Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs: The Deep Waters of Counsel 9781317160083, 1317160088

Citation preview

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs Despite the welcome revival of scholarly interest in Biblical Wisdom, the Book of Proverbs remains neglected. It continues to be seen as a disorganised repository of traditional banalities, while Job and Qohelet are viewed as more exciting texts, in revolt against Proverbs’ conventional wisdom. Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs argues that this misleading consensus owes more to scholarly presuppositions than to the content of Proverbs; it sees Proverbs as a challenging work, one that aims to provoke a critical appropriation of wisdom and in which diverse sources have been skilfully brought together by a creative final editor to form a complex unity. Many divergences from the Hebrew in the Greek witness to the translator’s discomfort with his spikey, provocative original. Peter Hatton challenges many existing scholarly assumptions and calls for a re-evaluation of the role and significance of Proverbs in relation to the other biblical wisdom books and the whole canon.

SOCIETY FOR OLD TESTAMENT STUDY MONOGRAPHS Series Editor Margaret Barker Series Editorial Board Katharine J. Dell; Paul Joyce; Edward Ball; Eryl Davies Series Advisory Board Bertil Albrektson; Graeme Auld; John Barton; Joseph Blenkinsopp; William Johnstone; John Rogerson Ashgate is pleased to publish the revived Society for Old Testament Study (SOTS) monograph series. The Society for Old Testament Study is a learned society based in the British Isles, with an international membership, committed to the study of the Old Testament. This series promotes Old Testament studies with the support and guidance of the Society. The series includes research monographs by members of the Society, both from established international scholars and from exciting new authors. Titles in the series include: Jeremiah’s Kings A Study of the Monarchy in Jeremiah John Brian Job Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions Selected Essays of Robert P. Gordon Robert P. Gordon The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology Collected Essays of John Barton John Barton Amos and the Cosmic Imagination James R. Linville

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs The Deep Waters of Counsel

Peter T.H. Hatton

First published 2008 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2008 Peter T.H. Hatton Peter T.H. Hatton has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Hatton, Peter T.H., 1954– Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs : the deep waters of counsel. – (The Society for Old Testament Study) 1. Bible. O.T. Proverbs – Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Paradox in the Bible I. Title II. Society for Old Testament Study 223.7’06 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hatton, Peter T.H., 1954– Contradiction in the book of Proverbs : the deep waters of counsel / Peter T.H. Hatton. p. cm. — (Society for Old Testament study) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-7546-6304-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Proverbs—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Paradox in the Bible. I. Title. BS1465.6.P32H38 2008 223’.706—dc22 ISBN 9780754663041 (hbk)

2007045047

To my wife, Susan Hatton, Ishet-Hayil

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Acknowledgements Permissions Abbreviations

ix xi xiii

1

Proverbs, an Undervalued Text

1

2

How Proverbs was Marginalized

17

3

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

47

4

Provocative Contradiction: The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

83

5

Provocative Contradiction: The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

117

6

Provocative Contradiction: Gifts and Bribes in Proverbs

137

7

The Deep Waters of Counsel

149

Recent Articles Dealing with Wisdom Literature in JSOT, VT and ZAW

171

Bibliography Index of Authors Index of References Index of Selected Subjects

179 189 191 195

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to the Rev Dr Kenneth Wilson, the Rev Dr Gerard Norton and Dr Deryn Guest who all took turns at supervising the doctoral research on which this book is based. They were endlessly patient and gave freely of their time, learning and wisdom. None of them bears any responsibility for the opinions I express or for any errors I have made. I should like to thank my wife, Susan, for her support for my attempts to combine scholarly and pastoral endeavour. This book is dedicated to her. Peter Hatton

This page intentionally left blank

Permissions Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph, Fourth Revised Edition, edited by Hans Peter Rüger, © 1977 and 1990 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission.   Septuaginta, edited by Alfred Rahlfs, © 1935 and 1979 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission. New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicized Edition, © 1989, 1995, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Reproduced from Proverbs: A New Approach by William McKane © 1970 The Westminster Press.  Used by permission of Westminster John Knox Press.

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations (fuller references in Bibliography) ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament BHS Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft D. Fragmente der Vorsokratiker E-S A New Concordance of the Old Testament ESV English Standard Version FOTL The Forms of the Old Testament Literature G ‘Proverbia’ in Septuaginta, Volumen ii JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTsup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement JB Jerusalem Bible KJV King James Version LS A Greek-English Lexicon M-J A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew MT Masoretic Text: edition BHS NIV New International Version NJB New Jerusalem Bible NRSV New Revised Standard Version REB Revised English Bible SBLSCS Society for Biblical Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum supplement WAP Works of Alexander Pope WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum alten und neuen Testament WRR Rainer-Maria Rilke Gesammelte Werke, WTE Works of T.S. Eliot WWS Works of William Shakespeare ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Proverbs, an Undervalued Text Summary of introduction In spite of the hermeneutical developments of the recent decades, scholars, with some notable recent exceptions, have neglected the book of Proverbs. This is surprising in view of some of the book’s striking features, particularly its wit and the delight in paradoxes and incongruities evident in many of its sayings. Another characteristic – the fact that some of its sayings appear to contradict others – is sometimes seen as an indication of the flawed, random nature of this text’s construction. This chapter begins the investigation of another possibility, that these contradictions are not imperfections but part of a subtle and profound didactic strategy to awaken the critical faculties of the reader. The methodological insights of the Russian Formalists, Shklovsky and Bakhtin suggest that the contradictions in Proverbs could be important elements in an ‘heteroglossalic’, dialogical text. Hinds’s view of the book offers an important insight into the way such contradictions might function in ‘teaching for responsibility’. Introductory background When I studied the wisdom books of the Old Testament as an undergraduate in the mid 1980s, the book of Proverbs, in spite of the large amount of wisdom material it contains, was not highly regarded. It was held to be a sort of waystation to what were seen as the more significant books, Job and Qohelet; of interest, not for itself, but for what might be deduced about the sources of its teachings. Our focus on Proverbs was restricted to two rather narrow topics; the origins of the ‘hypostatization’ of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, and the significance of the parallels with other ancient wisdom literature – particularly the close parallels claimed between the Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemope (around 1300 BC) and Proverbs 22.17–24.22. In our consideration  No term for the books accepted as canonical by Protestants and designated by Jews as Tanak or Miqra is, to my mind, wholly satisfactory in an academic context. The term ‘Hebrew Bible’ is inaccurate; some of these texts are partly in Aramaic. ‘First Testament’ has its attractions but runs the danger of replacing one dubious prioritization with another. My use here of the term ‘Old Testament’ has at least the merit of indicating something of the context from which I work.  This conventional dating goes back to Budge who discovered Amenemope in 1888 and published it in 1923. Bernd Schipper has recently argued on paleographical grounds that the work can be dated to the late 7th century BC (2005, 240). Given my own ignorance of hieratic book hand I am unable to evaluate the validity of these arguments.



Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

of these topics Proverbs was chiefly valued for what it might reveal of the religious and social conditions that had led to its production. In particular, two questions were thoroughly addressed. Firstly, did the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 hint at the worship of a female deity in Israel? Secondly, did the links with Egypt, and elsewhere, suggest that there had been a ‘Solomonic renaissance’? That is, had a broadly ‘secular’ international wisdom been introduced into ancient Israel along with the technical expertise and bureaucratic structures required to run Solomon’s more complex kingdom? With our focus on what lay behind the text of Proverbs, its actual teaching, particularly the concise one-line sayings that make up the bulk of the book, was, as it were, ‘blurred’. These sayings were routinely dismissed as conventional and banal, brought together in a more or less random fashion. Furthermore, we were told that the salient feature of their teaching was a simple moral calculus that held that prudent actions had positive consequences – material prosperity and divine approval – while imprudent actions were attended with negative consequences – poverty and divine disapproval. Job and Qohelet, it was held, had taken issue with this platitudinous traditional teaching and revealed its shortcomings. The most influential commentary on Proverbs of the period was that of William McKane (1970). Although this did focus on the individual sayings of the sayings material – McKane often offered highly insightful readings of them – our attention was directed to the grand sweep of his thesis, particularly to his contention that the book revealed a tradition in transition. McKane argued that, in Proverbs, ‘secular’ sayings from an older international wisdom tradition were found alongside others that bore traces of a revision motivated by Yahwistic piety, a trend that would continue until Ben Sira and beyond. Once again, little in this analysis seemed to endorse the intrinsic value of Proverbs. An undervalued text In the late 1990s an interest in paradoxes and riddles in the Scriptures led me to revisit Proverbs. I recalled the claim in the book’s prologue that its purpose was, at least in part, to help the reader ‘to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles’ (Proverbs 1.7, NRSV). Did this mean that the book actually contained riddles? With this question in mind I looked again at the book, particularly the sayings material. It seemed, at first sight, that there was little evidence that any riddles were to be found in Proverbs. However, the attention I paid to the Hebrew text of the individual sayings during this enquiry stimulated other interesting thoughts. I began, for instance, to suspect that they were not arranged quite so haphazardly as was usually assumed. Was it possible that Proverbs was of intrinsic interest in itself and not just  My initial interest was kindled by the novelist Potok’s description of the liturgical use of riddles by Hasidic Jews (1990, 80–81 and passim); Byrne (1996) emphasized the importance of paradox for the opponents of enlightenment rationality; Perry (1993, 43) – from a structuralist perspective – linked riddles and proverbs.

Proverbs, an undervalued text



for what it might reveal about underlying social developments in Ancient Israel or the significance of the personification of Wisdom? I turned to the more recent critical literature to see if today’s scholars had engaged with Proverbs in ways that might answer some of the questions that were now beginning to frame themselves. Since the 1980s there had been remarkable methodological and hermeneutical developments in academic approaches to the Scriptures, innovations that complemented – and sometimes challenged – the historical–critical methodologies that had previously dominated the field. However, as far as Proverbs was concerned, the consensus view did not appear to have substantially changed in response to these developments. Scholars, who might differ considerably in the methodologies they employed, were in agreement that Proverbs represented an inferior form of wisdom. They continued to hold the book of value chiefly in relation to other texts, or for what it might reveal about the social and historical situations that had led to its writing and publication. It was still the dominant view that Proverbs articulated a platitudinous and banal wisdom, consisting chiefly of the counter-factual doctrine that both the good and bad would always be appropriately requited for their deeds. Indeed, in the work of Walter Brueggemann (1990) and Philip Davies (2002), this assertion now had a sharper edge. They argued that Proverbs reflected the views of establishment supporting scribes concerned to uphold an unjust religious and economic settlement. Such scholars might agree with Friedrich Wolf’s dictum ‘Selbst die Sprichwörter entlarven die Ideologie der jeweils herrschenden Klasse’ [Even proverbs unmask the ideology of the class ruling at the time] (1963, 86). Proverbs continued to be compared unfavourably with Job and Qohelet, often regarded as texts that dared to question establishment certainties. In chapter two a more detailed survey will show that, in spite of several more positive scholarly evaluations of the book recently, the general scholarly attitude to the book remains dismissive. However, as I continued to wrestle with the Hebrew text of Proverbs, a working hypothesis that it could be read as a work composed with a subtle didactic purpose began to suggest itself. The more I read Proverbs, the more this was confirmed. I became increasingly convinced that, far from being a complacent mouthpiece for conservative establishment stooges, Proverbs is carefully composed and crafted to encourage readers to question traditional wisdom and to develop their critical faculties. Are words like ‘composed’ and ‘crafted’ appropriate in relation to Proverbs? Is not the book self–evidently a collection of collections, to whose original independence the titles affixed to several of its sections – for instance at Proverbs 10.1 and 25.1 – bear witness? If this is granted, surely the final act of assembly that gave us Proverbs in its canonical form could not have been anything very creative or skilful? Michael Fox – whose erudite commentary on Proverbs 1–9 bespoke an exceptional sympathy with the book – described it as something that had been filtered through a ‘membrane’ of ‘learned clerks’ over a long period of formation (2000, 11). However, as I became increasingly intrigued by Proverbs’ complexity, I began to suspect that its arrangement might have been more careful and more creative than Fox’s metaphor of filtration suggests. Could Proverbs have been shaped carefully by a final editor in order to make complex interplays between the individual sayings possible? I shall argue in chapter



Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

two that the final shaping of the book was indeed more purposeful than the general scholarly model allows for. However, let us first address the question of Proverb’s supposed banality at the level of the individual sayings. Versified banality or bomplex poetry? Paradoxes and wit in Proverbs Proverbs provides us with one of the most extensive collections of Hebrew verse. It is, of course, together with the Song of Songs and the Psalter, one of the three books traditionally recognized as poetic by Jewish tradition. Accordingly, it is no surprise that Luis Alonso Schökel’s work on Hebrew poetics (1988) draws many of its examples from the one-line sayings in Proverbs. Though the precise form of the ‘metre’ of Hebrew verse remains a matter of scholarly dispute, the similarities with the verse forms seen in the Psalms and the prophetic books are unmistakable in the parallelism of the meshalim, the brief one–line sayings that dominate the book from Proverbs 10.1. Extended versification is found in the discourses of Proverbs 1–9 and the acrostic poem in praise of the ishet-hayil, the ‘valiant woman’, with which the book concludes. So Proverbs is in the form of poetry – but is this simply an adherence to convention, a plodding versification of banalities? Clearly, not every saying in Proverbs is, in itself, a masterpiece of gnomic complexity. However, as we shall see, several of its sayings have the capacity to surprise the reader. Others, it is true, appear to be simply trite expressions of conventional thought. For example, the major collection of meshalim in Proverbs, the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ (10.1–22.16), begins with a verse that marries a conventional thought to a simple form. ‘A wise child makes a glad father, but a foolish child is a mother’s grief’ (Proverbs 10.1, NRSV). In chapter three, a reading of this verse, and the other verses that open the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’, will be offered to suggest that this apparent simplicity serves a complex purpose. It will be argued that sometimes the overall complexity of the book actually requires some sayings to possess a high degree of simplicity and straightforwardness. Furthermore, even if the majority of the book’s individual sayings seem platitudinous, scattered through the book are some sayings that offer a striking contrast. They are marked by the expression of paradox and an awareness of the counterintuitive aspects of reality. The consensus view that the book is a more or less random collection would lead to a dismissal of the inclusion of such sayings as of no consequence. It might be said that a few nuggets of gold were bound to have been dug up with the dross. However, if we entertain the suspicion that the inclusion of these more complex sayings was part of the book’s didactic strategy, then some exciting possibilities are opened up. Might they be consciously subverting the apparent platitudes? Might they flag up a knowing awareness of the limitations of what is so often confidently asserted elsewhere in the book? I noted that troubling sayings, ones that contradicted some of the most apparently cherished teachings of Proverbs, were frequently placed within the flow of the other verses in a way which, as one read the book, might be calculated to cause most disturbance. Later in the book we shall focus on the effect of individual sayings in the context of the whole book and attempt to chart some of these ‘eddies in the flow’ of Proverbs.

Proverbs, an undervalued text



It is worth noting at this point in the argument however, that some individual sayings are troubling and disturbing enough to gainsay any notion that Proverbs is simply a collection of platitudes. Indeed, even McKane – who denied any context to the sentence literature in Proverbs and argued that ‘each sentence is an entity in itself’ (1970, 413) – was often struck by the powers of observation and poetic expression manifest in some of these, supposedly atomistic, individual sayings. Paradox and incongruity in Proverbs Many of Proverbs’ meshalim indicate an awareness of paradox and incongruity; for example, Proverbs 11.22, MAoDf tårDs◊w hDpÎy hDÚvIa ryIzSj PAa;b V bDhÎz M‰zRn [Circle of gold in a swine’s snout – a beautiful woman but turned from discretion]. The parallelism here is one of equivalence; we read the second half of the verse to be in a relationship of identity with the first, rather than the more frequent antithetical parallelism in which the second half negates or modifies the first. The conciseness and syntactic compression, typical of Hebrew verse, is pronounced in this verse. The syntax is reduced to the point where no governing verb is required; the only quasi-verbal word in the saying (trs, a form of the infinitive of rws) has the grammatical features of a feminine construct noun. Another striking poetic feature is the strong alliterative b and z sounds in 11.22a – ‘nezem zāhāb beap hazîr’. I have attempted to represent the effect of what might be called an ‘ornamental’ feature of versification in my translation – ‘circle of gold in a swine’s snout’. The presence in Proverbs 11.22 of these features of versification, parallelism, syntactic compression and alliteration, might not, in themselves, indicate anything more than the framing of banalities in conventional forms. In my view, this saying is far more than this. One obstacle to discerning the strategy of the verse is the disturbing effect – particularly perhaps to modern readers – of its invitation to compare a woman with an animal held to be unclean. In chapter three we shall return to 11.22 and argue that its stance – while it may be reprehensible – is not gratuitous. Be that as it may, we should surely grant that this verse bespeaks a powerful, creative intelligence, attentive to the incongruities of experienced reality. The presence of this intelligence in many similar sayings in Proverbs argues for them being more than tired repetitions of conventional thought. One of its characteristics is a certain playfulness. In 11.22a we are presented with a vivid picture that both intrigues and puzzles the reader; the incongruity of a precious ring in the slobbering snout of an unclean animal both arrests and perplexes. Questions are prompted that are answered in 11.22b, which offers the solution to the puzzling picture of 11.22a. The conventions of parallelism prompt the reader to equate the two elements and to make a twofold identification – Gold ring = beauty: woman without discretion = unclean animal. Disapproval of the misogynistic effect of this use of the conventions should not lead us to deny the intelligence evident in their skilful deployment here. A remark of Robert Alter offers a further insight into what is going on in Proverbs 11.22. He suggests that such sayings in Proverbs conform to a pattern in which, 

See McKane on Proverbs 12.16 and 20.14 (1970, 442 and 542 respectively).



Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs … our attention is arrested by some perplexing, startling or seemingly contradictory statement or image in the first verset and this tension is then resolved by the solution to the riddle in the second verset.  (Alter 1985, 178)

Of course, as Alter implies, riddles do not have to be flagged up by some obvious signal, for example ‘what is…?’, for a statement can be riddling simply by virtue of presenting us with a puzzling image or statement. Other sayings in Proverbs that resemble 11.22 include Proverbs 17.12, wø;tVlÅ…wIaV;b lyIsV;k_lAa◊w vyIaV;b l…w;kAv bO;d vwøgDÚp [Meet a bear bereaved, not a fool in his folly!], and Proverbs 26.17, wøl_aø;l byîr_lAo rE;bAoVtIm rEbOo bRlDk_y´n◊zDaV;b qyIzSjAm [One who takes by the ears a passing dog – a meddler in a quarrel not his own, or One who takes a dog by the ears – a passerby meddling in a quarrel not his own]. The highly visual imagery of such sayings is often coupled with a humour that may verge on the farcical but that does not detract from the acuity of the observation. Perhaps such sayings as these are the chidoth [riddles], that Proverbs 1.6 mentions? Could other sayings in the book that bespeak an awareness of incongruity and paradox be the examples of the melizoth [hard sayings] also mentioned in Proverbs 1.6? Such sayings may suggest that certain realities can only be expressed if expected linguistic usages are reversed. Thus, Proverbs 12.10 suggests that some people are so corrupt that even their attempts at kindness causes pain, yîrÎzVkAa MyIoDv√r yEmSjårVw wø;tVmRhV;b vRpRn qyî;dAx Aoédwøy [a just man considers the condition of his beast, but cruel, the mercies of the wicked]. Here the paradoxical nature of the equivalence of yEmSjår [tender mercies] and yîrÎzVkAa [cruelties] in 12.10b is emphasized by the almost prosaic nature of 12.10a which, unusually for Proverbs, conforms to the normal syntactic pattern of Hebrew prose (verb, subject, object). A reversal of the normal expectations of linguistic usage is also emphasized in 13.24, rDs…wm wørSjIv wøbShOa◊w wønVb aEnwøc wøfVbIv JKEcwøj [Withholds his rod, hates his son, who loves him is early with discipline]. What looks like love is, in fact, apathy, while apparent harshness expresses genuine love. A similar paradox is expressed in 27.6, aEnwøc twøqyIv◊n twørD;tVoÅn◊w bEhwøa yEoVxIÚp MyˆnDmTa‰n [Trustworthy are a lover’s blows but dangerous the caresses of one who hates]. Once again, as in the case of Proverbs 11.22, both these sayings hardly commend themselves to the sensibilities of modern readers. We are only too aware of how they might be used to justify unacceptable abuse of the vulnerable. I would contend however, that such sayings are part of a strategy within Proverbs that is not intended to recommend specific courses of action – such as ‘denigrate women’; ‘beat your children’; ‘domestic violence is to be recommended’ – but rather to make the reader aware of the way language must sometimes be used in surprising and counterintuitive ways if it is to capture reality. A striking and surprising image can also be used in Proverbs to introduce complexity into what might appear to be a platitude. An example of this is Proverbs 25.15, M®rD…g_rD;bVvI;t hD;kår NwøvDl◊w NyIx∂q hR;tUp◊y MˆyAÚpAa JK®rOaV;b, which the NRSV renders ‘With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue can break a bone’. This translation, I would argue, tends to render the Hebrew in such a way as to make it blander and less challenging. At issue here is the translation of the verb hRt ; Up◊y (third person singular masculine imperfect of the pual form of the root hjp, ‘be simple’)

Proverbs, an undervalued text



in 25.15a. The NRSV, together with most English versions – the JB’s ‘cajole’ is the most negative of the versions surveyed – renders it positively as ‘persuade’. Richard Clifford agrees, commenting that although … the verb … is negative (‘to deceive, seduce’) in its four other occurrences in Proverbs … it has a positive meaning here and in Hos. 2:16 and Judg. 14:15.  (Clifford 1999, 225)

However, the general confidence that hR;tUp◊y has a positive meaning in Proverbs 25.15a fails to take account of the remarkable image in 25.15b . Had the two halves of the verse been reversed – NyIx∂q hR;tUp◊y MˆyAÚpAa JK®rOaV;b◊w M®rD…g_rD;bVvI;t hD;kår NwøvDl [a soft tongue can break a bone and with patience a ruler can be persuaded] – the effect produced would have been similar to that of the ‘riddles’ discussed above. However, in this saying the solution of the ‘riddle’ is given before the problem. This produces an interesting effect. The reader is not momentarily puzzled by a difficulty or paradox; instead a retrospective re–evaluation of what could appear as a platitudinous commonplace is prompted. The image of a soft tongue rasping away until it breaks a bone is rather sinister – to my mind it suggests a predator, perhaps a lion, dealing with its kill. So the, seemingly banal, advice to achieve one’s ends by keeping cool before one’s superiors is subtly undermined by the thought that this could be a sinister manipulation. Consequently, a negative nuance is to be understood in 25.15a and a more accurate rendering would be ‘By controlling temper a commander can be gulled, and a soft tongue breaks a bone’. Indeed, Alter has argued that the complexities in the sayings of Proverbs warrant comparison with those to be found in the work of one of the greatest English satirical poets, Alexander Pope. In a chapter in his book on Biblical Poetry (1985) entitled ‘The Poetry of Wit’, Alter compares Pope’s use of the heroic couplet with Proverbs use of the one-line proverb. In closed forms, such as the rhyming couplet Pope used, or the one-line Hebrew Proverb, the two versets of which constitute a kind of couplet, words, syntactic patterns, and repeated or varied cadences have a strong tendency to press closely against one another, generating complications of meaning by the sheer tightness of the form in which they are held. (Alter 1985, 164)

Such a comparison might seem to flatter Proverbs. Pope’s famous definition in An Essay on Criticism, 1711 – ‘True Wit is Nature to Advantage dressed/ What oft was thought but ne’er so well expressed’ (WAP 1963, 297) – emphasizes the need for originality of expression, if not thought, and so, at first sight, excludes a claim that the sayings in Proverbs exemplify the poetry of wit. For not only can close parallels to the Hebrew meshalim be found in other wisdom literature, but the book’s own claim, as articulated in the prologue in Proverbs 1.1–6, is not that it is saying something new. Rather Proverbs seeks to help the reader understand the ‘sayings

 Fox (2004, 150) echoes my argument here and, noting the possible sexual reference of htp, offers the translation ‘with patience a ruler may be screwed’!



Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

of the wise’ – the wisdom of the community expressed by its sages – rather than articulate one gifted individual’s novel teachings. However, the close parallels to the sayings in Proverbs do not force the conclusion that its sayings are without their own distinctive poetic characteristics. Some of the closest parallels are found in the collection of Aramaic sayings of Ahiqar (ca.500 BCE). For instance, this saying, Withhold not thy son from the rod, else thou wilt not be able to save [him from wickedness] If I smite thee my son thou wilt not die, but if I leave to thy own heart [thou wilt not live]. (Ahiqar 83 in ANET, 428)

bears a striking resemblance to Proverbs 23.13–14,

t…wmÎy aøl fRbEÚvAb …w…nR;kAt_yI;k rDs…wm rAoA…nIm oAnVmI;t_lAa lyI…xA;t lwøaVÚvIm wøvVpÅn◊w …w…nR;kA;t fRbEÚvA;b hD;tAa [Do not withhold discipline from a lad. For if you beat him with a rod he will not die; you beat him with a rod and deliver him from Sheol]

(Proverbs 23.13–14)

It cannot be claimed that this saying in Proverbs is somehow superior, more memorable or more expressive than that in Ahiqar. Both are commonplaces that, whether they come from a common stock, or whether there is some relationship of dependence, have developed their own version of a similar underlying ‘conceit’. However, if we compare Proverbs 25.15 (which we have already encountered) with its counterpart in a saying in Ahiqar, the use of a shared image is arguably more creative in the Hebrew than in the Aramaic work. ‘soft is the tongue of a k[ing] but it breaks a dragon’s ribs’  (Ahiqar 103 in ANET, 429).

M®rD…g_rD;bVvI;t hD;kår NwøvDl◊w NyIx∂q hR;tUp◊y MˆyAÚpAa JK®rOaV;b [By controlling temper one gulls a commander, and a soft tongue breaks a bone] The same striking and paradoxical metaphor is employed in both works, but in Ahiqar the saying is an observation concerned with the awesome but understated power of a king, who ‘speaks softly but carries a big stick’. The Proverbs saying is exhortatory, urging on a subordinate the persuasive power of soft speech. A more significant difference is to be found in the use made of the image, which, as I argued above, introduces a complex note into what could be a platitude. Here the differences between Proverbs and Ahiqar are more important than the similarities. Granted, the sort of individual creativity we see in Proverbs is one that seeks to express traditional sayings in new ways rather than coming up with startling insights unperceived by anyone before, but this accords with Pope’s definition of ‘True Wit’ – ‘What oft was thought but ne’er so well expressed’ (WAP 1963, 153). The book’s  McKane (1970, 584) concurs with my argument here, pointing out the different way the image of the bone-breaking tongue is used in Ahiqar, Proverbs and Sirah.

Proverbs, an undervalued text



originality at the ‘micro-level’ is chiefly displayed in shaping, polishing and adapting individual sayings, though this does not exclude the possibility – indeed, in my view the probability – that some of the book’s sayings are newly minted, but if they were, they still conform closely to the form and thought of those sanctioned by the existing tradition. Alter’s invocation of Pope’s notion of ‘True Wit’ is thus well warranted, for in many of Proverbs’ individual sayings powers of observation and poetic expression are at work that make traditional aphorisms appear fresh and interesting. However, his suggestion, that this wit follows inevitably from the concise form of the one-line saying which ‘generates complications’ by its ‘tightness’ (Alter 1985, 164), requires some important qualification. ‘Tightness’ of form, per se, does not necessarily generate complications. For example, in Judges 8.21b an extremely concise saying wøt∂r…wb◊…g vyIaDk yI;k, [for, as the man, so his strength] is found. Carole Fontaine has shown that the ‘performance’ of this traditional proverb in the context of the narrative of Judges gives rise to considerable complexity (1982, 95). However, in itself, Judges 8.21b expresses a thought that is simple to the point of banality. It is clear that the more complex form of the mashal adopted in the sayings material of the book of Proverbs constituted a vehicle more suited for the complexities the writer wanted to express than the extreme of conciseness represented by the folksaying in Judges. In particular, the parallelism of the sayings in Proverbs, the way the verse is divided into two halves, facilitated the expression of antitheses and surprising equivalences. Furthermore, such complexity can also be found in the more extended forms of verse employed in Proverbs. It is, for instance, present in the ‘numerical saying’. Proverbs 30.18–19,

MyI;tVoåd◊y aøl hDoD;b√rAa◊w oD;b√rAa◊w yˆ…nR;mIm …waVlVpˆn hD;mEh hDv ølVv MDy_bRlVb hD¥yˆnFa_JK®r®;d r…wx yElSo vDjÎn JK®r®;d MˆyAmDÚvA;b rRv‰…nAh JK®r®;d hDmVlAoV;b rRbR…g JK®r®d◊w [Three too marvelous for me and four I do not understand them: way of an eagle in the heavens; way of a snake upon a rock; way of a ship in the heart of the sea; way of a man with a maiden]

The form of this saying resembles other numerical sayings in Scripture (e.g. Amos 1.6­–2.4) and this in Ahiqar. Two things [which] are meet and the third pleasing to Shamash: one who drinks wine and gives it to drink, one who guards wisdom, and one who hears a word and does not tell. – Behold that is dear to Shamash.  (Ahiqar 92–94 in ANET, 428).

Similar numerical sayings are also found, incidentally, according to Graham Ogden (1987, 105) in the Confucian Analects. They function as a sort of poetic list bringing together ostensibly similar things. The ‘wit’ is often found in the inclusion of a final element whose similarity with the preceding items is not immediately obvious. In

10

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

the example from Proverbs the saying draws us, as it were, into the sage’s puzzled enquiry. Why are these phenomena unclear and mysterious to him, we ask? The answer in the case of the first three might be the wonderful, but barely understood, powers of movement of the subjects, as they make their way in the three elements of air, earth and water. The wit of the saying is located in the surprising inclusion of the fourth way, that of the man and the maiden. Although, at one level, the ‘way of a man with a maiden’ does not appear to belong with the others, the linkage with the previous examples made by its inclusion in the conventional form, the juxtaposition and the repetition of K J ®r®;d [way] prompt the reader to connect them. So, far from imposing a banal and simplistic worldview upon us, this saying invites us to share not only the sage’s appreciation of the complexities of life but also his perplexities. I shall argue in this book that it is not just the meshalim, the one-line sayings, but the entire text of Proverbs, including the discursive opening chapters and the extended final poems, that generates complexities. The various forms of verse found in Proverbs in no way determine the book’s mindset, as if ‘tightness’ is automatically generated by the lapidary nature of the mashal itself. However, the fact that a variety of poetic forms is found in Proverbs facilitated the expression of the complexities the editor wished to examine. Proverbs – a unified text, pervaded by contradictions The presence of such qualities as playfulness, intelligence and humour in the individual sayings in Proverbs, is not, in itself, conclusive evidence against judging the book to be the voice of an establishment-supporting scribal class – as, for instance, Philip Davies (2002) suggests. Such a class might well use humour and wit to attack opponents and buttress its own position. If one supposes that the book was written to reinforce a conventional morality serving the interests of a powerful elite, the presence of such qualities as paradox and self-contradiction is more difficult to explain. Arguably these would tend to subvert any self-justificatory programme of black and white didacticism. The inclusion of sayings with these qualities in Proverbs suggests that the sage responsible for Proverbs should not be dismissed as complacent and self-serving; nor was he an indiscrimating collector who included some striking, paradoxical and witty sayings simply because they were in his sources. I shall argue that not only did he appreciate their wit and complexity, but he also organized the final editing process with an eye to the impact they would make on the whole book. Indeed, I now believe that Proverbs should be read as a crafted, skilfully organized poetic composition rather than the randomly structured collections perceived by many commentators. The validity of this reading will be tested as we examine a web of references, repetitions and contrasts within the book, including some that cut across the presumed source boundaries. To read Proverbs only as a collection of atomistic statements is ‘to miss the wood for the trees’. It is possible to read the book as possessing a unity despite its clear diversity of sources and expressed attitudes. Furthermore, I shall argue that one of the features often held to indicate the lack of any controlling intelligence in the book – namely the presence within it

Proverbs, an undervalued text

11

of contradictions – ­is in fact evidence that supports my hypothesis of crafting and organization. The presence of such contradictions was singled out by the Tannaim as a striking feature of the book, one that troubled them and that they sought to resolve by means of an harmonizing interpretation. The Book of Proverbs also they [the sages] desired to hide, because its statements are self-contradictory. Yet why did they not hide it? They said, did we not examine the Book of Ecclesiastes and find a reconciliation? So here too let us make a search. And how are its statements self-contradictory? It is written Answer not a fool according to his folly, yet it is also written, Answer a fool according to his folly. There is no difficulty: the one refers to matters of learning; the other to general matters.  (b. Shabbath 30b)

In fact, the contradictions in Proverbs are both more widespread and more significant than the Rabbis remarks imply. We shall discover that contradiction is pervasive in Proverbs both within the boundaries of the collections and across those boundaries. The mindset of the author of Proverbs, as I discern it, was a complex one that delighted in paradox and incongruity; the contradictions in the book are intrinsic to its purpose not accidental. ‘The words of the wise are goads’ – towards a methodology of reading Proverbs My approach to Proverbs has been influenced by various critical methodologies. The influence of I.A. Richards’s Practical Criticism (1929) may already have been detected in the attempts at close readings above. Another influence from the Cambridge English school is that of F.R. Leavis, particularly the late Leavis, who insisted in Thoughts, Words, and Creativity (1976) that texts cannot be reduced to atomistic structures. On the other hand – and in some tension with these approaches – I am indebted to the analysis of the structural critic, Perry (1993). So in many ways the approach adopted here is an eclectic one. However, particular attention has been paid to certain critical voices whose focus has been on contradiction, the phenomenon that I identify as of particular significance in Proverbs. Here I should point out that my approach differs from those of postmodern critics who have made much of the presence of elements in the Bible that are in contradiction to the main thrust of ideologies they hold to be dominate these texts. We shall return to this difference in my conclusion but, briefly, I do not see the contradictions in Proverbs as being unintentional features that arise out of the slippery nature of texts, their inevitable ‘surplus of meaning’ that inevitably betrays an author’s intentions. I posit an author of Proverbs who was well aware that his text included contradictions. Furthermore, I reject the model of the hegemonic reader I detect in the theories of the postmodernists and would suggest that reading a text like Proverbs should involve a partnership between reader and author. What role did the author/final editor of Proverbs have for these contradictions? One answer is suggested by the thought of the Russian Formalist literary critic Viktor Shklovsky. In his essay Art as Technique (1917) he described the essential difference

12

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

between practical (i.e. prosaic) language and poetic language as consisting in осtрáнние (‘defamiliarization’). Shklovsky believed that, in prose, language serves merely to convey meaning and we scarcely notice it, but in poetry the language deliberately draws attention to itself by making new and unfamiliar what we had taken for granted. Poetry, he says, does not arise simply out of the employment of devices such as, … parallelism, comparison, repetition, balanced structure, hyperbole, the commonly accepted rhetorical figures and all those methods which emphasize the emotional effect of an expression (including words or even articulated sounds).  (Shklovsky 1917 trans. 1965, 11).

According to Shklovsky, these devices are employed in prosaic speech as well, but in such a way that we scarcely notice them. Poetic speech ‘defamiliarizes’ the familiar and so makes us notice it again; it removes ‘the automatism of perception’ (1917 trans. 1965, 22); poetic speech is, therefore, always ‘hard’, even ‘attenuated, tortuous’ (1917 trans. 1965, 23). The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar,’ to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object: the object is not important. [translator’s italics]  (Shklovsky 1917 trans. 1965, 12)

Shklovsky pays close attention to the formal composition of texts and to the techniques through which poetic language ‘defamiliarizes’ itself. We shall see that some of the devices he singles out – notably parallelism, repetition and hyperbole – are extremely important in Proverbs. In my view, his crucial insight is that such devices are used in poetry to ‘lengthen the perception’ (Shklovsky 1917 trans. 1965, 12), that is not to make things easier for the reader but, in a sense, to make things harder, and so make us pay attention. This sheds light on the role of the paradoxes, incongruities and, especially, the contradictions found in Proverbs. Their function is to make us think harder – ‘ these words of the wise’ are ‘goads’ (Qohelet 12.11), to prick the reader. Such goads are particularly necessary when wise sayings are expressed in the form of proverbs. Proverbial sayings are arguably always in danger of becoming platitudes; if they become generally adopted into the stock of wisdom in a culture, then they may become semi-automatic responses, scarcely perceived by those to whom they are addressed, or even by those who use them. Thus the parents who send their child to University at great expense only to see them waste time there, might express their frustration in the words ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.’ Such a stock response may provide a measure of emotional release, but it would hardly be remarked by others as a thought-provoking piece of wisdom. Interestingly, and in line with this thought, Shklovsky ranked proverbs as the most ‘symbolic’ (1917 trans. 1965, 13) of verse forms behind fables and poetry  Shklovsky’s neologism from the root ctpahh – (‘remarkable’, ‘unfamiliar’).

Proverbs, an undervalued text

13

proper. ‘Symbolic’, for him, means that the words in such a form function as mere ciphers and are scarcely noticed by the reader. The meaning of work broadens to the extent that artfulness and artistry diminish: thus a fable symbolizes more than a poem, and a proverb more than a fable. (Shklovsky 1917 trans. 1965, 13)

We shall discover that Proverbs achieves its goal of awakening its readers to wisdom by introducing contradictions into the flow of its sayings. This ‘defamiliarizes’ not just the sayings concerned but also the context, the other sayings around them. The reader is goaded into paying renewed attention to a form of wisdom whose very familiarity might lead to it being dismissed. Moreover, this is not an end in itself. Proverbs’ aims are not simply to awaken its readers’ aesthetic appreciation. In one sense the writer(s) of Proverbs would have endorsed Shklovsky’s assertion that the object of an artistic endeavour, that is the text itself, was not important, but only the artfulness. However, Proverbs has an important object outside its own text, namely, a didactic purpose to which end it employs its provocative artfulness. Reading Proverbs as a dialogue – Bakhtin The didactic strategy of Proverbs becomes most clear when seen through the theoretical lens provided by another Russian Formalist, Mikhail Bakhtin. In his essay ‘Discourse in the Novel’ (1934–5 trans. 1981), Bakhtin argued that all true communication must involve a dialogue between a speaker (or author) and a listener (or reader) that creates a relationship between them that will lead the one addressed to their own utterance (1981, 672–3). Understanding occurs when words uttered are appropriated by the one addressed and related to their existing words, the different forms of language they already possess. In dialogue then, languages meet and address one another; understanding occurs at this point of meeting. As Bakhtin puts it ‘the word lives on the boundary between its own context and another, alien, context.’ (1981, 284). A deficient form of communication is to be found in the monologue. Here the discourse is self-referring, ‘sufficient unto itself’ (1981, 285). For Bakhtin the paradigm of such self-referential discourse is poetry. He views poetic language as ‘monologic’ because, in his view, it is only concerned with addressing itself and not with other discourses or languages. ‘The language of poetic genre is a unitary and singular Ptolemaic world outside of which nothing else exists and nothing else is needed.’ (1981, 286). So if an utterance is identified as ‘poetic’ it is read in a very different way than if the very same utterance is made in the context of social interaction. An example of my own may clarify Bakhtin’s thinking. We react to the opening words ‘HERR: es ist Zeit.’ [‘SIR: it is time.’] of Rainer Maria Rilke’s poem Herbsttage  The word слóво (literally, ‘word’) used here ‘covers much more territory than its English equivalent’ – (Glossary to trans. 1981, 427) – ‘discourse’ or even ‘understanding’ might better capture the sense.

