validity of the opening thesis of this investigation (on page 1 above) that "the wisdom tradition of Israel departs in a remarkable way from the dominant Old Testament attitude toward personal enemies." In light of that evaluation it will be possible to confirm, modify or reject the initial thesis.
Methodological Caveats The methodology outlined above makes a very important assumption; namely, that the sages who were responsible for the wisdom literature of the Old Testament were Israelites. They were just as Israelite as prophets, priests, psalmists, kings and others in ancient Israel. This may seem obvious, but it has been disputed.67 As Israelites, they used the same language as other Israelites. Undoubtedly, each sphere of Israelite society used some technical terms,68 but the lexical stock used to designate and describe enemies in the Psalter is hardly technical. They are simply Hebrew words which any Israelite might be expected to know and use;
67 See G. Wright, The Biblical Doctrine of Man (London: SCM Press, 1954), p. 154, who evaluates wisdom as "lacking almost completely in the typically Israelite conception of society."
For example, hls and Hcnml for the psalmists, hvhy-Mxn for prophets, tmvy tvm for judges or lawgivers, xmF for priests. Interestingly, 68
attempts to determine a technical vocabulary for sages have not met with a great deal of success; cf. R. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1974).