Backgound Sabedoria Humana Em Lc 7

7/28/2019 Backgound Sabedoria Humana Em Lc 7

1/13

JBL 127, no .2 (2008): 385-396

"Will the Wise Person Get Drunk?"The Background of the Human Wisdomin Luke 7:35 and Matthew 11:19

THOMAS E. [email protected]

Point Loma Nazarene University, SanDiego, CA 92106

Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 contain a proverb that insists that "wisdom[oo00pft] is justified by her deeds" (Matt 11:19) or "byall her children" (Luke 7:35).This proverb closes out the pericope in which Jesus is accused ofbeing a drunkardand a glutton. Interpreters have almost universally assumed that this proverb refersto personified divine Wisdom. As examples, Joseph A. :Fitzmyer insists that "Wis-dom is here personified. She sends out messengers like prophets."1 I. HowardMarshall suggests that "behind the saying lies rather the Jewish tradition concern-ing wisdom as a quasi-personal hypostasis in heaven, a divine agent expressing themind of God."2 Joel B. Green makes an even stronger identification between per-sonified Wisdom and the divine by insisting, "Wisdom... is simply a way of speak-ing ofGod and, by extension, of the purpose of God."3 Sharon Ringe also assumesthat "in this passage 'Wisdom' refers to the divine principle or active agent by whichGod has crafted the creation and according to which God sustains theworld" For

'Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The GospelAccording o Luke: Introduction,Translation,andNotes(2vols;; AB 28, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), 1:343, 681.

21. Howard Marshall, The GospelofLuke: A Commentaryon the Greek Text (NIGTC; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 303. Similarly, David Hill asserts that this wisdom "is the wisdom ofGod, God's wise design or purpose for man" (The GospelofMatthew [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 19721, 202).3 Joel B. Green, The Gospelof-Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 304.


2/13

Journalof BiblicalLiterature127, no. 2 (2008)W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, "Matthew has gone beyond Q and identifiedJesus with Wisdom:'The contemporary consensus ofNT scholarship extends back at least fivedecades.6 In 1952, Ragnar Leivestad observed this agreement, noting, 'All inter-preters take it for granted that qfooT(Cox is the divine wisdom"'7 Leivestad sought tooverturn this consensus by arguing that within these verses "Jesus is quotinga few-ish proverb,which in Matt is retained in its original form, 'wisdom is justified by her

sW . D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospelaccording o SaintMatthew (3vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-97), 2:264.6Additionally, on Luke, see Adolf Schlatter, DasEvangeliumdes Lukas ausseinenQuellenerkilirt (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960), 496; Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm(JSNTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 390; Luke T. Johnson, The Gospel ofLuke(SP 3; Collgeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 124; John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20(WBC 35A; Waco:Word, 1989), 341, 346; Franqois Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel ofLuke 1:1-9:50(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 287; Alfred Plummer, A CriticalandExegetical Com-mentary on the Gospel according o St. Luke (ICC; 5th ed.; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1906), 208-9;Christopher E Evans, SaintLuke (TPI New Testament Commentaries; Philadelphia: Trinity PressInternational, 1990), 358-59; Thomas Brodie, "Again Not Q: Luke 7:18-35 as an Acts-orientedTransformation of the Vindication of the Prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22:1-38)'" IBS 16 (1994): 2-30; and Alois St6ger, DasEvangeliumnach Lukas (Geistliche Schriftlesung 3; Dfisseldorfi Patmos,1964), 208.. J. du Plessis even argues that ooypfo in Luke 7:35 should be translated "God" ("Con-textual Aid for an Identity Crisis: An Attempt to Interpret Luke 7:35;'A South African Perspectiveon the New Testament: Essays bySouth AfricanNew TestamentScholarsPresented o ProfessorBruceManningMetzgerduringHisVisit to South Aflica in 1985 led. J.H. Petzer and P.J.Hartin; Leiden:Brill, 1986), 112-27). On Matthew, where the personification of divine Wisdom is often believedto be more consciously developed than in Luke, see Fred W.Burnett, The Testament ofJesus-Sophia:A Redaction-Critical tudy of the EschatologicalDiscourse inMatthew (Lanham, MD: Uni-versity Press of America, 1981), 81-92; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel ofMatthew (trans.Robert R.Barr; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 107; James D. G. Dunn, Christologyin theMak-ing: A New Testament Inquity into the Origins of the Doctrineof the Incarnation (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1980), 197-98; R. T. France, Matthewv: Evangelist& Teacher(New Testament Profiles;Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 302-6; Floyd V. Filson, A Commentary on the GospelAccording to St. Matthew (BNTC; London: A. &C. Black, 1960), 139; Robert H. Gundry,Matthew:A Commentaryon His Literaryand TheologicalArt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 213; WarrenCarter, Matthew and he Margins:A Sociopoliticaland ReligiousReading (Bible and Liberation;Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001), 255; and R. A. Edwards, "Matthew's Use of Q in ChapterEleven," in Logia:Les parolesdej6sus-The Sayings ofJesus;MimorialJoseph Coppens (ed. JoElDelobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 266-67. On the personification ofdivine Wisdom in Q, see Charles E. Carlston, "Wisdom and Eschatology in Q," in Logia: LesparolesdeJ6sus, 101-19; Howard Clark Kee, "Jesus: A Glutton and a Drunkard,"NTS 42 (1996): 374-93;and D. A. Carson, "Matthew 11:l9b/Luke 7:35: A Test Case for the Bearing of Q Christology onthe Synoptic Problem," in Jesus ofNazareth, Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical esus and

