of Solomon runs a greater risk of missing some expressions which could be important. Hence, caution must be exercised in discussing the Greek enemy designations and descriptions of behavior.
Related to the linguistic caveat just noted is the fact that this methodology neither assumes nor argues for influ- ence from wisdom on other spheres of Israelite life nor vice versa. Common language, geography and history between various groups means that they are related somehow and that these relations will exert some kinds of influence, usually mutual. Claims of influence from one realm of society on another realm of the same society are notoriously difficult to demonstrate74 because commonalities may be due to the simple fact that different groups in the same social system are in fact part of one single system. Israelite prophets (or other groups) may sound like Israelite sages simply
74 Cf. J. Crenshaw, "Method in Determining Wisdom Influence on 'Historical Literature'," JBL 88 (1969), 129- 142, for the difficulties in tracing influence from wisdom to other kinds of literature; W. McKane, Prophets and Wise Men (Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1965), for an attempt to trace influence from another sphere upon wisdom; for statements on the commonalities between wisdom and other complexes of Israelite tradition see M. Tate, Jr., A Study of the Wise Men of Israel in Relation to the Prophets (Th.D. Dissertation, The Southern-Baptist Theo- logical Seminary, 1958), passim, but especially pp. 395-408; R. Murphy, "Wisdom--Theses and Hypotheses," in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, ed. by J. Gammie, W. Brueggemann, W. Humphreys, and J.. Ward (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 39- 40; D. Morgan, Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), is a very good study of this problem of the relations between wisdom and other com- plexes of Old Testament traditions.