draw down destruction. Cf. Isa 5:18

draw down destruction. Cf. Isa 5:18, LXX.
by your own actions. The notion that man is responsible for his evil actions in spite of the fact that everything takes place in accordance with Divine Providence was widespread in ancient literature. Thus Ben Sira emphatically states: “Say not: ‘From God is my transgression,’ for that which He hateth made He not (15:11).” We find virtually the same words in an Egyptian text: “Beware lest thou say: Every man is according to his own character; ignorant and learned are all alike; Fate and upbringing are graven on the character in the writing of God himself.” (A. Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri in the British Musem, 3d ser. [London, 1935]:43). Similarly, we read in the Egyptian Coffin Texts: “I did not command [men] that they do evil, (but) it was their hearts which violated what I had said.” (ANET:8). J. Crenshaw has pointed out that the simple prohibition formula ʿal-tōmʾar can be traced back as far as the Egyptian Instruction of Ani and continues in use as late as the Instructions of Onchsheshonqy (“The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage,” JBL 94:1 [1975]:48–49). The negative formula ‘Do not’ is already found in the Sumerian Instructions of Šuruppak. Cf. I Enoch 103:9; 104:7; 2 Macc 7:16, 19. For a detailed discussion of the problem of freedom and determinism, see Introduction VII.8, and also Note on 1:16 below. Cf. I Enoch 98:4: “Sin has not been sent upon the earth, / But man of himself has created it”; Ps Sol 3:5: “The righteous stumbleth and holdeth the Lord righteous”; Philo Det. 122: “For Moses does not say, as some impious people do, that God is the author of ills. Nay, he says that ‘our own hands’ cause them, figuratively describing in this way our own undertakings, and the voluntary movement of our minds to what is wrong.”
13. God did not make death. A bold statement which, without further interpretation, sounds like an echo of Zoroastrian teaching, although the author certainly did not mean to go that far. (For other Zoroastrian echoes in the book, see NOTES on 2:24; 7:22; 15:19.) Cf. Ezek 33:11: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live”; I Enoch 69:11: “Man was created exactly like the angels to the intent that he should continue righteous and pure, and death which destroys everything could not have taken hold of him”; II Bar 17:3; 19:8; 23:4; 4 Ezra 8:60: “For the Most High willed not that men should come to destruction; but they have themselves defiled the name of him who made them, and have proved themselves ungrateful to him who prepared life for them.” In the light of the author of Wisd’s Platonist view of the relationship of body and soul revealed in 9:15, it is likely that he is here referring to spiritual rather than to physical death. The rabbis, too, refer to God’s original intention that man should not be subject to death, but, unlike our author, it is physical death which they have in mind. See Pes.R., Piska 48 (Shor o Keseb) Braude: 813: “The words ‘that which hath been is now’ (Ecc 3:15) allude to the fact that when the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, He created him with the intention of having him live and endure for ever like the ministering angels, for ‘the Lord God said: Behold, the man is become as one of us’ (Gen 3:22).… Indeed, R. Judah, the son of R. Simon, carried the explication of this verse still further to an idea difficult to grasp, for he takes the verse to be saying, ‘The man is become as the One of us’—that is, become like the Unique One of the world, who lives and endures for ever and ever.… But God’s intentions for Adam came to nought when Adam did not abide by the command given him, and forthwith mortality was decreed for him.” Cf. also The Teaching of Silvanus 91: “For death did not exist, nor will it exist at the end” (Robinson 1977:350; ShR 32.1: “Said the Holy One blessed be He: ‘I had taken you for divine beings’ (Ps 82:6), but you followed in Adam’s footsteps, ‘indeed you shall die as men do’ ”; Wayyik.R. 18.3; 27.4; BR 9.5, Th-Alb:70. See Urbach 1969:371–380. That God is altogether good and cannot be the direct cause of evil was a cardinal doctrine of Plato (Rep. 379B; Tim. 69C), the Stoics (SVF 2.1168–1186), and Philo (Mut. 30; Conf. 179). The rabbis held a similar view. Cf. Sifra, Beḥukkōtai 4: “ ‘It has been of your own doing’ (Mal 1:9); evil never proceeds from me, and so it is written, ‘It is not at the word of the Most High, that weal and woe befall’ [following the reading of the Gaon] (Lament 3:38)”; Lament.R. on 3:38: “R. Eleazar expounded the verse ‘It is not at the word of the Most High that weal and woe befall’ thus: From the moment that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘See, I set before you this day life and prosperity, death and adversity’ (Deut 30:15), good has not gone forth to him who does evil nor evil to him who does good, but only good to the doer of good and evil to the doer of evil, as it is written, ‘the Lord reward the evildoer according to his wickedness’ (1 Sam 3:79)”; Test. Orpheus (Aristobulus’ version), line 9: “He from His store of goods never prescribes evil for men” (FPG 1:65).
