Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/1404

 By the self-sufficiency of his ungodly thoughts and actions he is distinguished from the פּתי (simple), who is only misled, and may therefore be reclaimed, Pro 19:25; Pro 21:11; by his non-recognition of the Holy in opposition to a better knowledge and better means and opportunities, he is distinguished from the כּסיל (foolish, stupid), Pro 17:16, the אויל (foolish, wicked), Pro 1:7; Pro 7:22, and the חסר לב (the void of understanding), Pro 6:32, who despise truth and instruction from want of understanding, narrowness, and forgetfulness of God, but not from perverse principle. This name specially coined, the definition of it given (cf. also the similarly defining proverb Pro 24:8), and in general the rich and fine technical proverbs in relation to the manifold kinds of wisdom (בּינה, Pro 16:16; מוּסר,  Pro 1:8; תּבוּנות,  Pro 21:30; מזמּות,  Pro 5:2; תּחבּוּלות,  Pro 1:5; Pro 12:5; the תּוּשׁיּה first coined by the Chokma, etc.), of instruction in wisdom (לקח,  Pro 1:5; תּורה,  Pro 4:2; Pro 6:23; רעה, to tend to a flock, to instruct, Pro 10:21; חנך,  Pro 22:6; הוכח,  Pro 15:12; לקח נפשׁות, to win souls, Pro 6:25; Pro 11:30), of the wise men themselves (חכם,  Pro 12:15; נבון,  Pro 10:13; מוכיח, a reprover, preacher of repentance, Pro 25:12, etc.), and of the different classes of men (among whom also אדם אחרי, one who steps backwards [retrograder], Pro 28:23) - all this shows that חכמה was at that time not merely the designation of an ethical quality, but also the designation of a science rooted in the fear of God to which many noble men in Israel then addicted themselves. Jeremiah places (Jer 18:18) the חכם along with the כּהן (priest) and נביא (prophet); and if Eze 7:26) uses זקן (old man) instead of חכם, yet by reference to Job 12:12 this may be understood. In his “Dissertation on the popular and intellectual freedom of Israel from the time of the great prophets to the first destruction of Jerusalem” (Jahrbücher, i. 96f.), Ewald says, “One can scarcely sufficiently conceive how high the attainment was which was reached in the pursuit after wisdom (philosophy) in the first centuries after David, and one too much overlooks the mighty influence it exerted on the entire development of the national life of Israel. The more closely those centuries are inquired into, the more are we astonished at the vast power which wisdom so early exerted on all sides as the common object of pursuit of many men among the people. It first openly manifested itself in special circles of the people, while in the age after Solomon, which was peculiarly favourable to it, eagerly inquisitive scholars gathered around individual masters, until ever increasing schools were formed. But its influence gradually penetrated