14

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

(WRR Band 2, 51) rather differently than to similar words – ‘It’s time, Sir’ – heard at 11.10 p.m. in an English pub. The Rilke poem refers to time as an abstraction not to anything specific. In this abstraction lies its poetic power; assuming Rilke’s words to be poetry we pour into them all sorts of metaphysical and other connotations – including perhaps that HERR should be understood as LORD and refer to God. For Bakhtin, this power comes at too high a price. The utterance read as poetry has lost the specificity of social reference which it has in the pub. In Bakhtin’s view such a language is deficient because the only response it seeks is to draw the reader or listener into its own self-referential discourse. Unaddressed by other languages, it tends to a purely aesthetic utterance without didactic possibilities; or to propaganda, in which the only sort of didacticism possible is one which seeks to silence any true response and enforce an acceptance that mutes other languages and utterances. Against such monologic language, Bakhtin opposes the idea of the ‘heteroglossalic’ text in which many different sorts of languages are employed. It is in the prose writers, above all the novelists – with ‘an extraordinary and unique place’ being accorded to Dostoevsky (1981, 349) – that Bakhtin discerns an attempt to enter into a true dialogue with readers by bringing different voices into play. In Crime and Punishment, for instance, we hear the languages of the St Petersburg streets; of religion; of the police bureaucracy; of philosophical discourse; of the rural peasantry; of personal internal reflection. These voices are heard together in such a work; though they mingle, they do not blend and may indeed clash, not only with each other but also with the concepts and languages they address in the reader. No single voice is ultimately privileged in such dialogic utterance. Where they contradict each other the reader seeks to respond in the light both of the conflicting utterances and their own existing words and understandings. Thus the point where this clash of languages and their associated connotations and perspectives occurs is the boundary point at which new understanding and fresh insights can be generated. Bakhtin admits that a certain amount of ‘heteroglossalia’ can be introduced into poetry but only in the ‘“low” poetic genres’ (1981, 287). This seems too limited; T. S. Eliot’s The Wasteland (1922) for instance, employs languages drawn from at least as wide a spectrum as any novel. In it the words ‘HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME [sic]’ (WTE, 69) recur both as the cry of a landlady at closing time and as symbolic of such metaphysical concerns as death and indeed the end of civilization. Interestingly, despite Bakhtin’s view that the Novel was the most intrinsically dialogic of textual forms, one of the writers most influenced by his theories was not a novelist but the poet and playwright, Bertolt Brecht. Returning to Proverbs, we might at first see Bakhtin’s theories as reinforcing the arguments of those who have attacked the book as offering nothing more than self -serving platitudes. Verses like Proverbs 10.1, might be seen to be ‘monologic’ and ‘sufficient unto themselves’ compared to the more complex and paradoxical sayings examined above. In fact, both sorts of discourse are, in Bakthinian terms, equally deficient. Indeed, the more platitudinous verses have at least their didacticism to recommend them. The paradoxes and riddles could be seen as merely self-referential, leading the reader into a beguiling, self-indulgent and fruitless language game. My contention is that in the overall context of Proverbs they perform a more significant function. They point the reader beyond themselves to the diverse and complex nature

Proverbs, an undervalued text

15

of the knowledge the book seeks to impart. This indicatory function they share with the book’s contradictions that are not confined to the single example quoted in the Talmud but – as we shall discover – pervade the book. Proverbs is a ‘heteroglossalic’ text in Bakhtin’s terms. It is not just that it contains different poetic genres – the extended ‘lectures’ of Proverbs 1–9, the one-line meshalim that dominate from Proverbs 10.1, the carefully crafted acrostic poem of Proverbs 31.10–31 – it also makes these genres confront one another. The reader is addressed by each of them and, as they clash, is encouraged to respond with his or her own utterance. Conclusion – ‘teaching for responsibility’ From the viewpoint of a professional educator, Mark Hinds has discerned in Proverbs a model for an approach to education that seeks to encourage the formation in the young of the qualities of analysis and critical reflection rather than to infantilize them. Hinds regards many of the features in Proverbs that I have highlighted as those that make for ‘teaching for responsibility’. Through contradictions, irony and riddles in, among, and between proverbial sayings, these texts indirectly direct the reader’s attention to the ambiguities in life. Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool yourself. Answer fools according to their folly, or they will be wise in their own eyes. (26.4–5) Which is true? It depends on the reader, on the reader’s context and experiences, on her community’s beliefs and mores, on the particular situation and so on. Those who seek moral or ethical absolutes in Proverbs are not given an easy road; discernment, reading of circumstances from differing vantage points, and dialogue among a community of readers – much is required of those who would be responsible. (Hinds 1998, 217–8)

Philip Davies argues that, in the book of Genesis, ‘a rather clever narrator … has teased us by his contradictions into reading his story with great care and attention’ (Davies 1995, 94). Carol Newsom applies the Bakhtinian notion of ‘polyphony’ to the book of Job (Newsom, 2002). She argues that the voice of traditional wisdom – as expressed by Job’s friends – is made to clash with the voice of Job himself, while the reader is not presented with a clear superiority of one over the other, but rather drawn into a dialogue with both voices. In Proverbs we can detect the creative work of an author/editor at least as subtle as Davies’s narrator of Genesis, one who draws the reader into a dialogue through which new insights are generated. Consequently, Proverbs is not – as scholars have tended to assume – a repository of simplistic traditional wisdom, but an altogether more complex, more challenging text. Indeed, I want to assert in this book that Proverbs is an important part of the canon that offers exciting opportunities for those who seek to grow in wisdom and help others towards growth. It follows that the negative effects of the marginalization of Proverbs by scholars have not been restricted to the academy. In chapter two we shall see how and why this marginalization came about.  Alternative rendering of рáзнорыйчє – ‘heteroglossality’

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

How Proverbs was Marginalized Summary of chapter Proverbs, supposedly the exemplar of Israelite wisdom, is, in fact, undervalued by many scholars, often held to be facilely optimistic and compared unfavourably with the, apparently, more radical Job and Qohelet. Traditionally, Proverbs was highly valued by Christians and Jews but – together with Israelite wisdom as a whole – it was marginalized by critical scholarship and has yet to share fully in the revival of interest in Israelite wisdom literature that began in the 1960s. The religious suppositions of German Protestant Old Testament scholars, who distrusted the supposed secularism and rationalism of Proverbs, led them to undervalue the book. This ‘traditional neglect’ (Murphy) continues, in spite of von Rad’s more positive account of the book, to dominate scholarly debate, although in recent years welcome signs of a more positive approach can be detected. An important reason for the continued marginalization of Proverbs is the widespread acceptance that a doctrine of retribution – often described in terms that show the influence of Koch’s ‘Acts–Consequence Connection’ – is the book’s key teaching. Faced with the complexities of a text that does not conform to western literary standards, scholars have seized on the notion of retribution and failed to note the complicating exceptions. This has led some to see it as an ideological text validating an unjust status quo. There are other scholars, however, who discern more complexities in the text than are allowed for in the conventional account. Some of these press towards readings of individual sayings in the context of the whole book. Can this be justified? Can Proverbs be read as if it had been edited into some sort of coherent and unified literary shape? A supreme, but undervalued, example Where does mainstream scholarly opinion currently place the book of Proverbs among wisdom books of ancient Israel? In an introduction to wisdom literature for non-specialists, Katharine Dell states that Proverbs is ‘universally regarded as the supreme example of traditional Israelite wisdom’ (2000, 5). This suggests that the book enjoys a high and honoured position among scholars. In an earlier article she implied that Proverbs is regarded as the central text to which Job and Qohelet are marginal. There is a trend in modern scholarship to regard Ecclesiastes, along with Job, as very much on the fringes of the main wisdom exercise. This is the literature of protest that dared to challenge the easy optimism of early proverbial wisdom. (Dell 1994, 302)

18

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Von Rad’s remark that Qohelet ‘pitched his camp at the farthest frontier of Jahwism’ (1957 trans. 1965, 457) has clearly influenced her assessment, for it is quoted here in a footnote. However, von Rad, as we shall see, did not think Qohelet’s fringe position meant that we should necessarily think highly of the book. Dell, on the other hand, describes a scholarly tendency to see Qohelet in positive terms because it is an ‘outsider’. Proverbs – presumably, representative of the ‘main wisdom exercise’ she refers to – is, however, regarded in a somewhat more negative way; her remark about the ‘easy optimism of early proverbial wisdom’ indicates a certain scholarly ambivalence towards this supposedly central text. Optimism per se is not necessarily a bad thing, but ‘easy’ suggests complacency and hints at conclusions being arrived at too quickly. This assessment of the current scholarly trend does not prevent Dell herself from handling Proverbs with sympathy and understanding. Her warning about the need for caution in the use of developmental models to describe the book’s teaching (2000, 30–1) and her insistence that a theological purpose is integral to Proverbs (2006, 146–54) are particularly welcome. Nevertheless, we note that when this supposedly exemplary text is compared with Qohelet, it seems to suffer from the comparison. Dell’s remarks imply that, although Qohelet is regarded as a more marginal and more difficult text than Proverbs, it is also held to be more challenging and more audacious; so it may be altogether a more interesting text, in spite of – indeed, perhaps because of – its marginal status. In fact, the trend Dell identifies is the default position of much modern scholarship. For instance, it is revealing that Norman Whybray – whose contribution to wisdom scholarship was outstanding – nevertheless often speaks of Proverbs in ways that conform to the tendency implied in Dell’s remarks. While discussing the arguments of some scholars that Job is not, strictly speaking, a wisdom book, he remarks, This opinion is not due to the fact that the author of Job questions the simple optimistic view of the world which is characteristic of the Book of Proverbs; that is equally true of Ecclesiastes, yet Ecclesiastes is universally classified as a wisdom book. (Whybray 1989, 238)

‘Simple optimism’ is not perhaps as culpable as ‘easy optimism’ but it is still a negative judgement on a book that introduces itself as a text that aims ‘to teach shrewdness to the simple’ (Proverbs 1.4, NRSV). James Crenshaw, another respected scholar in the field of wisdom literature, confesses his astonishment at the confidence and, once again, the optimism of the sages responsible for Proverbs. Regardless of the social context of these utterances, they possessed astonishing confidence in the power of the intellect. By living according to the accumulated insights of past generations, individuals guaranteed prosperity, long life, honor, and well being. For these optimists, the universe seemed to operate in an orderly manner rewarding virtue and punishing vice. (Crenshaw 1990, 416)

How Proverbs was marginalized

19

Similarly, in a later article, Crenshaw locates the final editing of the sayings material in Proverbs 10.1ff to a relatively optimistic period. A confident community of sages may well have existed during the expansionism of the eighth century, particularly Hezekiah’s reign. Believing themselves capable of controlling their future, these optimists relied on their own knowledge and goodness to face all eventualities.  (Crenshaw 1993, 17)

He argues that this confidence was a major energizing factor behind the reforms of Josiah but was followed by deep disillusion after the king’s death and the subsequent disasters of defeat and exile, experiences perhaps reflected in the scepticism of some later wisdom books. Given this analysis, it would seem that the confidence and optimism Crenshaw ascribes to the sages must have been misplaced. Indeed, the critical tone discernible in Whybray is more pronounced in Crenshaw’s article. The Wisdom the sages extol is partisan, even ungenerous. ‘She restricts her love to those who love her, thus failing to break out of the mold [sic] cast by retributive thinking’ (Crenshaw 1993, 11). Significant here is the crucial role that he ascribes to thinking about retribution in casting the ‘mold’ into which the sages’ confidence was poured. In spite of these clearly critical observations he is prepared to admit – albeit grudgingly – that their teaching was not completely self-regarding. Although the conservative ideology of the wise brought distinct rewards, their motive was not entirely selfish. Their understanding of the cosmic order placed a premium on ethical behavior which constituted society and prevented the incursion of chaos into daily life. (Crenshaw 1993, 13)

The connection made here between the notion of order in the universe and ‘retributive thinking’ is another significant element in the consensus view. In the next chapter we shall examine Proverbs’ teaching on the matter of retribution more fully and will discover that it is by no means as inclined to settled conclusions as Crenshaw, and others, believe. Whybray and Crenshaw use strikingly similar vocabulary to characterize scholarly views of the teaching of Proverbs, which is held to express a conservative view of the world so simplistic in its optimism that it is not tenable. We will see that their views are representative of a consensus deeply rooted in the preconceptions that have shaped critical scholarship. Moreover, the present intellectual climate, heavily influenced by postmodernist distrust of any truth claims, makes it even more likely for scholars to regard Proverbs as a simplistic text precisely because it so clearly signals its own didactic purpose. Whybray’s remark that the aim of the book of Job is ‘to promote serious thought rather than teach a doctrine’ (1989, 238) is revealing in this context. It seems to assume that the teaching of doctrine and serious thought are necessarily opposed. Such an opposition implies that ‘teaching doctrine’ is tantamount to the assertion of ‘take it or leave it’ statements – a didactic method that might, indeed, be incompatible with ‘serious thought’. However, such an understanding underestimates the possibility of subtle doctrines conveyed by methods that engage the critical powers of the student. Is it not possible to read Job as teaching a doctrine concerning the inscrutable, mysterious nature of God?

20

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Conversely, does the – ostensibly more obvious – didacticism of Proverbs necessarily exclude ‘serious thought’ from the book? Nili Shupak argues that while ‘ancient Hebrew educators perceived knowledge first and foremost as traditional, exemplary material to be passed down from generation to generation’ (Shupak 2003, 424), they were ‘also aware of another way of learning, one based on the pupil’s creative flair’ (Shupak 2003, 426). I shall contend that this ‘other way of learning’ is more evident in Proverbs than many scholars admit. Predisposed to believe that the book is simplistic and dogmatic, they are then ready to make neat comparisons with Job and Qohelet, seen as more complex and radical texts that involve ‘serious thought’. Indeed, the criticisms of Whybray, and Crenshaw are mild and restrained in comparison to those of other scholars for whom Proverbs is an actively oppressive text. Dell’s statement that the book is ‘universally regarded as the supreme example of traditional Israelite Wisdom’ is undeniable in the restricted sense that the length of Proverbs and its undoubted influence on other texts means it cannot be ignored. However, as we shall see, many Proverbs scholars do not regard Proverbs as in any way an ‘exemplary’ text. Rather the book has suffered from over-simplistic oppositions between Job and Qohelet – supposedly questioning and radical – and Proverbs – supposedly simplistic and staid. On this account, Proverbs may seem like an elderly, rather conservative mother. This picture may seem fanciful but it is, of course, justifiable by the book’s own readiness to personify Wisdom in the shape of a woman (in Proverbs 3.13–18, 8.1–9.6 and, arguably, 31.10–31). So scholars often assume that – revered matriarch though she is – Proverbs is out of touch with a reality she sees ‘through rose tinted spectacles’; Job and Qohelet are the family rebels whose struggles to assert themselves are painful, but far more interesting than the ‘optimism’ of Proverbs. We shall see, however, that Proverbs contains complexities unsuspected by this consensus, or, if noted, dismissed as random exceptions. Moreover, such a view of the relationship between these texts leads to a minimizing of the power of the ‘traditional’ views expressed in Job and Qohelet. Newsom (2002) has argued that Job is a genuinely ‘polyphonic’ text in Bakhtinian terms; that is, one in which there is a real dialogue between viewpoints represented on the one hand by Job and on the other by his friends. In her view the outcome of that debate is not as settled in Job’s favour as most commentators assume. This account of Job supports my own conclusion that the neatness of the scholarly consensus about the wisdom texts obscures complexities, not only in Proverbs but also in all biblical wisdom. Language that ranks these texts – or sees one or other as central and the others as marginal – is misleading; these are related works and we should emphasize the relationships between them, not speak of superiority or centrality. So it would not be unfair to say that many scholars regard Proverbs, at best, as worthy but dull compared with more exciting wisdom texts. Regard for the book has not recovered from its inability to fit in with the explanatory schema of nineteenth century scholarship.

How Proverbs was marginalized

21

Scholarly neglect of biblical wisdom James Loader remarks that, It is commonplace for papers in the sapiential literature of Israel to welcome the steady growth of interest in this tradition that began in the [nineteen] sixties. (1999, 211)

He dates the rebirth of interest in this literature to publication of Heinrich Schmid’s Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit in Israel (1966). Two points need to be considered here; why did interest in Israelite wisdom literature wane in the first place, and why is it, as we shall see, that interest in Proverbs was the slowest to recover? We shall discover that the answer to the first question is to be found in the underlying theological assumptions of German Protestant theologians. For these influential scholars wisdom literature was tarnished by its association with post-exilic Judaism, a period that was held to be one of legalistic decline. To answer the second question we shall need to look beyond the concerns of German Protestant Theology, for the continuing neglect of Proverbs has persisted into a period when it no longer dominates critical scholarship. I shall argue that this continued neglect can, in great measure, be traced to the assumption that Proverbs’ teaching was more or less to be summed up in terms of a simplistic counter-factual doctrine of retribution. The popularity of Proverbs Among early Christians Proverbs was immensely popular. The first biblical verse translated into the Armenian in the fifth century AD was Proverbs 1.2 (Sarkissian, 1960). Robert Wright’s selection from patristic commentary on the books ascribed to Solomon (Wright, J.R. 2005) reveals the importance of Proverbs to the fathers from Clement through Augustine to Bede, whose commentary on the book, according to Beryl Smalley (1941, 22), was one of the most influential biblical commentaries in the Middle Ages. At the Reformation, Melanchton produced a notable commentary. Nor was the book neglected by Jewish exegetes. The section ‘Traditional Jewish Exegesis’ in the Bibliography of Fox’s commentary (2000, 429–31) reveals the interest in Proverbs in Rabbinic and Medieval times, particularly among the Sephardim of southern Europe; some of the greatest scholars of medieval Judaism (Rashi, Qimchi) commented on Proverbs. Heinrich Brünner states, Es hat im Abendland Zeiten gegeben, in denen die Weisheit der Bibel, voran das Buch der Sprüchwörter (Proverbien) eine dominante Rolle im Geistesleben, nicht nur in der Erziehung, gespielt hat. … [There have been times in the West in which the wisdom of the Bible, above all the Book of Proverbs has played a dominant role in intellectual life, not only in education …]. (Brünner 1993, xxviii)

This seems no exaggeration, although Brünner’s belief that biblical wisdom was forced to surrender this ‘dominant role in intellectual life’ by the rise of Individualpsychologie is more dubious. I would argue that the undoubted decline of scholarly interest in Israel’s wisdom literature – which, pace Brünner, predated

22

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Freud and his colleagues by several decades – is linked more to the rise of critical biblical scholarship than to psychology. Wisdom and Critical Scholarship Unfortunately, the Biblical wisdom texts did not have much to say to the central concerns of nineteenth and early twentieth century German Protestantism. Given that, as John Hayes and Frederick Prussner remark, ‘with a few exceptions, all the major innovative work in this field [the critical theology of the Old Testament] was done in Germany’ (Hayes and Prussner 1983, 74), they were, accordingly, marginalized, Israelite wisdom literature seemed marginal to those scholars who sought to identify a theological concept, or group of concepts, around which the material in the Old Testament could be organized. Nor did Wisdom literature fit well into the schemes of historical development suggested by the theorists of Religionsgeschichte. This was true whether, like Graf (1815–69) and Wellhausen (1844–1918) and most of the German scholars of the second half of the nineteenth century, one stressed the primacy of the prophets; or whether, as with Ewald (1803–75) and Oehler (1812– 74), the emphasis fell on the Mosaic Law. The wisdom books rarely mentioned the requirements of the law and, apart from mentioning Solomon and Hezekiah, did not refer to Israel’s history. They fitted into neither schema and were, accordingly, marginalized. Wellhausen in his revision of Bleek’s Einleitung in das Alte Testament devotes only 30 pages (1878, 515–44) to all three wisdom books – Proverbs, Qohelet and Job – and of these by far the lion’s share (1878, 528–44) is devoted to Job; Proverbs is treated in just over 3 pages. A second factor reducing interest in the Israelite wisdom texts was the general consensus that they were later than the prophetic and legal books. Although it was thought that older material was included in Job and Proverbs, it was held that these books were, essentially, products of the postexilic Persian period when Judaism had become a legalistic religion in decline from the period of the more authentically revelatory prophetic and historical texts (Hayes and Prussner 1983, 99; 140; 276–9). This held as true for scholars of religious history as for it did for biblical theologians. Wisdom did not fit neatly into developmental accounts of the history of Israelite religion, being regarded as an aberration, or as representing a decline into mere moralism. Matters did not improve in the first half of the twentieth century. Hayes and Prussner allege that biblical scholarship overall paid a price for the neglect of wisdom by Ernst Sellin (1867–1945), one of the period’s most influential scholars. Whatever did not fit the twin categories of national cult and prophetic-ethicaluniversal-eschatological religion and did not belong to the ‘long line’ which led to the gospel of Jesus and the Apostles was set aside…a price which involved (1) a major distortion of the Old Testament and (2) the disavowal of material which is innately of great value and a legitimate part of Israel’s religious quest, namely, for example, the wisdom literature. (Hayes and Prussner 1983, 186)

‘Disavowal’ is too strong a word; Sellin gives some space to wisdom texts in his works and identifies wisdom as originally a positive force that was, however, unable

How Proverbs was marginalized

23

to maintain the independence of its position. In his Alttestamentliche Theologie auf religionsgeschichtlicher Grundlage, Sellin devotes ten pages to the three canonical texts and Ben Sira. Indeed, the minor prophets are less well represented in his work; only nine pages are devoted to ‘Die Propheten der assyrischen Periode’. Furthermore, although this still amounts to a somewhat cursory treatment of wisdom, Sellin speaks positively of the religion of the sages as a possible ‘third way’ alongside the national cult and the prophetic movement, Faßt man ihren Gottesglauben scharf ins Auge, so möchte man fast sagen, daß neben der nationalen Kultreligion und der prophetischen Religion, die Weisheitslehre noch eine dritte Religion repräsentiert, die in der Mitte zwischen beiden steht. [If one considers their belief in God really carefully, one might almost say that, next to the national cultic religion and the prophetic religion, wisdom teaching represents a third religion which stands in the middle between both.] (Sellin 1933, 116)

However, this independent mediating position was, according to Sellin, shortlived and by the third century BC the sages had agreed a rapprochement with the Schriftgelehrten, [scribes], as evidenced by Ben Sira’s identification of Wisdom and the Torah (1933, 117). So even his praise of Job, whose author is a ‘… geradezu gewaltiger Genius’ [almost a prodigy of a genius] (1933, 117), cannot prevent the wisdom tradition’s final alignment with the most reprehensible features of what he saw as a decadent religiosity. Walther Eichrodt was, arguably, the most influential Old Testament scholar of the mid-twentieth century. Although he paid little attention to the wisdom literature, what Eichrodt did say appears remarkably similar to the default position of many modern scholars. The first volume of his Old Testament Theology (1933) was organized around the concept of Covenant and he found little room for a discussion of wisdom literature within it. However, the second volume (1964) did contain an appraisal of wisdom literature, but it is one that is far from positive, at least as far as Proverbs is concerned. According to Eichrodt, the central wisdom tradition, as represented in Proverbs, ‘has a strong secular flavour and is only loosely connected with religious faith’ (1964 trans. 1966, 81). He saw Job and Qohelet as texts that protest against this rationalising, secular teaching; Job contains a vigorous protest against this false belief that the human intellect can comprehend the mysteries of the universe On the other hand, this emphasis on the autonomous life of Nature, incomprehensible to Man, provided a welcome weapon for all those who saw in the overweening rationalism of the wisdom teachers a growing danger to clear knowledge of God and to genuine selfsurrender to him. It was with this in mind that the author of Job 28 set the nature of divine Wisdom before his contemporaries as something inaccessible to the whole earthly order and therefore also to men. …  (1964 trans. 1966, 160)

 Kapitel IV.1 § 5 ‘Die Weisheitslehre der Juden’, pp. 114–19 and Kapitel IV.2 § 2 ‘Die Weisheitslehre des 3. Jahrhunderts, Qohelet und Jesus Sirach’.  Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Mica, Zephaniah, Nahum– Kapitel III §3.

24

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Eichrodt saw Qohelet as another attack on the arrogant rationalism, heavily influenced by non-Israelite philosophy, he detected in what he believed were the chronologically later parts of Proverbs (Proverbs 1–9) and in the book of Wisdom. The fight against any attempt to construct a theodicy on the basis of belief in creation was to be waged once more and with rigorous logic, this time by the writer of the little book Koheleth (Ecclesiastes, the Preacher). Against the self-confident wisdom teaching which took on a new lease of life in the Hellenistic period as a result of an acquaintance with Greek Philosophy, and presumed to initiate men into God’s counsels and to resolve the enigmas of the world, there came out to battle a man intimately acquainted with the thought of the wise and himself a member of their circle.  (1964 trans. 1966, 161)

Eichrodt’s description of teaching of the wisdom sages in Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sira as ‘self-confident’ parallels the descriptions of the ‘confidence’ and ‘optimism’ of traditional wisdom offered by more recent scholars. Indeed, he believed that Proverbs, or at any rate, the traditional wisdom exemplified in the book, was so presumptuous, that it provoked a corrective reaction in the books of Job and Qohelet. His characterization of the relationship between the biblical wisdom texts in terms of revision and opposition also recalls the views of the scholars examined at the beginning of this chapter. The similarities between Eichrodt and later scholars are the more noteworthy given that few of them would agree with other elements in his analysis, for instance in his description of the wisdom teachers’ ‘overweening rationalism’. Elsewhere he describes wisdom thought as opposed to Israel’s true religion, which relied on divine revelation rather than experience, and avers that wisdom possesses ‘a strong secular flavour’ (1964 trans. 1966, 81). This language is somewhat puzzling in view of the fact that Eichrodt singles out passages like Proverbs 8 as demonstrating most clearly such rationalistic, secular traits (1964 trans. 1966, 161). However one assesses the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, it seems difficult to deny that this passage is imbued with deep religious feeling. Thus Eichrodt’s treatment of the biblical wisdom texts foreshadows many of the trends in more recent scholarship. His view that the mainstream wisdom represented by Proverbs is presumptuously self-confident and his opposition between Proverbs on the one hand, and Job and Qohelet on the other, are both – as we have seen – echoed in more recent scholarship. Eichrodt’s language, in particular his attack on the wisdom teachers’ supposed rationalism, indicates that his critique is essentially a moral and religious one. The terms he uses suggest the language used in Protestant theology to emphasize the mystery of God and the infinite gap between him and his creation. This is Calvin’s finitum non capax infinitum, the void between Creator and creation that can only be bridged by divine self-revelation. Accordingly, Eichrodt’s decrial of what he saw as a worldly secular wisdom in Proverbs can be related to the attack on liberal theology – held to be strongly influenced by secular philosophies – mounted by contemporary neo-orthodox theologians, especially Karl Barth. However, what is interesting is that scholars whose theological position is definitely not that of Eichrodt appear to share his negative view of the wisdom teaching as represented by Proverbs. This suggests that the power of the consensus view on wisdom literature does not arise from explicit theological refection but has been shaped by other, less acknowledged, factors.

How Proverbs was marginalized

25

That Eichrodt’s position is essentially ideological is further suggested by his lack of interest in one of the most significant developments in enquiry into Israelite wisdom literature, one that counted against the assumption that this literature amounted to a falling away from the authentic early revelation to Israel under Hellenistic influence. It had become increasingly clear in the first decades of the twentieth century that wisdom in Israel could not be seen as an isolated phenomenon, or one that had arisen solely because of an encounter with Greek Philosophy. The discovery and publication of wisdom texts from other cultures in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Israel’s Aramaic-speaking neighbours – texts dating back millennia, some to the beginnings of literacy in Sumer – suggested a quite different context for Israel’s wisdom enterprise. Indeed, it appeared that direct parallels could be traced between some foreign wisdom texts and Israelite wisdom. Of these parallels the most striking was the one suggested by Adolf Erman (1924) between Proverbs 22.17–24.22 and the Egyptian wisdom text The Wisdom of Amenemope (around 1300 BC). William Oesterley’s commentary on Proverbs (1929) was the first in the Englishspeaking scholarship to make full use of this evidence. For Oesterley all the ancient near Eastern sapiential literature, ‘Hebraic and non-hebraic, belongs in its essence to one and the same mould’ (1929, liii). Although he does not doubt the post-exilic date of Proverbs 1–9 and the final redaction of the book, Oesterley is sure that most of the rest of the material in Proverbs was collected before the exile (1929, xxvi). Walter Baumgartner (1933), among the German-speaking scholars, reached similar conclusions. Nevertheless, outside the ranks of these specialists, Old Testament scholarship was slow to draw any conclusions from this work that might endanger the consensus view that Proverbs represented a late and ‘judaistic’ worldview. Proverbs does not share fully in the revival of interest in wisdom The marginal position accorded to wisdom literature noted in Eichrodt is usual among Old Testament theologians in the middle years of the twentieth century. For instance, Harold Rowley (1956) only mentions wisdom writers once, although he brings them into his argument at an interesting point to assert that, far from them being secularists, the centrality of the concept of the ‘fear of the Lord’ in wisdom implies an essentially worshipful stance that aligns them with ‘the Deuteronomic word’ (1956, 135–6). However, a rekindling of interest in wisdom does seem to have begun, as Loader noted, in the 1960s. Georg Fohrer’s revision (1965) of Sellin’s original introduction to the Old Testament (1910) accords the wisdom books an entire twenty-four page chapter; however, eleven of these are devoted to Job. This is not just evidence of Fohrer’s own interest in Job – on which he wrote an outstanding commentary – but is also an early pointer to the fact that the book of Proverbs was not going to share fully in the revival of interest in wisdom. Nevertheless, the most significant sign of renewed interest in Israelite wisdom was publication of Gerhard von Rad’s Weisheit in Israel (1970), a work that is a major exception to my argument that Proverbs has been marginalized by critical scholarship. Weisheit in Israel represented a personal re-evaluation by a distinguished

26

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

scholar of a subject neglected in his two earlier volumes on the historical and prophetic traditions of Israel. Accordingly, there was, perhaps, an element of selfcriticism when von Rad ascribed the overshadowing of Israelite wisdom tradition, in particular the Book of Proverbs, to ‘unfortunate, religious judgements’ (1970 trans. 1972, 9), judgements he traced back to the underlying and unexamined assumptions of critical scholarship. Scholars had detected in Proverbs ‘a rigid, individual doctrine of retribution … characteristic of a late period’ (von Rad 1970 trans. 1972, 8). Such findings were, according to von Rad, a result of addressing Proverbs with questions that arose from scholars’ own preconceptions about historical developments in Israel rather than with questions that would clarify the book’s own concerns. Weisheit in Israel can best be seen as von Rad’s attempt to rethink his own stance and to put appropriate questions to Israel’s wisdom literature. Von Rad’s recognition that Israelite wisdom was one expression of a broader literature found throughout the Ancient Near East was crucial to his analysis. Although he was at pains to affirm biblical wisdom’s specifically Yahwist features, he saw that any account of it based on views of the religious development of Israel alone was bound to be inadequate. It would result in these texts – especially Proverbs – being undervalued because they do not appear to be sufficiently ‘religious’ in terms of the views that place, for example, the prophetic traditions at the apex of Israel’s development (1970 trans. 1972, 8–11). By contrast, much of Weisheit in Israel is devoted to Proverbs; von Rad does not regard the book as displaying a selfconfident, secular consciousness – it is a text that evidences an essentially religious ‘search for knowledge’ (1970 trans. 1972, 71). Proverbs evidences an attempt by devout sages to understand data drawn from experience in the context of Israel’s faith in a mysterious God. For von Rad this context differentiated Israel’s wisdom from the forms found both among the Greeks and the Egyptians, who both had more unified, confident epistemologies based respectively on the concepts of ‘Nature’ and cosmic order in the shape of the goddess, Maat (1970 trans. 1972, 63–72). Thus the traditional wisdom expressed in Proverbs represents a profound attempt to understand the complexity of what God is saying through the world. Von Rad held that the fact that Proverbs is a poetic not a prose work is significant (1970 trans. 1972, 24). Furthermore, the words Geheimnis [mystery] and geheimnisvoll [mysterious] are found repeatedly in his discussion of the book. In contrast to Eichrodt’s assertion that the sages were boundlessly confident in the power of their rational wisdom, von Rad devotes a chapter to the ‘Limits of Wisdom’ (1970 trans. 1972, 97–110) described in Proverbs. In his discussion of Job and Qohelet, von Rad does not regard them as essentially different to Proverbs, although he sees them – particularly Qohelet – as taking the essential insights of traditional wisdom in new and surprising directions. Moreover, it is clear that he does not assume – as Eichrodt and others had done, and many scholars still do – the superiority of Qohelet’s scepticism over the traditional views. For him, Qohelet is not the brave spirit, whose sceptical temperament – so congenial to many modern readers – enabled him to break out of the facilely confident traditional worldview. Indeed, von Rad implies that Qohelet’s stance might be thought to evidence a failure, an inability to take his place in ‘the mysterious realm

How Proverbs was marginalized

27

of that dialogue between an individual and the world in which he lives’ (1970, trans. 1972, 23) Koheleth, however, was incapable of entering into a dialogue with the world which surrounded him and pressed in on him. It had become for him a silent, unfriendly, outside force which he was able to trust only where it offered him fulfilment of life. The wise men, however, were of the opinion that, through the medium of the world as it addressed man, God himself spoke to man, and that only in this dialogue was man shown his place in life.  (1970 trans. 1972, 237).

Given the tendency of many scholars to assume that Qohelet’s supposed pessimism is a mark of profundity, this rather negative assessment may be found refreshing. Be that as it may, although aspects of von Rad’s thesis – for instance, his assumption that there must have been schools in Israel because of literacy – may not have stood the test of time, his general analysis of the biblical wisdom literature represents an outstanding contribution. His sensitivity to the nuances in traditional wisdom led him to discern complexities in Proverbs and so to see it as a more profound book than previous critical scholarship was ready to grant. However, this robust reaffirmation of the value of Israel’s traditional wisdom was not as influential as might have been anticipated given the wide respect for von Rad. Rather, as we shall see, the established pattern as articulated by Eichrodt has asserted itself strongly in recent decades. McKane’s commentary on Proverbs appeared in 1970, the same year as Weisheit in Israel. Although McKane offered what claimed to be a radically new reading of the book, and although his judgements about the dating of the strands in Proverbs diverged from those of traditional scholarship, his underlying assumptions are, in fact, not far removed from those of Eichrodt. McKane argued that in Proverbs we see a tradition in transition from an early ‘secular’ mindset to one dominated by religion. In the sayings material in Proverbs 10.1ff he identified three strands of sayings; class A derived from a pre–exilic ‘old Wisdom’ tradition, heavily influenced by international wisdom; a relatively unimportant group of class B sayings, stressing the negative effects of wrongdoing on the community; and class C sayings ‘expressive of a moralism which derives from Yahwistic piety’ (1970, 11) – ‘… the class C material is best explained as Yahwistic reinterpretation of an older, empirical mundane wisdom represented by the class A material’ (1970, 17). Underlying this analysis is a developmental model, according to which wisdom in Israel was moving from an initially secular worldview to an accommodation with Yahwistic faith, a development that was to culminate in Ben Sira. Such a model did not originate with McKane. Helmer Ringgren (1962) had argued almost a decade before that Proverbs provides us with evidence of a development from a wisdom drawing on experience to the more explicitly revelation-based wisdom of the deutero-canonical wisdom texts. Damit ist eine Entwicklung eingeleitet, die schließlich in die Identifikation der Weisheit mit dem Gesetz (Sir. 24,12–23) und mit der israelitischen Offenbarungsreligion überhaupt (Weish.) endete. [With this a development is begun that is eventually to end with the identification of wisdom and the law (Sir. 24.12–23) and with the Israelite revelatory religion in general (Wis.).]  (Ringgren 1962, 11)

28

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

For Ringgren, the dividing line lies between the ‘gottgegebene Weisheit’ [Godgiven Wisdom] of Proverbs 1–9 and the experientially validated sayings in the other chapters. McKane’s originality lies firstly in his argument that this dividing line is more radical than earlier scholars believed – to the extent that it can be characterized by words such as ‘secular’ on the one hand and ‘Yahwistic’ on the other – and, secondly, that the sayings material that make up the broad mass of the book are divided along the lines he identifies. This view enables McKane to take account of tensions and differing attitudes within the sentence material in a way that Eichrodt, for whom all the material in Proverbs is lumped together as secular and rationalistic, could not. Furthermore, the extent of parallels between Israelite wisdom and that of surrounding cultures is not only admitted, but, indeed, crucial for McKane’s thesis. However, his argument fails to answer the question of why this tradition should have been preserved in form of canonical Proverbs at this stage. If the Yahwistic revision took place why was it not even more thorough? In fact, even more radical questioning is demanded, especially of McKane’s assumption – shared with Eichrodt and others – that ancient wisdom texts can be categorized as ‘secular’. More recent scholarship (Weeks 1994, 57–73; Dell 2006, 90–123) has pointed out the difficulty of applying this loaded modern term to texts produced by ancient societies within which religion played such an integral part. Moreover, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that, for McKane, Proverbs is a rather deficient text. He makes the (now familiar) comparisons with Job and Qohelet very much to Proverbs’ disadvantage, particularly as far as the ‘Yahwistic’ ‘class C’ sentences are concerned. The style of piety in the class C material provided the point of departure for the questionings of Job and the scepticism of Ecclesiastes. However it is to be characterised (theodicy seems to me to be a fair description), it has the extreme tidiness, the sterility and the disengagement from reality that prepared the way for Job and Ecclesiastes. The book of Proverbs informs us about the history of wisdom forms (Instruction and sentence) and also about the changing office of hākām. Both forms are employed to give expression to a piety which left no questions open, no ends untied and which secured its mathematical precision by detaching itself from the messiness and confusion of men’s lives in the world and by shutting its ears to the still, sad music of humanity. (McKane 1970, 19)

While this represents another harsh, essentially moralistic assessment of Proverbs, a curious reversal of the judgements of scholars influenced by neo-orthodoxy – for whom secularism represented degeneracy – can be detected; for McKane the degeneracy is into piety! Once again, it is plausible to connect a biblical scholar’s view with trends in broader contemporary theology. If Eichrodt’s severe judgement on the supposed secularism of wisdom had been influenced by neo-orthodoxy, so McKane’s more positive evaluation was surely influenced by theologians like Harvey Cox (1965) and Paul van Buren (1963) who sought an accommodation between secularism and Christianity. However, while McKane speaks of the ‘extreme tidiness’ of the piety he detects in the sentence material, he is clear that this tidiness of thought is not matched by any tidiness in the way the sentence materials are organized; they are essentially ‘atomistic’, despite some editorial grouping by content and linkage of individual

How Proverbs was marginalized

29

sayings by sound (McKane 1970, 413). So McKane arranged his commentary in a way that does not reflect the canonical ordering of the book but rather the lines of the development he has discerned. Nevertheless, McKane’s comments on individual sayings – the fruit of great erudition and sensitivity to the text – are often illuminating. However, in its canonical form, he appears to value Proverbs chiefly for the evidence the book provides for the historical processes he believes it to embody. Indeed, many scholarly approaches to Proverbs in recent years have seemed to treat the book as chiefly of value in proving theories about historical developments not directly connected with its teaching – for instance the controversy over whether there was a ‘Solomonic Renaissance’ that Eric Heaton (1974) and others have suggested was the Sitz im Leben for the production of Israel’s first wisdom literature. In the same category belongs the related controversy over whether the sayings material in Proverbs originated in folk sayings – as Claus Westermann (1990) and Friedemann Golka (1993) have argued; or whether they are purely products of schools – a view associated with Hans-Jürgen Hermisson (1968) and Loader (1999). If, as I have argued here, Proverbs is generally undervalued in scholarly circles, then it might be expected that this would be reflected not only in the books of leading scholars but also in the amount of attention paid to the book in the journals specializing in Old Testament studies. In fact, a survey of articles in three leading Journals – JSOT, VT and ZAW – between 1990 and 2007, attached as an appendix, supports my contention that Proverbs continues to be neglected, although there are some recent indications of renewed interest in the book. ‘Retribution’ as the key teaching of Proverbs Roland Murphy wrote of ‘the tradition of the proverbial neglect of the book of Proverbs’ (1998, ix) and affirmed that in the course of his long and distinguished academic career he ‘did everything else with wisdom literature except write a commentary on this book’ (1998, ix). In fact, we shall see that Murphy developed from participation in this ‘tradition of neglect’ to a much fuller appreciation of the value of the book. Nevertheless, not only does the attached survey of some key journals indicate that this tradition is still powerful, but the work of some other scholars suggests that Proverbs is not merely neglected but regarded with suspicion. For these commentators – admittedly often not specialists in wisdom but dealing with it in the context of other concerns – Proverbs is a text that articulates an unjust ideological settlement that supports the oppression of the poor. In this section we return more fully to a question we have already touched on. Why did Proverbs not share fully in the revival of interest in Israelite wisdom that began in the 1960s? Undoubtedly one key factor is the seemingly haphazard and disorganized nature of this text, particularly the sayings material in Proverbs 10.1 following. Faced with a text that is not in ‘the kind of order that would appeal to modern Western logic’ (Tremper Longman, 2002, 117), scholars can be excused for  This hypothesis is now somewhat out of favour – see, for example, Weeks’s criticisms (1994, 110–31).

30

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

seeking, consciously or sub-consciously, for a controlling idea that could enable something coherent to be said about it. Just as interest in wisdom literature was beginning to revive, a seminal article appeared which appeared to offer just such a relatively simple key to make sense of the book. This was Klaus Koch’s article on Vergeltung [retribution/reward] in the Old Testament (1955), whose influence is evident from the way that one of its phrases, Tat–Ergehen Zusammenhang – generally rendered in English as the ‘Acts–Consequence Construct’ – has become the axiomatic description used by many scholars to characterize Proverb’s teaching, even when they do not appear to have grasped the central thrust of Koch’s argument. The effect of Koch’s article has been to encourage an existing tendency to focus unhelpfully on retribution in Proverbs. This in turn validates the unflattering comparisons with Job and Qohelet that, in my view, vitiate much scholarly discourse about Proverbs. It should also be noted that a tendency to regard Proverbs as advocating a simple, counter–factual doctrine of retributive justice predated Koch’s article; it can already be detected in Oesterley (1929). In various passages [Proverbs 12.21, 10.30, 14.11, 13.21] the Wisdom writers, in conformity with traditional belief, assert as a fact that the righteous enjoy prosperity, while the reverse is the lot of the wicked .... That the facts of life constantly contradicted what was taught did not seem to trouble the Wisdom writers any more than it did many of the Psalmists. (Oesterley 1929, lxiii)

The tone of condescension is unmistakable; for Oesterley, the wisdom writers assert as facts things that experience of life teaches are untrue. Hence, whatever other excellencies Proverbs might contain, the book is out of contact with reality, articulating age-old traditions rather than reflecting experience. It is pertinent to recall here von Rad’s assertion that the general scholarly view that Proverbs contained ‘a rigid individual doctrine of retribution’ (1970 trans. 1972, 8) was the crucial factor in the book being neglected. Ironically, given its ultimate effect, Koch’s article actually denied that the concept of Vergeltung is a helpful one for understanding Old Testament thought, whether in Proverbs or elsewhere. Koch answers the question contained in the title of his 1955 paper ‘Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?’ [Is there a retribution teaching in the Old Testament?] with a qualified ‘Nein’. If by Vergeltung is meant the action of a deity who directly intervenes in human affairs to punish sin and reward good actions, then Koch argues that such a doctrine of an interventionist God is foreign to the Old Testament. Furthermore, the legal implications of the word ‘retribution’ are also inappropriate. God does not act as a modern judge and punish the wrongdoer according to a predetermined tariff. Rather, according to Koch, the scriptures understand us to be the authors of our own good or bad fortune. We create for ourselves ‘eine schicksalwirkende Tatsphäre’ [a destiny-producing sphere of action]. This, and similar phrases, were used repeatedly in the article (e.g. Koch 1955, 9; 15; 18; 32). Concise and expressive in the German, it best articulates Koch’s understanding of the Old Testament’s view of what happens when people act. However, the concept of eine schicksalwirkende Tatsphäre was not so striking for English-speaking scholars, particularly when rendered as the – perhaps unavoidably – wordy, ‘a sphere of

How Proverbs was marginalized

31

influence in which the built-in consequences of actions take effect’ (Koch 1955 trans. 1983, 78). They focused instead on another of the article’s recurring phrases, the ‘Tat­–Ergehen Zusammenhang’[Deed–Result connection]. This was more concise but, as we shall see, gave, arguably, a misleading impression of Koch’s thesis. Koch’s argument was primarily directed against the belief that the Old Testament depicts God as directly intervening to punish the wicked or reward the virtuous. He saw this as an unchallenged element in the picture of ancient Israel assumed by all scholars, and cited luminaries like Hermann Gunkel and Eichrodt as those who accepted it as axiomatic (1955, 1). It is not difficult to find support for his contention in the work of other scholars. For instance, the apparently axiomatic assumption that God intervenes directly in human affairs lies behind the view expressed by George Wright’s discussion of traditional Israelite wisdom in his influential book God Who Acts. Thus Yahweh is the true source of wisdom (cf. Job 28) and the author of prudential morality. It is he who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked.  (Wright 1952, 103)

According to Koch, God’s involvement in human affairs is less direct; his role is more like that of a ‘catalyst’, accelerating processes that have already been begun by human agents. Good actions such as acquiring wisdom, hard work, fearing God and benevolent treatment of the poor do indeed lead to consequent prosperity; bad actions such as theft, oppression or impiety lead, sooner or later, to ruin; An action which is performed in faithfulness to the community brings on blessed consequences. A wicked action brings with it disastrous consequences. (Koch 1955 trans. 1983, 61)

Crucially, this does not happen because God is directly intervening to punish or reward these actions. Rather, the consequences are, as it were, already contained in the actions and flow automatically from them. Although his argument was concerned with the whole of the Old Testament, Koch focused on Proverbs as containing key texts that supported his thesis. His article begins with a discussion of Proverbs 25.21– 22 (‘If your enemies are hungry give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on their heads and the LORD will reward you’, NRSV). Koch argued that these verses illustrate the principle that God facilitates the completion of something which previous human action had already set in motion (Koch 1955 trans. 1983, 61). He saw a cluster of thirteen verses earlier in Proverbs 11 (11.1, 3–6, 17–21, 27, 30–31) as demonstrating the existence of this principle in the Old Testament with particular clarity. Koch’s favoured description of this principle was, as we have seen, ‘eine schicksalwirkende Tatsphäre’ [a destiny–producing sphere of action]. However he also spoke, less frequently, of a cause and effect mechanism in the moral life, the ‘Tat–Ergehen Zusammenhang’ (Koch 1955, 8). In the standard English translation this is misleadingly rendered as ‘Action–Consequence Construct’ (trans. 1983, 62), for Zusammenhang means simply ‘connection’ (or less precisely ‘relationship’), rather than ‘construct’. Zusammenhang is translated ‘connection’ elsewhere in the English  In quotations from other scholars use of this vocalization of the divine name is unavoidable. Conscious of the offence it causes to some Jews I have not used it myself.