386


3/13

Phillips:Wisdom in Luke 7:35 andMatthew 11:19deeds.'... The meaning of the saying is quite plain and simple; it is identical withthat of another well-known proverb, "the tree is known by its fruit.'"' AlthoughLeivestad's alternative interpretation ofwisdom has gained no'significant supportin subsequent scholarship, he did highlight the need to rethink the'cultural back-ground for the use of oy6pT[x in this pericope.9 I will offer a similar rethinking of thecultural background for the use of d0ocTfa in this pericope. Sj,ecifically, I will arguefor the separation of the wisdom in this pericope from the OT tradition of divinewisdom. However, whereas Leivestad suggested reading this-wisdom saying againstthe background of a Jewish proverb, I wish to offer a different cultural referent forthe,saying. i propose to read this saying against the background ofGreco-Romanphilosophical discourse, particularly the discussions of drunkehness and winedrinking in Philo and Seneca.

I.WILL THEWISEPERSON GET DRUNK?In his discussion ofNoah,,Philo ofAlexandria, a Jewish near-contemporary

ofMatthew andLuke, notes that "many philosophers have given no slight attentionto the question; which is propounded in the form 'Will the wise man [ooyp6g] getdrunk?" (Philo, Plant.142 [Colson and Whitaker,LCL]). Similarly, Seneca, a Gen-tile near-contemporary ofMatthew and Luke, devotes significant attention to theissue of"why the wise man ought not to get drunk' (Seneca, Ep. 83.27 [Gummere,LCL]). In spite of obvious thematic parallels between this common philosophicaltopos and the accusations against Jesus and John.the Baptist.in Luke 7:31-35//Matt11:16-19, NT scholars have failed to consider this philosophical topos as a possi-ble background for the dispute between Jesus and his accusers in these passages.This article will address that oversight in NT scholarship.

'Philo ofAlexandriaThe discussion ofwisdom and drunkenness in Philosworks is both extended

and relevant (given his cultural proximity to the Synoptic Gospels). In.his com-mentary on the drunkenness ofNoah, Philo reveals that the questions ofwinedrinking and drunkenness were widely discussed among his contemporaries. Hestates:

Many philosophers have given no slight attention to the question; which is pro-pounded in the form "Will the wise man get drunkF' Among those who have

387


4/13

JournalofBiblicalLiterature127, no. 2 (2008)tackled the problem some have maintained that the wise man will neither takestrong drink in excess nor become silly and maudlin.... Others, while regard-ing a condition of silliness as foreign to a man of moral excellence, have pro-nounced heavy drinking to befit him, seeing that the good sense which residesin him is capable of holding its own against everything that attempts to injurehim, and of baffling their efforts to change the constitution of his soul. (Plant.142-44; emphasis added)

For our initial purposes, it is important to note both that questions of wine con-sumption and drunkenness were specifically framed in terms of the wise person'sconduct and that these questions were apparently commonly discussed in Philo'scontext.