destruction. “Apōleia is common in the LXX sense of ‘perishing,’ ‘destruction.’ The concepts thanatos, hadēs, and apōleia are all used together for it, being often personified as man’s worst enemy (Job 26:6; 28:22; Prov 15:11). In the Synoptics, and especially in Paul and John, apōleia is used for eternal destruction (Matt 7:13; Rom 9:22; Philip 1:28; 1 Tim 6:9; John 17:12. It is also a favorite word in II Peter (2:1, 3, 3:7, 16). What is meant here is not a simple extinction of existence, but an everlasting state of torment and death” (TDNT 1. 396–397). R. J. Taylor thinks that apōleia here bears its technical New Testament meaning, and S. Rosik suggests that its usage here marks the beginning of a process of development from the meaning of earthly destruction to that beyond physical death.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

vẽ xuống hủy diệt. X. Isa 5:18, LXX.bởi hành động của riêng bạn. Các khái niệm rằng người đàn ông chịu trách nhiệm cho hành động ác của mình mặc dù thực tế rằng tất cả mọi thứ diễn ra phù hợp với thần thánh Providence được phổ biến rộng rãi trong văn học cổ đại. Do đó Ben Sira nhấn mạnh nói: "nói không: 'Từ Thiên Chúa là sự vi phạm của tôi,' vì đó mà ông hateth thực hiện ông không (15:11)." Chúng tôi tìm thấy hầu như cùng một từ trong một văn bản Ai Cập: "Hãy cẩn thận vì sợ ngươi nói: mỗi con người là theo nhân vật của mình; dốt nát và học tất cả như nhau; Số phận và nuôi dưỡng là graven vào nhân vật bằng văn bản của chính Thiên Chúa." (A. Gardiner, thầy Papyri trong Anh Musem, 3d Ser [London, 1935]: 43). Tương tự như vậy, chúng ta đọc trong các văn bản Ai Cập quan tài: "tôi đã không chỉ huy [người] rằng họ làm điều ác, (nhưng) nó đã là trái tim của họ vi phạm những gì tôi đã nói." (ANET:8). J. crenshaw đã chỉ ra rằng đơn giản cấm công thức ʿal-tōmʾar có thể được ngược trở lại như xa như hướng dẫn Ani, Ai Cập và tiếp tục sử dụng cuối hướng dẫn Onchsheshonqy ("vấn đề Theodicy ở Sirach: trên con người Bondage," JBL 94:1 [1975]: 48-49). Công thức tiêu cực 'không' đã được tìm thấy trong phần hướng dẫn Sumer của Šuruppak. X. tôi Enoch 103:9; 104:7; 2 Macc 7:16, 19. Để thảo luận chi tiết về vấn đề tự do và determinism, hãy xem giới thiệu VII.8, và cũng lưu ý 1:16 dưới đây. X. tôi Enoch 98:4: "Sin đã không được gửi trên thế gian, / nhưng người đàn ông của mình đã tạo ra nó"; PS Sol 3:5: "sự công bình stumbleth và holdeth các công bình Chúa"; Philo Det. 122: "cho Moses không nói, như một số người impious, rằng Thiên Chúa là tác giả của tệ nạn. Nay, ông nói rằng 'tay của riêng của chúng tôi' gây ra cho họ, ẩn dụ mô tả theo cách này chủ trương của riêng của chúng tôi, và sự chuyển động tự nguyện của tâm trí của chúng tôi để những gì là sai."13. God did not make death. A bold statement which, without further interpretation, sounds like an echo of Zoroastrian teaching, although the author certainly did not mean to go that far. (For other Zoroastrian echoes in the book, see NOTES on 2:24; 7:22; 15:19.) Cf. Ezek 33:11: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live”; I Enoch 69:11: “Man was created exactly like the angels to the intent that he should continue righteous and pure, and death which destroys everything could not have taken hold of him”; II Bar 17:3; 19:8; 23:4; 4 Ezra 8:60: “For the Most High willed not that men should come to destruction; but they have themselves defiled the name of him who made them, and have proved themselves ungrateful to him who