Isaiah 34 includes the phrase "day of vengeance" (the first of two such instances). This comment has nothing particularly biblical to say, unless the comic book people were inspired biblically, but there was a min-series called Day of Vengeance about six years back. It features the so-called Spirit of Vengeance otherwise known as the Spectre, who is said to be God's agent of wrath. When tethered to a human, he can be fairly rational. However, in such instances as Day of Vengeance, he can get a little smite-happy. Spectre was used very overtly in a religious sense in another comic, Kingdom Come. Comics have more of a religious connection than you might think. As reflected in the popular and critically acclaimed Michael Chabon book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were a pair of Jewish boys (Superman, it may be said, is often seen as an allegory for Moses).
This chapter also includes the phrase, "none shall pass," which is also a line uttered by Sheldon Cooper in an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon's use might be said to be an homage to Gandalf uttering, "You shall not pass!" in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Gandalf, it might be said, is a Jesus figure, although a little less blatantly than Aslan).
36 and 37 recap Hezekiah versus the threat of the Assyrians. Surprisingly that happens. Most of Isaiah is extrapolations of bad things coming to the Jews, and also some hopeful messages, and of course as far as Christians are concerned prophetic talk about the upcoming messiah that turns out to be Jesus, as well as some apocalyptic language that is later echoed in other such writings, including Revelation. But there's also some straight narrative in there.
37 also includes "the people of Eden, who were in Telassar," though not apparently a reference in anyway to the Eden of Genesis. It's just interesting to see Eden pop up as a name again.
39 makes it explicit, as I'd interpreted previously, that Hezekiah showing the Babylonians Judah's goods was all but an invitation to begin the latest and most famous (because of all the prophets) captivity era. Book of Isaiah, by the way, is not nearly as keen on Hezekiah as Sirach apparently is.
40: "A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.'" This is something John the Baptist later evokes.
53 is the last of the classic prophetic passages concerning Isaiah's suffering servant, such as the line, "He was despised and rejected by men," which evokes Jesus's execution and the events surrounding it.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
Book of Isaiah 6-30
Book of Isaiah begins to really pick up with the sixth chapter. He becomes the latest biblical personality to say "Here I am!" to God, whom he meets here. God says Israel must be reduced to a stump. Back into smiting mode!
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Book of Sirach 21-51, Book of Isaiah 1-5
Sirach 25: "I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than dwell with an evil wife." As much as I would love to spin this around the thoughts on dragons at the time, I'll soon be talking about Sirach and women again..."From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die," for instance.
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
- Enoch ("example of repentance," otherwise not especially biblicly important)
- Noah ("taken in exchange," which certainly seems to make that story different)
- Abraham ("kept the law," which is also interesting, considering "the law" didn't really exist for another few generations, under Moses)
- Isaac
- Jacob
- Moses ("a man of mercy," except when he was smiting people even after God decided not to!)
- Aaron (gets an incredibly lengthy write-up, almost as if he's far more important than anyone else)
- Phinehas ("zealot in the fear of God")
- Joshua ("mighty in war")
- Samuel
- David
- Solomon
- Elijah
- Josiah
And a few other names referenced, although it's not always clear to what extent Sirach is actually endorsing them to the level comparable with the above list, Hezekiah for example. "No one like Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth. And no man like Joseph has been born, and his bones are cared for. Shem and Seth were honored among men, and Adam above every living being in the creation."
50 adds Simon to the list, perhaps on the same basis as Enoch.
Anyway, Sirach really seems to be a final summation of orthodox Jewish thought, perhaps the basis for its modern practice (you know, besides Moses) after a few notable deviations such as Book of Job and Ecclesiastes.
In the same way, Book of Isaiah might arguably called the beginning of a marked transition between the Old and New Testaments. I know, his prophecies are important to the times he lived in, but he also serves as one of the classic biblical voices pointing, according to Christian thought, toward Jesus. He seems to be saying in the early going that not only are the people corrupted, but God is actually tired of the old ways, which is to say preparing something new (which, by the way, even Christians don't understand). The fifth chapter even features a parable that reads very similar to the ones Jesus would later give, concerning a vineyard as a metaphor.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Book of Sirach 6-20
Sirach 6 has great advice concerning friends, including the "a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter" passage.