32

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

version, for instance in rendering the phrases ‘Sünde–Unheil Zusammenhang’ and ‘Guttat–Heil Zusammenhang’ (Koch 1955, 7) as ‘Sin–Disaster Connection’ and ‘Good Action–Blessings Connection’ respectively (trans. 1983, 62). English-speaking scholars, however, often cite the ‘Acts–Consequence Construct’ as if it were some ‘assured result’ of scholarly enquiry rather than an inaccurate rendering of a contentious theoretical concept. Even if the more accurate ‘connection’ is employed the phrase has become imbued with a spurious concreteness. The ethical teaching of Proverbs is, supposedly, built upon the foundation of this ‘construct’. It is then tempting to look for other texts that deconstruct this fixed structure – Job and Qohelet are the obvious candidates. So the unintended result of Koch’s work was to strengthen an existing interpretative framework that ensured that Proverbs would continue to be marginalized and neglected. Indeed, the reception of his article by some scholars was to lead them beyond neglect to single out the book for more negative judgements. Koch could not foresee this appropriation of his remarks about Proverbs and would, presumably, have regretted it. His article can be seen as an attempt to vindicate the Old Testament; to clear the scriptures from the charge that they portray God as punishing and rewarding in an arbitrary way. Indeed, he was far from endorsing the beliefs about human actions leading to inevitable consequences he discerned in the Old Testament. In language that resembles Oesterley’s remark about the ‘facts of life’ contradicting wisdom teaching, he suggests that these concepts are alien to us because they are in constant conflict with our experience. Die Auffassung von der schicksalwirkenden Tatsphäre ist deshalb für uns so fremdartig, weil sie nach unserem Empfinden in ständigem Widerstreit mit der Erfahrung liegt. Dieser Gegensatz ist dem Israeliten kaum je zum Bewußtsein gekommen. [The conception of a destiny producing sphere of action is therefore, for us, of so strange a kind because it is in constant conflict with experience. This opposition scarcely entered the consciousness of the Israelite.]  (Koch 1955, 32; his italics underlined)

Against this, I would argue that we cannot be so certain of what may or may not have entered into the consciousness of an ancient reader. We

should entertain the possibility that a sophisticated awareness of oppositions and contradictions may well have been assumed in him, or in her, by those who produced the book of Proverbs. However, Koch’s article was to have a major impact on subsequent discussion of Proverbs; that it teaches the existence of an ‘Acts–Consequence Construct’ comes to be accepted as an assured result. This sustained the general consensus amongst scholars that Proverbs teaches that all virtue is rewarded and all vice is punished. Indeed, many scholars, while they may use Koch’s vocabulary, ascribe to God a more important role in the relationship than Koch allowed him. By stressing God’s role as guarantor of the created order, or by simply relapsing into the language of reward and punishment, they in fact turned Koch’s argument on its head. Not all scholars misunderstood the thrust of Koch’s argument or used it to denigrate Proverbs. Von Rad provides a good example of how Koch’s vocabulary was incorporated into a discussion of Proverbs by a scholar who, as we have seen, approached this book assuming that its teachings were neither simplistic nor assertions

How Proverbs was marginalized

33

of unchallengeable verities. Von Rad does accept that the Acts–Consequence relationship enjoyed the status of universal law for the wise in Israel. Only recently have we had a clearer idea of the so-called acts – consequence relationship. Israel too, shared the widely–spread concept of an effective power inherent both in good and in evil and subject to specific laws. She was convinced that by every evil deed or every good deed a momentum was released which sooner or later also had an effect on the author of the deed….It is remarkable how objectively these assertions are made, really as if they were stating an already proved law. (von Rad 1970 trans. 1972, 128–9)

However, this does not mean that, for von Rad, all argument in Proverbs is ended. He grants that it offers the clear teaching that the consequences of good actions may be wealth and bad actions poverty; but he points out that the book piles up ‘paradoxical assertions’ (von Rad 1970 trans. 1972, 127) about the nature of reality, that, …on the one hand, even wealth is not of unambiguous value, and, on the other, even poverty can, from certain points of view, appear as something of value.  (von Rad 1970 trans. 1972, 126)

Hence, von Rad, does not dismiss Proverbs as a banal text. He discerns in the book an awareness that ‘things can never be evaluated absolutely, but are ambiguous’ (von Rad 1970 trans. 1972, 127–8). Otto Plöger provides another example of a scholar who accepts Koch’s analysis, but does not allow it to dominate his own reading of Proverbs. In his commentary on Proverbs the presence of the Tat–Ergehen Zusammenhang and the schicksalwirkende Tatsphäre is taken for granted. For Plöger, these ideas inform the book’s sayings but, in accordance with Koch’s article, he argues against the idea that these concepts formed part of any dogma of retribution. They are ‘Lebensregeln’ [rules to live by] (1984, xxxiv), so self-evident that they are hardly to be reckoned as part of the ideas of the wise, at least in any exalted sense. However, the notion that the Acts–Consequence Construct was central to Proverbs teaching had become established and this encouraged the tendency to see the book as committed to a simplistic account of reality – a tendency already noted in earlier commentators such as Oesterley and Eichrodt. We shall see its influence repeatedly upon those scholars who view Proverbs as a deficient text compared to Qohelet and Job. On the basis of the Acts–Consequence Construct it is claimed that Proverbs assumed a notion of retribution that was not only unrealistic and complacent, but also mechanistic. Furthermore, it was, and is, argued that this doctrine simply served the ends of its scribal authors and the establishment they represented. Scholars who assume this account of Proverbs are, for the most part, bringing the book into larger projects. They show little of the sympathy with the book evident in other scholars more specialized in wisdom literature. Pejorative accounts of Proverbs David Clines typifies this tendency to offer a pejorative account of Proverbs. He sums up the book in the following way:

34

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs Proverbs is, next to Deuteronomy, the most stalwart defender in the Hebrew Bible of the doctrine of retribution…. Everywhere it is asserted – or else taken for granted – that righteousness is rewarded and sin is punished (e.g. 11.5–6) [this is]…lacking in intellectual sophistication and, to be frank, in realism. Job and Ecclesiastes introduce the needed element of sophistication and realism into the philosophy of wisdom, calling into question as they do the universal validity of the tenets of Proverbs. (Clines 1989, 272)

The influence of Koch’s discussion is clear here, particularly in the choice of verses to illustrate the supposedly ubiquitous doctrine of retribution. On the other hand, it is not clear that Clines has completely grasped Koch’s basic thrust; the language of reward and punishment that Clines uses is the very discourse that Koch suggests is inappropriate and wishes to replace with his notion of an inevitable and automatic process, in the face of which God must even on occasion ‘stand by helplessly and watch’ (Koch 1955 trans. 1983, 66). Clines’ comments are representative of the tradition of negative interpretation of Proverbs in several other ways; he disapproves of the book on the grounds of its lack of realism; he compares it unfavourably with Job and Qohelet, held to be more sophisticated and realistic; he assumes the book contains a doctrine of retribution that allows for no exceptions and is divinely ordained. Brueggemann is also severe on the teaching of traditional Israelite wisdom as represented in Proverbs. In an influential article he argued that the traditional connection of wisdom with Solomon was used to add authority to a ‘sapiential rationality [that] was uncritical, oppressive and therefore unacceptable to much of the population’ (Brueggemann 1990, 128). According to Brueggemann the wisdom teachers, clothing themselves in the age-old authority of Solomon, endorsed the status quo when they taught that good actions have good consequences and bad ones, bad consequences. It is then possible for the rich and powerful to attribute the misery of the poor to their idleness and fecklessness; ‘The Solomonic enterprise of wisdom instituted a theodic settlement that was in fact a rationalization for the present system of inequity and exploitation’ (Brueggemann 1990, 130). He contrasts this ‘theodic settlement’ – a neologism which is, presumably, supposed to recall the word ‘theodicy’ and to suggest that the sages aimed at a justification of God that actually justified a purely human order – of traditional Solomonic wisdom with the ‘theodic crisis of later wisdom’ (Brueggemann 1990, 128). Job and Qohelet are – unsurprisingly – the texts that protest against this consensus, ‘about how life works, how society functions, how a system of benefits is allocated, what suffering must be tolerably and inescapably borne and by whom …’ (Brueggemann 1990, 130). In 1990 Brueggemann did not use the vocabulary of deeds and consequences, although the basic structure of his analysis implied something very like Koch’s ‘construct’. However, more recently, in a chapter on Israelite wisdom in a coauthored Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, Brueggemann (and/or one of his collaborators heavily influenced by his analysis) makes explicit a link between the notion of theodic settlement and the deeds/consequences relationship. The theodic settlement of Proverbs had insisted, in an endless recital of close, didactic observations, that the world works so that deeds have consequences guaranteed by the

How Proverbs was marginalized

35

creator in the very fabric of creation. Sowing leads to reaping. Righteousness and wisdom lead to life; wickedness and foolishness lead to death.  (Birch et al. 1999, 393)

Although an impatience with Proverbs is evident in the language – for instance, ‘endless recital’, which implies that its arrangement is interminably boring – the tone of the chapter is generally more positive than the earlier article. It can even be considered as a partial revaluation of Brueggemann’s complete dismissal of the teaching of Proverbs as inevitably oppressive, for it shows some – rather grudging –recognition that the book is aware of exceptions to the supposedly universal mechanism. The writer recalls von Rad’s identification of six proverbs that ‘deabsolutize the system of deeds-consequence that appears in much of Proverbs’ (Birch et al. 1999, 392) and suggests that, The prescriptive teaching of wisdom is on most days adequate and must be honored. In special times, however, pragmatics must yield to awe and finally to the relinquishment of control. The makers of Proverbs knew both the value of pragmatics and its limits, even if they sometimes failed to remember the second point.  (Birch et al. 1999, 392)

However, this remains patronizing; the idea that the makers of Proverbs have occasional memory lapses suggests the picture of the book as a confused, elderly matriarch that, I have suggested, is not far from the minds of many scholars. The condescension towards Proverbs here suggests the condescension shown towards the confused elderly who have their ‘good days’ and the days when they are more forgetful than usual. However, the confusion is in the mind of such commentators rather than in Proverbs. They are, it would appear, trying to fit what they have noted in the text into a pre-conceived theoretical understanding, ultimately derived from Koch’s article. Elements that do not fit with this framework are ignored. Moreover, it seems that Brueggemann (or his co-author) has failed to grasp the main thrust of Koch’s argument; like Clines, he associates ‘the creator’ with the supposed ‘deeds– consequences relationship’ (Birch et al. 1999, 393). It will come as no surprise that, when he comes to make a comparison between Proverbs and Job, all qualification is abandoned. The book of Job may be regarded as the principal theodic protest in the Old Testament that challenges the serene justifications of social reality given in the book of Proverbs.  (Birch et al. 1999, 393)

Two more recent examples show how Koch’s vocabulary has been appropriated to underpin accounts of Proverbs that rely on this paradigm that goes back to the beginnings of critical scholarship. A particularly acerbic account of Proverbs – incorporating many of the elements we have seen in Clines and Brueggemann – is offered by Philip Davies (2002). He uses remarkably similar language to that Brueggemann and/or his co–authors employ when he describes the scribes responsible for Proverbs as teaching that ‘reward and punishment’ are built into the ‘fabric of creation’ (P. Davies 2002, 123). Furthermore, like them he accuses the wisdom writers of articulating in Proverbs a self-serving theory about the way things are in the world and in society. Their talk of ‘Wisdom’

36

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

was a claim to knowledge, and thus to power, on the part of a scribal class, the intellectuals of their day, that had identified itself with the ruling establishment. So far, this account resembles that of Brueggemann and his colleagues. What is new is Davies’s contention that this self-serving teaching is bound up with the development of the doctrine of monotheism by the scribes. Monotheism’s ‘logical consequence’ is, apparently, a notion of a moral order built into the ‘fabric of creation’ that ensures that ‘the wicked suffer, the righteous blossom, the indolent starve, the foolish come to grief, the wise prosper’ (P. Davies 2002, 123). Davies holds that in the sayings that assert these doctrines – a ‘half–baked’ but ‘official’ (2000, 123) theology – we see a ‘self–portrait’ of this scribal class. Needless to say, Davies contrasts Proverbs unfavourably with Qohelet. This philosophy has major advantages to the privileged scribal class: it justifies the status quo, a system in which the haves deserve their having and the poor are poor because they are not wise but foolish…. It is very much a theology of the elite, the well-off. That intellectuals believe or are told to believe in this philosophy is not to their credit, but perhaps we can understand that it would be very unwise to publish under the name of King Solomon anything suggesting the contrary (or wait for the writer of Qoheleth). (P. Davies 2002, 123)

On two counts at least, Davies’s arguments fail to convince. Surely it is not the case that a belief that ‘reward and punishment are built into the fabric of creation’ is a ‘logical consequence’ of monotheism (P. Davies 2002, 123). It is logically possible to believe in a single God, but not to believe that any such rewards and punishments are in the created order. Furthermore, such a belief in a moral order in creation was a feature of some polytheistic belief systems in the ancient world. For instance, Maat embodied a concept of divine order – though not one focused on the actions of the general populace – in the shape of one goddess among the many in the Egyptian pantheon. More pertinent to our present discussion is Davies’s understanding that Proverbs suppresses all but a narrow view of reality. We might suspect that his view owes much to an uncritical adoption of the dominant interpretative tradition. We shall see in chapter three that close readings of the text of Proverbs reveal that this tradition rests on very shallow foundations. Ironically, given the accusation that Proverbs suppresses elements of experience, the traditional understanding of the book can only be sustained by suppressing those elements within the text that imply – or even explicitly deny – that a simplistic order can be detected in creation. We shall discover that the tendency to suppress these elements can be detected as early as the ancient Greek translation. The apparent readiness of scholars to accept a deficient reading of Proverbs is powerful testimony to the success of this suppression. An article by Mark Sneed illustrates how the understanding we have been tracing is referred to in a way that gives it an almost unquestionable status. Qohelet’s most deconstructive feat is his questioning of the contemporary formulation of retribution. The Germans call it the deed/consequence connection (Tun–Ergehen– Zusammenhang), that is, a person’s behaviour is connected with his fortune. The doctrine forms the ethical matrix of the aphoristic material in the book of Proverbs.  (Sneed 2002, 117)

How Proverbs was marginalized

37

There is, it seems, no need to refer the reader to any precise source for this description of the ‘contemporary formulation of retribution’. It appears to be so selfevident that an entire nation accepts its validity – ‘The Germans call it …’. Sneed’s analysis allows him to award Qohelet the ultimate post-modern accolade; that of being a text that ‘deconstructs’. This is an achievement, a ‘feat’. Accordingly, we infer that Sneed views the aphoristic material in Proverbs as unquestioning; as a structure, a matrix ripe for this deconstruction. Finally, the following quotation from what was, for many years, the standard introduction to the Old Testament for lay preachers training in the British Methodist Church illustrates how the negative attitudes to Proverbs within the guild of academic scholars could be transmitted to a wider reading community. The contents of the book of Proverbs are of very uneven worth. Many of the sayings are mere truisms. Many contain such general advice that we are bound to wonder why the collector bothered to set them down …. Like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes is basically a collection of sayings, but it is not quite such a hotch-potch as Proverbs is. (McKeating 1979, 159)

The shared assumptions that lie behind the views on Proverbs of these, in many ways, very different scholars can be challenged at several points. For instance, Stuart Weeks’s careful survey of the use of the term ‘the wise’ in the Old Testament concludes that adequate evidence for the existence of a scribal and/or administrative class connected with the production of wisdom is simply not available (Weeks 1994, 74–91). That such a scribal class existed, and that it was moreover a privileged class, supportive of the political and religious establishment, appears to be an assumption with which these scholars begin their analysis. They offer little in the way of evidence for the existence of their self-serving scribes except their reading of the text. We shall see that the text can be read in ways that suggest that it is very far from the selfsatisfied and complacent matrix of aphorisms they hold it to be. That many scholars are working with assumptions that lead to an unproductive interpretative circularity is indicated by the way that arguments that might counter the prevailing paradigm are ignored. For instance, none of the above engage with Whybray’s careful analysis (1990) of the complex attitudes towards wealth and poverty actually present in the book. Whybray argues that the different sentence collections contain sayings whose origins lie in different social groups in Israelite society. Some may be from a relatively wealthy urban class, but others are from poorer communities eking out a living from subsistence farming. ‘These proverbs are plainly at home among, and addressed to, people who can only survive if they work unremittingly’ (1990, 38). Whybray’s assumption that the social origins of sayings can be indubitably ascertained from their subject matter is open to challenge; a scribe could, theoretically at least, compose proverbs about manual work. However, his arguments present an unevaluated challenge to those scholars who assume that the book simply and unambiguously reflects the views of a rich elite. Their essentially conservative inclination to accept a well-established paradigm sorts well with the assumption that the ‘Acts–Consequence Construct’ is the key to the teaching of the book. Proverbs is a long and complex text and the urge to find relatively simple keys to its interpretation is, perhaps, understandable.

38

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

The difficulty of reading Proverbs This is, after all, a strange, and at first sight, uninviting text to readers accustomed to the conventions of western literature. Proverbs 1–9 are, perhaps, more immediately accessible to the modern reader; here our interest is captured and retained by the relatively extended poetic form and the drama that comes from being addressed by clearly differentiated characters; ‘mini-narratives’, like that in 7.6–23, draw us into the book. However, in the other sections, particularly in 10.1–22.16, hundreds of single line sayings, one after the other, ordered in a seemingly random fashion, are presented to the reader. They can blend into each other in such a way that it is difficult to discern subtleties within individual sayings, or notice that some of them are not easily aligned with the others. Furthermore, the several sayings that are repeated, either in whole or in part, can increase the reader’s difficulties. Paradoxically, the reader may overcompensate in the face of a bewildering multiplicity of one-line sayings and impose an order and a uniformity that are not really present. Hence, perhaps, the tendency for scholars to assume a more unified outlook than is actually the case, particularly when this assumption of uniformity is backed by a longstanding interpretative tradition. Such assumptions carry a price as far as Proverbs is concerned. The rich complexity in this seeming confusion, once reduced to one simple self-serving doctrine, appears a poor thing, one that is easy to dismiss with condescension and/or hostility. Such attitudes, we have seen, are common enough to justify Murphy’s remark about the ‘proverbial neglect of the book of Proverbs’ (1998, ix), a neglect that arose from the presuppositions and methodological procedures of critical scholars and continued under the impact of Koch’s account of the Acts–Consequence Construct. Even the protest of such a distinguished scholar as von Rad could do little to remedy the situation. In fact, a truly sympathetic reading of Proverbs is possible only when the book’s complexities – including, crucially, its contradictions – are taken into account. Indeed, only when Proverbs’ contradictions are seen as central to its interpretative horizon can a clear view of this book emerge. More sympathetic scholarly accounts of Proverbs Recent years have seen the beginnings of what appears to be a change of sentiment about Proverbs. There have been what Knut Heim describes (2001, 46) as a ‘flurry of recent commentaries’ and more articles in learned journals; the quantity of new work has been matched by the quality. Some scholars have re-appraised the book and begun to see it as a subtle and profound text; one that shares the questioning, thought-provoking approach of Job and Qohelet. Given the crucial role played by Koch’s article, it is not surprising that, for some scholars, such a re-evaluation began when they noted that the actual text of Proverbs did not always seem to fit neatly into the expected paradigm. Such observations are not restricted to very recent scholarship. For instance, Fontaine noted (1988, 509) some sayings that could not easily be fitted into Koch’s hypothesis; Proverbs 10.15 ‘The wealth of the rich is their fortress; the poverty of the poor is their ruin’ (NRSV) for example, implied that acts and consequences are not always intimately

How Proverbs was marginalized

39

connected. However, her work, at that time, did not suggest that these anomalies undermined the general critical consensus; the Acts–Consequence Relationship remained a given. She remarks on Proverbs 10.15, However, this comment is immediately contextualised by v.16 and later by v.22. The sages would prefer to believe that wealth is a gift of Yahweh that confirms its possessor’s righteousness. Otherwise the standard act-consequence relationship is displayed throughout the chapter. (Fontaine 1988, 509)

It is hard to say what exactly Fontaine means when she speaks of Proverbs 10.15 being ‘contextualised’ by 10.16 and 10.22. Does this mean that in the context of those verses 10.15 can be ignored or dismissed? Or that it can be regarded as the exception that proves the rule? We shall see when we come to discuss Proverbs 10.15 – not only in its immediate but also in its broader context – that Fontaine’s description is inadequate. Proverbs 10.15, and other contradictory verses, resist being ‘contextualised’ but provide a potent challenge to the dominant teachings. Fontaine, however, at least noted that this verse does not conform to the expected teachings. Indeed, Fontaine is one of a number of scholars writing from a feminist perspective who have contributed to the more positive evaluations of Proverbs seen in recent years, much as they may disapprove of the book’s admittedly patriarchal assumptions. For instance, Fontaine remarks in another article, Nowhere does one hear the sages condemn a society that forces some women into prostitution; one hears only warnings about the havoc such young women can wreak on a young man’s promising career.  (Fontaine 1992, 146)

In part, such analysis has been influenced by the prevailing consensus. So, for example, Newsom’s remarks on Israelite wisdom imply that Proverbs is particularly complacent about the underlying ideology of the society that produced it and, as we have seen so often, that Job and Qohelet are more challenging texts. Israel’s wisdom tradition never examined its patriarchal assumptions. But its commitment to discourse as such and its fascination with the dissident voice in Job and Qoheleth made it the locus within Israel for radical challenges to the complacency of the dominant symbolic order.  (Newsom 1989, 159)

Although these remarks are reminiscent of the conventional view of the wisdom tradition, there is a hint of a more sympathetic approach in the statement that it was committed ‘to discourse as such’. Other feminist scholars have pointed out that the reader implied in Proverbs is a young man (the ‘son’ of such verses as Proverbs 1.8 and 2.1), and that this makes for difficulties when women read this book. For instance, Judith McKinlay remarks; For the text itself requires the reader to read as if they were the young man, it requires them to regard women as either the symbolically desirable who open up heaven and mediate its delights to the world of humankind, or as the seductively dangerous ‘strangers’ to be avoided at any cost. For women this is a requirement to read against themselves; in such a reading it is indeed the text that is deceptive.  (McKinlay 1996, 99)

40

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

One can admit the force of some of these criticisms. Given the nature of the society that produced Proverbs, it is difficult to see how its assumptions could be anything else but patriarchal. However, we shall see that Proverbs prods its readers into questioning both what they read and what expectations they bring to the act of reading. Readers of all sorts are challenged into a critical awareness of their own stances and presuppositions. Moreover, in chapter three we shall see that Proverbs puts forward more varied – and more interesting – female characters than can fit into the simple ‘Madonna/whore’ categories McKinlay’s remarks imply are the only ones available. Indeed, Claudia Camp’s work on female figures in Proverbs has shown how they function to challenge the book’s male readers and to lead them beyond the societal and religious norms implied in it. With regard to the ‘ideological function of female imagery in Proverbs’ Camp concedes that part of its role is to legitimate existing social conditions; but, … the symbol must also be capable of leading the religious imagination forward from or beyond ordinary reality in such a way that it is still connected to that reality. It must construct a world view that touches the heart as well as the mind. It must provide an opportunity for faith as well as for understanding. Personified Wisdom fulfills this task in her role as mediator between God and humankind.  (Camp 1985, 271)

Not only did Camp see Proverbs as a potentially challenging text but she also referred, in a later article, to the possibility that the prototypes on which the female figures in the book are modelled may have been wise women who had real power and influence. Commenting on the imagery of Proverbs she said that it, … most likely reflects a relatively high status for women in society during the Persian Period (especially early on) and the possibility of real social influence for women of experience and wisdom. (Camp 1990, 127)

Thus, the overall effect of feminist criticism has been positive. It has highlighted the likelihood that Proverbs is a text produced by men for men, but some feminist critics have gone on to suggest ways of reading the book that allow it to rise above the limitations of the circumstances of its production and to challenge and provoke. Dianne Bergant remarks: The ethnic, class and gender biases of the book of Proverbs are quite obvious. But so is the all-encompassing call of Wisdom and the very general polysemic character of her message. For this message to be authentic wisdom, it must be recontextualised again and again. The waters of the fountain can both refresh and cleanse, and in this way bring forth treasures of wisdom, both old and new. (Bergant 1997, 105)

I would argue that the waters of the book of Proverbs are, to an extent, selfpurifying. The book, as it were, cleanses itself, for it challenges its readers, male or female, to engage critically both with the text before them and the presuppositions they bring to reading it. Turning to some critics who would not, perhaps, regard themselves as feminist readers, Lennart Boström’s contribution to the debate marks, in my view, a considerable advance. His account of the doctrine of retribution in Proverbs takes

How Proverbs was marginalized

41

Koch’s terminology as its starting point, but queries both the universality of the ‘Acts–Consequence construct’ and the focus on specific actions that, as he points out, is implied in Koch’s discussion of the matter. Boström’s careful analysis of the language of Proverbs leads him to modify the concept in order to focus not on actions but on settled moral dispositions. He argues that in those texts in the book that deal with the issue of bad or good consequences ‘specific acts are only rarely mentioned and instead the consequences are tied to character traits, descriptions of different attitudes and life-styles’ (L. Boström 1990, 133). Boström also dissents from the notion –accepted as axiomatic by many of the scholars we have already surveyed – that Proverbs purveys a rigid traditional teaching on retribution against whose limitations the other wisdom books react. Boström takes issue with Ernst Würthwein’s argument that the later wisdom books represent an advance on an earlier wisdom dominated by Egyptian models. Würthwein maintains that Job reacts against the traditional view of God as righteous retributor…. His view is that in the book of Proverbs God is depicted as a retributor who is calculable and bound to a determinable law in all his dealings, while the concept of God in the book of Job is a reaction against this view in its stress on the total arbitrariness of God in the experience of Job. The history of the struggle between a rigid traditionalism built upon a view of reality in which everything can be calculated, and the view in which God is sovereign and the world is ultimately impenetrable and mysterious is more complicated than the creation of simple dichotomies between the book of Proverbs and the books of Job and Ecclesiastes will allow. (L. Boström 1990, 178)

It is clear from this that Boström’s view of retribution in Proverbs is linked to his central assertion, namely that God is portrayed in Proverbs as, above all, a personal God; a deity with whom the righteous man can have ‘close fellowship’ (L. Boström 1990, 234). Such a portrayal is also found, he argued, in Job, but not in Qohelet whose ‘main theme is the incomprehensibility of God and his activity in the world’ (L. Boström 1990, 234). However, Boström also stressed that the account of the God offered in Proverbs and Job is one that acknowledges that his ways are sometimes mysterious. Thus the differences between the Israelite wisdom texts are not absolute but are ones of degree and emphasis. On this view, the teaching of Proverbs cannot be simply summarized. We must be aware of the puzzling elements in the reality with which the book is seeking to deal. The argument of Leo Perdue’s Wisdom in Revolt (1991) might, at first, suggest that he would fully endorse the consensus view; that the traditional wisdom, perhaps represented by Proverbs is oppressive. Wisdom struggled with the domestication of its language and the potential idolatry of its theological formulations. Its metaphors did not die, but they suffered the threats of abuse by those less perceptive and dogmatic tradents whose efforts almost led to the extinction of the tradition.  (Perdue 1991, 31)

‘Less perceptive and dogmatic’ – even potentially idolatrous – this appears to be a harsh assessment of the traditional ‘tradents’ of Israelite wisdom. However, the context should be borne in mind here. Perdue’s strictures are not directed at all

42

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

the representatives of traditional Israelite wisdom, still less the sages responsible for Proverbs. In fact, he sees Job as an exercise in self-critical reflection by a tradition capable of representing the dangers of its own position in the dogmatism of Job’s ‘friends’. Accordingly, in his commentary on Proverbs (2000) Perdue states that its sages ‘normally avoided a dogmatism that made their teachings absolute, unyielding, and unresponsive to the times, specific circumstances and human experience’ (Perdue 2000, 8). Perdue’s evaluation of the social situation of the scribes he believes were responsible for Proverbs 1–9 is particularly interesting. In an earlier article he argues that the collection was made in the ‘emerging sociopolitical and religious order of the colony of Yehud in the late sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E’ (Perdue 1997, 101). However, he paints a more nuanced picture than the brutally Hobbesian notion of scribal ideologues justifying the power plays of violent oppressors. The scribes responsible for Proverbs were both socially and theologically creative. He admits that they were concerned to align themselves with the powerful, but that this was not a conservative, unimaginative confirmation of the existing order but a ‘daring’ response to a social situation marked by uncertainty and dislocation. … the traditional sages brought together a collection of teachings that aligned their own social group with the traditional claims to rulership of the descendants of the house of David. And perhaps even more daring, they placed their teachings within the order of divine creation and the providential guidance of the cosmos by seizing on the mythological metaphor of Woman Wisdom. In turn, they taught that the extended family, so central to early post-exilic life in its recreation on a social level, was to reflect this world order and its life-giving power.  (Perdue 1997, 101)

Murphy provides an interesting example of a scholar whose long career reveals a developing approach to Proverbs. He appears to have moved from viewing the book as irrationally simplistic to an approach which – while acknowledging the book’s difficulties – emphasizes its complexity and its capacity to stimulate the reader to think. In 1960 Murphy could write, Astonishment is one of the first reactions registered by the average reader of Proverbs, astonishment at the unflagging optimism in matters of retribution: virtue, with which wisdom is identified, brings reward (‘life,’ ‘blessings,’ ‘joy,’ ‘favor,’ etc.) and vice, which is folly, brings punishment (‘death,’ ‘rod,’ ‘downfall,’ ‘trouble’). (Murphy 1960, 14)

It is striking how much this resembles the scholars we surveyed at the beginning of the chapter. There is the same focus on Proverbs’ supposed ‘optimism’ and astonishment that such naïveté could be taught; the book’s doctrine of ‘retribution’ is singled out. Here is evidence of the power of the paradigm to cross barriers and influence an American Catholic scholar as powerfully as German Protestants. Murphy sees Proverbs teaching that God intervenes quite directly to enforce justice, although he implies – Koch, we recall, stated this directly – that this is a counterfactual doctrine. Job, of course, supplies the much-needed corrective.  However, I do not find the details of Perdue’s socio-political picture of Yehud convincing and situate the author of Proverbs at a humbler level than he does.

How Proverbs was marginalized

43

We cannot call this point of view blind, but it is one-sided, premised on a faith in Yahweh’s justice as applied to this life. It is too much to call this a ‘theory’, for it was not developed or defended by any reasoning …. It will be easy for the reader to side with the author of Job, who demolishes the traditional point of view of the wisdom writers; but their spirited defense of tradition merits grudging admiration. (Murphy 1960, 15)

However, in contrast to Eichrodt’s comments at about the same time, it is clear that for Murphy at this point in his career, the wisdom writers are not rationalists but, if anything, fideists. There is already a hint that he is beginning to detect in Proverbs not banality or ‘overweening rationality’, but something counter-intuitive and provocative. By 1993 Murphy views the book in a completely different light. He focuses on its ‘gnomic’ quality, its capacity to provoke thought, and implies that there are depths in it that the reader can discover beneath a deceptively simple surface. The book of Proverbs has shed its appearance of a kind of ethical code or homey instructions … the gnomic quality has permitted the recognition of more than one level of meaning to what are often perceived as banalities.  (Murphy 1993, 122)

Furthermore, in 1995 Murphy made some practical suggestions to help readers cope with the (usually unacknowledged) difficulties in reading the sayings material following Proverbs 10.1. He suggests that they should select thirty consecutive verses from the potentially confusing total of individual sayings. These should be read with close attention. From them they should select for concentrated meditation on their meaning and subtleties some three or four verses that ‘catch the reader’s fancy’ (Murphy 1995, 20). Why he opts for sections of thirty verses is unclear; several of the chapters into which the book was divided in the Middle Ages are approximately this length, but Murphy’s thirty verses are not to be identified with these. In fact, he seems to leave it to the reader to select thirty verses in an arbitrary fashion. The length of unit suggested also appears to be chosen arbitrarily, presumably in relation to what Murphy thinks might be a reader’s attention span. In 2001 Murphy published an article on the topic of translating Proverbs. It constituted both an explanation of the translation policy he had adopted in his commentary on the book (1998) and what was, in effect, a further interesting development in his reading strategy. He argued that contemporary English versions of the book’s sayings, though adequate for devotional and liturgical purposes, mislead those seeking a deeper understanding. There are two reasons why use of a more literal style in translating Hebrew proverbs is desirable. One of them is that the different idiom becomes a challenge to the reader – and this purpose is inherent in a proverbial saying, which often points out paradoxes and overturns preconceived ideas. The other is that a more literal rendering does justice to the ambiguity of a saying, an ambiguity that might be eliminated if the saying were translated in too bland a fashion.  (Murphy 2001, 622)

Murphy has clearly come far from his position in 1960. He now accepts that several sayings in Proverbs, when read in the original Hebrew, do not purvey a counter-factual optimistic traditional wisdom; rather some challenge and overturn

44

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

preconceived ideas. As an example of how a reader would be challenged by a more literal translation, Murphy cites Proverbs 10.15, the same verse which, it will be recalled, Fontaine had seen as something of an anomaly in respect to the Acts– Consequence Relationship. In line with his literal translation policy, Murphy renders Proverbs 10.15 ‘The wealth of a rich person, his strong city. The ruin of the poor, their poverty’. Such a ‘pungent’ (Murphy 2001, 621) translation, he argues, would lead the reader to ‘sift through the implications’ (Murphy 2001, 622) by prompting such thoughts as, To what extent can the rich rely on their wealth? Is a ‘strong city’, a city so strong that it can withstand any adversity? Is poverty ruination? Is there no hope for the poor?  (Murphy 2001, 622)

Furthermore such reflections should, he suggests, lead the reader to an encounter with other verses bearing on the theme in Proverbs, even though they may be quite removed from the first saying under consideration in the text. ‘This will call for an examination of another pertinent proverbial saying (for example Prov. 18.10–11)’ (Murphy 2001, 622). Some elements in these proposals are relatively uncontroversial. Several modern scholars readily admit that the sayings in Proverbs are both paradoxical and contain challenging ambiguities. Clifford, for instance, is clear that they are attempting to convey a paradoxical view of the world, one which the reader must struggle to understand. The concise sayings in chaps. 10–31 do not so much convey information as impart a perspective as the reader struggles to understand them. In a sense, the sayings are the world in miniature, concealing in themselves a dimension of reality that we easily miss or rush past. As we ponder them, we learn discernment and acquire insight into God’s world.  (Clifford 1999, 33)

Clifford’s use of the word ‘ponder’ here appears to be quite similar to Murphy’s use of the word ‘sift’ (Murphy 2001, 622). It recalls more directly John Eaton’s earlier (1989) advocacy of traditional Israelite wisdom as a meditative tradition similar to that of other world religions. From Chapter 10 onwards we have collections of short sayings, still in poetry. Each saying needs much pondering. No doubt the sage himself expected his disciples to consider each saying deeply, sometimes meditating on it for hours and finding in it promptings for many reflections. (Eaton 1989, 5)

Thus, Clifford builds on the insights of scholars like Eaton – and perhaps also von Rad who had also stressed the mysterious and paradoxical elements in Proverb’s sayings. He views the individual sayings as complex and provocative single units. However, Murphy’s (1995) proposal that individual sayings should be dealt with in units of thirty is potentially more controversial. It might imply (though this is admittedly not explicitly stated) that such sections might have been arranged to provide a context in which the full meaning of an individual saying can be appreciated. This flies in the face of much scholarly certainty that the context of individual

How Proverbs was marginalized

45

sayings is irrelevant. Murphy’s further proposal that the process of meditation upon an individual saying might call for an examination of another saying separated from it by many other verses, is even more provocative for it implies that Proverbs is a text that invites such comparisons. Thus a further, even more controversial implication arises, namely that Proverbs can be read as a unified text. Neither in his commentary nor in the article on translation policy does Murphy make this explicit but the reading strategy he advocates makes most sense if this is the case. Conclusion It cannot be assumed that the more sympathetic accounts of the scholars surveyed in the last section will inevitably carry the day in academic consideration of Proverbs. The power of the negative tradition of neglect and suspicion is still considerable. It has, after all, been the dominant view since the beginning of the ‘higher’ biblical criticism and has influenced scholars from many different backgrounds. The power of this dismissive hermeneutic can only be broken by finding ways of reading Proverbs that allow us to discover the challenging and provoking elements in its text. This will allow us to discern its fundamental kinship with Job and Qohelet, which are generally admitted to be challenging texts. Such an approach might pick up Murphy’s hint and see that the individual sayings are most provoking when read in the context of the whole book. But can Proverbs be read as providing a context as a whole for its individual sayings? The next chapter will attempt to show how the book can be read as a complex but unified literary whole.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs Summary of Chapter Erman’s remark (1924) that a decent wisdom book was destroyed when it was absorbed into the book of Proverbs coheres well with the scholarly consensus that Proverbs is a clumsy accretion of ill-digested material. Most scholars believe that the book is a lightly edited, rather random collection of collections, although some have detected elements of organization within its sections. Heim, for instance, argues for the existence of clusters within the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ collection. Skehan’s belief that the entire book is a unified structure portraying the temple of Solomon represents a unique dissenting voice. We shall examine this consensus and those who modify or take issue with it before developing an argument that Proverbs is, in fact, skilfully organized to enliven the individual sayings. Proverbs is arranged in conformity with literary conventions similar to those found, according to Alter, in the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible. Sources are brought together in a way akin to the elements in a collage so that the parts inform each other and interrogate the whole. Deliberate repetition plays a key role in uniting the book by bringing the attentive reader into renewed contact with earlier themes. Evidence for the wisdom with which the final redactor of Proverbs drew together the disparate elements in the collections before him is cumulative. It will be discovered in close analysis of several passages in the book. A proverb in a collection is dead? In 1924 Erman suggested that Proverbs 22.17–24.22 was heavily dependent on an Egyptian model, the Wisdom of Amenemope. Erman’s arguments in favour of this proposal are well known and have gained widespread assent. Less well known is his value judgement on the incorporation of the earlier Egyptian text into the book of Proverbs. He admits the exact path of transmission is difficult to ascertain with any accuracy but speculates that it might have been through a Jew living in Egypt during the Persian period who produced a Hebrew or Aramaic version of Amenemope. There then followed, according to Erman, the debasing of a decent text at the hands of the collectors of proverbs. Es war gewiß so noch ein ganz vernünftiges Buch, dann aber begegnete ihm das Schlimmste, was einem Buch begegnen kann, es wurde von den Sammlern von Sprüchen und Sentenzen ausgeschlachtet, und die pflegen ja ihr Handwerk mit wenig Verstand zu vertreiben. Wieviel Hände sich so an ihm versündigt haben, können wir nicht erraten,

48

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs aber das Endergebnis sehen wir in den «Sprüchen Salomos»:… [It was certainly still quite a reasonable book but then it encountered the worst fate a book can encounter, it was butchered by the collectors of sayings and sentences and, indeed, they are accustomed to practice their handiwork without much discernment. We are unable to estimate how many hands sinned against it but we see the end result in the ‘Sayings of Solomon’:…] (Erman 1924, 92)

It would be wrong to understand this emotive description of a text being ‘butchered’ and ‘sinned against’ solely by reference to the background of the disparagement of ‘judaistic’ postexilic Israelite wisdom so prevalent among German scholars when Erman wrote. His invective is directed not simply against the particular collectors responsible for the incorporation of the translation of Amenemope into Proverbs, but against ‘collectors of sayings and sentences’ as a class. Erman speaks of their activity not in the past but in the present tense ‘…die pflegen ja ihr Handwerk mit wenig Verstand zu vertreiben….’ [… indeed, they are accustomed to practice their handiwork without much discernment…]. Implied here is a similar understanding of the work of collectors implied in Wolfgang Mieder’s remark that ‘a Proverb in a collection is dead’ (1974, 892). That is to say, taken out of its original context, whether that is the oral milieu or an original literary form, the constituent parts of a collection of proverbs are inevitably robbed of life. Creative collages and collaboration As far as Proverbs is concerned, my own understanding is very different to that of Erman and Mieder. I would argue that the constituent parts of Proverbs are enlivened rather than destroyed by being brought together. This collection was made with discernment; to encourage discerning readers to discover parallels and antitheses between statements in different parts of the book; to provoke them into critical engagement with contradictions between statements. Alter’s work on biblical narratives suggests that editorial work can be creative. He agrees with scholars who use the traditional historical-critical approach that the stories in the biblical narratives ‘appear to have been patched together from disparate and even conflicting literary sources’ (Alter 1992, 3), but then goes on to discern ‘a surprising degree of artful coherence in the final version of the text’ (1992, 4). He argues that, in the biblical narratives, elements circulating in the national tradition of Israel from varied sources and from different genres (folktales, genealogies, historical records, aetiologies of proverbs) have been brought together into composite texts that resemble collages. The composite nature of such texts was recognized by the audiences and accepted as a matter of standard literary procedure (Alter 1992, 15). The canonical books are the product of a final editing which drew together into an integral whole the work of generations. He points to parallels to this process in other fields. There are other instances of works of art that evolve over the centuries, like the cathedrals of medieval Europe, and are the product of many hands, involving an elaborate process of editing, like some of the greatest Hollywood films. (Alter 1996, xlii)

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

49

There are texts that offer an even closer analogy than Alter’s non-textual examples. In the playhouses of Elizabethan London collaborations were common; according to Martin White ‘the account records of the theatre impresario Philip Henslowe [ca. 1550–1616] suggest that around half of the new plays he bought each season were collaborative efforts’ (White 2005, xv). A particularly striking example is offered by the play Sir Thomas More. This survives in a manuscript, the bulk of which can be dated to the early 1590s with later revisions around 1600, and in which the hands of five playwrights have been identified. The original play was the work of Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle – drawing heavily, sometimes verbatim, on the account of More’s life written by his son-in-law, William Roper, around 1555 – but the hands of three other playwrights (including William Shakespeare) are present. These later contributions may represent attempts to meet the demands for revisions made by the Master of The Revels, Sir Edmund Tilney, the censor, whose hand is also found in the manuscript. The final hand is that of the Book Keeper, the theatre company’s producer whose task it was to make, out of this potential tangle of contributions, something that could be performed. That he succeeded in his task was evident to all who saw the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of the piece in 2005. In spite of its complex provenance the play has a strong dramatic structure with interesting symmetries and antitheses (for instance between More and the executed leader of the insurrection in the play’s first Act). It cannot be argued that this example of a text made up of several components being drawn into a successful unity by a final editor compels the conclusion that Proverbs must be the product of a similar process. However, the prevalence of collaborations in the Elizabethan theatre draws attention to the fact that the notion of one author being totally responsible for giving a text its unity is a relatively modern assumption. Earlier generations did not share our notions of the importance of individual authorship. Indeed, it is possible that the collaborative plays of the sixteenth century were responding not only to ‘supply side’ pressures, but also to an aesthetic demand; that the audiences actually preferred to hear different styles and voices, or, at any rate, appreciated them when they heard them. Might that also be the case for biblical texts, as Alter implies? Peter QuinnMiscall (1993 and 2001) and Hugh Williamson (1994) have argued that the book of Isaiah, although it is clearly a book made up of elements from different authors and periods, can be read as a unified whole in which the constituent parts interrogate and question each other. Their view of Isaiah resembles Alter’s view of Genesis and mine of Proverbs. Might it not be that bringing such complexities into a unified whole was an artistic achievement appreciated and expected by the original audience of these texts? An arbitrary collection? Erman’s damning judgement on the lack of understanding of the editors of Proverbs may be regarded as an extreme version of the traditional scholarly view expressed by Oesterley, ‘These collections were thrown together in a somewhat haphazard way. The general arrangement of the material is quite arbitrary’ (Oesterley 1929, xii). A

50

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

simple basic structure for the book in its entirety is generally admitted. As Dermot Cox says, ‘most authorities recognize five collections in the book’ (1982, 89). It is often held that Proverbs 1–9 is chronologically the latest; and that it was added as an introduction to four pre-existing collections. These were, ‘The proverbs of Solomon’ (10.1–22.16); ‘The sayings of the wise’ (22.17–24.22) with a mini collection tacked on to it, ‘These also are the saying of the wise’ (24.23–34); ‘The other proverbs of Solomon that the officials of King Hezekiah of Judah copied’ (25.1–29.27); and a final collection consisting of appendices, ‘The words of Agur’ (30.1–14), ‘numerical proverbs’ (30.15–33); ‘The words of Lemuel’ (31.1–9) together with the concluding acrostic poem (31.10–31). Alex Luc’s proposal (2000) that these five collections are intended to reflect the five books of the Pentateuch is intriguing. However, other scholars (Murphy 1960; Daniel Snell 1993) regard Proverbs 24.23–34 and 31.10–31 as separate units and count seven rather than five collections. Be that as it may, on most accounts the final editing process was done with a light touch. It involved simply bringing together the existing collections and adding the introduction. This is generally held to have taken place in the postexilic period. Christa Bauer-Kayatz (1966) and Yehoshua Grintz (1968) argue that Proverbs 1–9 is the earliest element in the entire collection. Indeed, Grintz’s linguistic analysis had led him to conclude ‘… the canonical order of the book is also the historical order’ (1968 trans. 1993, 114). Bauer-Kayatz did not go quite so far but, on the basis of the close parallels she detected with Egyptian Instruction material datable to the second millennium, she argued that Proverbs 1–9 came from the time of Solomon; the remaining collections were added over time, the whole process being a sort of accretion; a similar process is implied by Grintz. These arguments, although they are echoed by Bruce Waltke in his recent, magisterial commentary (2004, 30–31), fail to convince. The picture of linguistic development assumed by Grintz fails to take account of such possibilities as deliberate archaism or repetition. Bauer-Kayatz’s dating makes no allowance for the possibility of a text exerting an influence on another, much later, work. The most pertinent example is that of Amenemope (ca. 1550–1000 BC), whose influence on Proverbs 22.17–24.22 (ca. 800–400 BC) is generally held to be profound although – given the accepted datings – they are separated by hundreds of years. Furthermore, although they are at odds with the general view that Proverbs 1–9 was composed in the postexilic period, as an introduction to earlier collections, Bauer-Kayatz and Grintz agree with the consensus in discerning little attempt to shape the collections into any sort of overall unity. Even if Proverbs 1–9 was produced as an introduction for the existing collections, most scholars are of the opinion that the book was assembled in a rather arbitrary way with the final acrostic poem placed at the end of the book to signal its completion. According to this view, what might look like links between collections in the shape of sayings that are found in one collection and then repeated verbatim or almost verbatim in another are nothing more than fortuitous repetition of clichés (Snell, 1993).

