Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
who has gathered the wind in his fists?
who has bound up the waters in a garment?
who has established all the ends of the earth?
what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest?
It is not easy to interpret this little passage. Evidently the speaker is a ‘wise man,’ who, according to some critics, inculcates a reverent humility by reporting the fruitlessness of his own theological speculations. After long brooding over the problems of the divine nature (so they explain), the Hebrew sage was compelled to desist with the feeling of his utter incapacity. Like Israel the patriarch he strove with God, but unlike Israel he did not prevail. He knows indeed what God has done and is continually doing; He is the Omnipresent One, the Lord of wind and flood, the Author of the boundaries of the earth. But what is this great Being’s name, and (to know Him intimately) what is His son’s name? On this view of its meaning, the passage reminds one of the words of Goethe’s Faust, ‘Who can name Him, or who confess, I believe Him? Who can feel, and can be bold to say, I believe Him not?’ Or perhaps we may still better compare Max Letteris’ masterly Hebrew translation or adaptation, in which the medieval doctor has been transformed into Ben Abuyah (or Acher אַחֵר), the famous apostate from Judaism in the second century of our era. The passage with which we are concerned as illustrative of the passage before us is on page 164, and begins מִי יַזָכַּירֵהוּ וּמִי יְבַנֵּהוּ. Notice the delicate tact in the choice of the second verb, ‘Who can give Him an honourable surname?’ (comp. Isa, xliv. 5, xiv. 4.) Later on, after other names suggested by the German original, the modern Hebrew poet continues, אוֹׂ בְּיָהּ שְׁמוׂ כִי נִשְׂגָּב הַזְכּירוּ, and in a note refers to a parallel passage in a Hebrew poem by Ibn Gabirol.
I must make bold to doubt the correctness of this explanation. (1) Because it does not sufficiently account for the language of ver. 2. (2) Because upon this view of the questions of ver. 4, an Israelite’s answer would simply be, Jehovah (comp. Job xxxviii. 5, Isa. xl. 12). (3) Because it is so difficult to see why the poet should have asked further, What is His son’s name? Is not the passage rather a philosophic fragment from a school of ‘wise men,’ not so much unbelieving as critical? The speaker declares, soberly enough, that he has tried in vain by thinking to find out God. Then comes in a piece of irony. No doubt it is his own stupidity; grand theologians, such as the writer of Isa. xl. 12 &c., Job xxxviii., Prov. viii. 22 &c., may well look down upon the dullard, who has not passed through their school! ‘But who is it that is ever and anon coming down[[208]] to earth, and that performed all these creative works of which you delight to speak? I have never seen him; tell me his name and his son’s name since you are so learned.’ The latter phrase may be an allusion, either (anticipating Philo, who calls Wisdom God’s Son) to the ‘I was brought forth’ in viii. 24, or more probably[[209]] the primeval man (who might be called a ‘son of God’ in the sense of Luke iii. 38) spoken of in Job xv. 7, who was the embodiment of all wisdom and sat in the council of Elohim.[[210]] The satirical turn of this secularistic ‘wise man’ is even perhaps traceable in the heading of his poem. He calls his work an ‘oracle,’ taking up a favourite word of the disciples of the prophets, and flinging it back to them with a laugh. Obviously too the name of the writer, if genuine, is best explained as an assumed name. [But the emphatic haggebher is very difficult. I cannot believe, with Ewald, that haggebher is said ironically, as if ‘the mighty one in his own conceit;’ comp. Isa. xxii. 17 (?), Ps. lii. 3. The analogy of Num. xxiv. 3, 15, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, suggests that there is a corruption in the text, and that haggebher, ‘the man,’ was originally followed by words descriptive of the person referred to. Grätz boldly corrects (haggebher) lō-khayil ‘the man without strength.]
Are we surprised at this? But a strikingly parallel confession of honest scepticism is found in the Rig Veda (x. 129), though I would not of course identify the opinions of the Sanskrit and the Hebrew poet,
Who knows, who here can declare, whence has sprung—whence, this creation?... From what this creation arose; and whether [any one] made it, or not,—he who in the highest heaven is its ruler, he verily knows, or [even] he does not know.[[211]]
The poet who ‘takes up his parable’ after Laithi-el calmly and uncontroversially indicates his own very different religious position. He earnestly prays that he may not ‘become a liar and ask, Who is Jehovah?’ (xxx. 9); for him the divine revelations (the outward form of which is already sacred) are amply sufficient. ‘Every utterance of God [Eloah, the sing. form, as in Job] is free from alloy’ (xxx. 5; see the commentators on Ps. xviii. 31); the divine ‘name’ declared in Ex. xxxiv. 6, should satisfy the wisest of men. Thus, like the editors of Ecclesiastes, this later writer neutralises the doubtful expressions of the poem which he has saved from perishing.