¹ We are accepting here the early date for Deut. 33 given by Cross, Frank M. Jr., and Freedman, David Noel, “The Blessing of Moses” JBL 67 (1948), 192Google Scholar. However, these authors consider the ʼašrê-colon a conflate of two early variants, which allows for the possibility of a later introduction of the ʼašrê-formula into an older context.

² Pap. Brooklyn 35.1446, discovered by Dr. William C. Hayes of the Metropolitan Museum of New York.

³ Albright, William F., “Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954), 223–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen II (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961), 25–27.

^4a Key: CAPITALS: Essential to formula.

Italics: Frequently present, but not essential.

Parentheses: Sometimes present.

⁵ Ancient Near Eastern literature has not produced any evidence in this matter, either. Until now nothing has been discovered that is at all comparable to the ʼašrê-formula. Professor Thorkild Jacobsen, Harvard University, has assured the writer that no such formula has been found in Mesopotamian writings, even though this is surprising in view of the generally human situation that gives rise to it, as we shall see below.

⁶ Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien V. Segen und Fluch in Israels Kult und Psalmendichtung (Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad, 1924), 2. Cf. also 10, 11, 88.

⁷ Ibid., 1.

⁸ Ibid., 1, 54, et passim.

⁹ Tomas Arvedson, Das Mysterium Christi (Upsala: Wretmans Boktryckeri, 1937), 96.

¹⁰ Lyder Brun, Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1932), 36.

¹¹ Artur Weiser, Die Psalmen (4. neubearbeitete Auflage; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), 59.

¹² Cf. also 72 and 231.

¹³ Professor G. Ernest Wright directed the writer's attention to this need, and under his advisorship the study was undertaken (A Study of ʼAšrê in the Old Testament), Th.M. thesis, unpublished; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1963). Fuller detail and more adequate documentation for the argumentation of this article can be found there.

¹⁴ Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), in loco.

¹⁵ It is assumed here that Is. 3: 10f. is late, in accordance with the general opinion of commentators.

¹⁶ Even if such a relationship between ʼašrê and hôi existed, that would be no proof of the theory that the two represented a form of blessing and curse. On the contrary, it is becoming more and more evident that hôi is basically a lament form, rather than an imprecation. Preliminary investigations — as yet unpublished — of this problem have been undertaken by Mrs. C. M. Santmire and Richard Clifford, S.J., at Harvard University.

¹⁷ Johs. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture I–II (London: Oxford University Press, 1926; first published 1920), 206–213.

¹⁸ Hempel, Johannes, “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch im Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft, NF 3 (1925), 51.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien V, 30f.

²⁰ See above, note 1.

²¹ For examples see below, note 22, group III.

²² It is not the content of the ʼašrê-basis that changes from passage to passage, but the degree of immediacy which distinguishes certain groups of ʼašrê-passages from others. We consider it a mistake, therefore, to classify the ʼašrê-words by their content, as is done, for example, by Arvedson, Das Mysterium Christi, 99f. Instead, the only satisfactory classification is based on degrees of immediacy. We would suggest the following grouping: I. ʼAšrê-formulae that point to a blessing that is concrete and present: Ps. 127:5; 128:1; 144:12–15; Dt. 33:29, and others; II. ʼAšrê-formulae that extol something other than the content of blessing, but this element, not of itself worthy of being the basis for the ʼašrê-pronouncement, is somehow linked to the eventual receipt of the gifts of blessing: Job 5:17; 1 Kings 10:8 (2 Chron. 9:7); Eccles. 10:17; Prov. 29:18, and others; III. ʼAšrê-formulae pronounced upon the pious because of their piety, where the thought that piety will be rewarded by blessing either in the near or distant future hovers in the background. This comprises the largest number of ʼašrê-words. Some examples are: Ps. 1:1; 32:1f.; 34:9; 89:16; 106:3.

²³ For the sake of stating our case clearly and of placing the emphasis on that aspect of ʼašrê which we wish to single out here, the words “envy/to envy” have been used in the following paragraphs. We realize that this word, besides expressing the desirous longing of one person for the condition of another, is filled with more negative than positive emotional content, although the positive content is not altogether lacking in English. ʼAšrê, on the other hand, is accompanied by positive feelings for the person so designated. In actual translation, therefore, other terms than “envy” will be more expressive of its exact emotional overtones. Many words of longing or desire might be used, or sometimes even “bless'd” in its modern common usage. (This last suggestion was made to me by Professor Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Harvard University, to whom I am grateful for many other helpful suggestions and criticisms.) But all these terms have areas of meaning that do not overlap with those of ʼašrê and can be used for ʼašrê only if they have a flavor of that peculiar quality which, in its crass form, we call “envy.”

²⁴ It is interesting that μακάριος in its oldest Greek usage was most properly applied to the state of the gods, whose lot was the ultimate desire and envy of man. If μακάριος had anything in common with ʼašrê at that period, it took a theology with a less radical distinction between human and divine than the Hebrew one to account for that.

²⁵ Contrast this with the brk-group, whether it be expressive of a powerful word/action or of simple praise: both presuppose a real object and are enhanced through temporal and spatial nearness. One neither blesses nor praises the figment of one's daydreams.