Biblical Hebrew Forum

["UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>]

Dear Harold,

Tanakh NEVER associates rich and evil. This association is a socialist
invention. Even Jesus does not: recall that he suggested to the young man
distributing his property as a way to perfection, not of avoiding evil. He
suggested this only after the fellow said he wants to be even more good than
he is know, and at first Jesus conceded that the commandments' observance is
sufficient.

Tanakh criticizes greed, evil riches, but NEVER rich as a class in Marxist
sense. In ancient society, it was honorable to be rich.

>He was assigned with the rich in his death because he had not
done violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.<
It's a joke, right? He was executed for a crime, but because he had done no
crime, buried honorably?


Best regards,

Vadim Cherny

> HH: Some interpreters suggest that wickedness and richness are often
> associated together, such as in the Prophets. But others object that
> when it comes to burials, being with the rich implies a good burial.
> So they take the verse to describe a two-stage assignment. It was
> intended that the person be buried with the wicked, but when he
> actually died he was put with the rich. "In his death" comes to have
> a sequential force. The reason would then be given in the following
> clause. He was assigned with the rich in his death because he had not
> done violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>