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

51

Elements of organization within sections of Proverbs? However, within the various collections several more organized elements have been detected. The most obvious is Proverbs 31.10–31, the acrostic poem in praise of the ishet-hayil – [the valiant or strong woman]. Other less obvious acrostic elements have been discerned elsewhere in Proverbs. Respected commentators such as Murphy (1998, 14) and Clifford (1999, 45) have accepted Patrick Skehan’s proposal (1947, 9) that Proverbs 2.1–22 contains a looser acrostic composition in six stanzas. Fox, however (2000, 126), is, rightly, sceptical. He points out that only by a ‘procrustean’ method of textual emendation is Skehan able to produce some of the anticipated alphabetical features – for instance, the initial aleph and the lamed in the middle – yet, even so, the tav to be anticipated as the first word of the final line is missing. Victor Hurowitz’s suggestion (2000) that an alphabetic acrostic has been overlooked in Proverbs 24.1–22 is even less plausible. The alphabetical features are much less clearly detectable even than in Proverbs 2.1–22 and it requires what Hurowitz himself admits is ‘bold … textual surgery’ (2000, 535), in the shape of a complex reorganization of the MT text of the passage, to produce anything like a recognizable acrostic. So although, in Proverbs 31.10–31, one acrostic structure is undoubtedly present in the book the existence of others is more dubious. The question of whether there are other organizational features in the book – perhaps more complex and subtle ones – remains, however, a matter of debate. This debate, as we shall see, generally centres around the contention that sayings, particularly in the longest collection, ‘The sayings of Solomon’ in Proverbs 10.1–22.16, are not randomly thrown together but linked by Stichworte (connective catchwords) and/or paronomasia (repetition of vowel sounds and consonantal alliteration between adjacent words). The importance of these linkages was first advocated by Gustav Boström (1928) and further developed by Ruth Scoralick (1995). Wordplay can also link neighbouring sayings as when the ambiguities of a word or a trilateral root are explored as, for instance, those of the root bro in Proverbs 20.16–19. Moreover, some short strings of sayings are clearly linked by a theme – for instance those that mention the King in Proverbs 16.10–15. Nobody disputes that such features are occasionally to be found in Proverbs; at issue is the extent to which they occur and their significance. The dominant view is that they are occasional and are not indicators of intentional editorial groupings. McKane speaks ‘of the random way in which wisdom sentences follow one upon another in any chapter’ (1970, 10). Although he admits the word ‘random’ could be challenged, he insists that any editorial groupings ‘… have a secondary characteristic and do not contradict the statement that there is, for the most part no context in the sentence literature’ (McKane 1970, 10). McKane’s insistence upon the random nature of the sentence collections and his readiness to dismiss evidence of intentional groupings of sayings is one side of the debate, perhaps the dominant one. James Martin expresses a similar view when he notes the groupings of sayings on speech and silence in Proverbs 10 and on the King in Proverbs 16 but concludes,

52

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs Against all these attempts to discover some coherence behind the apparently random sequences of sentences in this first solomonic collection it has to be reaffirmed that the unit in this collection is still the single sentence. (Martin 1995, 65)

Proverbial clusters Heim has advanced a vigorous argument for a far greater degree of organization in Proverbs 10.1–22.16 than that contemplated by McKane and Martin. Building on the work of Gustav Boström (1928), Arndt Meinhold (1991), and Scoralick (1995), Heim divides the collection into a series of coherent groupings of ‘proverbial clusters’. He compares each cluster to a bunch of grapes; the individual saying can be ‘consumed’ singly but ‘eating them together enhances the flavour and enriches the culinary experience’ (Heim 2001, 107). These clusters are generally short – for instance, Proverbs 18.16–19 – but can be somewhat longer – as in 17.1–9. Heim also detects some longer, more loosely cohering units – up to 15 verses, as in the case of 16.16–30 – containing several clusters, but, for him, the primary unit of interpretation is the cluster itself. He holds that the clusters cohere primarily around meaning. Other literary features, such as paronomasia, are secondary; they serve to alert readers to the existence of a cluster and prompt them to discern the theme it explores. Heim presses the argument with formidable erudition and with a lively appreciation of the subtleties of the Hebrew text. The stress he places on the inventiveness of the text and the demands it places on the reader are altogether welcome. However, while some of the shorter clusters he detects are convincing, his attempts to discern a theme running through longer units sometimes strain credulity. For instance, he analyses Proverbs 17.1–9 as a single cluster around the theme ‘less may be more’ (2001, 230) enunciated in its first verse, 17.1, byîr_yEjVbˆz aElDm tˆyA;bIm ;hDb_hÎwVlAv◊w hDbérSj tAÚp bwøf [better a dry crust and quiet with it, than a house full of sacrifices of strife]. However, he admits that 17.6, MDtwøbSa MyInD;b t®rRaVpIt◊w MyInDb yEnV;b Myˆnéq◊z t®rRfSo [‘The crown of elders is sons’ sons and the glory of sons their fathers] ‘…has no close relationship to the surrounding verses’ (Heim 2000, 231). Furthermore, his attempt to accommodate into his theory Proverbs 17.3–4,

hDwh◊y twø;bIl NEjOb…w bDhÎΩzAl r…wk◊w PRsR;kAl PérVxAm tO…wAh NwøvVl_lAo NyˆzEm r®qRv N‰wDa_tApVc_lAo byIvVqAm oårEm [A crucible for silver and a furnace for gold And the tester for hearts – YHWH. ‘Evildoer’ is he who listens to the lip of malice ‘Liar’ who lends an ear to a destructive tongue]. does not convince. Proverbs 17.8 deals with bribery and 17.9 with how friendship is gained and lost; these verses also seem to have little, if any, connection with the theme of the grouping claimed. Similar criticisms can be made of other attempts by Heim to group sayings, for instance in Proverbs 11.1–14 and 14.23–7. Moreover, in spite of Heim’s original and insightful approach, its end effect is to break the text of an important section of Proverbs into discrete units with little or no relations discernible across their boundaries. This encourages a concentration on these discrete units so

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

53

that other more significant linkages between sayings and units widely separated in the text could, perhaps, be ignored. Indeed, there are other possibilities of organization in Proverbs. It is not a choice between random accretion on the one hand, and a relatively obvious linear method of organization on the other. In my view, one, perhaps paradoxical, effect of Heim’s argument is to highlight the way that the text occasionally, as it were, raises the possibility of such linear organization only to reject it. For instance, in Proverbs 20.16–19, a sequence of verses pun on the multiple meanings of the root bro; the noun form ‘pledge or deposit’; the adjective ‘sweet’; the verb in the hithpael ‘to associate with’;

whElVbAj MyîrVkÎn dAoVb…w rDz bårDo_yI;k wød◊gI;b_jåqVl XDxDj …whyIp_aElD;mˆy rAjAa◊w r®qDv MRjRl vyIaDl bérDo hDmDjVlIm hEcSo twølU;bVjAtVb…w Nwø;kIt hDxEoV;b twøbDvSjAm b∂rDoVtIt aøl wyDtDpVc hRtOpVl…w lyIk∂r JKElwøh dwø;s_hRlwø…g [Take his clothes for he guaranteed a stranger – on behalf of foreigners, take his deposit! Sweet to a man, the bread of deceit and afterwards his mouth is filled with dirt. Plans are perfected by counsel; Wage war with plans! Who trades in gossip betrays a confidence – Do not associate with the loosed lip!]

(Proverbs 20.16–19)

It is, however, an interrupted sequence for in only the first two, Proverbs 20.16–17, and the last, 20.19, of these four sayings does the root bro occur. It would, after all, have been relatively easy to put the three lines together. In my view, the sequence in MT Proverbs is deliberate; Proverbs 20.18 was placed in the middle of the sequence precisely because this interrupted an obvious arrangement. Affirmation and denial of pattern and coherence are simultaneously offered in a way that could be described as knowingly teasing. Nor is this an isolated example. Elsewhere in Proverbs we find other passages in which a relatively obvious sequences of sayings is interrupted. Two striking examples of this are in Proverbs 16.1–15, which contains two sequences in which sayings cohere around key words but the sequence is interrupted. In 16.1–9 eight verses (16.1–7 and 9) contain the divine name hwhy. Such continuity is most unusual; it suggests that the fact that there is one verse, 16.8, which, egregiously, does not contain the divine name, may be significant. This interrupted sequence is immediately followed by another; in the five verses of Proverbs 16.10–15, four verses mention the King (or Kings); 16.11, however, makes no mention of royalty – its topic is God’s concern for just weights. These interrupted sequences appear almost playful, as if the editor were saying, ‘Of course I could make an obvious pattern but I don’t want to!’  Through what looks like a deliberate refusal to fulfil expectations of obvious patterns in the text, the reader is being alerted to the need to approach  There are other biblical examples of poetic structures that are or may be ‘deliberately deficient’, for instance the incomplete acrostics in Psalms 34 and 145 and in Lamentations 5:1–22.

54

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

wisdom critically. There is meaning and wisdom in experience as it is presented in the book of Proverbs, but the patterns are not neat – we must struggle to incorporate exceptions into our understanding. This is the ‘education for responsibility’ that encourages us to engage with the provocative contradictions that we shall examine in subsequent chapters. Skehan – Wisdom’s House Skehan’s suggestion that the twenty-two verses of Proverbs 2 are carefully arranged as an acrostic poem of six stanzas was part of a much more ambitious account of the entire book, one which stands at the opposite end of the interpretative spectrum from those who focus on the individual units of Proverbs. Skehan argued that the ‘author-compiler-designer’ (1971, 27) of Proverbs prepared his manuscript in such a way as to represent Solomon’s Temple, as described in 1 Kings 6 in the form of an architectural drawing made up of lines of text! In 1947 Skehan had suggested that the first nine chapters of Proverbs – with some rearrangement – conceal a picture, in fact a front elevation, of a seven-pillared structure. Each pillar consists of 22 verses of text, with a lower three story annex running round the sides. In 1971, Skehan extended the theory to the entire book, arguing that it portrayed a side elevation of the same temple. If true, this theory would seem to give unassailable support for a unitary reading of Proverbs. However, his imaginative and provocative argument cannot finally be sustained. It is, nevertheless worth examining in some depth because of its intrinsic interest but also because it has not, to my knowledge, received the detailed refutation it deserves. This will necessarily involve some technically involved arguments. The first flaw in Skehan’s approach is the amount of textual rearrangement it necessitates. Fox’s description of his treatment of Proverbs 2 as ‘procrustean’ (Fox 2000, 126) is even more appropriate in relation to his approach to the whole of Proverbs. In order to produce the front elevation of the temple, for example, Skehan rearranges the MT of Proverbs 1–9 extensively. No less than eight portions of the text have to be moved, including the whole of Proverbs 6, which is divided into four units (6.1–19; 20–21; 22; 23) and distributed widely round the eight other chapters. Secondly, even after this heroic surgery, it seems implausible that one of the resulting pillars, Proverbs 7.7–27, could be a freestanding unit. Dividing the text in this way interrupts a continuous narrative and requires us to accept that the last line of the supposed sixth pillar – Proverbs 7.6, yI;tVp∂qVvˆn yI;bÅnVvRa dAoV;b yItyE;b Nwø;lAjV;b yI;k [For, at the window of my house, through my lattice, I observed …] – ends both awkwardly and inconsequentially. Furthermore, the next supposed pillar begins, implausibly, with a conjunction, vav – Proverbs 7.7, bEl_rAsSj rAoAn MyˆnD;bAb hÎnyIbDa MˆyaDtVÚpAb a®rEaÎw [And I saw among the simple, I discerned among the sons, a lack wit of a lad]. This is, admittedly, an exception; usually the ‘pillars’ begin and end in more plausible ways. However, the amount of textual rearrangement required and the



The phrase is Hinds – see p. 15 of this book.

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

55

awkwardness subsequently created at a crucial point, count heavily against Skehan’s theory. Thirdly, another element in his argument – that based on the numerical values supposedly contained in the title headings in Proverbs – also fails to convince. Skehan was not the first to detect numerical values in the title headings found in Proverbs. Two Hebrew words, hOmølVv yElVvIm [Proverbs of Solomon], function as a title for Proverbs 10.1–22.16, the second main section of the book. If the usual numerical values for the consonants in the Hebrew alphabet are applied to the word hOmølVv [Solomon] a sum total of 375 (h = 5; m = 40; l = 30; v = 300) results. As P. Behnke pointed out over a century ago (1896, 122-3) – this tallies exactly with the 375 lines in the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ (10.1–22.16). Many later commentators mention this ‘curious little fact’ (Oesterley 1929, xxvii) but see it as of little significance beyond, perhaps, evidencing ‘that at a relatively late date this collection circulated independently’ (1929, xxvii). For Skehan, however (1971, 43), this numerical correspondence, far from indicating the independence of 10.1–22.16, points towards the collection’s integration into the overall structure of Proverbs. Skehan posited an editor of Proverbs who ruled the middle section of his manuscript in such a way as to produce a ‘Side Elevation of the Nave’ of Solomon’s Temple, made up of these 375 sayings in 15 columns of 25 lines each (1971, 35). The 25 lines relate to the measurement of 25 cubits given in the Greek versions of 1 Kings 6 for the height of the nave of Solomon’s temple – the MT however, it should be noted, gives 30 cubits for this measurement. Indeed, Skehan believed that hOmølVv yElVvIm [Proverbs of Solomon] in Proverbs 10.1 constitutes the first of no less than four usages of numerical values being given to the titles of the book’s collections (1971, 45). These, Skehan argued, represented ‘numerical controls provided by the editor of the book and its parts’ (1971, 43) and revealed further details of the book’s unified design and construction. The first such control was to be found in the very opening verse of the book, Proverbs 1.1, lEa∂rVcˆy JKRlRm dIw∂;d_NRb hOmølVv yElVvIm [The Proverbs of Solomon, son of David, King of Israel] (Skehan 1971, 44). Skehan directs attention to the three proper nouns in Proverbs 1.1, which he labels the ‘operative words’ (1971, 44) ­– these are, hOmølVv [Solomon]; dIw∂;d [David]; and lEa∂rVcˆy [Israel]. hOmølVv, as we have already noted, has a numerical value of 375. The consonants in dIw∂;d have a value of 14 (d = 4; w = 6; d = 4). Finally, lEa∂rVcˆy totals 541 (l = 30; a = 1; r = 200; v = 300; y = 10). This produces a combined total of 930, which, according to Skehan, corresponds to ‘the number of lines in the book’ (1971, 44). In the light of the similar phenomenon in Proverbs 10.1, this, he argued, is not a coincidence. However, the number of lines in Proverbs is a matter of dispute. The late medieval verse divisions produce a total of only 915, but these are unreliable as they unjustifiably amalgamate several units in the final collections. My own total is 933; Snell (1993, 12) gives 932; Clifford (1999, 34) counts 934. So the correspondence that Skehan sought here cannot be precisely demonstrated. Nevertheless, it is close enough for such a correspondence not to be dismissed out of hand. Perhaps the titles of the collections were not meant to be counted, or perhaps three (or four!) sayings were added during the copying process?

56

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Some scholars have found this correspondence between 10.1 and the number of lines in 10.1–22.16 persuasive. Indeed, Clifford suggests that the correspondences suggested for both Proverbs 1.1 and 10.1 have an inherent plausibility because, ‘Generally, numerology played an important role in literature up to the recent past’ (Clifford 1999, 108n, see also 35n). Snell finds the proposal ‘attractive’ but, in the end, rejects it on the grounds that we have no instances of numerical values being given to Hebrew letters until after any plausible date for the composition of Proverbs (1993,12). Skehan had, however, anticipated this objection. He points out that by the sixth century BC the Greeks only used digamma (vav) and qoppa (qoph) as numerals (1971, 45) and argues, plausibly, that, together with their Semitic alphabet, the Greeks borrowed an existing convention whereby letters functioned as numbers, rather than inventing such a convention themselves. However, it is perhaps significant that Clifford is silent about two further ‘numerical controls’ Skehan detected in Proverbs, for they are much more dubious. Skehan’s third control is found in Proverbs 25.1 – h∂d…wh◊y_JKRlRm hÎ¥yIq◊zIj yEv◊nAa … wqyI;tVoRh rRvSa hOmølVv yElVvIm hR;lEa_MÅ…g [These also are Proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah copied]. The ‘operative word’ (1971, 44) here is, supposedly, ‘Hezekiah’, although not in the form of the name given in the MT – hÎ¥yIq◊zIj – for that produces a numerical value of only 130 – h = 5; y = 10; q =100; z = 7; j = 8. This is ten lines short of the 140 lines found in MT Proverbs 25–29, which, Skehan argued, is the section governed by 25.1. However, he points out that the King’s name is found in the form hD¥yIq◊zIj◊y in both Hosea 1.1 and Micah 1.1. hD¥yIq◊zIj◊y is also attested in an ancient coin found at Beth-Zur. This form, with an initial yod, does produce the desired value of 140 (y = 10). In Proverbs 25.1 hD¥yIq◊zIj◊y could easily have been shortened by haplography, as the preceding word, yEv◊nAa, ends with a yod so this correspondence seems, at first, quite plausible. However, the methodology has subtly changed in order to produce the desired figure. As far as the titles in Proverbs 1.1 and 10.1 are concerned, Skehan took all the available proper nouns as ‘operative words’. In Proverbs 25.1 – h∂d…wh◊y_JKRlRm hÎ¥yIq◊zIj yEv◊nAa …wqyI;tVoRh rRvSa hOmølVv yElVvIm hR;lEa_MÅ…g – he ignores, without any justification, both hOmølVv [Solomon] – numerical value 375, as we have seen – and h∂d…wh◊y [Judah] – numerical value 30 (y = 10; h = 5; w = 6; d = 4; h = 5). Were these to be included, the total value of the ‘control’ would not be 140, but 545. This is a number that bears no relationship to anything in Skehan’s schema. There are similar problems with the final ‘operative word’ Skehan claimed (1971, 43–44) to detect in Proverbs 22.17, yI;tVoådVl tyIvD;t ÔKV;bIl◊w MyImDkSj yérVbî;d oAmVv…w ÔK◊n◊zDa fAh [Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise and apply your mind to my knowledge]. The word is MyImDkSj [wise (men)] whose numerical value is 118 (m = 40; y = 10; m = 40; k = 20; j = 8). This tallies with the number of lines in a section that Skehan creates by amalgamating Proverbs 22.17–24.32 with 30.7–33 in accordance with his overall design. There are two main problems with this. The first is textual; some commentators take the ‘words of the wise’ – 22.17–24.22 – as a collection in its own right; others would add the 11 verses in the small collection, ‘These also are the saying of the wise’ – 24.23–34 – to that, but neither reckoning produces the numerical control figure of 118. Skehan can only achieve this figure by deleting the last two verses of Proverbs 24 (24.33–34) from the text on the grounds

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

57

that they are an interpolation, a redundant repetition of verses found elsewhere. I will argue later that these particular verses are very far from being redundant here. Moreover, even if these textual emendations are accepted there is a second and even more telling objection to this proposal. Once again there has been an unjustified methodological change, for MyImDkSj [wise (men)] refers to a general class of persons. It is thus a different sort of word from those proper nouns – ‘Solomon’, ‘David’, ‘Hezekiah’ and ‘Israel’ – that name distinct persons or entities adduced elsewhere by Skehan as ‘operative words’. So, to sum up, in my view the metastructure that Skehan detected in the book of Proverbs is absent, not only because it requires too many textual amendments but also because two of the four numerical controls that give additional support to the argument prove, upon examination, to be illusory, the product of special pleading. It is possible, however, that, in spite of the inexactness of the correspondence, the numerical correspondence between the title in Proverbs 1.1 and the overall number of sayings in the book is meant to indicate to the reader that the book has an overall unity. However, if this is so, it is a more subtle unity than the one for which Skehan was pressing. Is the failure of Skehan’s project to be regretted from my point of view? I am, after all, seeking to discover some sort of organization in Proverbs that would support my contention that sayings in the different collections are intended to be in dialogue with one another. Such a contention could be accommodated within the ‘altogether remarkable coherence and unity’ (1971, 45) Skehan detects in Proverbs. However, it would be unwise to enlist his hypothesis in support of my argument, not only because his attempt to demonstrate it fails, but also because the whole thesis fits awkwardly with the more complex unities I discern within Proverbs. Skehan’s hypothesis suggests a willingness on the part of the final editors to organize the whole of the book of Proverbs with great precision in a relatively obvious way, albeit one which can only be retrieved by considerable amendment to the MT. However, as I have already noted, the final editors appear deliberately to eschew obvious organization at a lower level, as when they interrupt the verses that pun on the word bro with an inconsequential verse in Proverbs 20.18. To see the book as a diagram rather than, primarily, as a text is to reduce it. Complex texts like Proverbs are less rigid than architectural drawings; they make use of allusion rather than direct connections; they suggest rather than instruct; they make demands upon the critical intelligence beyond that required in the schoolroom Skehan envisaged as the Sitz im Leben of the original manuscript of Proverbs (1971, 45). Moreover, it is implausible that any numerical correspondences between titles and text ‘control’ the text. True, the exact match between the numerical value of hOmølVv [Solomon] in Proverbs 10.1 and the number of sayings in the following collection looks too close to be coincidental; it is possible that there is a similar link between 1.1 and the entire book. Perhaps these correspondences do not so much ‘control’ but suggest that the reader’s interpretative horizon should not be restricted; that it should be wide enough to encompass larger units than single sayings up to, and including, the whole book.

58

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Unity through repetition Snell argues that a comparison with other wisdom texts from the Ancient Near East suggests that the extensive internal repetition of sayings within the Book of Proverbs must have some significance. No other collection of aphorisms from the Near East have [sic] the extensive internal repetition of the Book of Proverbs; that is, they tend not to repeat sentences within what seems to be the same collection. For example, between 15% and 19% of the sentences in Edmund Gordon’s Sumerian proverb collection appear in other collections, but none is actually repeated within the same collection …. In contrast, in the Hebrew Book of Proverbs there seems to be a substantial number of sayings repeated among the various collections, and more importantly, a striking number of internal, or apparently internal, repetitions within the individual collections. It seems unlikely that this is merely an oversight on the part of scribes and editors; it must have some significance. (Snell 1993, 11)

Snell examines four possible explanations for these repetitions. The first is ‘literary cleavage’ (1993, 11), by which he means that the editors of Proverbs so respected the integrity of the individual collections that they had assembled into the canonical book that they retained all the sayings in them, even those that were repeated. However, as he points out, this may explain repetitions of sayings found in more than one collection, but it is less able to explain the existence of repeated sayings within a collection, unless one supposes an ever-increasing number of smaller preexisting collections within the generally accepted boundaries. Moreover, were this the explanation, would the repetitions have the significance he ascribes to them? Indeed, the evidence such literary conservatism would provide for a respectful approach on the part of editors to existing literary units has an undeniable importance. However, from the point of view of our enquiry, the significance of a book in which many repetitions occur is greatly reduced if those repetitions are nothing more than respectfully but conservatively curated specimens. Snell turns to Skehan’s theories for his second explanation for the repetitions in Proverbs. Although he finds the schema ‘attractive’ (Snell 1993, 12), he is inclined to doubt it on the dubious grounds that ‘the use of the Hebrew alphabet with numerical values is not accepted until a later date’ (1993, 12). As we have already seen, there are, in fact, more cogent criticisms of Skehan’s theory to be made. The third explanation Snell offers is based on a personal correspondence with Crenshaw who suggested that ‘repetition is present simply for emphasis’ (1993, 13). Although he refers briefly to the work of Alter and Van Leeuwen in support of this, he does not provide any examples of how such repetition works in the context of the book nor any theoretical explanation as to how it might. ‘The idea that verses are repeated for emphasis is hard to test’, he concludes (1993, 13). The fourth explanation Snell ascribes to Alter; namely that repetition is the ‘result of some sort of oral formulaic composition, analogous to what is found in the Homeric poems’ (Snell 1993, 14). Once again, Snell does not commit himself to this; nor does he offer any critique of what is, on the face of it, a difficult notion to prove or disprove, given that in Proverbs we are dealing with a literary text of whose putative oral precursors we have no knowledge. Indeed, we have no knowledge of the forms

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

59

taken by oral wisdom traditions in ancient Israel – if any such existed – by which this hypothesis could be tested. Matters are not clarified by the rest of Snell’s book which consists mostly of an extensive statistical analysis of repeated individual sayings within Proverbs classified according to such classifications as ‘Whole verses repeated with two dissimilar words (11 sets)’ (Snell 1993, 19) or ‘Halfverses repeated in whole verse with each word in the halfverse appearing in the whole (4 sets)’ (1993, 21). His conclusions after this comprehensive survey remain very tentative – ‘It appears that each of the reasons for repetition proposed by earlier students remains possible’ (1993, 72). His work is of value, however, for drawing attention to the widespread phenomenon of repetition in Proverbs and for his initial perception that this is unusual and requires an explanation. Resumptive repetition Indeed, Snell’s concentration simply on repeated individual sayings led him to underestimate the true significance of repetition in the book of Proverbs in several ways. He takes no account of repetitions of units longer than individual sayings or the way that more extended units can repeat and develop the thought of a single saying; or, conversely, the way that a single saying can return to the thought of an extended unit by way of summary or contrast. Indeed, Snell’s account of repetition is altogether too mechanistic. He does not deal with more subtle repetitions in which, for instance, we return to a topic to consider it by way of contrast or even contradiction. As we shall see, such repetition is one significant organizing device by which the ‘collage’ of Proverbs is bound together. To describe this form of repetition I adopt a phrase of Alter’s and call it ‘resumptive’ because it often resumes a discussion running through collections in the book, both reminding the reader of previous contributions to the theme and taking the theme in a different direction. An example of similar repetition from another, more recent, text provides an illuminating parallel to some repetitions in Proverbs. Shakespeare’s King Lear concerns itself – like Israelite wisdom literature – with folly and wisdom and what things determine the fate of a human being. Moreover, King Lear, like Proverbs, can be regarded as a dialogic examination of these topics. At the end of the play Edgar, Gloucester’s virtuous son, addresses his corrupt, illegitimate half-brother Edmund as the latter is dying; his words pick up several themes that have been at issue throughout the play. The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices Make instruments to plague us: The dark and vicious place where thee he got, Cost him his eyes. (King Lear, V, iii, 171–4; WWS, 1293).  Alter uses the phrase rather differently to me in as much as it refers to the repetition of narrative units rather than poetic phrases or expressions – see for example The David Story (1999, 220)

60

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

The statement this remark most clearly picks up – and to which it forms a contrasting repetition – is that of Lear in the storm; ‘As flies to wanton boys are we to th’ gods, they kill us for their sport’ (King Lear IV, i, 36; WWS, 1281). More subtle is the reference contained in the imagery of torture – ‘vices … instruments’ – to the many forms of cruelty, of punishments and tortures that occur in the play; the banishment of Cordelia and Kent; Kent’s time in the stocks; Gloucester’s blinding; the hanging of Lear’s fool, and of Cordelia. Moreover, Edgar’s description of the ‘dark and vicious place’ of Edmund’s conception stands in bitter counterpoint to Gloucester’s own ribald reminiscences at the beginning of the play; ‘Yet was his mother fair, there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledg’d’ (King Lear I, i, 22–4; WWS, 1255). The effects of Edgar’s words at the end of the play are thus extraordinarily complex; while they appear to assert the justice of the fates that have befallen the characters, this is undercut by the suffering endured by all of them even by those, like Cordelia, whose conduct has not been ‘vicious’. Indeed, the language of the statement might be said to contradict itself. We may ask ‘what sort of justice is it that inflicts people with tortures and plagues?’ Such use of repetition draws the audience into a renewed engagement with the contradictory voices within the play. Repetitions are used in analogous ways in Proverbs to unite passages found in different collections and widely separated in the text. They function as reminders to the reader that, although the text they are reading is clearly made up of collections from varied sources, it is one that has been assembled so it can be read as a unity rather than a random accretion. We will look first at Proverbs 29 and endorse – with some important qualifications – the findings of those scholars who have suggested that this chapter functions as a summary for many themes elsewhere in the book. We shall examine next the links between 6.10 and 24.30–4, looking at the cluster of themes around those verses. We shall look next at an example of a resumptive repetition involving an antithetical relationship; that between the nokriyah [strange or foreign woman] of Proverbs 7.1–23 and the mother of Lemuel in 31.1–9. Finally, we shall view the concluding acrostic of 31.10–31 in praise of the ishet-hayil in this light. It will be argued that this is full of rich allusions to earlier elements in the book. At first sight, it might be read as suggesting that the earlier tensions have been resolved. However, this ‘conclusion’ is itself ironized by 31.10, the opening verse of the acrostic. Clearly, it will be open to readers to suggest that the best explanation of these repetitions is that they are simply fortuitous. However, the case I shall attempt to make is a cumulative one. It builds on previous observations of other scholars and asserts that the phenomena they have noted are more widespread and significant than had been previously realized. Repetition in Proverbs 29 Proverbs 29 consists of 27 verses marked off, Clifford suggests (1999, 248), by an alphabetic device to indicate that they constitute a discrete section within the ‘Hezekiah’ collection of Proverbs 25–29. The first word of 29.1 begins with aleph, the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, and both the hemi-stichs of the last verse,

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

61

29.27, begin with its last letter, tav. This suggests that Proverbs 29 is to be regarded as a single, clearly demarcated, irreducible unit. Moreover, several commentators have remarked that there are an exceptional number of the verses in Proverbs 29 that repeat the thought and, in some cases, the exact wording, of sayings found previously in Proverbs. Repetition of sayings is, of course, nothing unusual in the book. It is the extent of the phenomenon in this section that is remarkable. Murphy argues that almost all of the sayings in Proverbs 29 are repetitions or variations of proverbs that have appeared previously (Murphy 1981, 79). This appears something of an overstatement of the case to Martin (1995, 69), but he accepts that the number of repetitions is unusually high. For Perdue (2000, 239), Proverbs 29 is a sort of summary of the three previous chapters. In fact, the echoes of previous sayings are far from restricted to the immediately preceding chapters, but reach back to much earlier sections. In the next section we shall concentrate on the first three verses of Proverbs 29 and see that they make several links with sayings and teaching much earlier in Proverbs. Space precludes such a concentration on the other verses in the chapter, but a more cursory examination will conclude that they also revisit many of the important themes of the book. However, and this is typical of Proverbs, we should not be misled into thinking that what is said in Proverbs 29 is the final definitive word on any subject. The chapter is indeed a sort of summary, but not one that closes off the debate beyond any further argument to give a final authoritative view. Proverbs 29.1 Proverbs 29.1 describes the disastrous results that arise from ignoring reproof – EÚp√rAm NyEa◊w rEbDÚvˆy oAtRÚp P®rOo_hRvVqAm twøjDkwø;t vyIa [A man of rebukes, persisting stubborn, will suddenly be broken and no healing]. McKane’s comment – ‘the well worn topic of incorrigibility is resumed in v.1’ (1970, 633) – indicates a certain impatience at Proverbs’ repeated returning to familiar subjects. However, although it does indeed deal with a ‘well worn’ topic, this saying is no hackneyed cliché; it offers a novel and much bleaker judgement than do the previous one line sayings on the topic, particularly in the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ collection – for instance, Proverbs 10.8, 10.13, 12.15, 13.8, 15.5, 17.10 and compare. 26.3. These present an antithetical picture; the first half of the verse deals with those who are incorrigible, impervious to reproof but this is balanced by a second that speaks of those who are educable and biddable. It is true that many sayings, not explicitly on the topic, seem to assume the incorrigible nature of the fool and sinner; for instance Proverbs 6.12–15 offers a little vignette featuring a ‘scoundrel and villain’ who goes around spreading discord and scandal. Interestingly, as many commentators have pointed out (Toy 1899, 506; Murphy 1998, 221; Clifford 1999, 250) 29.1b is identical to the second hemi-stich of Proverbs 6.15 – aEÚp√rAm NyEa◊w rEbDÚvˆy oAtRÚp wødyEa awøbÎy MOaVtIÚp NE;k_lAo [Therefore sudden will come his calamity; he will suddenly be broken and no healing].  If so this would deal a further blow to Skehan’s scheme for the division of Proverbs in accordance with the picture of Solomon’s temple in Kings for, to ensure that his columns of 20 cubits are represented by 20 lines, Skehan has to divide the Chapter and breaks it at 29:7.

62

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

However, to find a statement that is as one-sided in its depiction of incorrigibility as is Proverbs 29.1, we have to go back, beyond the sayings material, to Wisdom’s very first speech in Proverbs 1.20–33. 20. Wisdom cries out in the street; in the square she raises her voice 21. At the busiest corner she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks; 22. ‘How long, O simple ones will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? 23. Give heed to my reproof I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you. 24. Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one heeded, 25. And because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof 26. I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when panic strikes you, 27. When panic strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. 28. Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but will not find me. 29. Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, 30. would have none of my counsel, and despised all my reproof. 31. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way and be sated with their own devices. 32. For waywardness kills the simple, and the complacency of fools destroys them; 33. But those who listen to me will be secure, and will live at ease, without dread of disaster.  (Proverbs 1.20–33, NRSV) In spite of the obvious formal differences between 29.1 and this speech – the one, a comparatively lengthy poem with narrative elements, the other, a short saying –there are important elements common to both. Firstly, both passages deal with a persistent, habitual failure to pay attention to correction. The subject of Proverbs 29.1 is the twøjDkwø;t vyIa [man of rebukes] that is, as most commentators and translators agree, one who has been often rebuked. In Wisdom’s speech in 1.20–33 the same key word, tAjAkwø;t [rebuke or reproof], appears three times – in 1.23, 25 and 30 – as yI;tVjAkwøt◊w [my rebuke]. This repetition, in the context of the passage, is far from redundant for it conveys Wisdom’s growing frustration at the obduracy of those

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

63

who refuse to listen to her. The passage suggests that this obduracy deepens with her repeated appeals which are first ‘ignored’ in Proverbs 1.25 – literally ‘not consented to’ – but, by Proverbs 1.30, are ‘despised’. Furthermore, the verbs used to describe her appeals in the opening verses – Proverbs 1.20, NE;tI;t, hÎ…nOrD;t; 1.21 rEmaøt, a∂rVqt ;I – are in the imperfect tense, indicating ‘repeated’ or ‘durative’ action. We may conclude then that, as in Proverbs 29.1, Wisdom’s speech in Proverbs 1.20–33 depicts a situation where ‘the simple and the scoffers’ (1.22) refuse to heed repeated rebukes. This is significant – not only in the present context of establishing a literary relationship between Proverbs 29.1 and Proverbs 1 – but because of what it implies about Wisdom’s position in the opening verses of the book. I shall argue below that she is portrayed as an isolated, marginalized figure in those verses. A crucial element in this isolation is her repeated rejection. Secondly, in Proverbs 29.1 the ‘man of rebukes’ will ‘suddenly be broken beyond healing’; in 1.20–31 this is paralleled by the threat of disasters of a sudden and complete kind –1.26 ‘calamity’, 1.27 ‘storm, whirlwind’. Finally, we note once again that 29.1 is unusual because it does not mention the possibility of someone heeding rebuke. Similarly, throughout most of Wisdom’s speech in 1.20–33 the prospect of a positive response to her teaching appears minimal until the final verse. The predominantly pessimistic tone struck in what are, we should not forget, the very first words spoken by Wisdom in the book is not echoed in the sayings on the subject of rebuke between this speech and Proverbs 29.1. These balance rejection of the recalcitrant with praise of those who do listen. For instance, Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but one who rejects rebuke is on the path to ruin Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but those who hate to be rebuked are stupid Poverty and disgrace come to him who ignores instruction, but he who heeds reproof is honoured. 

(10.17) (12.1) (13.18)

In Proverbs 15 several such sayings are grouped together: A fool despises a parent’s instruction but the one who heeds admonition is prudent. 

(15.5)

There is severe discipline for one who forsakes the way, but one who hates a rebuke will die. 

(15.10)

The ear that heeds wholesome admonition will lodge among the wise

(15.31)

Those who ignore instruction despise themselves, but those who heed admonition gain understanding

(15.32)

64

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

The NRSV translation of these verses, given above, rather disguises their commonality by using a variety of English words – ‘reproof’, ‘rebuke’, ‘admonition’ – for the Hebrew word tAjAkwø;t [rebuke]. We should note that 15.10 and 15.31 do not conform, taken as individual verses, to the anticipated antithetical form. In the context of this grouping, however, each one expresses a side of it and thus the tone of balance is upheld within it. Proverbs 15.12 – JKEl´y aøl MyImDkSj_lRa wøl AjEkwøh XEl_bAhTa‰y aøl [Scoffers do not like to be rebuked – they will not go to the wise] – should also be included in this grouping; it uses the verbal form jEkwøh, from the same root jky as the noun tAjAkwøt; . We note, once again, an antithetical form; it opposes MyImDkSj [the wise], on the one hand, to the incorrigible XEl [scoffer], on the other, an opposition which links 15.12 to the other antithetical sayings listed above but differentiates it from 1.20–33 and 29.1. Admittedly, as Crawford Toy (1899, x) points out, antithetical sayings predominate in the first five chapters of the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ (Proverbs 10–15) but the same antitheses are present in verses outside these chapters which deal with the topic; for instance, 17.10, ‘a rebuke strikes deeper into a discerning person than a hundred blows into a fool’ (although the word the NRSV renders ‘rebuke’ here is not tAjAkwøt; but its close synonym, h∂rDog…◊ , the saying is clearly one of the same class); or 27.5 ‘better is open rebuke (tAjAkwø;t) than hidden love’. There are some other proverbs that do not share the antithetical form but because they emphasize the notion that rebuke – especially painful rebuke – can be educative have much in common with the majority of sayings on the subject between 1.20–33 and 29.1; for instance, Do not withhold discipline from your children; If you beat them with a rod they will not die. If you beat them with a rod, You will save their lives from Sheol.

(23.13–14, NRSV)

and, A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools.

(26.3, NRSV)

To sum up what has been an, unavoidably, discursive discussion, Proverbs 29.1 deals with the topic of reproof, first raised by Wisdom in her earliest speech in the book; it returns to the pessimistic tone of that speech after a number of intervening verses that have assumed that some wise people will respond to rebuke. A possible explanation for this might be that this verse is returning to an original statement outlined in Proverbs 1, but only after this statement has been explored from a different angle by verses in the intervening chapters. Almost at the end of Proverbs, we revisit many of the statements made previously in the book, but now with a deeper insight arising from the intervening discussion. If this is the case, then the more balanced sayings about reproof are not simply the product of a literary convention, but of a deeper tendency in the book to allow the articulation of antithetical viewpoints. In the case of 29.1 the negative implications of

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

65

the repeated, unheeded reproofs of 1.20–33 seem to be simply restated, but the more balanced possibilities of the intervening verses cannot be dismissed. Indeed, the fact that they are, once again, restated explicitly a little later in Proverbs 29.15 – ‘The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a mother is disgraced by a neglected child’ – confirms that they cannot be ignored. Thus, Proverbs 29.1 returns to the first statement on its theme articulated in the book, but neither silences nor denies the validity of other voices within it. Proverbs 29.2 Proverbs 29.2 – ‘When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan’ (NRSV) – concerns itself with another important theme of Proverbs, righteous government. This is expressed in several earlier sayings, for instance 11.10, ‘When it goes well with the righteous the city rejoices; and when the wicked perish, there is jubilation’ (NRSV). These sentiments are echoed by the following verse, 11.11, ‘By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked’(NRSV), and by other verses, noticeably two in Proverbs 28 that are both positioned close to each other and share much vocabulary – 28.12, ‘When the righteous triumph, there is great glory, but when the wicked prevail, people go into hiding’ (NRSV) and 28.28 ‘When the wicked prevail, people go into hiding, but when they perish, the righteous increase’ (NRSV). Proverbs 29.2’s significance becomes more apparent when we note that there are several other verses in the chapter that deal with government, and the related topic of kingship. The NRSV renders these as follows: By justice a king gives stability to the land, but one who makes heavy exactions ruins it.

(29.4)

If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.

(29.12)

If a king judges the poor with equity, his throne will be established forever. 

(29.14)

When the wicked are in authority, transgression increases, but the righteous will look upon their downfall. 

(29.16)

Many seek the favour of a ruler, but it is from the LORD that one gets justice. 

(29.26)

Taken together, these verses in Proverbs 29 are also connected with the large number of sayings elsewhere in Proverbs that comment on the duties of rulers, particularly kings. It is certainly significant that – just as 29.1 could be connected  The NRSV translation of 28.12 and 28.28 exaggerates the extent of the commonality by rendering the using the same English expression “the people go into hiding” for both M∂dDa cAÚpUj◊y MyIoDv√r M…wqVb…w in 28.12 and M∂dDa rEtD;sˆy MyIoDv√r M…wqV;b in 28.28.

66

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

with the group of sayings on the topic of rebuke in Proverbs 15 – so 29.2 can also be linked to the closely grouped sayings about kings in Proverbs 16.10–15. 10. Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king; his mouth does not sin in the judgement. 11. Honest balances and scales are the LORD’s; all the weights in the bag are his work. 12. It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established in righteousness . 13. Righteous lips are the delight of a king, and he loves those who speak what is right. 14. A king’s wrath is a messenger of death, and whoever is wise will appease it. 15. In the light of a king’s face there is life, and his favour is like the clouds that bring rain.  (Proverbs 16.10–15, NRSV) The attitude to kingship here is overwhelmingly positive. Of especial note is the connection made in Proverbs 16.12–13 with kingship and righteousness. However, as we shall see in chapter four, there is a complex debate about rulers and kings in Proverbs. No single view predominates and no one verse in Proverbs 29 can summarize and recapitulate the book’s teaching on its own. Hence the need to have several verses in the chapter on the theme in order to capture some of the book’s complex discussion. This resembles what we saw in 29.1, a verse which stands in a similar relation to another of the book’s important debates, namely that of incorrigibility and educability. Proverbs 29.2, like 29.1, relates to a topic whose importance in the book has been signalled firstly by the large number of sayings around its theme elsewhere in Proverbs – several of them found grouped together – and, secondly, by the presence in Proverbs 29 of other sayings on the same theme. Proverbs 29.3 Much the same can be said about Proverbs 29.3, ‘A child who loves wisdom makes a parent glad, but to keep company with prostitutes is to squander one’s substance’ (NRSV). The first hemi-stichs echoes that of 10.1, the opening verse of the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ section. – ‘A wise child makes a glad father, but a foolish child is a mother’s grief’ (NRSV). 10.1 itself echoes the appeal in 1.8 to heed parental instruction; it also begins a series of verses, scattered through the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’, which make the point that wisdom or foolishness in children affects the state of mind of their parents. For instance Proverbs 15.20, ‘A wise son makes a glad  Once again, as we saw in the case of 28.12 and 28.28, the NRSV translation distorts the similarities somewhat. The ‘parent’ in 29.3b is, in fact, the father (bDa), while its ‘child’ in both verses is, literally, a son (NE;b) in 10.1 and a man (vyIa) in 29.3. This distortion is, doubtless, motivated by a desire to ensure gender inclusiveness but, be that as it may, there are pressing arguments to translate the Hebrew of Proverbs in the most faithful, literal ways possible.

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

67

father, but the fool despises his mother’ (NRSV), repeats much of the thought and used many of the same words as 10.1. The thought of both is paralleled by 17.21, ‘Who begets a fool gets trouble and the father of an idiot has no joy’ (NRSV). Another connection is that suggested by Clifford who argues (1999, 250) that the mention of prostitutes in the second hemi-stichs of 29.3 links it with verses in Proverbs 1–9 that teach wealth will come to those who love Wisdom (3.10, 16), and that those who commit sexual sin will lose their (inherited) wealth (5.10, 20). Once again we see that several other verses in Proverbs 29 repeat and reinforce the message of one of its first verses, an initial verse which itself echoes many verses in previous chapters. Later in the chapter, 29.15 – ‘The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a mother is disgraced by a neglected child’ (NRSV) – links both 29.3 and 29.1. This combination of themes found in two of the initial verses of Proverbs 29 strongly reinforces the summarizing, concluding tone of the passage. 29.17 is a more positive verse in tune with the exact thought of 29.3a, ‘Discipline your children and they will give you rest; they will give delight to your heart’ (NRSV). So it appears that all three opening verses of Proverbs 29 echo and/or summarize other sayings around important themes elsewhere in Proverbs. Many other verses in the chapter could also be cited that perform in a similar way. For instance, Proverbs 29.8 echoes 15.12 and 21; and Proverbs 29.23 recalls 16.5 and 18. Proverbs 29.27 The chapter’s final verse, 29.27, identifies itself – as Clifford points out (1999, 248) – as an emphatic conclusion by beginning each of its hemi-stichss with tav (t), the final letter of the Hebrew alphabet, JK®r;d ∂ _rAv◊y oDv∂r tAbSowøt◊w l‰wDo vyIa MyIqyîd; Ax tAbSowøt; [Abomination to the righteous an unjust man but abomination to the wicked one whose way is righteous]. Clifford (1999, 256) suggests that tAbSowø;t [abomination], though not a rare word in Proverbs, is best understood here as being a borrowing from the language of the cult, used in a metaphorical sense to express the mutual abhorrence of the two categories of people in the verse. The categories in Proverbs 29.27 are moral ones – MyIqyîd ; Ax [the just] oDv∂r [wicked] – but, given the book’s equation of wisdom with righteousness and folly with wickedness, the verse can be said to recall the dualism between the two slightly different categories, the two opposed attitudes in Proverbs 1.7, the saying which ends the book’s introduction, ‘The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom; fools despise wisdom and instruction’. Interestingly, Clifford reports 22 usages of tAbSowøt ; in Proverbs (1999, 256). The two usages in 29.27 are the last, and they thus complete the number of the Hebrew alphabet. In the light of the other numerical and alphabetical structures that we have seen Proverbs contains this might not be coincidental; if intentional, it not only  Other Hebrew manuscripts, G and the versions read, in the second hemi-stichs of 15.20, not ‘fool’ (M∂dDa lyIsVk, literally ‘foolish man’) but ‘foolish son’ (lyIs;k V NEb…). This is undoubtedly a secondary reading influenced by 10.1 (Tov 2001, 39). As such it evidences, in a minor way, both the power of harmonizing tendencies in ancient readers and their awareness of similarities between sayings widely separated from one another in the text.

68

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

underlines the significance of tAbSowø;t as a key word in the book but is a further indication of the summarizing role of Proverbs 29. In the light of the above discussion we can endorse the view that Proverbs 29 is a carefully constructed unity functioning as a sort of conclusion to the debates of the book, revisiting and encapsulating them. However, this does not mean that the chapter contains a final word, a considered evaluative judgement on the book’s complex debates. Such an understanding of how the chapter functions is too limiting, for the book’s debates are not ended in Proverbs 29 – they continue within the chapter. Furthermore, it is, of course, not the actual conclusion of the text. Still to come, before the concluding acrostic in praise of the ishet-hayil (Proverbs 31.10–31) are the three ‘mini-collections’, the ‘Words of Agur’ of Proverbs 30.1– 14; the numerical saying of 30.15–33 and the ‘Words of Lemuel’ in 31.1–9. This positioning emphasizes that Proverbs 29 is like the ending of Johnson’s Rasselas – ‘A Conclusion in which nothing is concluded’ – for the debates it rehearses continue, just as the sayings continue after it. Interestingly, the Greek version places Proverbs 29 just before the concluding acrostic. We shall suggest below that the Greek version is most plausibly regarded as working with a very similar Hebrew text to the MT but seeking to improve it, removing what the translator saw as inconsistencies. This may also explain the different ordering of some of the material. If the Greek translator was aware of the features of Proverbs 29 that point to it being some sort of conclusion, but was insensitive to the chapter’s qualifications, then he might have thought it more appropriately positioned just before the final acrostic which he could have regarded as a coda. Repetition of verses in Proverbs 6 in Proverbs 24 and 30 Proverbs 6.10–11 contain a striking proverb that is repeated almost verbatim much later in Proverbs.

bD;kVvIl MˆyådÎy qU;bIj fAoVm twøm…wnV;t fAoVm twønEv fAoVm NEgDm vyIaV;k ÔK√rOsVjAm…w ÔKRvaér JKE;lAhVmIk_aDb…w [A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to lie down, and like a wanderer your poverty will come, and want like a man with a shield]

(Proverbs 6.10–11)

The speaker here is, presumably, the father mentioned in Proverbs 4.1, for the discourses which begin there flow without interruption into one another. We may assume that the recipient of his wisdom is the son addressed several times in the discourses, most recently in Proverbs 6.1. Proverbs 24.33–4 is identical, except that in the first hemi-stichs of 24.33 reads JKl ;E AhVtIm [prowling] where the corresponding word in 6.11 is JKl ;E AhVmIk [like a wanderer].

