| Abstract | This dissertation originated from a question about why the rich are negatively described in Proverbs and Sirach where the causal relation of act and consequence is strong. When the act-consequence nexus is applied to the discourse of wealth and poverty, it is thought that the attainment of wisdom or righteousness leads to the attainment of wealth as a material reward for following wisdoms way. Based on this understanding, the rich who possess wealth must be moral and wise. However, in Proverbs and Sirach, the rich are implicitly and explicitly criticized for their immorality and folly. The negative sayings about the rich suggest that their wealth does not necessarily result from their good behavior. The sayings also suggest that the rich are not always better than the poor in terms of their relative achievements in wisdom and virtue. Many scholars have regarded the critiques of the rich as an inherent ambiguity of the act-consequence nexus or as an exception to the nexus. However, this dissertation argues that the wisdom discourse about the rich can be better understood by differentiating the rich from those who possess wealth as the material reward. In MT Proverbs, LXX Proverbs, and Sirach, the rich do not just signify individuals who possess economic wealth. The term rich expressed by [;;] in Hebrew and plousios in Greek functions as social-political leaders and as moral agents who are criticized for their immorality. Indeed, the rich are consistently described as those who fail to choose and act for the good, even though they have the moral capacity. Thus, the rich are functionally equivalent to other moral agents such as the wicked and the just in the books. |