After introducing the topic, Philo provides a few comments from those whooppose wine consumption. He offers a brief set of arguments against drunkennessand the consumption of Wine. Voicing the views of those opposed to drunkenness,Philo acknowledges that "a wise man [would not] take a deadly poison.... Andstrong drink is a poison bringing not death indeed but madness [liavEco]" (Plant.147) and that "wine is the cause of madness [I=cv((x] and loss of sound sense inthose who imbibe it over freely" (Plant.148). Again, for our purposes, it is signifi-cant to note that apparently some of Philds contemporaries associated drunkennesswith "madness"10 For Philo, discourse about drunkenness includes language ofboth wisdom and madness just as in the Q pericope.

After these initial remarks, Philo states the two competing opinions among hisdiscussion partners. He juxtaposes "two contentions, one establishing the thesisthat the wise man will get drunk, the other maintaining the contrary, that he willnot get drunk" (Plant.149). Philo's opening remarks in defense of the potentialdrunkenness of the wise person provide a rationale that would seem very appro-priate for the conduct that Jesus attributes to himself (Luke 7:34//Matt 11:19). Philoasks:

What other occupation is seemly for a wise man rather than bright sportivenessand making merry in the company of one who waits patiently for all that is beau-tiful? Hence it is evident thathe will ge t drunk also, seeing drunkenness benefitsthe character, saving it from overstrain and undue intensity. For strong drink islikely to intensify natural tendencies, whether good or the reverse. (Plant.170-71)

Philo then infers, "Accordingly the man of moral worth will get drunk as well asother people without losing any of his virtue" (Plant.172).

Having given the opening arguments against and then for drunkenness, Philoproposes to engage in a more detailed debate. He intends to

388


5/13

Phillips:Wisdom in Luke 7:35 andMatthew 11:19call as witnesses many distinguished physicians and philosophers, who ratifytheir evidence by writings as well as by words. For they have left behind theminnumerable treatises bearing the title "Concerning drunkenness;" in which theydeal with nothing but the subject of drinking wine at all, without adding a wordof inquiry regarding those who are in the habit of losing their heads.... Thus wefind in these men too the most explicit acknowledgement that drunkenness wassuffering from the effects ofWine. But there would be nothingamiss in awise manquaffing wine freely on occasion: we shall not be wrong, then, in saying that he willget drunk. (Plant. 173-74; emphasis added)

For Philo, the consensus ofhis peers was that wise persons could drink wine (evento the point of drunkenness) without getting in the habit of "l6sing their heads,' thatis, without succumbing to madness ((=vfcx).

.Against this consensus, however, Philo pits the opinion of one unnamedphilosopher (Zeno'1 ) who claims, "Ifone would not act reasonably in entrusting asecret to a drunken man, and does entrust secrets to a goo'd man, it follows that agood man does not get drunk" (Plant. 76). Philo gives little credence to this argu- I . ,l . '. 1...ment, likening it to the argument that ,the wise man will never be melancholy,never fall asleep, in a word, never die" (Plant.177). Philos brief rebuttal, as stated,is clearly underdeveloped and hardly convincing. However, such rebuttals wereapparently accepted as cormmon knowledge in Philo's time (as-we shall later demon-strate from Seneca) and Philo felt no need to elaborate. Just before his rapid rejec-tion of Zeno's advice, Philo had promised to examine the opinions of "manydistinguished physicians and philosophers." Surprisingly, however, the treatise endsabruptly after Philo's rejection of Zeno's extreme position of complete abstinencefrom drunkenness.

Philo's next treatise, Deebrietate (On Drunkenness), akes up where his earlierwork ended.: He begins this treatise by referring back to his previous treatise as aninvestigation of the "views expressed by the other philosophers on drunkenness"(Ebr.1 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). Ironically, Philo had given a significant exam-ination of the views of only one philosopher, the unnamed Zeno, in the previousvolume-and he rejected the views of that lone philos opher. Apparently, Zeno'sadvocacy of total abstinence from drunkenness,was offered only as a foil to Philosown less extreme opinion.