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

69

bD;kVvIl MˆyådÎy qU;bIj fAoVm twøm…wnV;t fAoVm twønEv fAoVm NEgDm vyIaV;k ÔKy®rOsVjAm…w ÔKRvyér JKE;lAhVtIm_aDb…w [A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to lie down, and your poverty will come prowling, and want like a man with a shield]

(Proverbs 24.33–4)

These differences do not appear significant – a different form of the same verb; the addition of one letter, kaph (k), the Hebrew word for ‘like’ – but we shall see below that they need to be given careful attention. The different contexts of the two sayings appear more obviously important. Proverbs 24.33–4 is preceded by a little narrative which makes it clear that this saying is to be regarded here as the fruit of the speaker’s own observation rather than a father’s authoritative instruction, as it is in 6.10–11. [I passed by the field of a lazy fellow, by the vineyard of a lackwitted man: And see, it was all overgrown with thorns; its surface covered with nettles, and the stone wall was broken down. And I indeed saw and took it to heart; I looked and received instruction]

(24.30–2)

Most commentators note the repetition here but do not see it as significant, or indeed remarkable in any way. Murphy, however, remarks that it is ‘rather surprising’ (1998, 186). He cannot see the point of the repetition although he admits the final effect is powerful, ‘… one would have expected more from a story that started out rather imaginatively; it retains its irony and sharpness, but why the repetition?’ (1998, 186). My own analysis offers an answer to Murphy’s question. Firstly, we should note that several features mark out this repetition as unusual. Snell’s ‘Catalog of repeated verses’ (1999, 35–59) suggests that it is exceptional both in the amount of text repeated and in the extent to which the repetitions are identical. Furthermore, the narrative in Proverbs 24.30–2 that introduces 24.33–4 appears out of place in this small collection headed ‘These also are the sayings of the wise’ (24.23–4). It is in the first person singular, a personal reflection, rather than the generalized statements and instructions that make up the rest of the collection and, of course, the entire book of Proverbs. These are intriguing factors, whether or not they are the ones that provoked Murphy’s surprise. We shall see that the text is indicating through them that the repetition here is noteworthy and deliberate. Alter argues that in Hebrew poetry the repetitions inherent in the parallelism are never in fact simply identical with one another (1985, 10–11). Rather, the reader should be alert to a dynamic process involving seemingly small variations in what can easily be dismissed as mere synonyms, but are in fact producing what Alter calls ‘structures of intensification’ (1985, 63). In the verses we are considering, the variations might appear insignificant. The first variation is between different forms of the participle of the verb Klh [to walk]. In Proverbs 6.11 the piel form JKl ;E AhVm

70

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

is used while 24.34 has the hithpael JK;l E AhVtIm. The precise nuance conveyed by the piel in 6.11 is difficult to establish; there seems little to differentiate its force here from that of the qal. Moreover, the hithpael in 24.34 does not convey any of the usual reflexive force. Some commentators suggest that 24.34 should be assimilated to 6.11 (Toy 1899, 456; Oesterley 1929, 218). However, no emendation is necessary if the variation is understood to indicate an intensification of the force of the saying, consistent with the context in 24.34. The change from piel to hithpael indicates an intensification of feeling indicated in my translation by rendering JKl ;E AhVm in 6.11 as ‘wanderer’ (perhaps a ‘wandering beggar’?) while in 24.34 poverty ‘prowls’ like some predatory beast. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the hithpael of Klh can have a sinister connotation of restless roaming in search of some object, as it does in Job 2.2 where it is associated with the Satan’s roaming, and 2 Samuel 11.2 where it is linked to David’s inappropriate restlessness and his predatory sexuality. Such an intensification would match the different settings of the same saying in Proverbs 6 and 24. In 6.10–11 this teaching is offered by the teacher; in 24.33–34 the speaker is presented as having reached this conclusion from his own observations. The lessons about diligence and laziness, given so often in Proverbs, have been internalized by the ‘I’ of 24.30–34 so that he is now capable of ‘receiving instruction’ in an unmediated way by the use of his own powers of observation and reflection. Furthermore, the other minor variation, from the simile of 6.11 – ÔKRvaér JKl ;E AhVmIk [like a wanderer your poverty] – to the metaphorical in 24.34 – ÔKRvyér JKl ;E AhVtIm [your poverty will come prowling] – also indicates, to my mind, an intensification of feeling; the somewhat conventional simile has less impact than the vivid metaphorical picture that describes poverty as an active predatory figure, prowling about seeking those whose laziness has made them prey. In this light, Murphy’s reaction of surprise to the repetition of Proverbs 6.10–11 at 24.33–34 testifies to its effectiveness upon one sensitive reader of the text. Our analysis permits a more comprehensive recognition of why this repetition occurs. It not only indicates an intensification of the emotional effect of the original saying, but also invites the reader to identify with the narrator’s critical appropriation of wisdom. The ‘I’ in 24.33–34 has made what was offered by the teacher in 6.10–11 his own. Moreover, it is also significant that there are several other verses in Proverbs 6 – indeed almost adjacent to the saying we have been discussing – whose thought and language, while not repeated verbatim, are also echoed later in the book. For instance, the thought of 6.6–8, just before Proverbs 6.10–11:

 A problem not confined to this instance – as a standard Hebrew grammar makes clear – ‘The question of how the function of Piel in relation to other conjugations, notably Qal, should be defined still remains one of the major challenges facing Hebrew and Semitic linguistics. In the present state of our knowledge we can only point to a number of fairly distinct meaning categories into which some verbs seem to fit’ (MJ vol. 1, 155).

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

71

[Go to the ant, sluggard. See her ways and be wise! That not for her chief, organizer or ruler, she gets her bread in summer, gathers her foodstuff in the harvest]. resembles that of Proverbs 30.24–8. [Four small things of the earth these but they are wise among the wise. The ants are a people not strong, but they prepare their food in summer. The hyraxes are a people not mighty but they place their homes in rock. No king for the locust but he issues out all in order. The gecko you can take in your hands, but he is in the dwellings of the king!].

(Proverbs 30.24–8)

Although this does not amount to precise verbal repetition, the second passage shares enough of the thought and vocabulary of the first to suggest a connection. The passages are closest in their mention of the ant’s capacity to gather or acquire food in the summer, [But she gets her food ready in summer, and gathers her sustenance at harvest]. [Ants are not a strong people, but they acquire their food in the summer].

(6.8) (30.25)

Moreover, 6.7’s observation that the ant has no superiors to supervise her activities, suggests a connection with another creature, which, we are told in 30.27, does not need a monarch – the locust. We shall return to these passages in chapter five. There is also an intriguing formal connection that links these areas of the text. In addition to Proverbs 30.24–8 there are four other numerical sayings in 30.7–31. Such numerical sayings resemble those common elsewhere in the wisdom literature of the Ancient Near East, but in Proverbs they occur only here and in Proverbs 6.16–19. [Six things there are that the LORD hates, And seven an abomination to his being: exalted eyes, false tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, heart that devises wicked plans, feet eager to run to evil, a lying witness who spreads falsehood, sowing disputes between kinsfolk].

(Proverbs 6.16–19)

72

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

To sum up, in Proverbs 30.7–31 there are the following points of similarity with verses near to 6.10–11; imagery (‘the diligent ant’); thought (‘in the animal kingdom rulers are not always necessary’); and the formal similarity of unusual numerical sayings. Hence the repetition of 6.10–11 at 24.33–4 is significant; it alerts the attentive reader to the other repetitions. Fox notes the connection between the unit in which 6.10–11 is found, 6.1–19 – ‘Interlude C’, according to his analysis – and other parts of Proverbs. He argues that this proves that the editors have borrowed ‘sentences and locutions from other parts of Proverbs’ to embed them in this part of the book (Fox 2000, 227). I would concede that the editorial process could have worked in this way, although in my view it is more likely that the editors saw the links between existing materials and arranged the ‘collage’ to alert the reader to them. That this is deliberate – perhaps making use of a recognized convention of repetition – rather than coincidental, is suggested by the arrangement of the Greek version. The Greek brings together Proverbs 24.33–4 – the ‘a little sleep …’ saying, found also in 6.10–11 – and Proverbs 30.15–33, the section whose repetitions of thoughts and structure found earlier in Proverbs 6 was summarized in the paragraph above. This may indicate an awareness on the part of the Greek translator(s) of the conventions that governed the arrangement of Proverbs. It also indicates – as did the placing of Proverbs 29 just before the concluding acrostic in the Greek – that this is a version that is concerned to ‘tidy up’ the more subtle structures found in the MT. Antithetical Repetition in Proverbs 31 Many sayings in Proverbs suggest that smooth, flattering words can be deceptive while the hard word of reproach is to be trusted. Two passages in the book might be said to illustrate this theme by contrasting speakers who embody these contrasting rhetorical stances. Although they are far apart in the book, the later passage recalls details of the earlier one, but its repetitions are intended to invite us to notice the differences between these two speakers rather than the similarities. We begin with the later passage, Proverbs 31.1–9

 A problem not confined to this instance – as a standard Hebrew grammar makes clear – ‘The question of how the function of Piel in relation to other conjugations, notably Qal, should be defined still remains one of the major challenges facing Hebrew and Semitic linguistics. In the present state of our knowledge we can only point to a number of fairly distinct meaning categories into which some verbs seem to fit’ (MJ vol. 1, 155).

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

73

1. The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him (wø;mIa w… ;tår;s V ˆy_rRv≈a aDÚcAm JKRlRm lEa…wmVl yérVb;dî ) 2. No, my son! No, son of my womb! No, son of my vows! (y∂r∂d◊n_rAb ; hRmw… yInVfb ;I _rAb ; _hAmw… yîrb ;V _hAm) 3. Do not give (NEt ; t ;I _lAa) your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings (NyIkDlVm twøjVmAl). 4. It is not for kings (MyIkDlVmAl), O Lemuel, it is not for kings (MyIkDlVmAl) to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink; 5. or else they will drink and forget what has been decreed, and will pervert the rights of all the afflicted. 6. Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; 7. let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more. 8. Speak out (ÔKyIÚp_jAtVÚp) for those who cannot speak, for the rights of those who are destitute. 9. Speak out (ÔKyIÚp_jAtVÚp), judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. (Proverbs 31.1–9 NRSV) I suggest that this passage is linked with the description of the nokriyah (hD¥yîrVkÎn), the ‘foreign’ or ‘strange’ woman in Proverbs 6.20–7.27, particularly that sinister figure’s speech in 7.14–27, at several points. Firstly, Proverbs 31 and Proverbs 6.2–7.27 both warn men against certain sorts of encounters with women. In the earlier passage, the threat is seen very specifically in terms of adultery and the sexual element is explicit. The warning in 31.3 is against women in general, but we may assume that the danger is from sexual encounters. Be that as it may, its caution, as in 6.20–7.27, is couched in prudential terms rather than in apodictic ‘thou shalt not’ exhortations; it will result in harm – the ‘destruction of Kings’. Secondly, in Proverbs 6.20–7.27 and 31.1–9 the addressee is a son and at least one of the speakers is a mother, to whose maternal authority the son is required to submit. Of course, the parallelism of a father’s teaching and mother’s instruction is not unknown elsewhere in Proverbs. I have already detected such parallelism in Proverbs 1.7 and suggested a link between that verse and 10.1. I would argue that the two examples of maternal instruction in Proverbs 6.20–7.27 and 31.1–9 are also linked. Thirdly, both these sections allow women who are foreigners to speak with their own voice. Nokriyah comes from the trilateral root rkn whose derivatives are usually connected with foreignness.10 Commentators have puzzled over why such a root should describe her. Camp (1991) argues, intriguingly, that she personifies woman as the existential ‘other’ in the eyes of patriarchy, an understanding that owes much to Snijder’s contention (1954, 65–69) that the nokriyah had gone beyond the boundaries of Israelite society and had become alienated. However, if an antithetical 10 Sayings that teach this or a similar doctrine are found in Proverbs 1.22–33; 2.16–19; 5.1–14; 12.6, 17; 17.4; 18.7, 8; 19.25; 21.6; 22.14; 26.18–28; 27.5–6; 28.23; and 29.5.

74

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

correspondence between 6.20–7.27 and 31.1–9 is recognized, then a rationale behind the foreignness of the speakers becomes clear. The speaker in Proverbs 31.1–9 is not called a nokriyah but her foreignness is clearly flagged up by a number of verbal clues. One is contained in the opening words of 31.1 – wøm ; Ia w… t ; års ;V ˆy_rRv≈a aDÚcAm JKRlRm lEaw… mVl yérVbd ;î [words of Lemuel, king of Massa, which his mother taught him] which, if the BHS’s way of dividing them is correct, clearly identify Lemuel as the king of a foreign country, Massa. The BHS is following the Leningrad codex here but other versions testify to different possibilities. The Septuagint, for instance, does not recognise lawml as a proper noun but renders it uJpo\ qeouv [by God]. More plausibly, it understands acm to be derived from the root acn meaning ‘to give an oracular answer’. As a result the Septuagint of 31.1 reads, oi˚ e˙moi« lo/goi ei¶rhntai uJpo\ qeouv basile÷wß crhmatismo/ß o§n e˙pai÷deusen hJ mh/thr aujtouv [My words have been uttered by God, the oracular answer of a king whom his mother instructed]. However, acm is, almost certainly, a proper noun – a homophone of asm, a place mentioned in Exodus 17.7 and Deuteronomy 6.16. Clifford points out (1999, 269) that it is usual when a king is introduced in the Bible for his country to be given. Massa is the name of a North Arabian tribe known from Assyrian sources and mentioned in Genesis 25.14 as a son of Ishmael. Although Lemuel is not met with elsewhere, it too can be plausibly recognized as a personal name. So Proverbs 31.1 appears to be the heading of a small collection that identifies the speaker in it as a non-Israelite. Emmanuel Tov argues (1990, 55) that two other collection headings in MT Proverbs – 24.23 and 30.1 – have been misunderstood in a similar way by the translator of the Greek version. Furthermore, quite independently of the heading, linguistic peculiarities in the text make it clear that that the speaker in 31.2–9 is a foreigner. Firstly, the word for ‘son’ used in 31.2 – yr∂d◊n_rAb ; hRmw… yInVfb ;I _rAb ; _hAmw… yîrb ;V _hAm [‘What, my son! What son of my womb! What son of my vow!’] – is not the Hebrew NE;b but rather the Aramaic rAb ; . A further Aramaic feature is the plural form of the word NyIkDlVm [kings] in 31.3. The standard Hebrew form, MyIkDlVmAl [to kings], ending in mem (m) rather than the Aramaic plural nun (N), is used in the next verse as if to emphasize the anomalous usage in the previous verse. In my view, these Aramaisms are not inconsequential. They are likely to be deliberate features of the passage since, even if they are relics of an instruction of non-Israelite origin – as Clifford argues (1999, 270) – they could have been easily altered to the standard form. The retention of such Aramaisms is unlikely to be carelessness on the part of an editor who has – as Clifford notes – so carefully crafted the structure of this passage. The first section (vv. 35, 26 words) is an admonition against the imprudent use of sex and alcohol…lest the luxury loving king forget the poor. The second section (vv.69, 28 words) is an exhortation to the prudent use of alcohol…in order that the miserable poor can forget their poverty. Verses 89 are positive as v.3 is negative; the verses urge the king to open his mouth not to drink but to speak for the voiceless and poor.  (Clifford 1999, 270)

We might add the presence of another literary quality; the irony of King Lemuel being instructed to ‘open his mouth’ (31.8,9) when he is, in effect, silenced in the

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

75

passage. He functions as little more than the opening of quotation marks for his mother’s voice! This offers a fourth parallel with 6.20–7.27 where the young man does not speak at any point during his encounter with the nokriyah. We do not hear Lemuel’s voice, but we do hear his mother’s remarkable display of rhetoric. Her speech is not only skilfully crafted but it is also characterized by a powerful, not to say harsh, quality. From one standpoint this passage could be held to express a deep misogyny – Proverbs 31.3 ‘Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings’. However, this statement is, paradoxically, made by a woman, and a strong one. Her power is evident in the grammar of command she employs – the prohibitory lAa plus jussive of Proverbs 31.3; the repeated imperatives of verses 31.6, 8­ and 9 whose effect is magnified by the strong alliteration, petah-pîkā, ‘open your mouth’ repeated in 31.8 and 9. This harshness is the harshness of the instruction, the reproving discipline with which Lemuel’s mother ‘instructed him’ …wt ; års ;V ˆy – from the root rsy to ‘reprove, discipline’ from whence also the key word in wisdom literature, rAsw… m [discipline]. The power of her speech is evident in the very sound of her first words – ma-berî ûma-bar-bitnî ûmeh bar-nedārāy (Proverbs 31.2) – with their short staccato rhythm, strong alliteration of m, b, r and t sounds, and the exclamatory force of the repeated monosyllable, ma [what!]. Moreover, y∂r∂d◊n [my vow] suggests a further connection with the speech of the nokriyah in 7.14–20 who begins her speech to the young man with the words, ‘I had to offer sacrifices and today I fulfill my vows (y∂r∂d◊n yIt ; Vml ;A Iv)’. Though he makes no connection with Proverbs 31.2, Clifford’s comment on 7.14 is perceptive (1999, 88). The young man addressed by the woman understands her to mean that she has already fulfilled the vow mentioned in Proverbs 7.24. He thinks he is being invited to a feast on the meat of the animal she has already sacrificed and fails to see that – as far as the woman is concerned – the vows are still to be fulfilled. The qal tense of the Hebrew verb here (yIt ; Vml ;A Iv) could have a present implication and mean ‘Today I fulfill my vows’. This becomes plain when the language of sacrifice is applied to the young man himself a little later. He is to be the ‘ox to the slaughter’ of 7.22. So the vow of the foreign woman leads to the death of a young man. Clifford suggests another connection here (1999, 270); in Proverbs 31.2, the phrase y∂r∂d◊n_rAb ; [son of my vow] indicates that Lemuel was born following a vow made by his mother like that made by the childless Hannah in 1 Samuel 1.1. Hannah promised God that, if her prayer for a son was granted, she would bring the child up as a Nazirite to whom alcohol was forbidden. The Queen’s prohibition in Proverbs 31.4 on alcohol for kings chimes in with this understanding. The relationship established here is, of course, an antithetical one – the vow of Lemuel’s mother leads to life; the vow of the nokriyah to death. Indeed, all this common ground serves but to accentuate the differences between them, a difference that can be clearly detected if we now return to the speech of the nokriyah in Proverbs 7.14–20. 14. I had to offer sacrifices, and today I have paid my vows (y∂r∂d◊n yI;tVm;l A Iv); 15. so now I have come out to meet you (ÔKRta∂rVqIl),

76

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

to seek you eagerly and I have found you (KRaDxVmRaÎw)! 16. I have decked my couch with coverings, coloured spreads of Egyptian linen: 17. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon (Nwømn…Î Iq◊w MyIlDhSa rOm yIbk ;D VvIm yIt ; VpAn). 18. Come let us take our fill (hRw√rˆn hDkVl) of love until morning; let us delight ourselves with love (MyIbDhFab ;D hDsl ;V AoVtˆn). 19. For my husband is not at home; he has gone on a long journey, 20. He took a bag of money with him; he will not come home until full moon

(wøtyEb aøbÎy aRsE;kAh MwøyVl wødÎyV;b jåqDl PRsR;kAh_rwørVx).  (Proverbs 7.14–20 NRSV) In contrast to the harsh-sounding reproof of Lemuel’s mother, this is smooth seductive speech, as we would expect from one described in 6.24 as NwøvDl tåqVlRjEm [smooth tongued], and in 7.21 as speaking DhyRtDpVc qRlEj;bV [with her smooth lips]). There are no abrupt staccato passages. The rhythms are regular and slow, almost languorous, with a striking number of the longer ‘ feet’ of three or four ‘descending’ syllables that – according to Alonso Schökel (1988, 39) – slow down the pace of Hebrew verse. Proverbs 7.15 has three such – wā)emsā)ekā [I have found you]; pānêkā [your face]; liqrā)tekā [to meet you]. In 7.18 we have nit(allesâ bo)hābîm [let us take our fill of love]. 7.17 is particularly noteworthy – naptî miškābî mōr )ahālîm weqinnāmôn [I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon]. The second hemi-stichs of this verse is short compared to the others in the speech. It has only two words rather than the three that we have come to expect. The final long ‘o’ vowel sound of qinnāmôn [cinnamon] – one of three such long ‘o’ sounds, contained in each of the luxurious spices mentioned in the verse – seems, as a consequence, to need to stretch out into the gap felt in the metre, as if imitating the sense of stretching out on a bed. The alliteration of ‘m’ sounds in 4 of the 5 words in the verse and the weak rhymes at the end of miškābı [my bed] naptî [I have perfumed] and )ahālîm [aloes] produce a sonorous, smoothly flowing line. This mimics the seemingly inexorable process by which the youth is led to his destruction. 7.20, the closing words of the nokriyah in the speech are also mellifluous – serôrhakkesep lāqah beyādô leyôm hakkēse) yābō) bêtô [he has taken a bag of silver in his hand and he does not come home until the day of the full moon]. There are some strong alliterations and internal rhymes here – bêtô, yābō), beyādô; hakkesep, hakkēse) – combining to produce here an effect of pat predictability that alerts us to the speaker’s insincerity. Even the grammar of her speech offers a contrast to that of Lemuel’s mother in Proverbs 31.1–9; the nokriyah invites, she does not command. In 7.18 she entreats, using the cohortative hRw√rˆn [let us take our fill] and the volitive hDkVl [come] rather than the harsher imperative JKEl. To sum up: in Proverbs 6.20–7.27 and 31 we are presented with two figures who have much in common; both are ethnically non-Israelite; both speak in their own voice to address a man who does not reply; both make vows. However, these figures are related antithetically; the nokriyah is deceptively attractive but her allures

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

77

lead to death; the Queen, although her speech is harsh, articulates the discipline that leads to life. To me this suggests that the foreignness of the nokriyah can be taken at face value. She is the negative voice in a dialogical examination of relationships with foreign women; Lemuel’s mother is the positive voice. This points towards a possible Sitz im Leben for the final editing of Proverbs. Can we see an echo here of the views of on the one hand Nehemiah 13.23–29 and on the other the book of Ruth? The Ishet-hayil, the Reintegration of Wisdom? Arguably the most significant connections made by resumptive repetition in Proverbs are those that link the ishet-hayil, the ‘strong’ ‘capable’ or ‘courageous’ woman of Proverbs 31.10–31, with other female figures in the book. 31.10–31 is clearly demarcated as an integral unit by an acrostic device; each of its 22 lines begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet in the customary sequence. Furthermore, the lines are strongly crafted by a number of poetic devices, especially the strong alliteration evident in 31.11a bātah bâh lēb ba(lâh [the heart of her husband has trust in her] or 31.27b welehem (aslût lō) tō)kēl [she does not eat the bread of idleness]. The first reference to the ishet-hayil is in Proverbs 12.4, within the sayings material of the Proverbs of Solomon collection, hDvyIbVm wyDtwømVxAob ;V b∂q∂rVkw… ;hDlVob ;A t®rRfSo lˆyAj_tRvEa [A strong wife, the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame like rottenness in his bones]. However, this is only the most obvious connection. Proverbs 31.10–31 is a great deal more than a patronizing and rather banal gloss on 12.4. The description of the ishet-hayil often suggests links with other female figures, both divine and human, elsewhere in Proverbs. Some commentators see this highly organized acrostic poem as, in essence, the portrait of an idealized woman viewed from a patriarchal perspective, but this is an impoverished approach. Raymond Westbrook demonstrates its limitations in his comment on the phrase ;h∂rVkIm MyInyˆnVÚpIm qOj∂r [more precious than jewels] with which the ishet-hayil is first described in the opening verse 31.10. For him this is simply a reference to the woman being more valuable to her husband than her dowry, so that, ‘the message of the text is that a wife with such personal qualities is in the long term a more valuable match – in financial terms – than one with a rich dowry’ (Westbrook 1991, 147). The poet of 31.10–31 would doubtless have agreed that a wise woman would be a much better proposition financially, as in all other ways, to an imprudent bride, even one who came with a rich dowry. However, there is no explicit mention of dowries here; the ishet-hayil is a mature woman with children, not a bride. Westbrook’s reading of the passage – reducing it to a simple recommendation by a patriarchal text of a better economic proposition – can make little sense of the triumphant hymn–like tone of the poem noted by the commentators, a tone which has its parallels in the praise of righteous men, warriors and indeed God himself (Clifford 1999, 275). Indeed, Bernhard Lang’s illuminating comparison with the women described in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, suggests that, even judged by strictly economic criteria, the ishet-hayil possesses a striking independence and freedom. ‘Unlike her Athenian counterpart the Hebrew wife seems able to own and

78

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

manage landed property from which she derives an independent income’ (Lang 2004, 207). In fact, the opening words of Proverbs 31.10–31 ;h∂rVkIm MyInyˆnVÚpIm qOj∂r◊w aDxVmˆy yIm lˆyAj_tRvEa [A strong wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels] have a significance which extends far beyond any economic propositions. In fact they recall the praise of Wisdom in Proverbs 3. 13. Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding, 14. For her income is better than silver, and her revenue better than gold. 15. She is more precious than jewels (Myˆ¥yˆnVÚpIm ayIh h∂r∂q◊y) and nothing you can desire can compare with her.  (Proverbs 3.13–15 NRSV) This allusion to 3.15 is only one of several in 31.10–31. Clifford points out that ‘the Poem has remarkable affinities to 3.13–20, even to its focus on the woman’s hands’ (1999, 274). Wisdom’s hands in Proverbs 3.16 are ‘full of honour and length of days’. In Proverbs 31 our attention is drawn to the significance of the hands of the ishet-hayil by the chiastic structure of the verses that describe them and which are placed almost in the centre of the poem.

JKRlDp w… kVm;t D DhyRÚpAk◊w rwøvyI;kAb hDj;lV Iv Dhy®dÎy NwøyVbRaDl hDj;lV Iv Dhy®dÎy◊w yInDoRl hDc√rDÚp h; DÚp;kA [She reaches out her hands to the spindle and her palms grasp the distaff, She opens her palm to the humble and she reaches out her hands to the poor] 

(Proverbs 31.19–20)

Even more significant than these links between the ishet-hayil and the figure of Wisdom in Proverbs 3 is a less frequently noted link with Proverbs 1.20–33. This is of importance both for our understanding of the final section of Proverbs and for discerning the literary structure of the whole book. We return here to the notion that Wisdom depicts herself in Proverbs 1.20–33, her first speech in the book, as rejected and ignored. Many commentators (McKane 1970, 272-277; Murphy 1998, 10; Clifford 1999, 42; Perdue 2000, 82; Longman 2002, 34) regard her appearance in the public places of the town as a sign of her high status. It is argued that because she is depicted in the public arena – the gates and high places of the city – she is exercising a power that would have been unusual for a contemporary woman. It is possible to read things differently; Wisdom, as a woman, might be seen as being in the wrong place in the eyes of patriarchal society as displaced from her proper dwelling. Fox remarks ‘It is, to say the least, incongruous and daring for the dignified Lady Wisdom to be frequenting such places and calling to men’ (Fox 2000, 98). I would wish to press further and suggest that Wisdom – rejected by those whom she

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

79

addresses ­– is under threat, not least from her powerful rival, the nokriyah, whose speeches in Proverbs 1–9 are powerful and persuasive. This concurs with Burton Mack’s understanding of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 as one who speaks of, and to, a destabilized social order that has rejected her. Mack discusses the origins of wisdom as a ‘mythic figure’ in his book on Ben Sira (Mack 1985, 144–9). He argues that Wisdom’s personification in Proverbs 1–9 arises out of a ‘crisis of conventional wisdom … that tore the social fabric away from the knowledge about the world that wisdom discourse once represented’ (Mack 1985, 144). He locates the crisis in the ‘exilic or early postexilic despair over the end of Israel’s monarchies’. This traumatic event caused, as it were, a displacement of the generally accepted understanding of wisdom. It could no longer be seen as located in the social world but was removed into the category of the divine by a myth that involved a personification and divinization. Wisdom now was imagined as belonging to God, related in some way to the act and order of creation, appearing only epiphanically in the streets and public places of the city, and calling out to the foolish to accept her teaching (Prov. 1.20–33). (Mack 1985, 146)

We recall that Wisdom’s first reaction to her rejection is laughter, the bitter laughter of ‘I told you so’. 24. Because I have called and you refused, have stretched out my hand and no one heeded, 25. and because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof 26. I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when panic strikes you… (Proverbs 1.24–6, NRSV) In the rest of Proverbs 1–9 a less acerbic Wisdom is portrayed, but the shocking impact of her first bitter, almost despairing laughter is never quite dissipated. Even her great invitatory speech in Proverbs 9 ends in 9.12 on a sour note; ‘If you are wise you are wise for yourself; if you scoff, you alone will bear it’ (NRSV). However, Wisdom’s is not the only laughter in Proverbs. In 31.25 the ishethayil is also described as laughing, ‘Strength and dignity are her clothing and she laughs at the time to come’ (NRSV). Significantly this is the point in the poem where connections with wisdom and its vocabulary, implicit in 31.10–31 before, become explicit in 31.26 – ‘She opens her mouth with wisdom and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue’ (NRSV). The word for ‘teaching’ in 31.26 is thwøt, the construct form of h∂rwøt ; torah, which, in the context of wisdom, is best rendered as ‘teaching’ or ‘instruction’. In Proverbs 1.8 and 6.20 a son is urged to hear his mother’s torah, her ‘instruction’. This vocabulary then connects with wisdom but the laughter of the ishet-hayil provides a contrast to that of Wisdom in Proverbs 1. The laughter of the ishet-hayil is kindly, a joyful mirth arising from the removal of the threat of an uncertain future. Some commentators suggest that this is part of the hymnic language of this poem, reminiscent of the pride of a warrior in his strength and courage (Wolters 1988, 448; Clifford 1999, 273). However, the crucial difference between her laughter and that of Wisdom in 1.26 is that the laughter of the ishet-

80

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

hayil bespeaks joy not bitterness; confidence rather than uncertainty and rooted security rather than rejection. Thus the numerous allusions to Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 contained in the description of the ishet-hayil invite us to compare the two women but also to contrast them; both laugh, but the emotional content of their laughter is very different; both are householders with maids – 9.3 and 31.15 – but Wisdom’s house is shamefully empty and she must send out her maids to fill it (9.16), while the ishet-hayil presides over a bustling well clad household (31.21) that she manages so well that she is honoured by her family (31.29) and ‘in the gates’ (31.31); Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 has no consort though she is ready to respond to those who love and seek her (8.17), the ishet-hayil has a ‘trophy husband’ who is well respected in the community (31.23). In the light of these comparisons and contrasts we gain a further insight, not just into the function of the ishet-hayil in Proverbs, but also into the way the entire book has been structured. Turning first to the ishet-hayil, we wish to press beyond a reductionist understanding of her as simply the perfect woman as conceived by patriarchy. However, Fontaine’s description of her in terms reminiscent of Christian theology as the ‘human incarnation of woman wisdom’ (Fontaine 2002, 135) is as unjustifiable as is reductionist language. The power of the poetry at the end of Proverbs is derived precisely from its ability to move between the divine and human spheres in ways that defy an easy analysis. The poem describes the ishet-hayil as a ‘real’ woman but also hints that somehow she embodies the Wisdom who is so prominent a figure in Proverbs 1–9. ‘Incarnation’, even ‘personification’, are terms too loaded with later theology to be useful here. Alonso Schökel argues that a ‘curious and allusive vibration’ is produced in Hebrew poetry when the poet operates in two levels of language within one poem (1988, 112). He gives an example of this in Psalm 23’s famous comparison of the relationship of a man to his God with that of a shepherd and his flock; while the psalmist develops this image, he occasionally leaves it to speak simply and directly of the relationship without using imagery (Alonso Schökel 1988, 114). We may detect a parallel in 31.10–31 as the poet alludes to the language in which divine Wisdom has been described earlier in the book while, on the surface, presenting a human figure. Thus the ishet-hayil is portrayed as a ‘flesh and blood’ woman, but also as one who – at the same time – suggests a wisdom no longer rejected but totally rooted in her (patriarchal) community. So powerful is her rootedness that she can even incorporate into herself the most unsettling elements of Wisdom and transform them into something the text views as unproblematic and to be celebrated. This is true of Wisdom’s laughter, but we should note that it is also the case with regard to aspects of the most disturbing female character in Proverbs, the nokriyah. Indeed, links between the ishet-hayil and the nokriyah are established both by vocabulary and by other means. The rare word Myîd ; Ab√rAm [coverings] is only used twice in the Bible; once in Proverbs 7.16 to describe the bedspread which the nokriyah puts out for her young victim, and again in Proverbs 31.22 as one of the products of the industry of the ishet-hayil. This use of a rare word is but one of many links between the two women. In Proverbs 7 the nokriyah leaves her troubled household

Unity and Diversity in Proverbs

81

which is ‘sinking down to the chambers of death’ (Proverbs 7.27), while her husband is away on business (7.19), to lure a young man to his death (7.21–23). In Proverbs 31.10–31, the ishet-hayil also leaves her home; however, she sallies forth from a secure and happy house to transact business (31.16 and 24); plant a vineyard (31.16); and to ‘bring her bread from afar like a ship of the merchants’ (31.14). The ishet-hayil is thus a figure who recapitulates and restates many of the aspects of the troubled Wisdom of Proverbs 1–9 and can even absorb and restate in a positive mode some of the forces most hostile to the social order embodied in the nokriyah. So the acrostic structure of 31.10–31 is not a rather obvious device signalling an end; nor is it part of a clumsy framework boxed around Proverbs by the final editor. Rather this structure appears to signal completion, harmony and resolution in a dynamic way; its content establishes profound connections with the rest of Proverbs. For the first time in the book, it seems that an untroubled wisdom, firmly rooted in the social world, can be celebrated. The phrase ‘for the first time’ in the previous sentence may appear dubious. On the conventional account of Proverbs, the sayings material in 10.1–29.27 is nothing more than a trite and complacent depiction of a rooted and unchallenged wisdom. We shall see how cogent is the challenge to that conventional account and how the disturbing voices that have displaced Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 are allowed to speak freely in Proverbs 10–29. Indeed so profound are the disturbances to the social order disclosed in Proverbs before 31.10 that the reader who has become aware of them may wish to question the possibility of their being reconciled in the way that 31.10–31 suggests. Can there really be a resolution and a celebration of the sort that this poem proclaims? Is it possible that it is to be read ironically? Before we dismiss this thought, we should remember that, even as he begins his encomium in Proverbs 31.10, the poet undermines it by suggesting that it represents an ideal that is beyond reach, aDxVmˆy yIm lˆyAj_tRvEa [a strong wife who can find?] Conclusions Weeks’s study of early Israelite wisdom (1994) concludes that the sentence literature in Proverbs represents material borrowed to a large extent from other countries, but which shows, … some indication of creative adaptation and alignment to Hebrew poetic conventions. The sentence literature, as elsewhere, shows signs of careful arrangement, but with a view more to a smooth flow and formal consistency than to the treatment of particular themes. (1994, 158)

The ‘signs of careful arrangement’ he detects are chiefly associative links between adjacent sayings (1994, 21–33). Weeks restricts his study to these, suggesting that ‘attempts to discern … broader structural arrangements run into considerable difficulties…’ (1994, 39). In this chapter we have discovered that some of the repetitions in Proverbs indicate that broader structural arrangements than simple juxtaposition can indeed be detected in Proverbs. These are structures that invite the attentive reader to compare and contrast material in different parts of the book.

82

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Weeks’s view of the sayings material as a ‘flow’, rather than, for instance, ‘clusters of grapes on a vine’, as Heim (2001) proposes is suggestive. Indeed, the whole of Proverbs may be envisaged as a stream of wisdom, spreading out from the ‘source’ in Proverbs 1–9. Like a river in a broad floodplain this stream meanders; its coils can come back on each other so they make contact and can be viewed together. However, when, in the following chapters, we focus on the sayings material, we shall see that the flow is not so smooth as Weeks suggests. On the contrary, there are several places where the stream is troubled, where it is disturbed by sayings that cause eddies and backwash. On the basis of our argument so far the following theory concerning the origins of Proverbs may be advanced. The book was written at a time of crisis and breakdown in the social order, perhaps occasioned by exile, although there are other possibilities. Its writer had at his disposal two main bodies of wisdom material he found interesting and intriguing, together with some other smaller collections he also valued. The first major collection was the poem we know as Proverbs 1–9; this spoke of a displaced and rejected wisdom. The second was a collection of collections of meshalim, essentially the material in Proverbs 10.1–22.16. Many of these sayings bespoke a confidence that wisdom could ensure a prosperous life for those who were open to instruction; they reflected a time when wisdom was in an assured place in the social order; a smaller number reflected the troubled, unsettled situation that had led to Proverbs 1–9. It may be that these latter sayings were compositions of the writer himself. At any rate, he included them and positioned them in such a way that the contradiction they represented to the majority of the sayings was thought provoking. Their role will be the theme of subsequent chapters. There seems little reason to withhold the title ‘author’ for the scribe responsible for Proverbs for he possessed considerable poetic sensitivity and ability. He combined his two major elements together with the smaller collections into a single unit, crafting them in such a way that they spoke to, and commented on, each other. Then he added 31.10–31 as a seemingly triumphant resolution of the tensions which had so intrigued him in the material which he made into his book. This theory makes sense of a number of phenomena in Proverbs noted by commentators, but for which they could find little significance or purpose.

Chapter 4

Provocative Contradiction: The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’ Summary of chapter This chapter examines the view that the sayings material in the Book of Proverbs consistently assumes that there is a simple relationship between human actions and their consequences. It seeks to show that – in spite of its axiomatic status for many scholars – this view ignores those elements within the book that deliberately problematize such a relationship. The impact of these elements is out of proportion to their small number in relation to the other sayings in Proverbs. They give the book the character of a lively debate, one whose issue is not determined within the text but remains to be decided by the reader. The discussion will focus on Proverbs 10–13, the first chapters of the sayings material in the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ (10.1–22.16), the largest sayings collection in the book. Koch, found thirteen sayings in Proverbs 11 to support his thesis that divine agency in the Old Testament completes acts begun by humans. However, he also claimed that such sayings are plentiful elsewhere in the book. As we look at sayings both before and after those Koch selected, we shall discover that this is not the case. In fact, few verses offer unambiguous support for Koch’s thesis. In Proverbs 10 verses are found that disclose significant tensions between divine and human agency. In fact, similar tensions are evident even in the verses from Proverbs 11 that Koch did select. Moreover, Proverbs 11 contains a verse that deliberately problematizes the teaching that good and bad acts have appropriate consequences. Proverbs 12 and 13 pose further difficulties for Koch’s view that sayings supporting his thesis are plentiful throughout what he views as ‘die jüngeren Spruchsammlungen’ [the more recent sayings collections] (1955, 5); sayings in these chapters cast doubt on the very basis upon which judgements about the consequences of actions could be made. It will also become clear that the Greek translator sought to reduce the tensions found in the Hebrew text; tensions which are, in fact, intrinsic to the book’s didactic purpose. In the later part of this Chapter our dialogue partner will be Perry, whose distinction between Wisdom and wisdom will be critically employed in order to clarify the argument. The purpose of this investigation will not be simply to critique Koch’s theory but, more positively, to examine the flow of sayings in these relatively short – but strategically placed – sections of Proverbs. The focus will be on the effect of some individual sayings that disturb the flow – stones thrown, as it were, into the smooth surface of the text, contradictions that provoke ripples and counter-eddies. The metaphor may be extended further; some of these verses are like stones skipped

84

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

along the stream to leave ripples further down it. This enquiry will, accordingly, entail an assessment of the impact of some such verses outside Proverbs 10–13. Proverbs 10.1–9 – Divine and human agency in tension In the previous chapter I developed Weeks’ notion of the ‘flow’ (1994, 158) of the sayings material in Proverbs. I argued that the sayings from Proverbs 10.1 may be regarded as a stream of wisdom pouring out from the fount in Proverbs 1–9. How then does this stream flow? My initial response to this question will focus on the first nine verses of Proverbs 10. This is not a natural unit of the text but these verses are an interesting sample, for they deal with important and recurring topics such as diligence and openness to instruction, together with their opposites, laziness and obduracy. Indeed, the verses would, at first sight, seem to offer a number of proof texts for Koch’s analysis in terms of an Acts– Consequence Connection. However, it will become clear that there are, as it were, eddies beneath the smoothly flowing surface of the text. These turbulences are the unresolved tensions around the issue of divine and human agency in these opening verses. 1.

hOmølVv yElVvIm wø;mIa tAg…w;t lyIsV;k NEb…w bDa_jA;mAc◊y MDkDj NE;b 2. t‰w;m D Im lyI…x;tA h∂q∂dVx…w oAv®r twørVxwøa …wlyIowøy_aøl 3. PO;dVh‰y MyIoDv√r tA…wAh◊w qyî;dAx vRpRn hÎwh◊y byIo√rÅy_aøl 4. ryIvSoA;t MyIx…wrDj dAy◊w hD¥yIm√r_PAk hRcOo va∂r 5. vyIbEm NE;b ryIx∂;qA;b M∂;d√rˆn lyI;kVcAm NE;b Xˆyå;qA;b rEgOa 6. sDmDj hR;sAk◊y MyIoDv√r yIp…w qyî;dAx vaørVl twøk∂rV;b 7. b∂q√rˆy MyIoDv√r MEv◊w hDk∂rVbIl qyî;dAx rRkEz 8. fEbD;lˆy MˆyAtDpVc lyIwTa‰w tOwVxIm jå;qˆy bEl_MAkSj 9. AoédÎ…wˆy wyDk∂r√;d vé;qAoVm…w jAfR;b JKRlEy MO;tA;b JKElwøh

[1. Proverbs of Solomon Wise son, a father rejoices but a foolish son, his mother grieves. 2. Treasures of wickedness do not profit but righteousness delivers from death. 3. God does not let the throat of the righteous hunger but the lust of the wicked he frustrates. 4. Slack hand makes a pauper but the hand of the diligent enriches. 5. Summer gatherer – wise son; sleeper at harvest – shameful son. 6. Blessings for the head of the righteous but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence. 7. The remembrance of the righteous is for blessing but the name of the wicked rots. 8. A wise heart heeds instructions but lips of folly will be rejected.