8: "Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims; because from them you will gain instruction and learn how to serve great men." It's interesting, that at least from this perspective, smart people are not themselves fit to be rulers, or great men, apparently. I suppose it makes sense.
10: Pride was not created for me, no fierce anger for those born of women." Another interesting perspective.
12 preaches to distance yourself from sinners, which is the opposite of how Jesus would later live his life.
13 is extremely cynical about the motives of rich people. It's true that we as a society today are skeptical of the rich, and we have plenty of reasons to be, but now I'm wondering how much of that is because we were always told to distrust them. If we're told to keep our distance, and they keep their distance, that certainly won't help matters, either, is what I'm saying.
All the personification of wisdom both here in Sirach and elsewhere starts to feel very similar to Jesus calling himself the "bread of life."
17 seems to suggest that God showed Adam the difference between good and evil. I may be reading it wrong, because the chapter is yet another where biblical history is repeated but more in allusion than in specifics. But it would certainly be an interesting variation. Everyone just kind of accepts that Genesis explains the Judeo-Christian position on how that happened (and handily blames it on a woman). Maybe that's not what the faith always said, at least uniformly.
18: "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock." The same shepherd analogy Jesus would later use himself, done differently (Jesus was the good shepherd, you'll recall), in a more direct fashion. The same relationship God has been illustrated as having with his people all along, but worded just differently enough...That seems to be the theme of Sirach. When they say something like "the inspired word of God," I think this would be the stuff they're talking about. I'm not saying you need to believe all of it, because it's still the fallible work of fallible man, inspired or not, suited to the needs and understanding of the time it was written, but it's helpful. That's what the whole Bible should be, right? A guidebook of sorts.
19: "Wine and women lead intelligent men astray." Although even Sirach is beholden to the idea that women in general are the "other" of society, not necessarily included in any of these thoughts, and must constantly be warned about. Of wine and women, there are many more concerns about women than wine in the Bible. Maybe at the time women really were always trying to lead men astray. Or perhaps more likely, being the "other" they were simply considered the primary source of sexual thoughts. If the perspective is male, of course they would be. In a female-oriented culture, that line would read "wine and men lead intelligent men astray," with all the same implications. It would be nice if we could just get past that already. Women are people too. And so let's move along.
8: "Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims; because from them you will gain instruction and learn how to serve great men." It's interesting, that at least from this perspective, smart people are not themselves fit to be rulers, or great men, apparently. I suppose it makes sense.
10: Pride was not created for me, no fierce anger for those born of women." Another interesting perspective.
12 preaches to distance yourself from sinners, which is the opposite of how Jesus would later live his life.
13 is extremely cynical about the motives of rich people. It's true that we as a society today are skeptical of the rich, and we have plenty of reasons to be, but now I'm wondering how much of that is because we were always told to distrust them. If we're told to keep our distance, and they keep their distance, that certainly won't help matters, either, is what I'm saying.
All the personification of wisdom both here in Sirach and elsewhere starts to feel very similar to Jesus calling himself the "bread of life."
17 seems to suggest that God showed Adam the difference between good and evil. I may be reading it wrong, because the chapter is yet another where biblical history is repeated but more in allusion than in specifics. But it would certainly be an interesting variation. Everyone just kind of accepts that Genesis explains the Judeo-Christian position on how that happened (and handily blames it on a woman). Maybe that's not what the faith always said, at least uniformly.
18: "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock." The same shepherd analogy Jesus would later use himself, done differently (Jesus was the good shepherd, you'll recall), in a more direct fashion. The same relationship God has been illustrated as having with his people all along, but worded just differently enough...That seems to be the theme of Sirach. When they say something like "the inspired word of God," I think this would be the stuff they're talking about. I'm not saying you need to believe all of it, because it's still the fallible work of fallible man, inspired or not, suited to the needs and understanding of the time it was written, but it's helpful. That's what the whole Bible should be, right? A guidebook of sorts.
