verse.
I thought you were referring to the path of righteousness or the divine path, but just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.
We're also talked about how that Barr seems to have seriously challenged the notion that Hebrew is concrete and Greek is abstract. Not going to rehearse that discussion again; however, Hebrew seems to facilitate abstraction just fine.
2 Sam 22:22 in NET Bible: "For I have obeyed the Lord's commands; I have not rebelled against my God."
Note number 59: tn Heb "I have not acted wickedly from my God." The statement is elliptical, the idea being, 'I have not acted wickedly and, in so doing, departed from my God.'"
NETS Septuagint Translation: "For I kept ways of the Lord and did not impiously depart from my God."
The departing in Hebrew and GGreek is apparently elliptical.
Duncan,
I respect your hypotheses or control beliefs, but I guess our presuppositions are quite different. I'm not enslaved to biblical or lexical scholars, but I trust them more than non-scholars when it comes to word meanings or grammar. Secondly, my work revolves around abstract thinking. I see great value in it.
My view of wicked and intent is determined by English dictionaries, and what pasha originally meant. I see no need to read intent into all uses of the adjective "wicked."
I'm also trying to show that pasha has a moral aspect, and involves a categorization of some value.
I'm not sure why you mention Chomsky since my criticism was directed elsewhere.
Should be rasha, not pasha
That's quite possible. I also found http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7451.htm
We also use the words "bad" and "good" in equivocal ways, wherein context becomes increasingly essential for determining what each adjective means.A good meal is related, but not exactly the same, as a good person. Aristotle calls such use of language, hen equivocity.
Post a Comment