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

85

9. Walking in integrity – he walks secure but he whose ways are twisted shall be found out.]  (Proverbs 10.1–9) In chapter two we noted that Koch saw a cluster of thirteen verses earlier in Proverbs 11 (11.1, 3–6, 17–21, 27, 30–1) as demonstrating the existence of the Acts– Consequence Connection with particular clarity (Koch 1955, 5–6). Many verses in Proverbs 10 also state that the wise and righteous will receive various benefits as a result of their righteousness. These include such tangible goods as delivery from death (10.2); freedom from hunger (10.3); riches (10.4); as well as such less material, but equally real, benefits as parental satisfaction (10.1); and respect in the community, both in life (10.6), and after death (10.7). Such verses in Proverbs 10 would seem, at first sight, to offer good support for Koch’s thesis. Given that they are found at the beginning of the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ and so are encountered first in the usual process of reading Proverbs, it seems legitimate to ask why Koch preferred to select verses from Proverbs 11 as his proof texts. Koch simply states that so numerous are the texts in the sayings material in Proverbs that support his argument, that he need merely choose examples from where they are particularly numerous. In den jüngeren Spruchsammlungen bieten sich zahlreiche Texte zum Vergleich an, die wir nicht alle anführen könnnen. Das ist deshalb auch nicht notwendig, weil sie im Grundsätzlichen keine Unterschiede zeigen. Als Beispiel wählen wir aus Kap. 11, das das Verhältnis von Tun und Ergehen des Menschen in zahlreichen Sprüchen betrachtet, die betreffenden Verse aus: [In the more recent (literally – ‘younger’) collections of sayings, numerous texts – which we cannot all cite – offer themselves as a comparison. This is also not necessary because, basically, they do not display any differences. As example, we choose the relevant verses from Ch. 11, which observes the relationship between human action(s) and (their) consequence(s) in numerous sayings.]  (Koch 1955, 5)

In fact, as we shall see, Koch carefully selected verses that appeared to suit his argument that human and divine actions complement each other in the Old Testament. He chose sayings that can easily be read as illustrating the idea that God completes human actions, acting as a midwife, or a catalyst, to speed up the positive or negative processes initiated by human deeds. It would not have been so easy to prove this thesis from the opening verses of the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ – perhaps Koch’s decision to quote from what seemed the more suitable sayings in Proverbs 11 betrays his awareness of this. However, even in Proverbs 11 a careful selection proved necessary. It is true that many of the verses in Proverbs 10 do state that those who act wisely and justly will receive good things, but they do not state that this will come about through a single smoothly functioning mechanism bringing together divine and human activity. In fact, two causal phenomena can be identified in Proverbs 10 and elsewhere in the book – one divine, the other human. These resist easy harmonization; often sayings that speak of these different mechanisms are placed together in a way that highlights possible tensions between them. Thus human agency is the decisive factor in some verses in Proverbs 10, but, in others, divine

86

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

agency seems more important. 10.2, on the one hand – although God is not explicitly mentioned – expresses belief in a moral ordering of the cosmos that could serve as a good illustration for Koch’s understanding; the basis for this verse’s confidence that ‘treasures gained by wickedness’ are of no lasting benefit is not clearly expressed, but it is scarcely intelligible without reference to some metaphysical moral order. In 10.3, however, a more interventionist doctrine is taught; God appears to act alone to ensure the relief from famine of the righteous and to thwart the wicked. What, however, is the implication of the juxtaposition of Proverbs 10.3 with 10.4 and 10.5, two verses that attribute prosperity to human activity, specifically diligence? In 10.4 this is explicit in the root Xrj [to be diligent], a word found only in Proverbs; in 10.5 diligence is implicit in the praise of the ‘wise son’ with words – ryIxq ;∂ b ;A [at harvest], Xˆyåq ; b ;A rEgOa [summer gatherer] – which recall the hardworking, wise ant praised in Proverbs 6.8 – hDlDkSaAm ryIxq ;∂ Ab h∂r◊gDa ;hDmVjAl Xˆyq ;å b ;A NyIkt;D [she obtains her food in the summer; gathers her nourishment at harvest]. Can 10.3 and 10.4 and 5 be comfortably harmonized, as Koch’s theory might imply? Or are they offering two different accounts of how prosperity is secured; one that stresses human effort and another – more pious – version, which ascribes prosperity to God alone? As Toy points out (1899, 202), Proverbs 10.6a – ‘Blessings for the head of the righteous’ – adds a further complexity. Are these blessings from God, or human blessings, encomia showered upon the righteous by others in their society? To those conditioned to read Proverbs in the light of the dominant paradigm, the idea that human agency and divine agency are in tension here may seem to be splitting hairs. However, the possibility that Proverbs 10.3 and 10.4–5 are juxtaposed to suggest opposition between the concepts they express, rather than to reinforce one another, should not be easily dismissed. We shall see that there are other, clearer, examples of the effects of juxtaposition in MT Proverbs that alert us to tensions and ambiguities in the Hebrew that resist easy harmonization. Interestingly, McKane’s analysis offers some support for this understanding. Of the verses we have been considering, McKane (1970, 417–23) sees Proverbs 10.1, 4, 5 and 8 as ‘class A’ sayings – originating from an ‘old wisdom’, secular and international in its outlook; 10.2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 he ascribes to ‘class C’ – reworking the vocabulary of old wisdom in the direction of a Yahwistic piety. However, since, as we have seen, McKane believed the arrangement of the sayings material to be essentially random, he makes no attempt to suggest why these verses are placed together. A much earlier encounter with the Hebrew text of Proverbs suggests a more anxious reaction to the tensions between the opening verses of Proverbs 10 than that of McKane and many other modern scholars. The extent of the tensions in the Hebrew becomes more apparent precisely because in the Septuagint’s Greek they have been reduced and eliminated. 10.1. 2. 3.

ui˚o\ß sofo\ß eujfrai÷nei pate÷ra ui˚o\ß de« a‡frwn lu/ph thvØ mhtri oujk wÓfelh/sousin qhsauroi« aÓno/mouß dikaiosu/nh de« rJu/setai e˙k qana¿tou ouj limoktonh/sei ku/rioß yuch\n dikai÷an

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

87

zwh\n de« aÓsebw◊n aÓnatre÷yei 4. peni÷a a‡ndra tapeinoi√ cei√reß de« aÓndrei÷wn plouti÷zousin [4a] ui˚o\ß pepaideume÷noß sofo\ß e¶stai tw◊ˆ de« a‡froni diako/nwˆ crh/setai 5. diesw¿qh aÓpo\ kau/matoß ui˚o\ß noh/mwn aÓnemo/fqoroß de« gi÷netai e˙n aÓmh/twˆ ui˚o\ß para¿nomoß 6. eujlogi÷a kuri÷ou e˙pi« kefalh\n dikai÷ou sto/ma de« aÓsebw◊n kalu/yei pe÷nqoß a‡wron 7. mnh/mh dikai÷wn met∆ e˙gkwmi÷wn o¡noma de« aÓsebouvß sbe÷nnutai 8. sofo\ß kardi÷aˆ de÷xetai e˙ntola¿ß oJ de« a‡stegoß cei÷lesin skolia¿zwn uJposkelisqh/setai 9. o§ß poreu/etai aJplw◊ß poreu/etai pepoiqw¿ß oJ de« diastre÷fwn ta»ß oJdou\ß aujtouv gnwsqh/setai. [10.1. A wise son gladdens a father, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother. 2. Treasures shall not profit the lawless, but righteousness saves from death. 3. The Lord will not starve a righteous soul, but he will overturn the life of the wicked. 4. Poverty brings a man low, but the hands of the manly enrich. 4α An instructed son shall be wise, and shall use the fool for a servant. 5. A wise son is saved from heat, but a lawless son is blighted by the wind at harvest. 6. The blessing of the Lord upon the head of the righteous, but untimely grief fills the mouth of the ungodly. 7. The just are remembered with praises, but the name of the wicked perishes. 8. A man whose heart is wise will accept instructions, but the one whose lips are unguarded shall be overturned in his perversity. 9. He that walks sincerely walks confidently, but he who perverts his ways shall be discovered.] (G 10.1–9) It might seem that the Greek has captured the essence of the Hebrew. Six sayings (10.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9) are translated with a high degree of literal accuracy, as is the half verse 4b. Clearly, there are some differences at a literal level, but most of these might, initially, appear insignificant. The omission of the title ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ does not seem to have an effect upon the meaning of the individual  Verses found in G but not the MT are denoted by placing letters of the Greek Alphabet after the number of the previous verse in the MT – for instance 4a, 4b etc. Roman letters after a number signify a half verse – for instance 4a, 4b; 4ab, 4ba.

88

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

sayings. If it was motivated by a desire to dissociate them from Solomon, perhaps on the grounds of his womanizing and idolatry (1 Kings 11.1–8), why does the Greek still retain his name in the overall title of the book in Proverbs 1.1? A further obvious difference is the inclusion of the additional saying after 10.4. This could be due to a different Hebrew Vorlage. However, since some manuscripts place this verse after Greek Proverbs 9.12 it is more likely to be ‘the random insertion of a scribe’ (Toy 1899, 200). In either case, since the verse promises benefits to ‘an instructed son’, it conforms closely to the general message of the Hebrew. Furthermore, we shall see that several aspects of the Greek version of this passage are more plausibly to be regarded as reflecting preferences of the translator than a Hebrew Vorlage significantly different to that in the MT. They point to changes in the thought-world between the Hebrew and the Greek versions. The trend in the Greek is one that removes the ambiguities within the Hebrew to produce a more pious and a more harmonious text. Recognition of this trend is a valuable hermeneutical tool. When we see these changes, we may infer that the translator found the Hebrew original unsettling. His alterations reflect his desire to produce a version that was less self-contradictory and more aligned with the religious sentiment of the secondcentury BC Alexandrian community in which the translation was produced. An example of the way potential tensions are avoided may be seen in 10.6a, whose ambiguity in the MT – qyîd ; Ax vaørVl twøk∂rb ;V [blessings for the head of the righteous] – we noted above. Are these blessings from God or human encomia? In the Greek of 10.6a eujlogi÷a kuri÷ou e˙pi« kefalh\n dikai÷ou [blessing of the Lord upon the head of the righteous] this ambiguity has been removed. This suggests that the Greek version is unhappy with ambiguity and wants to resolve tensions between human and divine agency in favour of the latter. So the Greek 10.6a also indicates a shift in the direction of an obvious piety that wants to view blessing as always from the Lord. The considerable differences between MT Proverbs10.5 – vyIbEm NEb ; ryIxq ;∂ b ;A M∂d ; √rˆn lyIk; VcAm NEb; Xˆyq;å b;A rEgOa [summer gatherer – wise son: sleeper at harvest – shameful son] – and the Greek of the same verse – diesw¿qh aÓpo\ kau/matoß ui˚o\ß noh/mwn aÓnemo/fqoroß de« gi÷netai e˙n aÓmh/twˆ ui˚o\ß para¿nomoß [A wise son is saved from heat, but a lawless son is blighted by the wind at harvest] – are also best explained by a wish on the part of the translator to resolve such tensions. Toy remarks that the Greek here has a ‘general resemblance’ to the Hebrew, ‘with great verbal variation’ (1899, 201). The possibility of a different Hebrew original closer to the Greek of this verse cannot, of course, be totally ruled out. There is, however, no textual evidence for the existence of such an original and a more plausible explanation for the extent of the divergence is that it arises out of a wish to produce a more pious and harmonious text. Tov argues that the translator’s Vorlage differed considerably from MT Proverbs but, nevertheless, suggests that he also engaged in ‘contextual exegesis’ (Tov 1990, 44). Exegesis might seem a strong word here – although it is echoed by Jan Joosten’s comments on the characteristics of the Septuagint, Indeed, knowledge of biblical Hebrew is not the only factor that guided the translators. Ideological considerations, exegetical traditions and, above all, sensitivity to the context played an important role in the creation of the Greek text.  (Joosten 2002, 2)

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

89

Joosten identifies here the elements that make up the thought-world of the Greek translator, although I would emphasize more than he the importance of the broader Hellenistic context in which the translation was made. Be that as it may, the most striking ‘verbal variations’ introduced into G 10.5 can best be explained as attempts to minimize the role of human agency and maximize the divine role. The first word in the Greek – diesw¿qh [is saved] – is best understood as a ‘divine passive’. Divine agency is also the best explanation for the use of the rare word aÓnemo/fqoroß [wind–blasted] in the second hemistich. LS has two citations; in one it has the status of a terminus technicus of natural history (see Philo Mechanicus 2.431); the other however, is from the Septuagint’s Hosea 8.7 where it translates the j A …wr [wind] that becomes the hDtDpw… s [whirlwind] – Greek, katastrofh\. The word occurs a total of nine times in the Septuagint and in all cases it refers to divine activity; in Deuteronomy 28.22 it renders Nwøq∂r´¥yAb [‘blight’] ­ – one of the curses that God threatens to send upon the people if they fail to obey ‘all his commandments and decrees’; it describes the blasting of the river Nile and the vegetation around it in Isaiah 19.17; the most striking usages are in Genesis, where it translates Myîd∂q tOpw… dVv [blighted by the east wind] in Genesis 41.6, 23 and 27, describing the sickly ears of corn that signify seven years of famine in Pharaoh’s dream; and where it also renders twøq ; d ;å [thin] in Genesis 41.7 and 24. Given the relative rarity of the word it seems reasonable to assume that the translator of Proverbs may have been prompted to use it by one of its occurrences elsewhere in the Septuagint. In fact, the use of aÓnemo/fqoroß here appears to be a good example of what Homer Heaton in his work on translation technique in the book of Job has called ‘anaphoric translation’ (1982, 6). This is the ‘translational mentality’ that tended to assimilate the scriptural books that were rendered later into Greek to those that were initially translated. That is to say – as Joseph Ziegler suggested as long ago as 1934 – the Greek version of the earlier books, especially of the Pentateuch, functioned as a sort of lexicon to which the translators of later books turned. Our present discussion provides further evidence for this contention. Elsewhere in the Greek Bible aÓnemo/– fqoroß occurs in the context of divine activity. Its use here therefore carries with it a connotation that the son is blighted by some unspecified disobedience to divine commands, or, at any rate, that his situation is the result of God’s actions. Heaton’s ‘anaphoric’ translational mentality may also be responsible for another expression found in the same half verse (G 10.5b), ui˚o\ß para¿nomoß [lawless son] – rendering the Hebrew vyIbEm NEb ; [shameful son]. However, a more likely reason for the choice of this phrase is piety; para¿nomoß [lawless] is not a synonym of vyIbEm [shameful] though, of course breaking the law could lead to shame for the lawbreaker and his family. It should indeed be noted that apart from this use in Proverbs 10.5, para¿nomoß never renders derivatives of the root vwb [shame] in the Septuagint – one might have expected some derivative of the root ajiscr– [shame], as in the Greek Proverbs 19.2, where kataiscunqh/setai [shall be shamed] renders vyIbEm [shameful]. Why then the use of para¿nomoß in 10.5? Other uses of the word in the Septuagint could have influenced its use here. It is only found once in the Greek version of the Pentateuch at Deuteronomy 13.14 where a‡ndreß para¿nomoi [lawless men) renders lAoÅ¥yIlVb_yEnb;V MyIvÎnSa [men, sons of worthlessness). The same Hebrew idiom occurs

90

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

again in Judges 19.22, 20.13 and in 2 Samuel 16.7, 20.1, 23.6 and is again rendered with derivatives of para¿nomoß. This usage may have influenced the anomalous use of para¿nomoß for vyIbEm in 10.5. A translational ‘convention’ that connected lawbreaking with worthlessness could lead to a further move from lack of worth to lack of honour, hence to shamefulness. However, a more likely influence on the use of the word here gives weight to the literal meaning of para¿nomoß, as ‘lawless’ or ‘against the law’. The use of this word was, I suggest, intended to indicate that the son in Proverbs 10.5 is ignoring or breaking the Mosaic Law, for which the usual word in the Septuagint is no/moß. Significantly, elsewhere in Greek Proverbs para¿nomoß renders words like ‰wDa vyIa [scoundrel] in 6.12; or MyIo∂r [evildoers] in 4.14; or Myîd◊gwøb [treacherous] in 2.22. In Proverbs 2.22 Myîd◊gwøb is paralleled with MyIoDv√r [the wicked], which the Greek renders with aÓsebw◊n [of the impious]. Para¿nomoß itself can render oDv∂r [wicked] as in Proverbs 10.2 where oAv®r twørVxwøa [treasures of wickedness] is translated qhsauroi« aÓno/mouß [treasuries of the lawless]. Indeed, the Septuagint generally employs aÓsebh/ß [impious] – another word loaded with religious connotations – for oDv∂r ; of a total of 92 occurrences of aÓsebh/ß in the Septuagint, it translates oDv∂r 67 times. Outside Proverbs, which accounts for 25 of its 48 recorded scriptural usages, para¿nomoß is a relatively rare word. Significantly, the other main cluster of usages is found in 1 and 2 Maccabees (1 Maccabees 1.11, 34, 10.61, 11.21; 2 Maccabees 4.11, 14, 6.21, 8.4, 13.7), that is, of course, in books which regard not keeping the Law of Moses as the epitome of wickedness. Thus the rendering of vyIbEm NEb; by para¿nomoß in the Greek version of Proverbs 10.5 is best explained as the result of importing into the translation a religiosity of a different kind to the piety of the Hebrew Proverbs. Indeed, the widespread use of para¿nomoß throughout the Greek Proverbs may indicate that the translator connected wickedness and breaking the Mosaic Law or even, perhaps, just failing to observe it. Be that as it may, the religious undertones of the language of the Greek of Proverbs 10.5 implies that God’s activity may be detected in ensuring the appropriate consequences result from human conduct. No such divine involvement is hinted at in the Hebrew of this verse. Koch’s thesis is well supported by the Greek here but not by the Hebrew version. One other, seemingly minor, change in the Greek of Proverbs 10.1–9 also hints at a significant shift in emphasis. Proverbs 10.4, ryIvSot ;A MyIxw… rDj dAy◊w hD¥yIm√r_PAk hRcOo va∂r [slack hand makes a pauper but the hand of the diligent enriches] is rendered peni÷a a‡ndra tapeinoi√ cei√reß de« aÓndrei÷wn plouti÷zousin [Poverty brings a man low, but the hands of the manly enrich]. 10.4b in the Greek is close to the Hebrew, but 10.4a is quite different. The implied criticism of the poor as being the authors of their own misfortune – hD¥yIm√r_PAk hRcOo va∂r [a slack hand makes a pauper] – has been removed together with the pleasing antithesis between idle and diligent hands. At issue here is how we are to understand the verb tapeinoi√. Does it refer simply to a loss of social status or does it imply that poverty, by humbling someone, makes them as it were, a better person? An adjectival noun from the same  In Greek Proverbs forms of aÓsebh/ß also render such words as MyIlyˆwTa [knaves] in Proverbs 1.7; MyIlyIsVk [fools] in Proverbs 1.22,32 or aEfwøj [sinner] in Proverbs 13.22.

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

91

Tapein√ – root is used in such a ‘positive’ sense in Greek Proverbs 11.2 where it renders the Hebrew MyIo…wnVx [modest ones], ou∞ e˙a»n ei˙se÷lqhØ u¢briß e˙kei√ kai« aÓtimi÷a sto/ma de« tapeinw◊n meleta◊ˆ sofi÷an [whenever arrogance enters dishonour is also there, but the mouth of the humble practises wisdom]. The same root can also be part of the language of piety, as it is in G Psalm 50.19b (MT 51.19b) kardi÷an suntetrimme÷nhn kai« tetapeinwme÷nhn oJ qeo\ß oujk e˙xouqenw¿sei [God will not despise a broken and humbled heart]. The root carries a similar pious nuance when it is used elsewhere in the Greek version of Proverbs – for instance, in Greek Proverbs 29.23 u¢briß a‡ndra tapeinoi√ tou\ß de« tapeino/fronaß e˙rei÷dei do/xhØ ku/rioß [Pride humbles a man but the Lord supports the humble-minded with honour]. The Hebrew of the same verse lacks the explicit piety of the Greek; indeed God is not mentioned – dwøbk ;D JKOmVtˆy Ajw… r_lApVvw… w… n… RlyIÚpVvt ;A M∂dDa tAwSag…Å [Arrogance brings a man down but the lowly spirit attains honour]. Thus, in Proverbs 10.4, the Greek is open to be read as saying that poverty is not an unrelievedly bleak experience, because of God’s ‘bias towards the poor’ or at any rate towards those who are appropriately humbled by their poverty. Thus the Greek version of Proverbs 10.4 can be assimilated far more readily to the piety of such verses as 10.3 and 10.6. The hint evident in the Hebrew that there may be a tension between human and divine agency has been greatly reduced, even if not completely removed, in the process of translation. Indeed, without departing from the Hebrew completely, the translator could have done little more. The relative closeness of the Greek to the Hebrew in the less problematic sayings of Proverbs 10.2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 provides additional support for the argument that we are dealing here with a theological option of the translator who perceived a tension between the verses. To recap, in MT Proverbs 10.1–9 the sayings do suggest some connection between deeds and their results, but the smooth complementarity between divine and human agency of Koch’s Acts–Consequence Connection appears to be an oversimplification of the relationship. Here there are indications of possible tensions between human and divine activity. Indeed, the Hebrew is open to the possibility that accounts of why a person might be prosperous or poverty-stricken could compete with one another. In the Greek, the tendency is to close down these possibilities in favour of an explanation that stresses divine agency in these matters. Proverbs 10.15 – disturbing ripples Further on in Proverbs 10, two verses – 10.15 and, to a lesser extent, 10.22 – pose even greater problems for the scholarly consensus than those already encountered in 10.1–9. In Proverbs 10.10–14 the focus shifts towards what makes for harmonious relationships in community, particularly the sort of speech that is helpful and edifying. Nothing jars with what has been said in 10.1–9, but then, in 10.15, a discordant note is sounded – MDvyér MyIl ; åd ; tAt ; IjVm wøΩzUo tAy√rIq ryIvDo Nwøh [The wealth of a rich man – his strong city: the ruin of the poor – their poverty]. It will be recalled that in chapter three this verse was mentioned as having been singled out by some scholars as being in some way significant. Fontaine argued that it was at odds with the standard Acts–

92

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Consequence Connection (Fontaine 1988, 509). Murphy selected Proverbs 10.15 as his example of a saying that, if translated literally, leads the reader to ‘sift its implications’ (Murphy 2001, 622) and argued that – in spite of their distance from it in the text – Proverbs 18.10–11 were ‘pertinent’ to it (2001, 622). So what are the implications of this verse? Firstly, this verse makes no connection between good actions and prosperity or bad actions and poverty. It states without moralizing, indeed without qualification of any kind, that wealth is a protection for the rich and that the poverty of the poor is ruinous. The latter statement is not a tautology. As Clifford points out (1999, 114), both the metaphors that express this are drawn from the horrors of siege warfare. He compares Proverbs 10.15 with Psalm 89.41– hDt ; IjVm wy∂rDxVbIm D;tVmAc wyDtOrédg…◊ _lDk D;tVxårDÚp [You have broken all his walls, laid his strongholds in ruin]. The ‘strong city’ is one that can resist assault; the terrifying tA;tIjVm [ruin] of a city is the epitome of complete disaster. Thus the poverty, the ‘ruin of the poor’, is a clear outward sign of the dreadful condition to which they have been reduced. We should avoid any temptation to understand that this ruin is a consequence of anything that the poor have done. Proverbs 10.15 is silent about any connection between righteousness and wealth, or wickedness and poverty. In the context of earlier sayings that teach – as we have seen – that wealth and poverty are somehow deserved, this is a shocking silence. Admittedly, arguments from silence are notoriously weak. It might be held that this verse is simply pointing out the benefits of well–merited riches and the dire results of justly deserved poverty; that the Acts–Consequence Connection is present, though not explicitly stated. However, there is other evidence to support the contention that this assumption would be incorrect and 10.15 is meant to be understood as in tension with notions of retribution and reward. Firstly, Proverbs 10.15 provokes the reader, not only to pondering its implications in isolation, but also – as Murphy suggested (2001, 622) – into an engagement with other sayings in the book. Such an engagement is demanded by 10.16, the very next verse, which, by reaffirming that there is a link between behaviour and real, lasting benefits, offers an immediate rebuttal to its predecessor – taDÚfAjVl oDv∂r tAaw… bVt ; MyI¥yAjVl qyîd; Ax tAl; UoVÚp [The profit of the righteous is for life, but the income of the wicked for corruption]. This juxtaposition is not coincidental; nor is it that 10.15 is ‘contextualized’ by 10.16 (Fontaine 1988, 509). Yes, 10.16 agrees with the context – the majority opinion expressed so far – but 10.15 is not swamped by this context, despite the immediate restatement of the majority view in 10.16. We may regard 10.15, precisely because it is matter of fact and understated, as expressing an effective counter-statement to a rhetoric of strident repetition. This saying is heard because it resonates with much of any but a very naïve reader’s experience; it is like one of Qohelet’s ‘quiet words of the wise’, which ‘are more to be heeded than the shouting of a ruler among fools’ (Qohelet 9.9). The effect of Proverbs 10.15 is that of a powerful contradiction that cannot be simply ignored as ‘an exception that proves a rule’. It articulates an awareness that wealth, however acquired, can be a protection; an awareness that has been suppressed in, and, indeed, by, many previous sayings. Furthermore, 10.15 resists easy co-option into a synthesis, precisely because it is in such a contradictory

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

93

relationship with the other statements – that there is some kind of cosmic moral order which gives people what they deserve. The reader is forced to grapple with a statement that is not easily assimilated to what other sayings state with great confidence. Secondly, we note a change in the Greek version that indicates Proverbs 10.15’s disturbing effect upon one ancient reader. The translator could accept 10.15a’s statement that ‘wealth is like a strong city’; riches could, after all, be a sign of divine blessing upon the head of the righteous. However, he recoils from the matter-of-fact description of poverty in 10.15b and imports a morality not present in the Hebrew – kthvsiß plousi÷wn po/liß ojcura¿ suntribh\ de« aÓsebw◊n peni÷a [The wealth of the rich – a strong city, but the ruin of the ungodly – poverty]. For the translator it seems that it is the ‘ungodly’ whose ruin is poverty, not the poor. However, might not this change be the result of a confusion between10.15’s v∂r [poor] and oDv∂r [wicked] since – as we have already seen – the Septuagint generally uses aÓsebh/ß [ungodly] for oDv∂r? In fact, such a confusion could not have occurred here as the word for ‘the poor’ used in Proverbs 10.15 is not MyIva∂r [the poor], the plural of oDv∂r, but its synonym (Whybray 1990, 18–21) MyIl ; åd ; [the poor]. Elsewhere in the Septuagint the translators never use aÓsebh/ß to render a word for a poor person whether v∂r or l∂d; or, indeed, another synonym NwøyVbRa. Greek Proverbs 10.15 is the only occurrence of such a rendering and it is most plausibly explained by a deliberate decision on the part of the translator; he wished to align the verse with what he saw as a more acceptable teaching. For him, ruin could not simply be the lot of the poor as the Hebrew implies; ruin and poverty should be the merited consequences of impious wickedness. We should note that Proverbs 10.15 is not suggesting that the MyIl ; åd ; are righteous sufferers simply because they are poor. Its tone is realistic; it offers a description of the way things are in the world. This is enough however, to problematize the simplistic notion, ‘good actions, good results: bad actions, bad results’, implied in many other verses to date. Clines believes that, … [a] central element in the book of Proverbs [is a] confidence that the ways of God follow due and reasonable processes and that therefore the person trained in Wisdom will be able to predict how and when God will act whether with reward or punishment.  (Clines 1989, 277)

However, this only convinces if a statistical count of sayings expressing such confidence is consulted; but meaning is not always located with the majority of voices in a text – it can be created when they clash with marginal voices that challenge the majority view. Moreover, verses like Proverbs 10.15 are not found at the edges of the book, but embedded in the middle of its sayings material. This and similar verses are like stones dropped into a smoothly flowing stream; the ripples spread in several directions. The analogy suggests that 10.16 is a ripple, a welling up of the majority view to counter the disturbance of 10.15. These ripples spread widely and in more than one direction. They spread ‘upstream’, as it were, provoking the attentive reader into revisiting earlier statements. So we are led to reassess the confident moralizing of, for instance

94

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

10.2, t‰w;m D Im lyI…x;tA h∂q∂dVx…w oAv®r twørVxwøa …wlyIowøy_aøl [Treasures of wickedness do not profit, but righteousness delivers from death]. Perhaps, Proverbs 10.15 may hint, ‘treasures of wickedness’ do occasionally ‘profit’. The ‘ripples’ thus spread out in a ring, backward to 10.2 and forward to other verses, far and near. Relatively near at hand, just fourteen verses on, the vocabulary of 10.29 echoes that of 10.15; here, however, the view is expressed that piety rather than wealth gives true security and that evildoing rather than poverty is ruinous – N‰wDa yElSoOpVl hDt ; IjVmw… hDwh◊y JK®rd ;® MOt ; Al zwøoDm [A stronghold to the upright, the way of YHWH but ruin for the doers of evil]. Of course, the consensus view of Proverbs can harmonize this statement easily enough with 10.15 by assuming that the ‘rich’ of that verse can be identified with the ‘upright’ in 10.29. Similarly, those who are ruined by poverty could be ‘doers of evil’. As we have seen, this appears to have been the assumption of the Greek translator when he dealt with 10.15. Such assumptions will appear increasingly dubious as we encounter repeated examples of sayings that contradict and problematize each other. Proverbs 18.10 and 18.11 are two sayings later in Proverbs that have strong affinities to 10.15 and 10.29. We may view 18.10–11 as continuing the debate begun in 10.15, producing similar ripples on the surface of the flow of sayings. The effect is akin to that produced when a stone is skimmed along a stream, producing a disturbance each time it lands. They also provide an example of how sayings in Proverbs can be juxtaposed to contradict and problematize each other. ; VcAmb ;V hDbg…Î Vcˆn hDmwøjVkw… wøΩzUo tAy√rIq ryIvDo Nwøh [The wealth of a 18.11 reads wøtyIk rich man his strong city – like a strong wall, in his imagination]. 18.11a is identical to 10.15a but 18.11b suggests that 18.11 should be read very differently to 10.15. 10.15a’s realism is confirmed by 10.15b. However, the thought of 18.11a – as it stands in the MT – is qualified, not to say undermined, by the concluding word of 18.11b, wøtyIk; VcAmb;V . Whether this is rendered ‘in his estimation’ or ‘ in his imagination’ (see below), it suggests that the security offered by wealth is in fact illusory. Furthermore, the juxtaposition of 18.11 and 18.10 – bDg… Vcˆn◊w qyîd ; Ax Xw… rÎy_wøb ; hDwh◊y MEv zOo_låd; ◊gIm [A strong tower, the name of YHWH; into it runs the righteous and is saved] – undermines 18.11a even before we read 18.11b. This juxtaposition has the effect of implying that wealth – viewed in other sayings as an unqualified good – is something illusory. Indeed, taken together, the two verses suggest that wealth is a false alternative to the true security found in ‘the name of YHWH’. Accordingly, if the MT is followed, the rich man’s ‘estimation’ must be flawed. It follows that rendering wøtyIk ; VcAmb ;V with ‘in his imagination’ seems amply justified. In Proverbs 18.10–11 there is no suggestion of a smooth harmony between humans acting to enrich themselves and divine blessing; wealth is a false alternative to trust in God. On the other hand, 18.10–11 offer another tension with 10.15, where a realistic voice had contested the connections between morality, piety and wealth. In 18.10–11 another voice queries exactly what is the value of wealth, what the true strength of ‘its strong city’. It is my contention that these voices resist a smooth harmonization at any point; they are in discord and are meant to be.  In Greek Proverbs forms of aÓsebh/ß also render such words as MyIlyˆwTa [knaves] in Proverbs 1.7; MyIlyIsVk [fools] in Proverbs 1.22,32 or aEfwøj [sinner] in Proverbs 13.22.

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

95

We should note that some commentators suggest that wøtyI;kVcAm;b V is a pious emendation of 18.11b which originally read, OwøtAkUcVm hDb…gÎ Vcˆn hDmwøjVk…w [and like a high wall his hedge], where ‘the hedge’ stands for the security provided by his wealth. Toy for instance, suggests that Proverbs 18.11b ‘is possibly the correction of an editor who took offence at the role ascribed to wealth’; he argues that 18.10 may also be a later insertion as a ‘protest’ against the ‘simple word of observation’ in 18.11 (Toy 1899, 364). However, in the light of our argument so far, the suggestion that Proverbs 18.10 is a later gloss appears less plausible than the hypothesis that it is a deliberate juxtaposition by the author/redactor of Proverbs. Such juxtapositions, and the tensions they create, are important devices for him. It should be noted that, elsewhere, Toy recognized that juxtapositions were intrinsic to the class of literature to which Proverbs belongs. On Proverbs 26.4–5, the book’s most glaring juxtaposition of contradictory sayings,

hD;tDa_MÅg wø;l_h‰wVvI;t_NRÚp wø;tVlÅ…wIaV;k lyIsV;k NAoA;t_lAa yDnyEoV;b MDkDj hRyVhˆy_NRÚp wø;tVlÅ…wIaV;k lyIsVk hEnSo [Answer not a fool according to his knavery, lest you resemble him, you also. Answer a fool according to his knavery, lest he be wise in his own eyes] he remarks, ‘… such juxtaposition of contradictories belong to the nature of gnomic teaching’ (Toy 1899, 473). There may be a stronger case for 18.11b having been subsequently emended from an original which described wealth as a ‘hedge’ [OhAkUcVm] to the MT’s wøtyIk ; VcAmb ;V [in his estimation] in order to soften the opposition between 18.10 and 18.11. If such an emendation did take place then it evidences that the pious reaction to the original Hebrew – already observable in the Greek translator’s rendering of 10.1–9 – could also have been triggered at some later stage in the evolution of the MT. Of course, the thought-world that produced the Greek version was the product of underlying theological, philosophical, political and economic conditions rather than any purely linguistic factors. Later scribes, concerned solely with the Hebrew text, may have been affected by similar underlying conditions. Indeed, the Greek version of Proverbs 18.11 – u¢parxiß plousi÷ou aÓndro\ß po/liß ojcura¿ hJ de« do/xa aujthvß me÷ga e˙piskia¿zei [The substance of a rich man – a strong city; and its glory greatly overshadows] – sheds little light on this occasion. It suggests, perhaps, that the translator found the Hebrew – whichever was the original – difficult. One can only surmise that his translation of 18.11b may have been influenced by the mention of do/xa [glory] near at hand in 18.12, pro\ suntribhvß uJyouvtai kardi÷a aÓndro/ß kai« pro\ do/xhß tapeinouvtai [Before ruin a man’s heart is exalted and before glory it is humbled]. There is one final, surprising, ripple that can be traced back to the disturbance of the flow of proverbs originating with Proverbs 10.15. In that verse, as in 10.29, 18.10 and 18.11, the metaphor of a strong fortification is undoubtedly positive. We view it from the angle of the one who is protected by it. 18.19 offers a startling

96

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

change of perspective that transforms the metaphor into something negative. Nwøm√rAa AjyîrVbk;I MyˆnwødVm…w zOo_tÅy√r;qI Im oDvVpˆn jDa [A brother offended is like a strong city and quarrelling like the bars of a stronghold]. The Greek reads aÓdelfo\ß uJpo\ aÓdelfouv bohqou/menoß wß po/liß ojcura» kai« uJyhlh/ i˙scu/ei de« w‚sper teqemeliwme÷non basi÷leion [a brother helped by a brother is like a strong city and is as strong as a well-founded royal house]. This bland commendation of family loyalty, free of the suggestions of dark fraternal strife in the Hebrew, is followed by some English versions (for instance, the RSV and JB). There is no need to do so. As Clifford comments insightfully, the metaphor points to the intractable nature of family disputes. ‘Family feuds are the bitterest conflicts and civil wars the bloodiest wars’ (Clifford 1999, 172). The metaphor of a ‘strong city’ is accordingly perfectly applicable to an offended brother. In the light of other usages of the metaphor, it may appear paradoxical – but this coheres well with that element in Proverbs that, as we have seen, delights in paradox. Indeed, 18.19 prompts a thought that problematizes the other uses of the metaphor of a strong city in previous verses. The unreflective assumption that a stronghold is always a good thing – perhaps assumed as we read those verses ­ – comes now into question. The very same metaphor can sometimes be positive, and on another occasion, negative. This indicates the depth and subtlety of Proverb’s interest both in contradiction and in paradox, an interest that extends to an exploration of those inherent in any use of metaphor. Proverbs 10.22 – Explicit tension between human and divine agency After Proverbs 10.16, several verses pick up again on the rather different theme of the power of words to promote social harmony that figured in 10.10–14. However, Proverbs 10.22 – hDm ; Io bRxRo PIswøy_aøl◊w ryIvSoAt ayIh hÎwh◊y tAk ; √rb ;I [Blessing of YHWH – that enriches, and toil can add nothing to it] or [Blessing of YHWH – that enriches and he adds no sorrow with it] – is of more direct interest to our discussion. Firstly, it provides some more evidence for the linkages between sayings separated by large numbers of other verses. It is open to be read as a refutation, from the point of view of an aggressive piety, of an earlier verse (10.4) that was ready to give more credit to human agency. Secondly, even in this verse, which on the face of it seems close to the more pious thought-world of the Greek version, there are nuances that disappear in the Greek. Ambiguities in the Hebrew subtly qualify the claim in Proverbs 10.22 that it is God alone who can bestow riches. In 10.22a – ryIvSoAt ayIh hÎwh◊y tAk; √rb;I [Blessing of YHWH enriches] – the pronoun ayIh [that], seems redundant. The emphasis given by ayIh surely requires another statement concerning wealth that 10.22a is disputing – ‘not this enriches, but that’! Indeed, in Proverbs 10.4b such a statement has been made – ryIvSot ;A MyIxw… rDj dAy◊w [and the hand of the diligent enriches]. I suggest that 10.22a engages with 10.4b to assert the priority of divine agency and to contradict emphatically the latter’s claim that it is human diligence that enriches.  Reading, with the versions tAy√rIqVk [like a city] for the MT’s tÅy√rI;qIm [from a city].

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

97

10.22b can be rendered in two ways depending on whether bRxRo [toil] or God is taken as the subject of this half verse. The more challenging rendering is the latter – ‘Blessing of YHWH – that enriches, and he adds no sorrow with it’. On the face of it this exalts God, but it also implies an understanding of divine agency and accountability that opens up the possibility that he is totally responsible for human misery. Such an understanding lies behind the accusations against him in Job 30.11–23 or Psalm 88.6–8. However – whether ‘toil’ or ‘God’ is the subject of 10.22b – 10.22, as a whole, suggests that divine agency and human agency are not really in a comfortable harmony but potentially at odds. Once again, the Greek Proverbs 10.22 provides a revealing point of comparison with the Hebrew. Eujlogi÷a kuri÷ou e˙pi« kefalh\n dikai÷ou au¢th plouti÷zei kai« ouj mh\ prosteqhvØ aujthvØ lu/ph e˙n kardi÷a ˆ[The blessing of the Lord upon the head of the righteous; it is that that enriches and grief of heart shall certainly not be added to it]. This rendering suggests that the idea that 10.22 is explicitly addressing 10.4 is not fanciful, even though the two sayings are separated by seventeen other verses. Such a linkage is plausible in view of the fact that 10.22a and 10.6a are identical in the Greek and represent a conflation of words found in the Hebrew of these half verses. 10.22a in the Greek eujlogi÷a kuri÷ou e˙pi« kefalh\n dikai÷ou au¢th plouti÷zei [The blessing of the Lord upon the head of the righteous; it is that that enriches] is not a literal translation of MT 10.22a ryIvSoAt ayIh hÎwh◊y tA;k√rb ;I [Blessing of YHWH that enriches]. Rather, its first five words are identical with the Greek of 10.6a – eujlogi÷a kuri÷ou e˙pi« kefalh\n dikai÷ou – which, as we have already noted, also does not exactly reflect the Hebrew qyîd ; Ax vaørVl twøk∂rb ;V [Blessings for the head of the righteous]. The Greek 10.6a/10.22a is thus a conflation of the two half verses of the Hebrew. It introduces YHWH into 10.6a – where he is not present in the original – and ‘the head’ into 10.22a. This conflation suggests the ancient translator – picking up the reference back to 10.4 in MT 10.22’s emphatic pronoun – was aware that 10.22 was addressing similar issues to the opening verses of the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’. It is plausible that an awareness of such a linkage led his eye to these verses, and so to 10.6a where he found a similar sentiment to 10.22a, but one which lacked an explicit reference to YHWH. The introduction of oJ ku/rio/ß [the Lord] into 10.6a from 10.22a was, he felt, required. Furthermore, this trend towards a bland piety can be discerned in 10.22b of the Greek version – kai« ouj mh\ prosteqhvØ aujthvØ lu/ph e˙n kardi÷a [and grief of heart shall certainly not be added to it]. The ambiguity in the Hebrew is resolved to deny any possible tension between human and divine agency, and to exculpate God from any possibility of an arbitrary or capricious malice towards humanity. Reasonably enough the translator reads bRxRo [toil or sorrow] as the subject of 10.22b – hDm ; Io bRxRo PIswøy_aøl◊w [and toil can add nothing to it (or, and he adds no sorrow with it)] – rather than YHWH from 10.22a. The version then makes the seemingly minor change in the syntax from the active PIswøy [adds] to the passive prosteqh [shall be added]. This can be understood as a ‘divine passive’, reintroducing the notion of YHWH’s agency, but it also has a euphemistic effect. The possibility that God could directly add sorrow to a blessing, present in the Hebrew, is suppressed in the Greek both by the passive form and by the emphatic negative ouj mh [certainly not].

98

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Our labours so far, painstaking as they have unavoidably been, have established that Proverbs 10, in the Hebrew, does not contain one harmonious account of divine agency but encourages different accounts to clash. The Greek version of these verses, on the other hand, translates in such a way as to remove contradictions to produce a much blander and more pious version. Proverbs 11 – Koch’s proof texts as control We are now in a better position to answer the question posed earlier – why did Koch skip over the opening verses of the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ and select his proof texts from Proverbs 11? It is now clear that his argument would have been ill served by sayings, which, far from portraying divine and human agency as co-operating, point to possible conflicts between them. These tensions are hinted at in the opening verses and then made explicit in 10.22, which asserts that only divine blessing brings no trouble with it. Proverbs 10.15 adds a further element of complexity with its realism on the subject of the security brought by wealth and the ruin that comes with poverty – a realism which is itself problematized by the piety of 10.29, with which 10.15 has many verbal similarities. What, however, of the verses that Koch did choose to evidence his argument? The verses from Proverbs 11 given below in Hebrew and Greek, each with my literal English translation, are those that Koch cited as showing that, ‘eine gemeinschaftstreue oder frevlerische Tat heil oder unheilvolles Ergehen als Folge nach sich zieht’ [a deed performed in faithfulness to the community or a criminal act attracts to itself a wholesome or unwholesome consequence] (1955, 6). Comparisons between these versions will reveal that, though the sayings Koch selected do generally support his argument, there are some tensions even within his selection that point towards a more complex picture than he allowed for. Moreover, this exercise will also support my argument that the Greek version tends to tone down the challenging complexities of the Hebrew. We have already seen several examples of sayings where the Greek has repeatedly departed from the Hebrew to produce a blander, more harmonious text. By way of contrast, dealing with these sayings that appear relatively uncomplicated, the Greek is generally more faithful to the Hebrew. This is what we would expect if changes were made primarily on ideological grounds; thus the sayings Koch selected can serve as a sort of control for our use of the Greek version.

wønwøx√r hDmElVv NRbRa◊w hDwh◊y tAbSowø;t hDm√rIm yEn◊zaøm [Scales of deceit an abomination to YHWH but a just stone, his favour] zugoi« do/lioi bde÷lugma e˙nw¿pion kuri÷ou sta¿qmion de« di÷kaion dekto\n aujtw◊ˆ [False balances abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is acceptable to him].

(Proverbs 11.1)

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

99

M∂;dAv◊w Myîd◊gwø;b PRlRs◊w MEj◊nA;t MyîrDv◊y tA;mU;t [Integrity of the upright guides them but the crookedness of the treacherous ruins them] aÓpoqanw»n di÷kaioß e¶lipen meta¿melon pro/ceiroß de« gi÷netai kai« e˙pi÷cartoß aÓsebw◊n aÓpw¿leia [When a just man dies he leaves regret but speedy and also joyful is the destruction of the impious].

(Proverbs 11.3)

t‰wD;mIm lyI…xA;t h∂q∂dVx…w h∂rVbRo MwøyV;b Nwøh lyIowøy_aøl [Wealth does not profit on the day of wrath but righteousness delivers from death]. Omitted in Greek

(Proverbs 11.4)

oDv∂r lOÚpˆy wøtDoVvîrVb…w wø;k√rå;d rEÚvÅyV;t MyImD;t tåq√dIx [Righteousness of the upright straightens his way but through his wickedness the wicked falls] dikaiosu/nh aÓmw¿mouß ojrqotomei√ oJdou/ß aÓse÷beia de« peripi÷ptei aÓdiki÷aˆ [Righteousness guides (in) blameless paths but impiety falls in unrighteousness].

(Proverbs 11.5)

dEkD;lˆy Myîd◊gO;b tÅ…wAhVb…w MElyI…xA;t MyîrDv◊y tåq√dIx [Righteousness of the upright saves them but in desire the treacherous are taken] dikaiosu/nh aÓndrw◊n ojrqw◊n rJu/etai aujtou/ß thvØ de« aÓpwlei÷aˆ aujtw◊n ali÷skontai para¿nomoi [‘The righteousness of upright men saves them, but in their destruction the lawless are trapped]. (11.7–11.16 omitted by Koch)

(Proverbs 11.6)

rÎzVkAa wørEaVv rEkOo◊w dRsDj vyIa wøvVpÅn lEmO…g [A kind man benefits his soul but a cruel [man] pains his flesh] thvØ yuchvØ aujtouv aÓgaqo\n poiei√ aÓnh\r e˙leh/mwn e˙xollu/ei de« aujtouv sw◊ma oJ aÓneleh/mwn [To his own soul a merciful man does good, but an unmerciful man destroys his body].

tRmTa rRkRc h∂q∂dVx AoérOz◊w r®qDv_tA;lUoVp hRcOo oDv∂r [An evil man makes illusory wages but who sows righteousness, a true reward] aÓsebh\ß poiei√ e¶rga a‡dika spe÷rma de« dikai÷wn misqo\ß aÓlhqei÷aß

(Proverbs 11.17)

100

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

[An impious man does unjust works, but the seed of the righteous – a reward of truth].

(Proverbs 11.18)

wøtwømVl hDo∂r Pé;dårVm…w MyI¥yAjVl h∂q∂dVx_NE;k [Thus righteousness [leads] to life but he who seeks evil to his death] ui˚o\ß di÷kaioß genna◊tai ei˙ß zwh/n diwgmo\ß de« aÓsebouvß ei˙ß qa¿naton [A righteous son is born for life, but the pursuit[s] of the impious (lead) to death].