19: "Wine and women lead intelligent men astray." Although even Sirach is beholden to the idea that women in general are the "other" of society, not necessarily included in any of these thoughts, and must constantly be warned about. Of wine and women, there are many more concerns about women than wine in the Bible. Maybe at the time women really were always trying to lead men astray. Or perhaps more likely, being the "other" they were simply considered the primary source of sexual thoughts. If the perspective is male, of course they would be. In a female-oriented culture, that line would read "wine and men lead intelligent men astray," with all the same implications. It would be nice if we could just get past that already. Women are people too. And so let's move along.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Song of Solomon 1-8, Wisdom of Solomon 1-19, Book of Sirach 1-5
The short and sweet ode to love (to what end beyond love is up for debate) includes henna in its first chapter, whether the tree or the art (up to debate?). The second chapter includes the phrase, "I am a rose of Sharon," which a type of flower and also a character in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. The third chapter references frankincense and myrrh in a romantic sense. Song of Solomon amounts to a wonderful look at the culture of the Old Testament, and after Ecclesiastes is another fine book to read if you're skeptical that there's some truly great literature in the Bible.
Wisdom of Solomon is kind of the opposite. It's another plodding wisdom literature effort. (Neither one is actually by Solomon, by the way.)
The first chapter references "that which holds all things together," a phrase that calls to mind Yoda's description of the Force in Star Wars. Hades is also referenced again. The second chapter covers this book's vision of how atheists happen. It also evokes Jesus at the moment of his death. It further proposes the doctrine of eternal life for the faithful. The fifth chapter calls Jesus to mind, too. The tenth and eleventh chapters recap Genesis and Exodus without any names mentioned. They're pretty interesting. The thirteenth chapter is the book's version of how pagans come to worship their idols. The rest of it becomes a little tiresome.
The Book of Sirach (so I'll call it for simplicity's sake) is another piece of wisdom literature, and so far it's far better than Wisdom of Solomon. It's got a prologue from the translator, who studied, of course, in Egypt.
Wisdom of Solomon is kind of the opposite. It's another plodding wisdom literature effort. (Neither one is actually by Solomon, by the way.)
The first chapter references "that which holds all things together," a phrase that calls to mind Yoda's description of the Force in Star Wars. Hades is also referenced again. The second chapter covers this book's vision of how atheists happen. It also evokes Jesus at the moment of his death. It further proposes the doctrine of eternal life for the faithful. The fifth chapter calls Jesus to mind, too. The tenth and eleventh chapters recap Genesis and Exodus without any names mentioned. They're pretty interesting. The thirteenth chapter is the book's version of how pagans come to worship their idols. The rest of it becomes a little tiresome.
The Book of Sirach (so I'll call it for simplicity's sake) is another piece of wisdom literature, and so far it's far better than Wisdom of Solomon. It's got a prologue from the translator, who studied, of course, in Egypt.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Proverbs 16-31, Ecclesiastes 1-12
Proverb 6 includes the "pride goes before the fall" concept.
17: "the Lord tries hearts"
19: "It is not fitting for a slave to rule over princes." (Besides Joseph, right? Or Moses, for that matter?)
I have a rant about the "spare the rod spoil the child" advice that is reiterated repeatedly, based on a suggestion that children are apparently inherently evil. I'll suffice to say that only a really bad parent would have a child like that. A child is only as bad as you allow them to be. If you have to discipline them severely, chances are you ought to be severely disciplined yourself.
24: "A wise man is mightier than a strong man" (or in other words, the pen is mightier than the sword).
26: "I'm only joking!"
The later proverbs are a little more proverbial, as it were. They also uniformly prefer poor people to rich people.
29: "Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." This may indicate what the Old Testament thought prophets were really doing, which is to say they were like judges in the time of kings, which is to say they weren't predicting the future so much as interpreting the present by way of bringing the focus back to the faith.
30 is "of Agur" while 31 is "of Lemuel" (the latter name, for those literary types keeping score, is also Gulliver's first name from the famous Jonathan Swift novel). The former includes the line, "What is his name, and what is his son's name?" in relation to speaking about God.
Ecclesiastes is officially my favorite book of the Bible so far, just so you know. It's a work of true wisdom reflected in weary experience. It's more like Book of Job than Proverbs.