prepared life for them.” In the light of the author of Wisd’s Platonist view of the relationship of body and soul revealed in 9:15, it is likely that he is here referring to spiritual rather than to physical death. The rabbis, too, refer to God’s original intention that man should not be subject to death, but, unlike our author, it is physical death which they have in mind. See Pes.R., Piska 48 (Shor o Keseb) Braude: 813: “The words ‘that which hath been is now’ (Ecc 3:15) allude to the fact that when the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, He created him with the intention of having him live and endure for ever like the ministering angels, for ‘the Lord God said: Behold, the man is become as one of us’ (Gen 3:22).… Indeed, R. Judah, the son of R. Simon, carried the explication of this verse still further to an idea difficult to grasp, for he takes the verse to be saying, ‘The man is become as the One of us’—that is, become like the Unique One of the world, who lives and endures for ever and ever.… But God’s intentions for Adam came to nought when Adam did not abide by the command given him, and forthwith mortality was decreed for him.” Cf. also The Teaching of Silvanus 91: “For death did not exist, nor will it exist at the end” (Robinson 1977:350; ShR 32.1: “Said the Holy One blessed be He: ‘I had taken you for divine beings’ (Ps 82:6), but you followed in Adam’s footsteps, ‘indeed you shall die as men do’ ”; Wayyik.R. 18.3; 27.4; BR 9.5, Th-Alb:70. See Urbach 1969:371–380. That God is altogether good and cannot be the direct cause of evil was a cardinal doctrine of Plato (Rep. 379B; Tim. 69C), the Stoics (SVF 2.1168–1186), and Philo (Mut. 30; Conf. 179). The rabbis held a similar view. Cf. Sifra, Beḥukkōtai 4: “ ‘It has been of your own doing’ (Mal 1:9); evil never proceeds from me, and so it is written, ‘It is not at the word of the Most High, that weal and woe befall’ [following the reading of the Gaon] (Lament 3:38)”; Lament.R. on 3:38: “R. Eleazar expounded the verse ‘It is not at the word of the Most High that weal and woe befall’ thus: From the moment that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘See, I set before you this day life and prosperity, death and adversity’ (Deut 30:15), good has not gone forth to him who does evil nor evil to him who does good, but only good to the doer of good and evil to the doer of evil, as it is written, ‘the Lord reward the evildoer according to his wickedness’ (1 Sam 3:79)”; Test. Orpheus (Aristobulus’ version), line 9: “He from His store of goods never prescribes evil for men” (FPG 1:65).phá hủy. "Apōleia là phổ biến trong cảm giác LXX 'sự suy đồi,' 'hủy diệt'." Các khái niệm thanatos, hadēs, và apōleia được tất cả sử dụng với nhau cho nó, thường được nhân cách hóa như là kẻ thù tồi tệ nhất của con người (công việc 26:6; 28:22; Prov 15:11). Trong các Synoptics, và đặc biệt là ở Paul và John, apōleia được sử dụng để phá hủy đời đời (Matt 7:13; ROM 9:22; Philip 1:28; 1 Tim 6:9; John 17:12. Nó cũng là một từ yêu thích trong Peter II (2:1, 3, 3:7, 16). Những gì là có nghĩa là ở đây không phải là một đơn giản tuyệt chủng của sự tồn tại, nhưng một mai mai bang nổi đau khổ và cái chết"(TDNT 1. 396-397). R. J. Taylor nghĩ rằng apōleia ở đây mang ý nghĩa tân ước kỹ thuật của nó, và S. Rosik cho thấy rằng việc sử dụng của nó ở đây đánh dấu sự khởi đầu của một quá trình phát triển từ ý nghĩa trần hủy diệt đó vượt ra ngoài cái chết thể chất.