As he proceeds with his investigation, Philo inquires into what Moses taughtabout the issue in his wise practice (Ebr. 1). Philo notes the inconsistency of opin-ion within the books presumably written by Moses. He half-laments:

In many places ofhis [Moses'] legislation he mentions wine and the plant whosefruit it is-the vine. Soine persons he permits, others he forbids, to drink of it, andsometimes he gives opposite orders, at one time enjoining and at another pro-

389


6/13

JournalofBiblicalLiterature127, no. 2 (2008)vow (Num. vi.2), while those who are forbidden the use of strong drink are theministering priests (Lev. x.9); while of persons who take wine there are number-less instances among those whom he too holds in the highest admiration for theirvirtue. (Ebr.1-2)

Again, significantly for our purposes, Philo recognizes that Moses and the Law pro-vide no clear answer to the question under consideration. Philo, whose Jewish faithwas unquestionably intact, finds a diversity of views within the cultural heritage ofboth Judaism and Gentile philosophy.After a long digression in which Philo-in good Stoic fashion-treats drunk-enness as a metaphor for uncontrolled passibns, he returns to the topic that inter-ests this investigation. 12 Philo's primary concern in consulting the Mosaic traditionwas to explain why the priests were seemingly prohibited from consuming alcoholin the vicinity of the tabernacle and altar. He argues that such instructions weregiven as future indicatives instead of imperatives because by them Moses was notspeaking "so much by way of prohibition as stating what he thinks will happen"(Ebr. 138).3 Having dispensed with the major barriers to wine consumption(Zeno's syllogism and Moses' priestly prohibition), Philo is able to close with wordsof moral exhortation:

Let us, then, never drink so deep of strong liquor as to reduce our senses to inac-tivity; nor become so estranged from knowledge as to spread the vast and pro-found darkness of ignorance over our soul. (Ebr.161)From this examination of Philo, it has become clear (1) that the debate over

the issues of wine consumption and drunkenness were very active in Philo's con-text, (2) that discourse over these issues was commonly framed in terms of mad-ness and the wise person's conduct ("will the wise man get drunk?"), and (3) thatPhilo's position was essentially a rejection ofboth abstinence and excessive drunk-enness. Even in light of these conclusions, however, one could argue that Philo'sdiscussion is primarily concerned with the behavior of the wise person (coyp6g)and not with personified W isdom (ooTUx), either divine or human. Although Philois primarily concerned with the wise person's conduct, he is clear throughout hisdiscussion that the wise person (Foyp 6 ;) is one who possesses and practices wisdom(oo(x). Philo relates stories of how a certain man of old was renowned for hiswisdom (Plant. 80) and'how people desired the human virtues of wisdom andknowledge (Plant.23). Philo even treats the acquisition ofwisdom as a process thatis parallel to the process of gaining control over the passions. Thus, while discussingMoses' song in Exodus, Philo explains that "his theme is not only the rout of the

12 Philo transitions back by saying, "In a literal sense too, this command deserves our admi-

390


7/13

Phillips:Wisdom in Luke 7:35 andMatthew 11:19passions, but the strength invincible which can win that most beautiful of posses-sions, wisdom, which he likens to a well" (Ebr. 112). Repeatedly in these docu-ments, Philo regards this aoyfoc as a human achievement like controlling thepassions or gaining knowledge. Philo even praises rulers who are able to "accom-plish wisdom" (Ebr. 113; =-cepy6ocxoto6ot ooyxv) and sea captains who pilottheir ships by "a wisdom of manifold variety" (Ebr. 86). For Philo, this humanaoyoetc, which enables the wise person to drink wine without engaging in drunk-enness, is the "craft of crafts" (Ebr. 88; -T6Xviv _CeXVC0V). 14Philo frequently personifies the human ooTtoa that emerges as a result of aperson's effort to learn. According to Philo, Wisdom, like the equally personifiedphilosophy, should be romanced like a bride. He explained that

to this day thelovers of true nobility do not attend at the door of the elder sister,philosophy, till they have taken knowledge of the younger sisters, grammar andgeometry and the whole range of the school culture. For these ever secure thefavours of wisdom [coylal to those who woo her in guilelessness and sincerity.(Ebr.49)15

In the context of his discussion of drunkenness and wine drinking, Philo uses avariety of literary devices (including both metaphors and personification) toemphasize wisdom's role as a lifestyle to be pursued (e.g.,,Plant. 52,97,167-69;'Ebr.48, 61, 72).16Perhaps most interesting for our purposes, Philo even draws an extended anal-ogy between wisdom and human reproduction in his discussion of drunkenness.After indicting Joseph's fellow prisoners, the former servants of Pharaoh, for glut-tony and drunkenness (Genesis 39), Philo asks: "Why is it that not a single one ofthese offices [baker, wine steward, chief butler] is entrusted to a real man orwoman?" (Ebr. 211). Because these servants were eunuchs, Phijo argues, they wereable "neither to drop the truly masculine seeds of virtue nor yet to receive and fos-ter what is so dropped" (Ebr.211). For Philo, these gluttonous persons lacked thefertility of wisdom,because

every craftsman whose work is to produce pleasure can produce no fruit of wis-dom. He is neither male nor female, for he is incapable of either giving or receiv-ing the seeds whence spring the growth that perishes not. (Ebr.212)14 he association between wisdom and the control of one's consumption of wine was appar-

ently so widespread in the Greco-Roman world that even Plutarch, a Greek writer for whom theessential ethical categories are the practice ofjustice (&xatonrpcrya) and prudence (qYp6v7joLG),often brings ooqyfc and ooqp6g into his discussion when speaking of restraint in wine consump-tion. For example, see Suav. viv. 4, 16; Adv. CoL 8; Quaest.cony. 1. introduction, 1; 7.4; and Tu.

391


8/13

JournalofBiblicalLiterature127, no. 2 (2008)Philo extends the analogy of fertility even further, arguing that such a person "canbeget no offspring of wisdom" (Ebr.214; -r@ ooypx6ta &y6vep). Although the lan-guage and development of the analogy differ significantly from the Gospel saying,this analogy to fertility demonstrates that Philo could conceive of human wisdom,the sort of wisdom that Pharaoh's servants lacked, in a metaphorical parent-childrelationship.From this examination of Philo's writings, it should be clear that Philoassumed that the wise person (ooTp6q), the person who possessed human wisdom(aoTo:t), would avoid both drunkenness and abstinence from alcohol. An exami-nation of Philo's Gentile contemporary; Seneca, will demonstrate the presence of thesame tendencies within his context.

SenecaSeneca9s MoralEssays convey many of the same discussions and sentimentsthat were found in Philo. Seneca, like Philo, rejects Zeno's recommendation ofabsti-nence from wine. Seneca begins his discussion of drunkenness by noting thatZeno, that greatest of men, the revered f6under of our brave and holy school ofphilosophy, wishes to discourage us from drunkenness. Listen, then, to his argu-ments proving that the good man will not get drunk. "No one entrusts a secretto a drunken man; but one will entrust a secret to a good man; therefore, thegood man will not get drunk' Mark how ridiculous Zeno is made when we setup a similar syllogism in contrast with his. There are many, but one will beenough: "No one entrusts a secret to a man when he is asleep; but one entrusts asecret to a good man; therefore, the good man does not go to sleep.' (Ep. 83.9)17Although Seneca, rejected total abstinence, he, again like Philo, was no advo-cate of drunkenness. Seneca wishesto arraign drunkenness frankly and to expose its vices! ... if you wish to provethat a good man ought not to get drunk, why work it out by logic? Show howbase it is to pour down more liquor than one can carry, and not to know thecapacity of one's own stomach; show how often the drunkard does things whichmake him blush when he is sober; state that drunkenness is nothing'but a con-

"7 Additionally, Seneca explains, "So let us,abolish all harangues as this: 'No man in thebonds of drunkenness has power over his soul.... As a man overcome by liquor cannot keepdown his food when he has over-indulged in wine, so he cannot keep back a secret either. Hepours forth impartially both his own secrets and those of other persons: This, ofcourse, is what

392


9/13

Phillips:Wisdom in Luke 7:35ahidMatthew 11:49dition of insanity purposely assumed. Prolong the drunkard's condition to sev-eral days; will you have any doubt about his madness? Even as it is, the madnessis no less; it merely lasts shorter time. (Ep. 83.18-19)

Seneca, like Philo, warns against drinking more than one can handle, fearing thatexcessive!drunkenness can bring on temporary madness. In elaborating on themaddening effects of drunkenness, Seneca even warns that "continued bouts ofdrunkenness bestialize the soul. For when people are often beside themselves, thehabit of madness lasts on , and the vices which liquor generated retain their powereven when liquor is gone" (Ep. 83.26).

Seneca is convinced of the dangers that drunkenness poses to virtue.He insiststhat no amount of logical argument can justify the practice of drunkenness, admon-ishing his readers that

you should state why the wise man ought not to get drunk.... For if you try toprove that the wise man can souse himself with much wine and yet keep hiscouise straight, even though he be in his cups, you may go on to infer by syllo-gisms that he will not die if he swallows poison, that he will not sleep if he takesa sleeping-potion, that he will not vomit and reject the matter which clogs hisstomach when you give him hellebore [an herb which induces vomiting]. (Ep.83.27)18

Again highlighting the existing concern for the wise persons conduct in regard todrunkenness, Seneca quotes Panaetius :approvingly:As to the wise man, we shall see later; but you and I, who are as yet far removedfrom wisdom, should not trust ourselves to fall into a state that is disordered,uncontrolled, enslaved to another, contemptible to itself.... Let us not expose hisunstable spirit to the temptations of drink. (Ep. 117.5)'9Seneca's remarks, therefore, reinforce the impression gained through exami-

nation ofPhilo. The problem of drunkenness was commonly discussed in the con-text ofwisdom and madness.

20 The wise were expected to adopt a position between

18Complaints and laments over drunkenness were common in the Greco-Roman world.For example, Isocrates laments that "the most promising of our young men are wasting theiryouth in drinking-bouts, in parties, in soft living and childish folly, to the neglect of all efforts toimprove themselves; while those of grosser nature are engaged from morning until night inextremes of dissipation which in former days an honest slave would have despised. You see someof them chilling their wine at the'Nine-fountains'; others, drinking in taverns. '.. Antidosis286-87 [Norlin, LCL]). II . I19 Similar advice was earlier offered by Isocrates: "If possible avoid drinking-parties alto-gether, but if ever occasion arises when you must be present, rise and take your leave before you

393


10/13

JournalofBiblicalLiterature127, no. 2 (2008)the extremes of abstinence (i.e., Zeno's position) and excessive drunkenness (a habitleading to "madness").2 1If moderation in wine consumption was the presumedchoice of the wise-and this certainly seems to be the case,2 then this philosoph-ical discourse has direct and significant relevance for understanding the accusa-tion against the nondrinking John and the excessively drinking Jesus. We will seekto explain that relevance.

II. RETHINKING THE PERSONIFICATION OF WISDOMIN MATTHEW 11:19 AND LuKE 7:35

In light of their contemporaries' thought about wine drinking, neither Jesusnor John was "wise:' 23 John abstains from wine and is accused of having a demon(Matt 11:18; Luke 7:33). John behaves like the ridiculous Zeno. Jesus drinks toomuch wine and is accused ofbeing a drunkard and glutton (M att 11:19; Luke 7:34).Jesus behaves like an uncontrolled fool. By the standards of the day, neither John

gods had revealed wine to mortals, to'be the greatest blessing for those who use it aright, but forthose who use it without measure, the reverse ... In daily intercourse, to those who mix anddrink it moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix ithalf and half, andyouge t madness; unmixed, bodily collapse.... Eubulus makes Dionysus say:'Three bowls only do I mix for the temperate-one to health, which they empty first, the secondto love and pleasure, the third to sleep. When this is drunk up wiseguestsgo home" (Deipn. 2.36[Gulick, LCL], emphasis added).According to Arrian, Epictetus warned would-be philosophers that their desire to bephilosophers would place demands on them that exceeded the demands placed on the averageperson. He asked the would-be philosopher, "Do you suppose that you can do the same things youdo now, and yet be'a philosopher? Do you suppose that you can eat in the same fashion, drink inthe samefashion,give way to impulse and to irritation, just as you do now?" (Arrian, Epict. diss.3.15.8-11 [Oldfather, LCL], emphasis added).22 Philo's and Seneca's advice, "neither abstinence nor excessive drunkenness," is hardlynovel. It reflects the generally accepted wisdom of antiquity. The ancient debate was over drunk-enness, not alcohol consumption. See Athenaeus's comments on Panyasis, Euripides, Alexis,Timeaus ofTauromenium, Philochorus, Aeschylus, Semus of Delos, Ephippus, Antiphanes, Plato,Alcaeus, Ariston of Ceos, Anaxandrides, Alcman, Sappho, Cratinus, Polemon, Aristarchus, Bac-chylides, Sophocles, Odysseus, Simonides, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Praxagoras ofCos, all of whomassume wine consumption, but warn against drinking too much wine. See Athenaeus, Deipn.2.36-41. "To drink like a Scythian," that is, to drink wine without adding water to dilute itsstrength, was avice even during the classical period. See Franqois Lissarague, The Aesthetics of heGreekBanquet: magesofWine and Ritual (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 7-9,90-92,110.

