writers reveal more or less anxiety over the danger posed by traditional enemy figures. Indeed, one concern of the mashal tradition was to limit one's vulnerability to such people.295
It appears that Qoheleth has completely suc- ceeded in limiting his vulnerability to such people where others had achieved only a modicum of success. For all his observations of the distortions of human beings Qoheleth remains strangely dispassionate. He was finally invulner- able to anything or anyone human. "Enemies" simply were not "under the heavens" of his world. This social invul- nerability on Qoheleth's part, however, laid him open to vulnerability from other factors: time, toil, vanity and the structure of life itself. It seems doubtful that any particular social setting, stable or otherwise, is the necessary or even probable context of such a vulnerability.
In addition to the growing frequency of enemies from Proverbs through the Wisdom of Solomon, with the exception of Qoheleth, another shift may be noticed. There is an increasing blurring of the distinctions between the various categories of enemy figures. Within Proverbs the five groups of enemy designations were quite distinct. By the time Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon appeared, however, the designations from the various groups appear side by
Prov. 16:7; 25:7c-10; 26:24-26.