(Proverbs 11.19)

JK®r∂d yEmyImV;t wønwøx√r…w bEl_yEvV;qIo hÎwh◊y tAbSowø;t [Abomination to YHWH is a twisted heart but his favour on those whose way is straight] bde÷lugma kuri÷wˆ diestramme÷nai oJdoi÷ prosdektoi« de« aujtw◊ˆ pa¿nteß a‡mwmoi e˙n tai√ß oJdoi√ß aujtw◊n [Abomination to the Lord perverse ways, but acceptable to him all blameless in their ways]. (Proverbs 11.20)

fDlVmˆn Myîqyî;dAx oårRz◊w o∂;r h®qD…nˆy_aøl dÎyVl dDy [Hand upon hand – the evil one will not go unpunished, but the seed of the righteous will escape] ceiri« cei√raß e˙mbalw»n aÓdi÷kwß oujk aÓtimw¿rhtoß e¶stai oJ de« spei÷rwn dikaiosu/nhn lh/myetai misqo\n pisto/n [He who puts out hands in strength unjustly shall not be unpunished, but he who sows righteousness shall receive a faithful reward].  (Proverbs 11.21) (11.22–6 omitted by Koch)

w…nRawøbVt hDo∂r vérOd◊w Nwøx∂r vé;qAb◊y bwøf rEjOv [Who seeks good, finds favour but who looks for evil, it will come to him] tektaino/menoß aÓgaqa» zhtei√ ca¿rin aÓgaqh/n e˙kzhtouvnta de« kaka¿ katalh/myetai aujto/n [He that devises good things seeks good favour, but he who seeks out evil things shall receive them]. (11.28 and 29 omitted by Koch)

MDkDj twøcDp◊n Ajéqøl◊w MyI¥yAj XEo qyî;dAx_yîrVÚp [Fruit of a righteous man, tree of life but the wise [man] takes lives] e˙k karpouv dikaiosu/nhß fu/etai de÷ndron zwhvß aÓfairouvntai de« a‡wroi yucai« parano/mwn

(Proverbs 11.27)

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

[From the fruit of righteousness grows the tree of life, but lawless souls are taken away untimely].

101

(Proverbs 11.30)

aEfwøj◊w oDv∂r_yI;k PAa MD;lUv◊y X®rDaD;b qyî;dAx NEh [If the righteous man is requited on earth – how much more the wicked and sinner] ei˙ oJ me«n di÷kaioß mo/liß sw¿ˆzetai oJ aÓsebh\ß kai« aJmartwlo\ß pouv fanei√tai [If the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?].

(Proverbs 11.31)

Koch’s main object in his article is to refute the notion that there is a juridicial notion of retribution in the book of Proverbs or indeed in the Old Testament. The above verses prove this to his entire satisfaction. … our investigation has shown that in the book of Proverbs there is not a single convincing reference to suggest a retribution teaching. What we find repeated time and time again is a construct which describes human actions which have a built-in consequence.  (Koch 1955 trans. 1983, 64)

It might be thought that, given the care with which he has selected these verses, it would be difficult to resist his conclusion. Since most of these verses imply that things will go well for the righteous and badly for the wicked, without explicitly invoking God, they do indeed appear to support Koch’s theory. Their general teaching is summed up in the modern saying ‘what goes around, comes around’. An ordering of the universe is affirmed in this respect without explicitly affirming a particular explanation as to why this might be so. Nevertheless, Koch’s case is not unambiguously supported in these verses. In Proverbs 11.1 and 11.20, for instance, the use of tAbSowøt ; [abomination], bespeaks an emotional, if not an interventionist, involvement by God in the area of human righteousness and wrongdoing. This strong affirmation of divine displeasure militates against the idea – implicit in the ‘Construct’ – of inevitable consequences that God may accelerate, but must go along with. Furthermore, Proverbs 11.4, t‰wm ;D Im lyIx … t ;A h∂q∂dVxw… h∂rVbRo Mwøyb;V Nwøh lyIowøy_aøl [Wealth does not profit on the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death], implies that righteousness can be decoupled from all sorts of wealth, even wealth acquired by good means, such as that which comes to the righteous through their diligence – as in Proverbs 10.4; or through God’s blessing – as in Proverbs 10.22. Clifford notes a contrast between Proverbs 11.4 and 10.2 – t‰wm ;D Im lyIx … t ;A h∂q∂dVxw… oAv®r twørVxwøa …wlyIowøy_aøl [Treasures of wickedness do not profit, but righteousness delivers from death]. 11.4a and 10.2a are identical but, as Clifford points out, ‘In Prov. 10.2 it is only ill-gotten gains that were useless; here it is wealth of any kind’ (1999, 122). Koch, and other scholars who see Proverbs through the eyes of the paradigm his thesis helped to shape, fail to note the full extent of the complexities here – as elsewhere in Proverbs. Indeed, Koch sees 11.4 as particularly illustrating

102

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

his concept that good deeds have, as it were, a concreteness to them so they become a possession of the doer. Eine andere Möglichkeit zeigt V.4, wo der Vergleich mit dem Reichtum nahelegt, in der Guttat ebenso eine Art Besitz, und zwar eine wertbeständigere als jener, zu sehen. [V.4 reveals another possibility where the comparison with wealth suggests that a kind of possession can be seen in a good deed, indeed one more valuable than any other.] (Koch 1955, 6)

This assumes that the conjunctive vav (w) which begins Proverbs 11.4b is to be understood as ‘and’ rather than ‘but’. Koch can assimilate the idea of a hierarchy of goods to his theory; he accepts that wealth, for Proverbs, may be a positive thing, but assumes that the book’s universal teaching is that riches do not always offer security – in the evil day (or in the day of God’s judgement), righteousness is better. However, if, as is probable, this saying conforms to the generally antithetical pattern of Proverbs 10–15 (Toy 1899, xxvii), then the conjunction is best read as one of opposition, a ‘but’. This gives a more challenging reading; the saying portrays righteousness and wealth as incompatible, indeed as opposites excluding each other. It is best understood as portraying the two things as mutually exclusive alternatives, ‘If you want to survive the evil day seek righteousness rather than wealth’. In this light, I would suggest that Proverbs 11.4 is one of several sayings in the book that problematize any notion that good actions always bring good results. The implications of MT Proverbs 11.4 that wealth might not be an indication of divine favour, and could indeed be opposed to righteousness, best explain the verse’s omission from the Greek version. However, it is noteworthy that the other differences between the Hebrew and the Greek elsewhere in the verses Koch selected are relatively minor. Most can be understood in terms of misreadings, for instance, tA;mU;t [integrity] in 11.3 was read as twøm [he dies]; in 11.19 NE;k [thus] was read as NEb; [son]. The difficult Hebrew idiom found in 11.21 also caused a divergence from the original. In 11.4 no such difficulties present themselves. However, the translator was aware of the verse’s disjunction with other sayings and removed the difficulty by excising it from his version. 11.30b MDkDj twøcDp◊n Ajéqøl◊w [but the wise man takes lives] represents a second exception in these verses where a divergence is caused by the original’s perceived unacceptability to the translator. 11.30b is best understood as suggesting that – though the wise man is no killer – in his hands is the real power of life and death (Clifford 1999, 127). However, unhappy with the possible implications of bloodthirsty sages, the Greek offers a rendering, which – although eminently orthodox -– does not adequately represent the original, namely that ‘the lawless will come to an untimely end’. Proverbs 11.4 and 11.30b are thus the exceptions that prove the rule. Otherwise, the Greek of these sayings, after making due allowance for translational mistakes and misreadings, is faithful to the Hebrew in comparison to others we have already examined. This should not surprise us, given that they were selected by Koch in support of a theory that itself represents a harmonizing account of the complex picture of divine activity in the Old Testament. Furthermore, we have established a sort of control for our method of using the Greek version as an indicator of contradictions,

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

103

tensions and ambiguities in the Hebrew. It appears that where he could detect no such difficulties the Greek translator’s preference is for straightforward and fairly literal renderings. Proverbs 11.16 – can bad acts have good consequences? I argued above that one verse Koch selected, Proverbs 11.4, was omitted by the Greek because it was open to an interpretation that wealth – elsewhere in Proverbs seen as an undoubted good – might be incompatible with righteousness. However, another of the sayings in Proverbs 11 is even more challenging for Koch’s theory. 11.16 suggests that there is no inevitable connection between bad behaviour and bad results – rRvOo_w… kVmVtˆy MyIxyîrDo◊w dwøbk ;D JKOmVtI;t NEj_tRvEa [an attractive woman gains honour and violent men gain wealth]. The Greek diverges from the Hebrew to a remarkable extent – gunh\ eujca¿ristoß e˙gei÷rei aÓndri« do/xan qro/noß de« aÓtimi÷aß gunh\ misouvsa di÷kaia plou/tou ojknhroi« e˙ndeei√ß gi÷nontai oi˚ de« aÓndrei√oi e˙rei÷dontai plou/twˆ [A gracious woman raises honour for a man but a throne of dishonour a woman who hates righteousness. The slothful lack wealth but the manly support themselves with wealth]. The MT version of this verse may plausibly be read as containing an almost cynical realism, one which denies the connection between goodness and prosperity, wickedness and misery found elsewhere in Proverbs. The disjunction is as troubling here as that noted by Qohelet 8.14; ‘there is a vanity that takes place on earth, that there are righteous people who are treated according to the conduct of the wicked and there are wicked people who are treated according to the conduct of the righteous (NRSV)’. Is this saying really so anomalous and troubling? Many modern English versions render it in a way that effectively mutes its challenge. Some follow the Hebrew, but blunt the verse’s cutting edge by giving NEj_tRvEa [attractive woman] a debatable translational nuance and introducing an ‘only’ not found in the original. A kind-hearted woman gains respect but ruthless men gain only wealth (NIV) A gracious woman gets honour; a bold man gets only a fortune. (REB) Others follow the Greek, A gracious woman brings honour to her husband; she who has no love for justice is dishonour enthroned. The indolent lack resources, men of enterprise grow rich (JB) A gracious woman gets honour, but she who hates virtue is covered with shame. The timid become destitute, but the aggressive gain riches. (NRSV)

104

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Such translations offer oblique testimony to the power of the scholarly consensus about what Proverbs ought to contain. Even when a saying does not, in fact, concur with the consensus, it is rendered in such a way as to import the anticipated message. Translators who resist the consensus can be found, however. A gracious woman acquires honour, violent people acquire wealth. (NJB) A charming woman gets renown and ruthless men get wealth. (Clifford) A gracious woman lays hold of honour But violent men lay hold of wealth. (Waltke) Such translations understand, correctly, that MyIxyîrDo in 11.16b is a very negative word – ‘ruthless’ or ‘violent’. Some view the word more positively. Murphy, for instance, renders MyIxyîrDo ‘strong men’. McKane offers the most considered defence of such renderings. He argues that MyIxyîrDo ‘can have a good sense as well as a bad. Thus ‘ārīs is ‘violent man, oppressor’, but also a ‘vigorous man’ (1970, 431). He supports this by reference to the Greek – whose rendering is critically examined below – and by G. Driver’s argument that a cognate word in Arabic can mean ‘vigorous’ (Driver 1951, 180). However, Driver admits that in the Old Testament XyîrDo usually denotes ‘ruthless violence’. Driver cites only Psalm 37.35a XyîrDo oDv∂r yItyIa∂r – which he translates as ‘I have seen the wicked full of vigour’ – as demonstrating the positive force he ascribes to the word in Proverbs 11.16. This seems special pleading especially since Driver admits that the word is ‘applied in a bad sense’ in the Psalm; his understanding is not supported by the Greek of Psalm 37, which (almost certainly influenced by the verse’s imagery of towering cedars) renders XyîrDo by uJperuyou/menon [highly exalted], here, surely, in a negative sense of ‘full of overweening pride’ rather than with any positive force. As far as the Arabic parallel is concerned there are notorious difficulties with arguments based on cognates; they cannot reliably establish the meaning of a Hebrew word in its context any more than the German word Gift [poison] could establish the meaning of its English cognate. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures derivatives of the root Xro are always used with strongly negative connotation. In Isaiah 13.11 for instance, the word is applied to the Babylonians, the epitome of brutality. Only in Jeremiah 20.11 where the prophet describes God as being with him XyîrDo rwøb ; ˆgk ;V ‘like a dread warrior’ (NRSV) is there any possibility of the word being used in a positive sense. However, Jeremiah accuses God of deceiving him in this paradoxical passage, and so, even here, the word is strongly negative. The correct rendering of Proverbs 11.16b is, therefore, ‘violent men get rich’.  Waltke’s comment here, however, is at pains to harmonize the verse with the prevailing understanding – ‘a single gracious woman gains glory, but many powerful men gain merely temporary wealth. Social esteem is of greater value than wealth gained by “rude victories”’ (2004, 499).

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

105

If this be granted, is the point of 11.16 to contrast such gains with the true gain of respect in the community attained by the ‘gracious woman’ in 11.16a? If that is how the entire saying should be understood, then the ‘only’ inserted in 11.16b by some English versions might be justifiable. After all as Toy pointed out (1899, xxvii) most of the sayings in Proverbs 10–15 are antitheses. Here, however, despite superficial contrasts, the two parts of the verse offer a fundamental equivalence. Thus the vav (w) linking the two half verses should have the force of ‘and’ rather than ‘but’. We should note the strikingly close equivalence in word order and grammatical structure between 11.16a and 11.16b. Although it is true that similar equivalences are seen elsewhere in verses that are clearly antithetical. For instance in Proverbs 10.1 wøm ; Ia tAgw… t ; lyIsk ;V NEbw… bDa_jAm ; Ac◊y MDkDj NE;b [Wise son, a father rejoices but a foolish son, his mother grieves]. However, dwøbk ;D [honour] and rRvOo [wealth] are never explicitly opposed to one another in Proverbs. Indeed, twice in the book the words are paired together. In Proverbs 3.16, those who find Wisdom obtain them both for dwøbDk◊w rRvOo ;hDlwaømVcb ;I ;hDnyImyIb ; MyImÎy JK®rOa [Length of days in her right hand and in her left wealth and honour]. In 8.8 Wisdom herself states h∂q∂dVxw… qEtDo Nwøh yIt; Ia dwøbDk◊w_rRvOo [Riches and honour are with me, enduring prosperity and righteousness]. Given this consistent pairing, a contrast between a healthy respect in the community gained by womanly graces and the mere ‘filthy lucre’ accruing to the ruthless is unlikely in Proverbs 11.16. Rather the verse seems to be suggesting, in a remarkable way, that these are two similar ways of obtaining tangible benefits that, elsewhere in Proverbs, are not seen as alternatives but as aspects of prosperity and blessing. Thus it states as a matter of fact that the ruthless get rich. If there is no contrast between 11.16a and 11.16b, but rather an equivalence should be understood, then the verse equates the gaining of wealth by violence and the gaining of respect by female charms. On this reading both parts of the saying say that those who are willing to use dubious qualities such as feminine charm and ruthlessness attain good things. Yet such a conclusion could be resisted on the grounds that NEj is normally translated by ‘charm’, ‘grace’, ‘kindness’ or ‘beauty’. Bruce Waltke, for instance, suggests that while the word could refer to ‘her physical beauty… more probably her inner beauty is in view’ (2004, 499). He argues accordingly that a contrast is intended here, but, tellingly, he has to buttress his case by introducing a thought that is not in the Hebrew, namely that the wealth gained by 11.16’s ‘powerful men’ is ‘merely temporary’. Moreover, 31.30, lDl ; AhVtIt ayIh hÎwh◊y_tAa√rˆy hDÚvIa yIpO¥yAh lRbRh◊w NEjAh r®qRv [Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain but a woman fearing YHWH she is to be praised], the penultimate verse of Proverbs, points to a more problematic understanding of NEj. In 31.30a, the word is linked with yIpO¥y a word usually rendered ‘beauty’ and which is unambiguously linked to physical attractiveness, and, significantly, both are seen as negative. There is, of course, a striking example in Proverbs of a woman whose deceitful surface attractions make her attractive – though not, we should note, ‘honoured’ – namely the nokriyah of Proverbs 2 and 7. However, the NEj_tRvEa [attractive woman] of 11.16a receives none of the explicit criticism directed at the nokriyah; the verse simply notes her success. Taken together with 11.16b’s observation that ‘the violent get rich’, this opens up possibilities that seem to have been closed down by the

106

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

repeated assertions elsewhere in Proverbs that diligence, piety and righteousness bring wealth and honour. In spite of the efforts of many translators and commentators to resist this conclusion, Proverbs 11.16 states baldly that male violence and female attractiveness are ways to fame and fortune. This absence of explicit moral comment means that Proverbs 11.16 is open to be read as simply endorsing ‘the way the world is’. In this it resembles 10.15, a saying which, as we have seen, offers a ‘value-free’ assessment of the protection afforded by wealth and the ruin associated with poverty. The reality of such openness needs to be asserted against the harmonizing instinct that seeks to read into 11.16 assertions made in other verses that wealth and poverty are causally connected with moral qualities such as diligence or righteousness. Wisdom and wisdom Anthony Perry, however, argues that such an importation of moral values should simply be understood as being present, ‘… a proverb that attempts to create irony concerning the lazy or indifference towards the cruel is no less valuational for all its observational tone’ (1993, 71). Perry’s comment reflects his broader structuralist analysis of proverbs in a wide range of wisdom literature. He suggests that in all proverbs – including those found in the book of Proverbs – two value systems, what he calls ‘valuational topics’ (Perry 1993, 24), are present. He describes these as Wisdom and wisdom, distinguished from one another as follows: W This designates a major Wisdom value (e.g., righteousness, life, wisdom, peace), hence one having absolute worth (albeit typically contextualised) w This designates a worldly value (according to the ‘ways of the world’) hence a value that is never absolute but varies according to context and situation (e.g. wealth, health, power, good manners). (Perry 1993, 117)

Perry suggests that very often in wisdom sayings the two topics are contrasted. He cites Proverbs 17.1 as a good example ‘Better a dry morsel with peace (W) than a house full of feasting (w) with strife’ (1993, 25). In so far as he implies that in Proverbs, tensions between sayings are deliberately established, his analysis has clear points of contact with my own. However, in Perry’s view, in true wisdom literature, Wisdom is always privileged. ‘The typical wisdom saying, in its full meaning, asserts that fame is to be preferred even when it entails poverty’ (Perry 1993, 48). In relation to Proverbs, this generalization is open to the objection that – as we have seen repeatedly – wisdom is not set up as a preferred alternative to wealth; rather wisdom and wealth can be enjoyed together; wisdom leads to wealth (Proverbs 3.16, 8.18, 21), as does piety (2.9). This general tendency in Proverbs towards, as it were, ‘both W and w’ rather than ‘either W or w’, casts doubt on Perry’s tendency to see the book as offering a clear cut, inevitably predetermined, critique of w values. Furthermore, Proverbs 11.16 offers a clear example of a saying in which it is difficult to detect a preference for W values. It implies that people who ignore Wisdom prosper. We may agree with Perry that its ‘observational tone’ does not preclude

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

107

valuation. However, what we cannot do is simply read W values into this saying, even though they are clearly expressed in other proverbs that constitute, as it were, the book’s majority report. This holds good independently of which understanding of 11.16a we opt for; whether we read NEj as meaning ‘physical attractiveness’ and see both 11.16a and 11.16b as bluntly stating that the world rewards physical attractiveness and ruthlessness; or whether, in my view less plausibly, we understand NEj to mean ‘graciousness’ and thus see a contrast between the Wisdom values of 11.16a and the w wisdom of 11.16b. We should also note that the verbs in 11.16 – JKOmVtt ;I [she gains] and …wkVmVtˆy [they gain] – are in the imperfect, conveying what Perry has called elsewhere the ‘eternal present’ (Perry 1993, 56) through which proverbs of all kinds claim a timeless authority. There is thus no certainty within the saying that ‘in the long run’ things will revert to a more acceptable outcome, the teaching found, for instance, in Psalm 37.35, 36 and Psalm 73.15–20. It is not so much that Proverbs 11.16 is ‘atypical’ to employ Perry’s terminology – that would suggest it could be dismissed as an exception to his rule that Wisdom is typical. Rather it is deliberately placed to provoke reflection by contradicting the values implicit in so many of the other sayings encountered in the book of Proverbs. Perry’s analysis – insightful as it is – tends in the final analysis to a harmonization of the teaching of Proverbs that glosses over its refusal always to privilege the ‘major Wisdom values’. Ripples around Proverbs 11.16 Evidence for the ‘shock effect’ of Proverbs 11.16 is found in its context in the Hebrew. It will be recalled that the brutal realism of 10.15 was countered by a strong reaffirmation of a link between conduct and prosperity in 10.16. Proverbs 11.16 provokes a similar response but because this ‘stone’ causes a bigger splash the ‘ripples’ are correspondingly stronger. The sayings in Proverbs 11.17–21 – the longest section quoted by Koch in support of his thesis – repeatedly affirm in a number of complementary ways that righteous actions will profit and that the wicked will never prosper. For instance, 11.21 – fDlVmˆn Myîqyîd ; Ax oårRz◊w o∂r ; h®qn…D ˆy_aøl dÎyVl dDy [Hand upon hand – the evil one will not go unpunished, but the seed of the righteous will escape] – is particularly emphatic. The unusual phrase dÎyVl dDy, which must mean something like ‘my hand upon it!’ or ‘be assured!’, can be seen as an emphatic negation of the doctrine of Proverbs 11.16. Furthermore, 11.22 can also be understood as part of the reaction to 11.16. MAoDf tårDs◊w hDpÎy hDÚvIa ryIzSj PAab;V bDhÎz M‰zRn [Circle of gold in a swine’s snout – beautiful woman but turned away from discretion]. This is not casual misogyny but a response to the claim in 11.16a that a woman’s attractiveness gains her honour. The verse is beautifully crafted; 11.22a, united by strong alliteration – nezem zāhāb be)ap hazîr – was cited in chapter one as an example of Hebrew poetic skill, where we also noted that Alter sees it as an example of one of the ‘riddles’ of the book of Proverbs (1985, 175). This riddle is solved by affirming certain chauvinist assumptions about beautiful women – similar, perhaps to those of today’s ‘dumb blonde’ jokes. We should recall that the word hDpÎy [beauty] in Proverbs 11.22 is paired together with

108

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

NEj [charm] in 31.30 – lDl; AhVtIt ayIh hÎwh◊y_tAa√rˆy hDÚvIa yIpO¥yAh lRbRh◊w NEjAh r®qRv [Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain but a woman fearing YHWH she is to be praised]. Since hDpÎy clearly relates to physical charms, this parallelism strengthens the notion that physical attractiveness is in view in 11.16 and not just gracious behaviour or kindness. It follows that Proverbs 11.22’s misogynistic ‘put down’ of an attractive woman may be seen as a counter to 11.16’s assertion that a woman gains respect on the basis of her charms. The reaction to 11.16 continues beyond 11.22. The next nine verses assert a definite linkage between conduct and prosperity or the lack of it, with a particular stress on the benefits of generosity (11.24–26) and the foolishness of trusting in wealth (11.28). 11.31 is a particularly clear statement that people will get their ‘just desserts’ – aEfwøj◊w oDv∂r_yIk ; PAa MDl ; Uv◊y X®rDab ;D qyîd ; Ax NEh [If the righteous is requited on earth, how much more the wicked and sinner!] No hint here of the violent enriching themselves and the attractive winning respect. 11.16 disturbs the Greek translator The Greek of Proverbs 11.16 offers further evidence for the shock effect of the Hebrew – gunh\ eujca¿ristoß e˙gei÷rei aÓndri« do/xan qro/noß de« aÓtimi÷aß gunh\ misouvsa di÷kaia plou/tou ojknhroi« e˙ndeei√ß gi÷nontai oi˚ de« aÓndrei√oi e˙rei÷dontai plou/ twˆ [A gracious woman raises honour for a man, but a throne of dishonour, a woman who hates righteousness. The slothful lack wealth but the manly support themselves with wealth]. We might speculate that the translation process for 11.16 was along the following lines: firstly, the translator made the verse less problematic in his eyes by the straightforwardly patriarchal move of giving the woman’s ‘glory’ to her man. He then neutered the shockingly matter-of-fact acceptance of the benefits of ruthless behaviour in 11.16b by rendering MyIxyîrDo [ruthless] by aÓndrei√oi [‘manly’ or ‘bold’ or ‘diligent’]. Almost all the uses of aÓndrei√oi in the Septuagint are found in Proverbs. Apart from its use in 11.16 – and in 28.3 – it is used to translate words with strongly positive resonances. AÓndrei√oi renders MyIxw… rDj [diligent] in 10.4 and MyîrDv◊y [upright] in 15.19; in 12.4 and 31.10 the feminine singular form aÓndrei÷a represents lˆyAj [strong, courageous] in the phrase lyj_tva [strong woman] resulting in the paradoxical phrase gunh\ aÓndrei÷a [manly woman]. Another translational decision strengthened the moralizing ‘spin’. The verbs KOmVtt;I in 11.16a and wkVmVtˆy in 11.16b – both derived from the root Kmt (‘to hold’ or ‘gain’ or ‘seize’) – are translated by the normal equivalent of this root in Proverbs, e˙rei÷dw (to ‘reach out and grasp’ or ‘support’), but the sense is modified by a grammatical change. rRvOo is the direct object of …wkVmVtˆy in MT Proverbs 11.16b, but in the Greek plou/twˆ is dative and so the sense is that ‘the manly support themselves (e˙rei÷dontai) with wealth’ rather than seizing it. These changes removed the offending ideas, but produced a saying whose two halves connect neither by contrast or repetition – gunh\ eujca¿ristoß e˙gei÷rei aÓndri«  Where, revealingly, the word is used as part of an attempt to neuter the disturbing implications of a statement that the poor can be oppressors as well as the oppressed!

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

109

do/xan oi˚ de« aÓndrei√oi e˙rei÷dontai plou/twˆ [A gracious woman raises honour for a man, but the manly support themselves with wealth]. Sayings that balanced the two half verses were needed. For 11.16b, there was no difficulty in composing plou/tou ojknhroi« e˙ndeei√ß gi÷nontai [the slothful lack wealth] – a thought perfectly at home in Proverbs. Similarly, gunh\ misouvsa di÷kaia [woman who hates righteousness] is one obvious antithesis of gunh\ eujca¿ristoß [gracious woman]. The origins of qro/noß de« aÓtimi÷aß in Greek Proverbs 11.16 are more obscure. The expression may be an example of Heaton’s ‘anaphoric translation technique’ (Heaton 1982, 6) – although no exactly corresponding phrase is to be found in the Septuagint. A possible influence is the Septuagint’s Psalm 93.20 mh\ sumprose÷stai soi qro/noß aÓnomi÷aß [Do not consort with a lawless throne]. More likely, and nearer ;V b∂q∂rVkw… h ; DlVob ;A t®rRfSo lˆyAj_tRvEa [a at hand, is Proverbs 12.4 hDvyIbVm wyDtwømVxAob strong woman – a crown of her husband but a rot in his bones a shameful one]. This is an important verse given that it first mentions the ‘strong woman’ who is to figure so prominently at the end of the book and it may have influenced the translator as he returned to 11.16 to polish up his rendering of a Hebrew original he found troubling. He would have felt that the ‘woman who hates righteousness’ in 11.16 to be the opposite of all that the ‘strong woman’ in 12.4 stood for – her natural antithesis. The Greek of 12.4 resembles the Hebrew closely, though with a slight variation of the metaphor in 12.4b – gunh\ aÓndrei÷a ste÷fanoß tw◊ˆ aÓndri« aujthvß w‚sper de« e˙n xu/lwˆ skw¿lhx ou¢twß a‡ndra aÓpo/llusin gunh\ kakopoio/ß [a manly woman is a crown to her man; like a worm in wood so an evildoing woman destroys a man]. Given that the Greek 12.4a ascribes the benefit of the woman’s virtue to her man, it could well have influenced the reworking of 11.16a in a similar direction; its image of a crown may have suggested another image taken from the trappings of royalty, ‘the throne of dishonour’ in the Greek of 11.16. This is admittedly a somewhat speculative account of the translation process for the Greek Proverbs 11.16. However, it is clear that the most significant changes were prompted by the translator’s desire to render his version less offensive than the Hebrew. The Greek of Proverbs 11.16 testifies to the power of the original to shock and provoke. Proverbs 12 and 13 – Pretence and Pretensions The verses after Proverbs 11.31’s emphatic restatement of the doctrine that deeds receive their desserts appear relatively unproblematic. They commend diligence (12.11, 24) and affirm the rewards of goodness and the perils of wickedness (12.3–6, 7, 20–1). Several verses refer to the good or bad effects of speech (Proverbs 12.5– 6, 8, 13–14, 17–19, 22–3) – an important topic introduced earlier (10.11, 18–20, 31–2, 11.9, 12), but now the subject of enough verses to make it of considerable prominence in Proverbs 12. Of course, it is linked to that of deeds; words have their consequences as well as actions. In 12.14 the two subjects are equated by the parallelism, wøl bw… vÎy M∂dDa_yéd◊y lw… m◊gw… bwøf_oAb ; Vcˆy vyIa_yIp yîrVÚpIm [From the fruits of a man’s mouth he is filled with good, and the dealings of a man’s hands return to him].

110

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

However, 12.9 indicates a further difficulty with the Acts–Consequence Construct. If prosperity or poverty are not always easily observable how can their causes be confidently ascertained? MRjDl_rAsSjÅw dE;b;k A At;mV Im wøl dRbRo◊w hRlVqˆn bwøf [Better to be treated with contempt and have a slave than to play the great man and lack bread]. This presents two difficulties to a belief that the Acts–Consequence Connection operates throughout by Proverbs. Firstly, it flags up the problems of the incompatibility of certain rewards; secondly it hints that it may not be possible to read off the true status of a person from appearances. Proverbs 12.9 is the first of a class of sayings that employ the construction NIm … bwøf [Better … than]. Such sayings will become increasingly common later in the sayings material and their very form flags up the possibility of alternative goods. Proverbs 3.16 and 8.18 state that riches and honour are smoothly compatible to those who find Wisdom but here the matter seems more complex. Perhaps both cannot be enjoyed at the same time – they may, in practice, be alternatives. Proverbs 12.9 implies as much when it states that dishonour – hRlq V nˆ [treated with contempt] – coupled with modest prosperity, is to be preferred to esteem in the community if this is based on pretence. This conclusion is unaffected by the textual problems here around wøl dRbo R which the Greek understands to mean ‘and he serves for himself’ rather than the MT’s ‘and a slave for him’ – krei÷sswn aÓnh\r e˙n aÓtimi÷aˆ douleu/wn e˚autw◊ˆ h· timh\n e˚autw◊ˆ peritiqei«ß kai« prosdeo/menoß a‡rtou [Better a man serving himself in dishonour than he who gives honour to himself and lacks bread]. This rendering is compatible with the high value placed upon diligence both in the Greek and the MT. It also avoids the somewhat paradoxical implication that someone who is treated with contempt still owns a slave and thus may be assumed to be prosperous enough to buy and support such an ‘asset’. It bespeaks a somewhat sentimental view of the hardworking poor. Significantly, in the verses after Proverbs 12.9 in the MT – but not in the Greek – we find a reaction to the verse’s disturbing implications that it is difficult to read a person’s true status from outward appearances. As if to reassert the familiar binary oppositions, the next verse speaks of a sharp, unmistakable divide between the just and the wicked – yîrÎzVkAa MyIoDv√r yEmSjårVw wøt ; VmRhb ;V vRpRn qyîd ; Ax Aoédwøy [A just man knows the need of his beast but the mercies of the wicked are cruel]. A further response to 12.9 can be detected in verses 12.11–13 as they reassert several of those values that the book often speaks of as clear and obvious. So they praise diligence, declare that the wicked will be caught by their own lusts and falsehoods and that the righteous will escape from trouble.

bEl_rAsSj Myîqyér Pé;dårVm…w MRjDl_oA;bVcIy wøtDm√dAa dEbOo NE;tˆy Myîqyî;dAx v®rOv◊w MyIo∂r dwøxVm oDv∂r dAmDj qyî;dAx h∂rD…xIm aEx´¥yÅw o∂r véqwøm MˆyAtDpVc oAvRpV;b [He who tills his land will have his fill of bread but he who pursues vanities is a lackwit. The desire of the wicked is a net for the evil but the root of the just gives (benefits). By the sin of his lips an evil man is caught, but the just escape from trouble].

(Proverbs 12.11–13)

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

111

The trajectory of Proverbs 12.9’s ‘ripple producing stone’ can be traced in several ways through the later flow of the sayings material in the Proverbs of Solomon. Proverbs 22.1 addresses the same topic as this verse but comes to opposite conclusions; this saying privileges social esteem over wealth. bwøf NEj bDhÎΩzImw… PRsk ;R Im b∂r rRvOoEm MEv rDjVbˆn [A (good name) is to be chosen before great wealth; better than silver and gold – a winning grace]. 22.2 emphasizes this relative devaluation of wealth by asserting the essential equality of rich and poor in the eyes of their maker – hDwh◊y MDl ; Uk hEcOo w… vDg… Vpˆn v∂rÎw ryIvDo [Rich and poor meet – YHWH, maker of them all]. Other verses in Proverbs use the NIm … bwøf construction – first used in the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ collection by 12.9 – to imply that there is no simple moral calculus through which good deeds will be recompensed in an entirely satisfactory way. Some things regarded elsewhere in the book as undoubtedly good may come at such a price that we do well to avoid them. For instance, 15.16–17 assert that poverty, with piety and domestic content, is to be preferred to the stressful high life.

wøb hDm…whVm…w b∂r rDxwøaEm hDwh◊y tAa√rˆyV;b fAoVm_bwøf wøb_hDa◊nIc◊w s…wbDa rwøÚvIm MDv_hDbShAa◊w q∂rÎy tAjürSa bwøf [Better a little with the fear of YHWH than great treasure and trouble with it. Better a serving of vegetables and love there than a fatted calf and hatred with it].

(Proverbs 15.16–17)

So Proverbs 12.9, and many of the other NIm … bwøf sayings that follow it, flag up a further difficulty for any simplistic notion that good results come from good actions. What if goods conflict and a choice needs to be made between them? Indeed, Proverbs 12.9 problematizes the Acts–Consequence Connection in an even more fundamental way. A certain transparency is one of the tacit assumptions behind the argument that requital of good and bad has exemplary and didactic value. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done, if we are to draw the correct moral. This is implied by the linkage of wealth and honour in Proverbs 3.16 dwøbDk◊w rRvOo h; DlwaømVcb;I [in her [wisdom’s] left hand are wealth and honour]. dwøbDk [honour] is that respect in the community due to those whose prosperity, it might be supposed, reveals their righteousness. For instance, Proverbs 11.10 implies such a transparency when it states that the just rewards both of righteous and wicked elicit an appropriate public reaction hDn… îr MyIoDv√r dObSaAbw… hDy√rIq XølSoAt ; MyIqyîd ; Ax bw… fVb ; [In the good of the righteous a city exults and in the disappearance of the wicked – rejoicing!]. However, if wealth and poverty are not always obvious then it may be difficult to draw the appropriate conclusion. What are we to make of those whose low social standing disguises some real prosperity? 12.9a appears to approve of the situation it descrbes wøl dRbRo◊w hRlVqˆn bwøf [Better to be treated with contempt and have a slave]. On the other hand, MRjDl_rAsSjÅw dEb ; Ak ; Atm ;V Im [to play the great man and lack bread] suggests deceit, or at any rate pretension. However such a difficulty in establishing who is truly rich and who is poor may arise, clearly an observer cannot always make a reliable connection between riches and virtue on the one hand and poverty and vice on the other. Such a lack of transparency raises a further problem for the notion of

112

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

the Acts–Consequence Connection. In the light of the difficulties posed by deceptive appearances raised in Proverbs 12.9, we may doubt Clines’s assertion that central to Proverbs is a ‘… confidence that the ways of God follow due and reasonable processes and that therefore the person trained in Wisdom will be able to predict how and when God will act whether with reward or punishment.’  (Clines 1989, 277)

So, not only do some verses – for instance Proverbs 11.16 – imply that the sort of divinely guaranteed rationality Clines envisages is not a universal phenomenon, inasmuch as crime sometimes pays; but also the possibility of things not being as they seem makes it difficult to assess who has been – or will be – blessed or punished. Proverbs 13.7 expresses the same phenomenon even more clearly – b∂r Nwøh◊w vEvwørVtIm lOk; NyEa◊w rEÚvAoVtIm vEy. [Some pretend to be rich and have nothing at all; some pretend to be poor and have a great fortune]. Here, however, although the reflexive hithpael form of the verbs indicates a nuance of deception or disguise, the conclusion that this is blameworthy does not follow, as it does in 12.9b. Rather the saying should be classed with Proverbs 11.16 and 28.3 as one of those that recognize the reality of how things are in the world. In spite of a professed readiness to read his Wisdom values into observational sayings, Perry endorses this assessment of 13.7, commenting, I propose that the example under discussion projects values in two ways: (a) from the wisdom perspective it points out a common form of deception, and can therefore be classified as a ‘warning-saying’; (b) more important perhaps, the observation does not project a Wisdom value but its antagonist; it takes note of one of the ‘values of this world’, which therefore has its own value, however limited, and which it is the task of wisdom to expose and combat. It is in brief a necessary foil to wisdom perspectives. (Perry 1993, 70)

If Proverbs 13.7 is indeed a ‘necessary foil’, then we might expect a strong assertion of the more normal values in subsequent verses. Indeed, this is what we do find in the next verse, 13.8, although an assumption that there are textual difficulties has prevented commentators from detecting it – h∂rDog…◊ oAmDv_aøl v∂r◊w wørVvDo vyIa_vRpRn rRpk;O [His wealth ransoms a man’s life, but a poor man does not heed rebuke]. 13.8b is often regarded as corrupt; Toy (1899, 264–5) and Clifford (1999, 137) argue that the MT cannot be correct, as 13.8a and 13.8b are not antithetical. They note the similarity to 13.1b – h∂rDog…◊ oAmDv_aøl XEl◊w [and a scoffer will not heed rebuke] – and suggest that a scribe inadvertently copied the last three words of 13.1 and inserted them into 13.8b. However, the Greek of 13.8 is close to the Hebrew – lu/tron aÓndro\ß yuchvß oJ i¶dioß plouvtoß ptwco\ß de« oujc uJfi÷statai aÓpeilh/n [The redemption of a man’s life is his own wealth but a poor man does not submit to rebuke]. Clifford suggests (1999, 137) that a scribal error took place before the translation into Greek. However, if the saying is read as an extreme expression of the Acts– Consequence Connection, the MT can be allowed to stand. 13.8a emphasizes the security offered by wealth, even in life-threatening circumstances where it can be used to redeem one’s life. Such a statement is in essential agreement with Proverbs

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

113

10.15a wøΩzUo tAy√rIq ryIvDo Nwøh [The wealth of a rich man, his strong city]. Both Proverbs 13.8a and 10.15 are silent about any connection between this protecting wealth and any good actions; like 11.16 – and indeed 13.7 – they are examples of what Perry would call wisdom, morally neutral description of how the world actually is. Proverbs 10.15b MDvyér MyIl ; åd ; tAt ; IjVm [The ruin of the poor, their poverty] does not imply that the ruinous poverty of the poor is at all blameworthy. However, 13.8b h∂rDog…◊ oAmDv_aøl v∂r◊w [but a poor man does not heed rebuke] may be read as implying that the poor are the authors of their own misfortunes. That 13.8b suggests such a criticism is plausible if we recall that in Proverbs 13.1, the XEl [scoffer], one of the book’s stock bad characters, is described in identical terms – h∂rDog…◊ oAmDv_aøl XEl◊w bDa rAsw… m MDkDj NEb; . [A wise son (heeds) a father’s instruction but the scoffer does not heed rebuke]. When phrased in this way it is easy to draw from such observations what Perry would call a Wisdom teaching; namely a doctrine that obedience to discipline has as its consequence, prosperity, and, likewise, that poverty may follow from not hearing a rebuke. Elsewhere in Proverbs sensitivity to rebuke is clearly stated to be a characteristic of the wise and discerning. For instance, in 17.10, hDaEm lyIsk;V twøk; AhEm NyIbEmVb h∂rDog…◊ tAjt;E [A rebuke touches a discerning one, more than a hundred blows to a fool]. So Proverbs 13.8b is best read as responding to the implications of 13.7’s description of a situation where some conceal their wealth and others pretend to have more than they do, making any transparently obvious connection between actions and their consequences difficult. However, in spite of 13.8b’s strong response, the resulting dialogue does not result in a vindication for Wisdom, as Perry might lead us to believe. As I noted above, Proverbs’ general teaching is that a readiness to heed rebuke is a mark of Wisdom; 13.8b implies the corollary that poverty arises from an obdurate refusal to listen to rebuke. In the context of 13.7, however, the reader may be prompted to a critical engagement with such teachings. If it is not always possible to see who is truly poor, when can we be so certain of this link between obduracy and poverty? Similar thoughts may be prompted as we go on to encounter a series of subsequent sayings that reassert a clear link between conduct and reward. We have seen before that sayings which problematize the relationship between actions and their consequences by pointing out discomfiting realities – for instance, 10.15, 11.16, 28.3 – are followed by reassertions of a link between conduct and reward. 13.8b is an uncompromising example of such a reassertion and it is followed by several sayings that reinforce its message. In fact, 12 of the 18 verses between Proverbs 13.7 and the end of Proverbs 13 – where the ancient ajwtp division occurs – are concerned to emphasize the doctrine that there is a definite correlation between actions and their consequences. These include the following uncompromising expressions of this doctrine as:

KDo√dˆy MyIoDv√r rEn◊w jDmVcˆy Myîqyî;dAx_rwøa [Light of the righteous rejoices but the lamp of the wicked is extinguished].  Inserting, with the versions, oAmVvˆ¥y [he heeds].

(Proverbs 13.9)

114

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

dD;bUk◊y tAjAkwø;t rEmwøv◊w rDs…wm AoérwøÚp Nwøl∂q◊w vyér [Poverty and disgrace for him who ignores discipline, but he who regards a rebuke is respected].

(Proverbs 13.18)

bwøf_MR;lAv◊y MyIqyî;dAx_tRa◊w hDo∂r Pé;dårV;t MyIaDÚfAj [Evil pursues sinners but good rewards the righteous].

(Proverbs 13.21)

rDsVjR;t MyIoDv√r NRfRb…w wøvVpÅn oAbOcVl lEkOa qyî;dAx [The just man eats and satisfies his craving but the belly of the wicked lacks].

(Proverbs 13.25)

13.10 expresses a more nuanced version of the same doctrine;

hDmVkDj MyIxDowøn_tRa◊w hD…xAm NE;tˆy NwødÎzV;b_qår [Only in arrogance is an offence given but with those who take advice is wisdom].

(Proverbs 13.10)

13.11 is of particular interest as it may be read as specifying further the sort of wealth which 13.8a declares to be of such value as a ransom.

hR;b√rÅy dDy_lAo XEbOq◊w fDoVmˆy lRbRhEm Nwøh [Wealth hastily gotten will diminish but what is gathered gradually increases].

(Proverbs 13.11)

Predictably, the Greek makes explicit the valuation implicit in this saying, u¢parxiß e˙pispoudazome÷nh meta» aÓnomi÷aß e˙la¿sswn gi÷netai oJ de« suna¿gwn e˚autw◊ˆ met∆ eujsebei÷aß plhqunqh/setai di÷kaioß oi˙kti÷rei kai« kicra◊ˆ [Wealth obtained speedily with lawlessness shall become less, but he who gathers for himself with piety shall be fulfilled. A just man is merciful and lends]. (G Proverbs 13.11) However, in the Hebrew, the repeated insistence in Proverbs 13 on the connection between deeds and consequences does not go unchallenged.

fDÚpVvIm aølV;b hRÚpVsˆn vEy◊w MyIva∂r ryIn lRkOa_b∂r [Much to eat from the tillage of the poor but it is swept away in injustice].

 Reading in 13.11a vanity].

(Proverbs 13.23)

lDhObVm [from haste], with the Greek, for the MT’s lRbRhEm [from

The Acts–Consequence ‘Construct’

115

The tone of this is observational but, clearly, we are meant to sympathize with the poor whose livelihood is taken away unjustly. The Greek is quite different, di÷kaioi poih/sousin e˙n plou/twˆ e¶th polla¿ a‡dikoi de« aÓpolouvntai sunto/mwß [The righteous shall act many years in wealth, but the unrighteous shall be suddenly destroyed].

