02_Biblica_1_B_Pinker_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:15 Pagina 510 02_B 510 ARON PINKER Clearly, any suggestion that angels could err, or act foolishly, lewdly, and wickedly would undermine all the cases in which an- gels are mentioned in the Bible as messengers of God 49. How can they be trusted if God does not trust them, noting that they can err, or even engage in folly? How can the words of the prophets be trusted if the words of the angels cannot be trusted? The learned author of the book would not have put such suggestions into a prophetic vision which he wanted to be trusted. Thus it is impossi- ble that the statement in 4,18 was said by the “voice” that Eliphaz hears. Indeed, were it the case that the voice states 4,18, then it would open whatever it says to doubt, including the statement in 4,18, turning the entire vision into a paradoxical message. The au- thor could not have presented the philosophical character “Eliphaz” as one that makes contradictory statements. While Eliphaz would have reported 4,18 as part of the vision, he would have never made a statement of this kind by himself. Angels were often the bearers of God’s word, their faithfulness in execution of this function is never questioned in the Bible, and it is axiomatic that they can and must be trusted 50. Barton’s suggestion that in Gen 6,2 and 1 Kgs 22,21-23 we have a case of “bad” angels is without merit 51. In neither of the cases cited is the word K)lm or Myk)lm mentioned. In either of the cases the text can be well explained without resorting to the concept “angel”. In 6,2 the Myhl)h-ynb could be “the sons of the leaders” (see Targum Onkelos), and in 1 Kgs 22,21-23 there is a play on the word xwr “spirit (of the dead?)” and the phrase rq# xwr (“spirit of falseness”) in a metaphor based on the royal court. Use of a similar form, h(r xwr (“spirit of discord”), in Judg 9,23 clearly shows that xwr has nothing to do with angels. Indeed, since this court consists of the celestial bodies (Mym#h )bc) it cannot refer to angels. More- Angels are mentioned for instance in the Tanach in Gen 16,7-11; 18,1- 49 16; 28,10-12; Exod 3,2; 23,20-21; 2 Sam 24,16-17; 1 Kgs 19,5-8; Zec 1,9.14; 2,2; 2,7-9; 4,1; Pss 34,8; 91,11-12; 103,20; Dan 6,19-22; 8,16; 9,21; 10,13; 12,1; etc. Copleston observes that Philo of Alexandria identified the angel with the Logos, as the immaterial voice of God. Thus, the angel is God’s in- strument, not God himself. Cf. F.C. COPLESTON, A History of Philosophy (New York 2003) I, 460. BARTON, Commentary, 81. 50 GIBSON, “Eliphaz”, 262. Gibson dubs “Eliphaz a Hebrew philosopher”, 51 a Mkx or “wise man”. He describes him as a “complicated, and cultured, opinionated and skeptical old scholar”. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati