M. llnlzrnikn ([.n/ariiH And MelnlhaVn Zfitticfiri/t/rtr ViiU'fr- pKychulngie. H*l. XV. ISSt) contrnsl.s the (ioclrltic of r^itl In tho Kig Vc<Ia Willi tlmt of tho IVsalnip in lllo followlriir respt-clt, : (I) Vaninii (tin- k''«l ailflrcsacd) is rccunlt-d ns liimscif tlio rimso "f mnn'i* liclnir (li-rolvod Into plnninj;; ('21 rcn-nri'irilnl itlTcnpi'S ftrn n't:nnl«Hl ah on tlii' hahio lovol witli niorAl, wliirii if* rerlninlv not III,. a\tD In the P»Alins ; (8| cnllt \» <lr>'Aili'<l not for Itstlf, Imt .toI,'ly for itf. lulnlsliinrnt.
In Prnrerhs the a.spect of sin is, of course, wholly different. It is i)ractical religion which is treated here, and this from an external and an intellectual
point of view. Righteousness is wisdom, and sin is folly. The sinner is (1) simple ('•??), (2) ajhul (y^j, see article KOOL), or (3) a scorner (i 7).
Two cliarflcloristifs may be specially notice<l. (l> Men are sharply (lividofl into trood tind bail ; Anil though in ehs. 1-9 tlio possibility of change is assumed, there is no relerence to sorrow for sin, or conversiim from bad to j^ood (see Toy, ProcerOs^ Intrmi. p. xiii). This is the .ittitude towar4ls sinners which is developed And hardened in Siracli, as noticed below. ('.'I In Proverbs, and still more distinctly in -Job, it is the moral state of the individual whicli occui)ies intention ; for even if .lob bo tvi>ical of Israel, tho tyjie is worlced out with thorou^'h dramatic ti-uth. 'Tho result is'that we obtain in these books far more detailed ethical rertexions than are found elsewhere in the OT. Althou^'h tho religious consciousness of sin cannot bo said to bo lirominent, yet it docs find expression in a verse which is tho strongest statement in OT of the universality of liunian sinful- ness, namely Pr 'JO" ; and throuRhout Pr l(i-'J4 the approval or disapproval of the Lord often recurs as the standard of action.
The Book of Job presents features of far greater interest, and represents the furthest advance in the doctrine of sin prior to the N'T. Its results may be classed under three heads. (1) The Law being designedly excluded from the drama, the sins which come in question are purely ethical and nowhere ritual. The spread of sin is delinitely acknowledged as universal; it is inherent in human nature (Job i^' RVm, 14* I.')'*-"'), and it includes sins of thought and desire. This latter point comes out mo.st fully in Job 31, where we get the author's conception of sin, a very wide and penetrating one, not less remarkable for inwardness than the Sermon on the Mount. (2) The close relation between sin and suffering, believed in by Israel in early times, and implied by the double sense of .-Ncn find iV'v (see above), is in this book .shown to be at any rate not a necessary one. Sin does not always bring suffering, and suffering does not always imply sin. But this result is something very different from denying altogether such a re- lation between the two, a denial which would at a blow cut aw.ay the ground from under the religious life of Proi)liets and Psalmists. {:',) The character of sill as affecting God comes in for treatment inci- dentally. Expression is given to two false gues.ses : (a) that (iod watches man's transgressions with somelhing apin-oaching satisfaction. Job 14'''- '' ; (h) that human sin cannot affect llim, Job "-' UV ; cf. Eliliu in 'Mfi. Of these (a) is merely one of the rash words which fall from the sufferer, but (';), as continued by Elihu. shows Jewish thought .strongly, perhaps dangerously, in reaction against its earlier anthropop:itliic conceptions.
EfcU'siHsti's contributes little except the final de- cisive conviction of the univei-sality of sinfulness, ' Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth that doeth good and sinueth not' (Ec 7-").
II. IN Tin: At'ocnrrilA. — Siradi. — As in Pro- verbs, so in Sirach the righteous and the wicked under various names form two great classes over against one another (331-"'), and it is to the former chiss only that the writer a<ldresscs himself. Fools are incapable of amendment. Turning fioni sin (8'^) is only the repentance of the righteous; and, with the exception of 17-^'-, the attitude of Sirach prefigures that attitude towards sinners which it was the great work of Jesus to challenge and set aside by His examiile (Lk lo-). Yet Sirach denies to sinners the excuse that they cannot liel]) them- selves. It is not God who causes man to sin (.see above, I. ii.). The author's a.ssertion of human freedom and responsiliility is striking and powi^rful, if somewhat too broad (Sir l.'i" •-'"). It is not in any degree limited by the statement of 2.'>-< that K.ve's sin brought deatii upon the race, for the inherilance of death by every man does not necesstirily imply a doctrine of original sin.* The philo.sophy of
• See important art. bv F. K. TennAnt {Journal Tlintt. SliKliea, ii. fp. p. 20"). pti'lillslied since this Art. was wrItliMi. lie sums up thus : ' Tlie Fall (According to SirAch) was the eduM of death, but only tho beginning of sin.' Cf. ThackcrAy, l.o.
SiracU accouuU for physical evil in creation as a necessary complement to moral evil '" "»»' ,f "^ designed for its punishment ; see Sir 39-»-^' 4U' .
Wisdom of Solomon. — In tliis book, iiutwitli- standin" the totally different atmosphere produced \)V (1) a hope full of immorlality (o'). ^"'^ (-) V'.*^ practical identilioation of Wisdom with the Spirit of God (91"), tlie ground tliouglit is the same as that of Sirach, namely, that sin is ignorance, and that it is the intellectual side of man tliat must by •discipline' be fortified against it. The character of the book is therefore, at first sight, ni tlie strongest contrast with the words ot Clirist, I lliaiik thee, O Fatlier. Lord of heaven and earth, tliat thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes' (Mt U-^). Yet if the above-mentioned identification of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit be pressed a little further, tlie contradiction di.s-