"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
Chapter 3 is the famous "for everything there is a season...a time to etc." passage. "He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
If you want to actually read only one book of the Bible, I highly recommend Ecclesiastes.
17: "the Lord tries hearts"
19: "It is not fitting for a slave to rule over princes." (Besides Joseph, right? Or Moses, for that matter?)
I have a rant about the "spare the rod spoil the child" advice that is reiterated repeatedly, based on a suggestion that children are apparently inherently evil. I'll suffice to say that only a really bad parent would have a child like that. A child is only as bad as you allow them to be. If you have to discipline them severely, chances are you ought to be severely disciplined yourself.
24: "A wise man is mightier than a strong man" (or in other words, the pen is mightier than the sword).
26: "I'm only joking!"
The later proverbs are a little more proverbial, as it were. They also uniformly prefer poor people to rich people.
29: "Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." This may indicate what the Old Testament thought prophets were really doing, which is to say they were like judges in the time of kings, which is to say they weren't predicting the future so much as interpreting the present by way of bringing the focus back to the faith.
30 is "of Agur" while 31 is "of Lemuel" (the latter name, for those literary types keeping score, is also Gulliver's first name from the famous Jonathan Swift novel). The former includes the line, "What is his name, and what is his son's name?" in relation to speaking about God.
Ecclesiastes is officially my favorite book of the Bible so far, just so you know. It's a work of true wisdom reflected in weary experience. It's more like Book of Job than Proverbs.
"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
Chapter 3 is the famous "for everything there is a season...a time to etc." passage. "He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
If you want to actually read only one book of the Bible, I highly recommend Ecclesiastes.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Psalms 106-150, Proverbs 1-15
Psalm 106 is a recap of Jews acting badly under Moses.
It's kind of unfortunate, after a while, that Psalms is after the Book of Job. All the theological revisions in Job are undone in Psalms, which sticks to the more orthodox beliefs. We'll see the same shortly in Proverbs, naturally.
110 has a reference to the phrase, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," which is something from the Old Testament that left a lasting legacy even though Melchizedek otherwise is meaningless as an entity in it.
118 features the word "hark."
120 is another psalm that mistakes the apparent Jewish mandate for war with a mandate for peace, or perhaps not of the budding transition between the two.
It's also worth noting that the psalms are really all over the place theologically. They were definitely not written by the same hand at the same time.
Psalms tagged with "of Ascents," heavily stacked in the back of the book, are generally more hopeful and positive, however.
136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever" in a lovely and constant refrain.
137 is very poetic and evocative of life in the exile era.
139 is a fairly comprehensive encapsulation of God.
Proverbs, popularly attributed to Solomon, is not exactly, so far, what I would've expected from it.
1 features the lines:
"How long, O simple one, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"
9: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Really, though, it's just a lot of fatherly advice and orthodox belief statements concerning God, with lots and lots of repetition, and an apparently classic Solomonian fear of "loose women." Not very proverbial, so far anyway...
It's kind of unfortunate, after a while, that Psalms is after the Book of Job. All the theological revisions in Job are undone in Psalms, which sticks to the more orthodox beliefs. We'll see the same shortly in Proverbs, naturally.
110 has a reference to the phrase, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," which is something from the Old Testament that left a lasting legacy even though Melchizedek otherwise is meaningless as an entity in it.
118 features the word "hark."
120 is another psalm that mistakes the apparent Jewish mandate for war with a mandate for peace, or perhaps not of the budding transition between the two.
It's also worth noting that the psalms are really all over the place theologically. They were definitely not written by the same hand at the same time.
Psalms tagged with "of Ascents," heavily stacked in the back of the book, are generally more hopeful and positive, however.
136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever" in a lovely and constant refrain.
137 is very poetic and evocative of life in the exile era.
139 is a fairly comprehensive encapsulation of God.
Proverbs, popularly attributed to Solomon, is not exactly, so far, what I would've expected from it.
1 features the lines:
"How long, O simple one, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"
9: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Really, though, it's just a lot of fatherly advice and orthodox belief statements concerning God, with lots and lots of repetition, and an apparently classic Solomonian fear of "loose women." Not very proverbial, so far anyway...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)