394


11/13

Phillips: Wisdom in _Luke7:35 and-Matthew11:19nor Jesus can be trusted; neither is wise. Ironically, in spite of their very differentlifestyles, neither John nor Jesus behaved wiselyrby the standards of the day. Thewise person would occupy the more moderate position betweenlthe extremes ofJesus and John. The wise person would be given neither to Johns abstinence nor toJesus' drunkenness.24 Against the background of philosophical discourse abouthumanwisdom and drunkenness, it makes perfect sense to read the proverb aboutwisdom (Luke 7:35; Matt 11:19b) as the conclusion reached by Jesus' detractors. Inlight of the conduct that they had seen from the overly indulgent Jesus and the non-indulgent John, they assumed that neither Jesus nor John could be wise, becauseneither had demonstrated wisdom-anid wisdom is plain for all to see. It is justifiedby all its children (and their deeds).

In addition to being culturally appropriate to the Greco-Roman world, read-ing this wisdom proverb as a statement about human wisdom has the added ben-efit of offering a more natural reading of the conjunction (=,D that introduces theproverb. Because the proverb is immediately preceded by Jesus' summary of hisdetractors' accusations against him (that he is a drunkard, a glutton, and a friendof sinners), many interpreters and translators agree with Eduard Schweizer that"the last clause, in which the wisdom of God suddenly appears, is difficult.' 25 Inorder to help alleviate the awkwardness of introducing the theme of divine wis-dom, many interpreters and translators assume that the Xc( must be adversativeand that the proverb must be Jesus' rebuttal of the accusation against him (i.e., Jesusis accused ofvice, but he responds by claiming that he is wise). Thus, English ver-sions often translate the conjunction as "but" (NIV,KJV,NKJV), "yet" (RSV, NASB,JB, NRSV [Matt 1,1:19]), "and yet" (NEB), or even "nevertheless" (Luke 7:35NRSV). 26

Of course, Greek has many more clear and effective ways to introduce a rebut-tal than xcxf. However, Greek offers no better way to continue the accusationsagainst Jesus than the use ofxcC (i.e., Jesus is a drunk, a glutton, and a friend ofsin-ners and he lacks wisdom). When the proverb is understood in this fashion, as theconclusion to Jesus' summary of his detractors' opinions, the xc( can be interpretedas having its typical connective function. The proverb can be understood as thefinal portion of Jesus' summation of his detractors' words: " .. you say, 'Behold, aglutton and a drunkard, a friend of toll collectors and sinners and [human] wisdomis justified by all her children"' (Luke 7:35). Jesus' detractors presumed that ifJohnand Jesus were wise, their conduct would reflect conventional wisdom. After all,everyone knows that wisdom is justified by her children (or its deeds).

240n John's asceticism, see B. Otto, "Agl Johannes der TMiufer kein Brot (Luk. VII.33)?" NTS18, no. 1 (1971): 90-92.

395


12/13

396 JournalofBiblicalLiterature127,no. 2 (2008)

III. CONCLUSIONThe closing words of Matt 11:19//Luke 7:35, therefore, should be read notagainst the background of the OT tradition of personified divine Wisdom, but

rather against the Greco-Roman background ofphilosophical discourse regardingthe wise person's conduct and drunkenness. The "wisdom" in the concludingproverb is not divine wisdom, but rather human wisdom. According to the stan-dards of the day, neither Jesus nor John was wise; that is, neither practiced the deedsthat demonstrated wisdom.


13/13

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Will the Wise Person Get Drunk? The Background of

the Human Wisdom in Luke 7:35 and Matthew 11:19

SOURCE: J Biblic Lit 127 no2 Summ 2008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:

http://www.sbl-site.org/

Backgound Sabedoria Humana Em Lc 7

Documents

Transcript of Backgound Sabedoria Humana Em Lc 7