(G Proverbs 13.23)

This very obvious expression of a link between righteousness and prosperity may be prompted by the translator’s difficulty with the implication in the Hebrew that no matter how hard the poor work it will avail them nothing. We are left with the question of why the Greek of Proverbs 13.8 was so faithful to the Hebrew. We have seen repeatedly that the Greek tends to harmonize tensions and difficulties in the Hebrew. However, the Greek translation is not without its own internal contradictions, though they are more muted and less knowing than those in the Hebrew. We can envisage a well-off translator assuming both that poverty results from a surly refusal to listen to good advice and – in other circumstances and for a slightly different group among the poor – that there is something potentially ennobling in it. Those who are comfortably isolated from the realities of poverty are in a position both to blame and to patronize the poor. The distinction between these attitudes in the Greek and those in the Hebrew is a fine but crucial one. The Hebrew Proverbs may pit sayings that imply that poverty comes from fecklessness against others that see the poor as the victims of injustice. It is free, however, from a cloying sentimentality that believes that poverty can ennoble. Conclusions Our survey of the first chapters of ‘the proverbs of Solomon’ ends at the point of an ancient division, the masoretic ajwtp marker. Of course, this is not a significant intended unit of the original Hebrew text. However, by focusing on these chapters we have had an opportunity to evaluate the claim made by Koch – and accepted by many other scholars – that the sayings material in Proverbs is dominated by the Acts–Consequence Connection. We are also able to assess the ‘flow’ of the book’s teaching in a fairly lengthy section. One negative conclusion is that verses offering unambiguous support for Koch’s thesis are far from numerous; indeed, in the section surveyed, they are few and far between. It is true that many sayings do suggest that diligence will be rewarded by prosperity and criminal acts will bring disaster. However, the question of whether this is because, on the one hand, of some intrinsic connection between the act and its consequence, built, as it were, into the way things are in the universe; or, on the other hand, because of divine intervention to reward or punish, is not settled in the text. Indeed, we have seen that the first verses of the section appear to be deliberately arranged to bring out the tensions between what are competing rather than complementary explanations. Moreover, the many sayings that give voice to a confidence that good and evil deeds receive some sort of appropriate reward – whatever is the precise mechanism

116

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

– are contradicted by other voices. Some sayings confront the majority opinion with a minority report that insists that good things can happen to bad people. Others throw doubt on the possibility of seeing any clear connection between acts and their consequences, given that people deceive others about their true condition. We have seen how such contradictory verses seem to provoke a reaction in the text and likened this to the effect of a stone being thrown into a smoothly flowing stream. However, these contradictory sayings are not meant simply to provoke a reaction within the text of Proverbs but are intended to have an effect on the reader. It is not that the worldly wisdom – as Perry would have it – of such sayings is simply a foil to set off the superior moralizing Wisdom of the mainstream. Rather the reader is goaded into a more mature and reflective wisdom that must appropriate the majority view while taking account of the truth of the minority report. To use Bakhtin’s terminology, Proverbs is a ‘heteroglossalic’ text that allows conflicting voices to engage each other in a genuine dialogue. Our focus so far has been on the contradictions in one collection. However, given my general thesis that the whole of Proverbs has been arranged so it can be read as a unity, we may ask if there are issues explored across the boundaries of the collections from which this text is constituted. We shall discover in the next chapters that this is indeed the case. A voice can speak on one of the themes explored by the book in more than one collection and be answered by others both within and beyond the unit in which it is first articulated. Proverbs, it transpires, is far from the settled, self-satisfied text that many scholars have taken it to be. In its own way, it is as challenging and provocative as Qohelet.

Chapter 5

Provocative Contradiction: The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs Summary of chapter We return to some of the verses in Proverbs 6 and 30 that, I argued in chapter two, reveal that the book was carefully organized to prompt attentive readers to make links between widely separated passages. Examining them from a different angle, we discover that they serve as a framework for the sensitive, dangerous theme of kingship and authority in Proverbs. Proverbs handles this theme in a dialogic fashion, facilitating a clash between contrasting views about those who wield power; in this respect the book is not a smoothly flowing stream disrupted by the occasional stone, but one in which the ripples from several splashes interact with each other. Moreover, although the framework encloses the discussion in statements that are generally critical of kings, one numerical saying, 30.29–31, may well be favourable to monarchy. Once again we may conclude that Proverbs is not a monologic text propounding a settled view of kings and those in authority. Interestingly, we shall see that Proverbs’ stance in this matter is close to that of Qohelet, with which it also shares a protective strategy that permits these books’ more critical statements to be denied should they offend the powerful. Once again, the Greek version will provide us with supporting evidence. Its translations of the verses in question removed, or toned down, the potential offenCe. Kingship – an important and sensitive theme The importance of kingship and related topics in Proverbs is clear from the number of passages and sayings in all the book’s major divisions that touch upon it. Using a narrow measure, there are 35 instances where derivatives of the root Klm [to rule as king] occur, usually in the noun form JKRlRm [king] but also once, in Proverbs 30.22, in the verbal form JKwølVmˆy [he becomes king]. If we take into account other words for one in authority – such as lEvwøm [ruler] and rAc [prince] – together with verses like Proverbs 11.10 and11, which link the issues of the fate of the just and the wicked with the flourishing of the city, a fuller picture of the theme’s importance emerges; some 75 verses, about 7 per cent of the total number in Proverbs, deal with issues connected with governance. Furthermore, the reader’s attention is directed to the theme by occasional concentrations of verses mentioning kings and/or rulers, such as the one that begins the ‘Hezekiah’ collection (Proverbs 25.1). Clearly, a significant proportion of the book is devoted to examining issues of governance.

118

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Constraints of space prohibit a full discussion of all these sayings here. We shall focus on significant sections at the beginning and end of Proverbs that appear to establish a framework within which the wider discussion of Kingship takes place. However, to give some indication of that wider discussion, it is clear that, as Fox notes, ‘many proverbs teach a royalist ideology’ (2000, 57); on the other hand some sayings see kings as dangerous and arbitrary figures. Proverbs 16.10 ascribes a quasidivine omniscience and wisdom to the king; 21.1, on the other hand, portrays him as totally controlled by God; 14.28 states he is dependent on the strength of his people for his own status. We note once again that the juxtaposition of contradictory verses can alert the reader to the complexities of this dialogic text; Proverbs 20.8 asserts an exalted view of the king’s power to ‘winnow all evil with his eyes’, then – as Clifford notes (1999, 183) – 20.9 responds to this extraordinary claim by suggesting that nobody, including the king, is able to purify themselves, let alone ‘all evil’. The potential sensitivity of the subject matter is a further factor complicating this discussion and influencing its character. This was a dangerous topic that needed to be treated carefully. Consequently, statements in Proverbs with a negative slant on monarchy are often made in such a way that any subversive intention could be denied. The reader is then prompted to read between the lines, to hear what is being affirmed under the surface of the text. Evidence that the text is indeed prompting the reader to look beneath its surface is provided by the Greek version. Its renderings confirm that one ancient reader was aware that Proverbs was often treading on dangerous ground in this area. We shall see that, when sayings concerning kings and rulers in the Greek differ from the Hebrew, this may often be plausibly ascribed to the translator’s desire to make the text safer by toning down statements that might be read as criticisms of those in authority. Occasionally, the translator also offers oblique testimony to the success of his original’s strategy of deniability; some statements whose implications are subversive are allowed to stand in the translation because the literary devices adopted by the Hebrew successfully ‘camouflage’ their intention. Subversive wisdom? Jeremiah, Qohelet and Proverbs Evidence for the potential dangers of circulating writings critical of kings is found in the Bible outside the book of Proverbs. For instance, in Jeremiah 36.9–26 King Jehoiakim burns the scroll dictated by the prophet to Baruch and then orders the arrest of its authors. Jehoiakim’s era – the late pre-exilic monarchy – has been suggested as one plausible location for the final editing of Proverbs (McKane 1970; Fox 2000; Clifford 1999). Similar dangers could have arisen in several of the other historical contexts scholars have posited for this; in the reign of Hezekiah (Schniedewind 2004); in the post-exilic period of the Persian Empire (Brueggemann 1990; Davies 2002), or in third-century BC Seleucid Syria (Oesterley 1929). Clearly, the prophetic scroll Jehoiakim burnt was regarded as subversive because it foretold the destruction of the land as a result of the people’s evil ways (Jeremiah 36.1–29) and thus implicitly criticized royal policy; but would a wisdom text arouse the hostilities of the authorities? An affirmative answer to this question is suggested by an examination of Qohelet. Passages in this wisdom text imply that its author was

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

119

aware that his work might be regarded as a threat by those in power. Qohelet 10.16 bemoans a situation where the king is ignoble (or possibly a minor) and his courtiers neglect their duty – w… lEkaøy r®qb ;O b ;A JKˆyårDc◊w rAoDn JKk ;E Vlm ;A Rv X®rRa JKDl_yIa [Woe to you, land, that your king is a servant, and your princes eat in the morning]. Leaving aside the unanswerable question of whether this is directed at any particular historical persons, we note that the criticism is immediately balanced by 10.17 which offers a more positive prospect yItVÚvAb aøl◊w h∂rw… b◊gb ;I …wlEkaøy tEob ;D JKˆyårDc◊w Myîrwøj_NRb ; JKk ;E Vlm ;A Rv X®rRa JKyérVvAa [You are happy, land, when your king is of noble birth and your princes eat at the (right) time, for strength and not for drunkenness]. Yet even these mild, balanced comments elicit a remarkable response in Qohelet 10.20 two verses later, rDbd ;∂ dyEg… Åy MˆyApÎnk ;V Ah lAoAbw… lwøq ; Ah_tRa JKyIlwøy MˆyAmDÚvAh Pwøo yIk; ryIvDo lEl; åqt;V _lAa ÔKVbk;D VvIm yér√dAjVbw… lEl; åqt;V _lAa JKRlRm ÔKSod;∂ Amb;V MAg… [Even in your thought(s) do not insult the king and even in your bedrooms do not insult the rich. For a bird of the heavens will bear the sound (of it) and a winged creature will report the matter]. This verse is deliberately ambiguous. It could be read as articulating a doctrine of profound respect for the powers that be, and so disclaiming any fundamentally subversive intention for 10.16 and 17. However, 10.20’s second line undermines any notion that Qohelet is an unambiguously royalist text; it suggests a prudential motive for caution rather than heartfelt loyalty. Furthermore, it describes an unhealthy atmosphere where informers spy on even private conversations – a description that itself carries with it an implied criticism of the authorities who encourage such spying. The verse is best understood as the author of Qohelet protecting himself against any repercussions but, in so doing, bemoaning the fact that such caution is necessary. However, neither is Qohelet unambiguously subversive, reacting against a subservient ‘traditional wisdom’ exemplified in Proverbs – as, for instance, P. Davies (2002, 123) believes. Rather we may recognize in Qohelet a dialogic text, which, like Proverbs, allows voices expressing contradictory opinions to be heard. So Qohelet 8.2 begins a passage on the subject of obedience to authority with an appeal for unconditional compliance with royal commands as both pious and right – MyIhølTa tAow… bVv tårVbd;î lAo◊w rwømVv JKRlRm_yIÚp yˆnSa [I respect the utterance of the king for the sake of divine oath]. Verses 8.3–8 urge further prudential reasons for loyalty, namely respect for royal power in an uncertain world. So Qohelet 8.9 is unexpectedly negative, wøl oårVl M∂dDab ;V M∂dDaDh fAlDv rRvSa tEo vRmDÚvAh tAjt ;A hDcSoÅn rRvSa hRcSoAm_ lDkVl yIb; Il_tRa NwøtÎn◊w yItyIa∂r hRz_lDk; _tRa [All this I saw and gave my mind to all that is done under the sun while one man rules over another man for harm to him]. This ‘sting in the tail’ problematizes a set of verses (Qohelet 8.2–9) that might otherwise have been taken as an unqualified exhortation to unconditional compliance with authority. Qohelet 8.9b throws the whole previous advocacy of a loyal subservience into doubt for it suggests, through the fruitful ambiguity of wøl [for him], that the whole ruler/ruled relationship is irretrievably corrupt. The verse could be read as saying that it is the one ruled who suffers harm. It is also possible  Rendering – with NRSV and REB – rAoDn [lad] as ‘servant’, in accordance with a common Hebrew idiom, and having regard to the antithesis with Myîrwøj_NR;b [son of nobles] in 10.17. The Greek translates literally new¿teroß [young man].

120

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

that the one harmed is the ruler; that exercising the sort of unquestioned power envisaged in these verses is as much an evil as being subject to it. So Qohelet is a complex, dialogic text, some of whose sayings might have been seen as a threat by the authorities; but does the same hold good for Proverbs? Fox points out (1989, 271) that the disdain for an upstart king implied in Qohelet 10.16 is shared ‘by the author of Proverbs 30.22 who believes the earth shakes when a slave comes to power (yimlok)’. Indeed, the similarities between Proverbs and Qohelet go beyond such shared attitudes and can also be detected in the way that both these ancient Hebrew wisdom texts contain a dialogue about kingship. Moreover, although Proverbs contains no disclaimer of subversive intention as obvious as that found in Qohelet 10.20, there are indications that the author of Proverbs shared the fears about informers disclosed in Qohelet. Thus a subtle parallel to Qohelet 10.20’s disclaimer can be detected in Proverbs 30.32–33. Moreover, it is possible that the apparent lack of structure in Proverbs constitutes a defence against the sort of accusations hinted at in the Qohelet verse. I have argued that the seemingly random nature of Proverbs is more apparent than real; that evidence for a deliberate arrangement and shaping of the book can be adduced. However, one reason for the retention by the final editor of the clearly demarcated sections, some entitled as collections – or even their creation as a literary device – could have been a deliberate strategy, rather than clumsiness or textual conservatism. Politically sensitive sayings would then be deniable, if need be. The inclusion of sayings critical of monarchy, for instance, could be justified on the grounds that they were parts of ancient collections that had come down to the editors and whose conflicting opinions they did not endorse. Furthermore, the retention – or creation – of titles such as those in Proverbs 1.1, 25.1 and 31.1 that ascribed sections or – in the case of 1.1, the whole book – to monarchs, would offer a further defence. ‘Of course this book supports monarchy’ – those responsible for it could argue – ‘its sayings come from King Solomon himself; the servants of kings have also contributed to it’. Under cover of these royal warrants Proverbs can draw the attentive reader into its debate about kings and monarchy. Once again the parallel with Qohelet, a book that also claims Solomonic authorship, is instructive. Furthermore, it is not the case, as was argued by Sellin (1933, 209), that the different collections each have different attitudes to this subject reflecting the historical context of their original composition. Sellin characterized the sayings in the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ collection (10.1–22.16) as enthusiastic about monarchy but thought that the collection made by ‘the men of Hezekiah’ (25.1) expressed a scepticism connected with events in the Northern Kingdom. However, we shall see that differing attitudes about kings are found within all the collections that make up Proverbs. No one section is any more, or less, enthusiastic about kings than any other. Of course, Proverbs is not a wholly subversive, revolutionary text but neither is it totally engaged in support of the politically and socially privileged (P. Davies, 2002), or in justifying a ‘theodic settlement’ (Brueggemann, 1990). Indeed, it is striking that the first and last sayings about kingship imply that the institution itself is unnecessary. They do not propound any alternative; Proverbs is not a mouthpiece for a democratic or theocratic movement. Nevertheless, it encloses its debate about governance within a predominantly negative framework.

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

121

Proverbs 6.6–8 – opening the framework I argued in chapter three that verses in Proverbs 6.6–8 and 30.24–31, though separated by large sections of text, are linked by thematic and verbal similarities. We focus now on the way that the linkages between these passages are used to frame the discussion of the theme of kings and rulers in MT Proverbs. The use of animal imagery in these passages has been remarked on by commentators but few have seen any great significance in it. For instance, Toy comments on Proverbs 30.24–8 that ‘the proverb is simply descriptive of the habits of animals, a bit of natural history, without expressed reference to human life’ (1899, 534). The term ‘natural history’ here is misleading, inasmuch as it imports the scientific interests of Toy’s own time and culture into a text whose concerns are primarily religious and moral. Those concerns are evident from the express direction in the similar saying in Proverbs 6.6–8 to ‘go to the ant’ ‘consider her ways and be wise’. The clear link between Proverbs 6.6–8 and 30.24–8 makes it highly likely that a similar reference to human life is also intended, both in the latter saying and the several others in its immediate context that concern various animals. It is, however, significant that as perceptive a commentator as Toy could argue that such a saying as 30.24–8 has no reference to human affairs. We shall see that the author of Proverbs has adopted a strategy of as it were, ‘camouflaging’ political comment behind animal behaviour. The book accepts the risk that some benevolent readers – Toy, for instance – will fail to look behind the surface to see the deeper meaning beneath. McKane is one modern reader who correctly discerned that ‘the author’s activities as a naturalist are orientated by his search for “parables” of human life’ (1970, 660). ‘Parables’, however, with its strong New Testament associations, is not quite right here. ‘Fables’ might be better, for this points us to suggestive parallels in the way animals are used outside the Bible, both in ancient texts such as Aesop, and in more modern examples such as Mandeville, or even Orwell. We shall see that Proverbs shares with these texts an interest in using animals to impart wisdom through reference to the human world that might be best described as satirical. Of course, there are differences between such fables and the animal sayings in Proverbs. The animals in Proverbs do not speak as, they do, say, in Aesop; in fact there is little or no narration in its animal sayings. They do contain, however, a strong descriptive, almost pictorial, element. Whether or not such parallels are appropriate, a satirical effect can be discerned in the use of animal imagery in Proverbs. Moreover, such imagery offered some ‘camouflage’; any subversive intentions could be denied, if prudence so dictated. The title of Proverbs in 1.1 links the book to Solomon but, in spite of this ‘royal warrant’, it is striking that when rulers and their subordinates are first mentioned in Proverbs 6.6–8 it is implied that they are not always needed.

MDkSjÅw DhyRk∂r√d hEa√r lExDo hDlDm◊n_lRa_JKEl lEvOm…w rEfOv NyIx∂q ;hDl_NyEa rRvSa ;hDlDkSaAm ryIx∂;qAb h∂r◊gDa ;hDmVjAl Xˆyå;qA;b NyIkD;t [Go to the ant, sluggard.

122

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

See her ways and be wise! That not for her chief, organizer or ruler, she gets her bread in summer, gathers her foodstuff in the harvest].

(Proverbs 6.6–8)

Proverbs 3.19–20 has already informed us that God formed the earth and the heavens by wisdom, so it is not surprising that examples for humanity could be found within the natural order. The stress here on diligence is also typical of the book; this is the first of many exhortations to hard work in Proverbs. Diligence, of course, would be commended by those in authority who rely upon the labour of the population for their taxes and the smooth functioning of the economic order that supports them. However, the saying does not simply focus on the ant’s industry but includes another comment. The claim is advanced – under the cover of an acceptable exhortation to diligence – that, were the wise ways of the ant to be adopted, the officials who oversee the work force could be dispensed with. We shall see later that another saying about the ant, Proverbs 30.25, focuses simply on the creature’s diligence and makes no mention of her freedom from rule. It is possible that the original form of Proverbs 6.6–8 also involved only her prudence and diligence. In that case, Proverbs 6.7 was, in my view, deliberately inserted by the final editor in order to begin the discussion of rulers in the book. Strikingly, Proverbs 6.6–8 implies that anarchy, the absence of any rulers, is a real possibility. At the very least the saying makes a satirical thrust at a hierarchy of unnecessary rulers with their pretentious titles. It is also possible that it had one specific target in its sights, the very Solomon who, the book’s title claims, is its patron. The word JKRlRm [king] is not found in the list of office holders in Proverbs 6.7, but the word lEvOm [ruler] does appear. These two terms are nearly, but not quite, synonymous. Thus, in Proverbs 29 sayings that use JKRlRm, for instance Proverbs 29.4 or 29.14, are matched by others that are close in meaning to them, but use lEvOm, for instance, Proverbs 29.12 or 29.26. However, the root lvm contains an ambiguity not present in Klm and its derivatives; lvm means either ‘to rule’ or ‘to use, or compose, proverbs’. Solomon, of course was a lEvOm in both senses, both a ‘ruler’ and a ‘proverbialist’. One other negative feature of Solomon’s reign, as described by the Deuteronomist, strengthens the case for a veiled reference to Solomon here. The Deuteronomist’s view of the tyrannical nature of forced labour (sAm) can be gauged by two conflicting accounts of those upon whom it was levied. 1 Kings 5.27 states that Solomon demanded this degrading imposition ‘from all Israel’ but I Kings 9.15–22 corrects this when it reports that Amorites and Jebusites were conscripted for construction while the Israelites were given the more honourable duty of military service. In Deuteronomy 20.10–11 forced labour is a shameful imposition on the residents of a foreign city that had come to terms with the Israelites and been enslaved by them. Thus the use of the term lEvOm, so particularly appropriate to Solomon, elsewhere seen as the introducer of humiliating forced labour, may point to there being more to this saying than a simple recommendation to diligence. With no officials diverting her energies to their own purposes, the industrious ant can concentrate on the production and storage of food.

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

123

The Greek translation of Proverbs 6.6–8 indicates some unease with the subversive undertones of the Hebrew by translational nuances. A more significant indicator of its wish to distance itself from the original can be seen in the verses it adds. 6.6 6.7

i¶qi pro\ß to\n mu/rmhka w° ojknhre÷ kai« zh/lwson i˙dw»n ta»ß oJdou\ß aujtouv kai« genouv e˙kei÷nou sofw¿teroß e˙kei÷nwˆ ga»r gewrgi÷ou mh\ uJpa¿rcontoß mhde« to\n aÓnagka¿zonta e¶cwn mhde« uJpo\ despo/thn w·n 6.8 e˚toima¿zetai qe÷rouß th\n trofh\n pollh/n te e˙n tw◊ˆ aÓmh/twˆ poiei√tai th\n para¿qesin [8a] h· poreu/qhti pro\ß th\n me÷lissan kai« ma¿qe wß e˙rga¿tiß e˙sti«n th/n te e˙rgasi÷an wß semnh\n poiei√tai [8b] h∞ß tou\ß po/nouß basilei√ß kai« i˙diw◊tai pro\ß uJgi÷eian prosfe÷rontai poqeinh\ de÷ e˙stin pa◊sin kai« e˙pi÷doxoß [8c] kai÷per ou™sa thvØ rJw¿mhØ aÓsqenh/ß th\n sofi÷an timh/sasa proh/cqh [6.8 Go to the ant, O sluggard and, as you regard him, emulate assiduously his ways and become wiser than he; 7 for though he possesses no field nor has any one forcing him, nor is he under a slavemaster, 8 he prepares his food in the summer and makes much store in the harvest. 8α Or go to the honeybee, and learn how she is a worker, And how she performs her work as an honourable (matter), 8β her labours are consumed by kings and private persons for (their) health and she is wanted and honoured by all; 8γ and even though she is weak in body, she is advanced by respected wisdom]. (G Proverbs 6.6–8g) The words describing those in authority in MT Proverbs 6.7, lEvOm [ruler] rEfOv [organizer] NyIx∂q [chief], are not intrinsically negative. However, the two Greek words for rulers used here, oJ aÓnagka¿zwn [one who compels], and despo/thß [master], are more pejorative. The use of oJ aÓnagka¿zwn suggests another reference to Solomon’s forced labour programme and despo/thß, which invokes the master/ slave relationship, probably renders NyIx∂q, in spite of this word’s more neutral, predominately military associations elsewhere, for instance in Joshua 10.24, Judges 11.6 and Isaiah 3.6–7. Confusingly, instead of a third term for ruler, as in the Hebrew, we find the phrase gewrgi÷ou mh\ uJpa¿rcontoß [lacking land or husbandry]. This must mean ‘lacking land’, for the ant’s success in raising food implies she cannot lack ‘husbandry’ (the alternative translation of gewrgi÷oß). This is appropriate given that the creature is a forager, but still remains puzzling; perhaps the translator confused the rare word rEfOv (only attested here in Proverbs, although forms of the word are found some twenty

124

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

times elsewhere in the Scriptures) with hédVc [field]. Such a mistake is conceivable particularly if the original was in an old Hebrew cursive script. Be that as it may, we might also take note of the change in gender necessitated by the process of translation. In the Hebrew hDlDm◊n [ant] is grammatically feminine and this conditions the possessive, h ; Dl [to her], in Proverbs 6.7. The Greek word for ant, mu/rmhx, is masculine, however, as are the pronouns that refer to the insect. While admitting the grammatically conditioned nature of the changes, we may be struck by the way that a challenging picture in the Hebrew of a female free from all rulers is muted in the Greek’s portrayal of the qualified freedom from oppression of a landless male. On their own, the changes in the Greek scarcely amount to a compelling case for any great unease on the part of the translator. At most, the ant in the Hebrew exemplifies the possibility of freedom from all rule, while the Greek implies that his freedom may simply be from bad rulers, which then leaves open the possibility of there being good rulers to whom submission would be appropriate. However, the three verses about the bee, Proverbs 6.8a–g, introduced in the Greek here make this possibility explicit. Johann Cook (1997, 163–8) has argued convincingly that Aristotle’s Historia Animalium influenced the insertion of these verses. He notes that not only are the ant and the bee coupled together by Aristotle as examples of industrious animals, but that the precise vocabulary of the philosopher’s discussion of them has been picked up in the Septuagint. Erga/tiß is a hapax legomenon in the Greek Proverbs but it is from the same root Aristotle uses in describing them (Cook 1997, 168). Tw◊n d jejnto/mwn xw/øwn ejrgatikw/tata scedo/n ejsti kai\ pro\ß ta/lla pa/nta sugkri/ nesqai, to/ te tw◊n murmh/kwn geno/ß kai\ to/ tw◊n melittw◊n, [Among the insected animals about the most industrious, and to be compared with all the other animals, are the ant kind and the bee ...].  Historia Animalium 622b.19–20

Cook contends that the influence of Aristotle does not imply that the translator was attempting to introduce Greek philosophical concepts into the Hebrew text. His view of the translator is close to mine, essentially a conservative, pious Jew, wishing to elucidate the theological content of the Hebrew text to an audience familiar with Hellenistic thought and learning. However, further consideration of the influence of Historia Animalium on the Greek text of Proverbs 6.6–8 leads to the conclusion that its additions to the Hebrew in this instance may be motivated by the translator’s awareness of political comment in his orginal. Beyond noting its industry, Aristotle says little else about the ant in this section of the Historia. Elsewhere (Historia Animalium 488a.10, 12), he confirms that he shares the common ancient understanding that it was without rulers or kings. Of more significance is what he has to say about the bee in an extensive section that follows after a discussion of spiders. Aristotle is impressed by the complex industry with which bees build their hives, keep them clean and produce honey (Historia Animalium 623b.17–624a.18) and by the loyalty which the industrious workers

 See the table in Würthwein 1988, 229.

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

125

show to the larger insect which he calls basileußv [king] or hJgemw/n [leader]. He notes that this ruler is indispensable. OiJ de\ basileivvß ou\ pe/tontai e¡xw, eja\n mh/ meta\ o¢lou touv ejsmouv, ou¡t j ejpi\ boskh\n ou¡t j allwvß. Fasi\ de\ kai\ eja/n ajpoplanhqhØØ oJ ajfesmo/ß, ajnicneuou/saß metaqeivn e¡wß a¡n eu¢rwsi to/n hJgemo/na thø ojsmhø. Le/getai de\ kai\ fe\resqai aujth\n uJpo touv ejsmou o¢tan pe/tesqai mh\ du\nhtai: kai\ eja\n ajpo/llhtai, ajpo/llusqai to\n ajfesmo\n: eja\n d j a¡pa cro/non tina\ diamei/nwsi kai\ khri/a ouj poih/swsi, me\li oujk ejggi/nesqai kai\ aujta\ß tacu\ ajpo/llusqai. [But the kings do not fly out except with the whole swarm, neither for foraging nor for anything else. They say too, that if the swarm has strayed they turn back, tracking the leader by scent until they find him. It is said that he is even carried by the swarm when he is unable to fly, and that if he perishes the swarm perishes, and that if they do survive for some time and make no combs, no honey is produced and the bees soon perish].  (Historia Animalium 624a.26–34)

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Aristotle intended that a reference to human society should be detected in such passages. Balme, the editor of the Loeb edition, argues that the Historia Animalium should be seen as a continuation of Aristotle’s analytical, philosophical investigations and ‘was never intended to be a natural history in our sense’ (1991, 2). Be that as it may, Aristotle’s presentation of the worker bee facilitated its interpretation as a type of the loyal subject. The hive, an entity whose wellbeing he portrayed as dependent upon the health of the monarch, was also presented in such a way as to make it an apt parallel with the kingdom in royalist ideologies. Accordingly, the introduction of a reference to Aristotle’s description of the bee in Greek Proverbs 6.8a–8g would introduce with it notions of loyalty and of the need for monarchical rule. Such an underlying royalist ideology also shapes the surface of these additional verses. It can be seen in 6.8a where the bee’s work is described as a pious or honourable action – th/n te e˙rgasi÷an wvß semnh\n poiei√tai – and above all in 6.8b where her labours are held to benefit firstly kings and then the common people – h∞ß tou\ß po/nouß basilei√ß kai« i˙diw◊tai pro\ß uJgi÷eian prosfe÷rontai. Thus, the additional verses (6.8a–8g) in the Greek here are more purposeful than Cook implies. It is not simply that the mention of an industrious ant led to an association with a well–known passage in Aristotle, and so linked it with another industrious insect. Rather, the additional verses are part of a deliberate reinterpretation. The Greek version has transformed a Hebrew original of Proverbs 6.6–8 that implied that rulers are superfluous into one that offers loyal support for the rule of kings. The Greek portrays a natural order in which freedom from oppressive rulers is possible for the diligently self-motivated ‘ants’ and the industrious and loyal ‘bees’, who are then depicted as contributing to the health of a kingdom where royalty and commoners share the benefits. Thus Proverbs 6.6–8 constitutes the opening element of a framework within which the discussion of rule and governance in the book takes place. The discussion begins in a critical way inasmuch as the possibility that rulers might be surplus to requirement is flagged up at the start. Indeed, the Greek translator found the implications of this disquieting and muted them, principally by adding the encomium

126

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

to the subservient bee. Turning now to the other end of the book we shall see that the framework concludes in a substantially negative mode. Proverbs 30.24–31 – Closing the framework In chapter three I suggested that several verses in Proverbs 6, including 6.6–8, are linked to passages in Proverbs 30/31 by a number of significant features, namely sayings about animals, numerical proverbs, and thematic similarities. We shall now explore the significance of these linkages and discover that they are not merely thematic but also serve the discussion of the theme of kingship in Proverbs. We shall examine the crucial verses in these passages in the book, discussing other verses in the intervening material where appropriate. We recall at this point that Greek Proverbs organizes much of the material in Proverbs 30 and 31 in a very different way to that found in the Hebrew. In chapter three I argued this reflects the desire of the Greek translator to ‘tidy up’ a Hebrew original close to MT Proverbs whose creative ambiguities he was unable to sympathize with. My arguments here reinforce that conclusion for they suggest he was particularly concerned to tone down the complex discussion of kingship found in his Hebrew original. Proverbs 30.24–8 contains two elements recalling Proverbs 6.6–8, the ant, and an insect that needs no ruler, the Locust.

MyImD;kUjVm MyImDkSj hD;mEh◊w X®rDa_y´…nAfVq MEh hDoD;b√rAa MDmVjAl Xˆyå;qAb …wnyIkÎ¥yÅw zDo_aøl MAo MyIlDm◊…nAh MDtyE;b oAlR;sAb …wmyIcÎ¥yÅw M…wxDo_aøl MAo Myˆ…nApVv wø;lU;k XExOj aEx´¥yÅw hR;b√rAaDl NyEa JKRlRm KRlRm yElVkyEhV;b ayIh◊w cEÚpAtV;t MˆyådÎyV;b tyImDmVc [Four small things of the earth these but they are wisest of the wise. The ants are not a strong people, but they acquire their food in summer. The hyraxes are not a mighty people, but they place their homes in rock. No king for the locust, but it issues out all in order. A gecko you can take in your hands, but it is in the dwellings of the king].

(Proverbs 30.24–8)

As in Proverbs 6.6–8, the point of these sayings is not natural history for its own sake. Since wisdom helped shape all creation (Proverbs 8.22–31) and her traces are to be found even in the smallest creatures, these animals – ‘wisest of the wise’ – offer a picture of what it might mean for the human reader of Proverbs to be wise. The list begins with the ants in 30.26. As in 6.6–8 the point is their wisdom in acquiring food at the right time. However, there is no mention of their lacking officials and rulers. No comment along those lines needed to be added here for another part of the

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

127

numerical saying makes this point; the locust, says Proverbs 30.27, has no king. If 6.6–8 implied an attack on the diversion of labour away from the production of food, the thrust here might be at the military pretensions of the monarchy. The army of the locusts issue forth in perfect order and unity without the need of a king. McKane remarks perceptively, The locusts are well organized and disciplined; they are viewed by this observer on the analogy of a well-governed community. By observing that they have no king he can only intend to raise the question whether the institution of kingship is an indispensable condition of order and strength in a community. (McKane 1970, 662)

Thus the two proverbs about the ant and the locust occurring, respectively, at the beginning, and near the end of the series of sayings in Proverbs about kingship, both imply that kings are not necessary. The one focuses on economics; the other on military matters. This provides an interesting parallel with the debate about the necessity of kings elsewhere in the Old Testament. McKane links Proverbs 30.27 and Judges 9.7–21, ‘…the point of view is not entirely divorced from that which finds expression in the fable of Jotham’ (1970, 662). Another possible comparison would be with Samuel’s warning to the people of Israel in 1 Samuel 8.10–18 that if the people appoint kings for themselves they will find that their children are subjected to conscription and their resources of food will be taxed – the very two matters that are alluded to in the framework of Proverbs 6.6–8 and 30.27. Another satirical thrust may be delivered by Proverbs 30.28, JKRlRm yElVkyEhb ;V ayIh◊w cEÚpAtt;V MˆyådÎyb;V tyImDmVc [A gecko you can take in your hand but it is in the dwellings of the king]. Fox (1989, 271), it will be recalled, linked Qohelet 10.16 – lEkaøy r®qb ;O Ab ; JKˆyårDc◊w rAoDn JKk;E Vlm;A Rv X®rRa JKDl_yIa [Woe to you land that your king is a servant and your princes eat in the morning] – to Proverbs 30.22 and its disdain for an upstart king. The other target of Qohelet 10.16 is the greedy courtier class. Proverbs 30.28 may contain a veiled attack on the same target, represented by the tyImDmVc [gecko]. The thrust would be directed here on their susceptibility to manipulation; perhaps bribery, or some other illicit means of control, is implied in the phrase ‘you can take them in your hand’; or at least that they are small creatures who can be manipulated. Although Proverbs 30.26 – MDtyEb ; oAlRs ; Ab w… myIcÎ¥yÅw Mw… xDo_aøl MAo Myˆn… ApVv [The hyraxes are not a mighty people, but they place their homes in rock] – does not appear to be part of any satirical attack on the monarchy or courtiers, this may be down to our ignorance. If we knew more what a NDpDv [hyrax or rock rabbit] might have represented, a satirical intention could, perhaps, be discerned. Alternatively, this could be part of the author’s strategy of deniability. By including this unremarkable animal as camouflage he could strengthen his case that he was innocent of any subversive intention without in fact abandoning his criticisms.

 Hyrax syriacus – unrelated to the European rabbit, lepus cuniculus (its nearest relative is the elephant!) – a small burrowing quadruped is common throughout Syria and Palestine. It is unclean according to Leviticus 11.5 and Deuteronomy 14.7.

128

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Given what we have seen of the conservatism and timidity of the Greek Proverbs in political matters the fact that its rendering of Proverbs 30.24–8 closely resembles the Hebrew is interesting. te÷ssara de÷ e˙stin e˙la¿cista e˙pi« thvß ghvß tauvta de÷ e˙stin sofw¿tera tw◊n sofw◊n oi˚ mu/rmhkeß oi–ß mh\ e¶stin i˙scu\ß kai« e˚toima¿zontai qe÷rouß th\n trofh/n kai« oi˚ coirogru/llioi e¶qnoß oujk i˙scuro/n oi≠ e˙poih/santo e˙n pe÷traiß tou\ß e˚autw◊n oi¶kouß aÓbasi÷leuto/n e˙stin hJ aÓkri«ß kai« e˙kstrateu/ei aÓf∆ e˚no\ß keleu/smatoß eujta¿ktwß kai« kalabw¿thß cersi«n e˙reido/menoß kai« euja¿lwtoß w·n katoikei√ e˙n ojcurw¿masin basile÷wß [And there are four that are very little upon the earth but these are the wisest of the wise – the ants, who have no strength, but they prepare their food in summer; and the rabbits, a people not strong, but they prepare their homes among the rocks; kingless is the locust, but they march out at one command in an orderly way; and the lizard which is borne up by hands and is easily captured but dwells in a king’s stronghold]. (G Proverbs 30.24–8) However, this relative faithfulness should not lead us to dismiss the idea that MT Proverbs 30.24–8 offers a satirical attack on kings and their entourage. It could be that the translator detected the satire but was confident that it did not need to be toned down – he could share in the camouflage provided by the ‘natural history’. Where more is at stake – because no such shelter is available – he adopts a different policy; a subtle nuance in the translation of a verse whose political reference cannot be camouflaged behind animal fables reveals the translator’s sensitivities to the issues raised in his original. We have already noted that Fox (1989, 271) linked Proverbs 30.22 with an anti-monarchical voice in Qohelet; the verse is found in a longer numerical saying just before 30.24–8.

tEaVc lAk…wt_aøl oA;b√rAa tAjAt◊w X®rRa hÎz◊g∂r vwølDv tAjA;t MRjDl_oA;bVcIy yI;k lDbÎn◊w JKwølVmˆy yI;k dRbRo_tAjA;t hD;t√rIb◊…g våryIt_yI;k hDjVpIv◊w lEoD;bIt yI;k hDa…wnVc tAjA;t [Under three the earth quakes, under four it cannot rise; under a slave when he becomes king, and a fool when he is filled with bread: under a despised woman when she is married, and a maidservant when she dispossesses her mistress].

Proverbs 30.21–3)

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

129

Proverbs 30.22a could conceivably be aimed at a specific historical individual – though we know of no likely candidate who rose from slavery to kingship. More plausibly, the saying should be read as a general critique of what is possible under a monarchy; when men without true nobility seize power the whole natural order is disrupted. There is an element of caricature here, of deliberate exaggeration, both in the metaphor of the earth trembling and in the possibility of such a rise from slavery to monarchy. This exaggeration, and the link made in the saying with other examples of unnatural social inversion – satisfied fools, supplanting servants – simultaneously strengthens and disguises the criticism. ‘This is all fantastic stuff,’ the author could say, ‘burlesque; not to be taken seriously’. These devices succeed in providing some camouflage for this potentially subversive statement. However, changes in the Greek show that the translator saw a need to tone down its implications in spite of this. dia» triw◊n sei÷etai hJ ghv to\ de« te÷tarton ouj du/natai fe÷rein e˙a»n oi˙ke÷thß basileu/shØ kai« a‡frwn plhsqhvØ siti÷wn kai« oi˙ke÷tiß e˙a»n e˙kba¿lhØ th\n e˚authvß kuri÷an kai« mishth\ gunh\ e˙a»n tu/chØ aÓndro\ß aÓgaqouv [Because of three things the earth shakes, and the fourth it cannot bear; if a domestic servant should rule and a fool be filled with food, and if a maidservant should expel her mistress , and a despised woman if she should marry a noble man]. (G Proverbs 30.21–3) The effect of the Greek Proverbs 30.22 is to divert the satire from the political to the domestic sphere. Not too much should be made of the use of oi˙ke÷thß [domestic servant] to render dRbRo [slave] – although it could be argued that dou/loß is a more exact rendering of dRbRo, oijke÷thß often renders dRbRo elsewhere in the Septuagint. However, its use here produces a line that is reminiscent of Greek Proverbs 30.23 (kai« oi˙ke÷tiß e˙a»n e˙kba¿lhØ th\n e˚authvß kuri÷an), where the reference is clearly domestic. So even the, at first sight, unambiguously political word basileu/shØ [should rule] can be read in a metaphorical way as a servant ruling over a household. This conclusion is strengthened when we note that similar criticisms of upstarts in power in MT Proverbs are more clearly amended in the Greek. So Proverbs 19.10 MyîrDcb;V lOvVm dRbRoVl_yIk; PAa gw… nSot;A lyIsVkIl hRwaÎn_aøl [Luxury is not seemly for a fool nor is it right for a slave to rule with princes] is rendereed ouj sumfe÷rei a‡froni trufh/ kai« e˙a»n oi˙ke÷thß a‡rxhtai meq∆ u¢brewß dunasteu/ein [Pleasure does not suit a fool, and it is not fitting if a domestic servant begins to govern with ;V [with princes] as meq∆ arrogance]. A key change here is the rendering of MyîrDcb u¢brewß [with arrogance]. The translator could conceivably have read Myrsb [with the stubborn] – from the root rrs, written defectively for Myrrwsb, but meq∆ u¢brewß [with arrogance] is scarcely an accurate rendering of Myrsb [with the stubborn]. It is more likely that this translation did not arise from a misunderstanding of the

130

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Hebrew, but was motivated by a wish to alter an unacceptable statement. The Greek no longer refers unambiguously to the situation indicated in the Hebrew in which a slave has been raised to the position where he has control over, or with, princes. Rather it would have been most readily understood as criticizing a situation in which an enslaved steward, who had ‘got above his station’, arrogantly takes control of a household. A move to the domestic from the political renders this statement less objectionable to any representatives of the authorities who might be concerned at its implications. Another saying involving tyrannical abuse of power is Proverbs 17.26 rRvOy_lAo MyIbyîd◊n twøk; AhVl bwøf_aøl qyîd; Ax… Al vwønSo MAg… [Indeed it is not good to impose a fine upon a just man, and to flog nobles for their integrity]. Both parts of this verse express deep anxiety about the vulnerability of the law-abiding to oppression by despotic rulers. The parallelism here is one of intensification. We move from fining to flogging; not only is injustice visited upon the ‘just’ but upon the nobility (MyIbyîd◊n). Proverbs 17.26b connects with the concerns expressed in 30.21–4 and 19.10 about the inversion of the normal expectations of hierarchy. In such an upside down world, humiliating punishments appropriate for the lower orders, such as flogging, may well be inflicted upon their betters, perhaps with the deliberate aim of debasing them. In the Greek, these anxieties have been toned down. 17.26a has not been significantly changed but 17.26b has become an exhortation to loyalty, zhmiouvn a‡ndra di÷kaion ouj kalo/n oujde« o¢sion e˙pibouleu/ein duna¿staiß dikai÷oiß [It is not noble to injure a just man, nor pure to plot against just rulers]. So in 17.26 and 19.10 Greek Proverbs clearly tones down sayings that express anxiety about what we might call social inversion in a political context; situations in which ‘slaves’ come to power and the ‘noble’ are humiliated. Proverbs 30.22 in the Hebrew expresses similar anxieties and the Greek, as in the case of 17.26, is concerned to render it in a way that lessens the anxieties by locating them in a domestic rather than a political context. Proverbs 30.29–31, a third numerical saying which mentions kings, now follows. Textual difficulties make it difficult to discern precisely what attitude to kingship the original Hebrew displayed.

tRkDl yEbIfyEm hDoD;b√rAa◊w dAoDx yEbyIfyEm hD;mEh hDv ølVv lOk_y´nVÚpIm b…wvÎy_aøl◊w hDmEhV;bA;b rwø;bˆ…g vˆyAl wø;mIo M…wqVlAa JKRlRm…w vˆyDt_wøa MˆyAnVtDm ryIz√rÅz [These three stride excellently and four who walk excellently. Lion, strong among the beasts and turns not from the face of any; The one whose loins are girded, the he-goat And the king … with him’).

(Proverbs 30.29–31)

It is difficult to retrieve a coherent saying from the Hebrew, as it now stands. Its form, very similar to its two predecessors, prompts us to look for four elements in a series. After four human figures in Proverbs 30.21–3 and four animals in 30.24–8,

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

131

we find what appears to be a mixed sequence; animal, human, animal, human. In spite of the suggestion that all four in the sequence should be animals (Toy, 537; Oesterley, 280) such a mixed series is possible; McKane argues that it is to be expected (1970, 663). Proverbs 30.30 begins the sequence with the lion, but then the last three elements are crammed into 30.31, a verse fraught with difficulty. The text is corrupt, and even when it appears sound, the sense is uncertain. Thus MˆyAnVtDm ryIz√rÅz [one whose loins are girded] suggests a human – someone girding up their loins for battle or exercise. However, ryIz√rÅz [girded] is a hapax legomenon – the usual word would be from the root rgt [to gird], for instance in Proverbs 31.17 and 2 Kings 4.29. The Greek translates aÓle÷ktwr e˙mperipatw◊n [a cock strutting]; this makes good sense but does not make any attempt to render MˆyAnVtDm [loins] and it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the translator is using his imagination to render an obscure phrase. The next element in 30.31, the vˆyDt_wøa [he-goat], is easier, but there is a further problem in 30.31b. – Mw… qVlAa is another hapax, unintelligible as it stands. Given the difficulties of recovering an intelligible Hebrew text for Proverbs 30.31, it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions about the tone of 30.29–31. Some commentaries (Toy 1899, 536; McKane 1970, 664; Clifford 1999, 267–8) view the saying as exalting the status of the king by comparing him with three animals who walk majestically, but the comparisons may not be as complimentary as this assumes; to compare a king with a lion is, perhaps, to exalt him but the comparisons with a goat might belittle him. Indeed, even the comparison with a lion could be problematic – we shall see that the comparison between a king and a lion is used elsewhere in Proverbs to stress not the majesty of a monarch but the danger of provoking his anger. Nevertheless, even bearing such a possibility in mind, Proverbs 30.30 – lOk_y´nVÚpIm bw… vÎy_aøl◊w hDmEhb ;V Ab ; rwøb ; g…ˆ vˆyAl [a lion strongest of beasts who does not turn from the face of any] – emphasizes the strength and courage of the ‘king of the beasts’. Furthermore, it is difficult to read any satirical intent into yEbyIfyEm [excellent, majestic] in either of its occurrences in Proverbs 30.29. Unsurprisingly, if there are any satirical elements present, they are ignored by the Greek version’s mood of ‘pomp and circumstance’. tri÷a de÷ e˙stin a± eujo/dwß poreu/etai kai« to\ te÷tarton o§ kalw◊ß diabai÷nei sku/mnoß le÷ontoß i˙scuro/teroß kthnw◊n o§ß oujk aÓpostre÷fetai oujde« katapth/ssei kthvnoß kai« aÓle÷ktwr e˙mperipatw◊n qhlei÷aiß eu¡yucoß kai« tra¿goß hJgou/menoß ai˙poli÷ou kai« basileu\ß dhmhgorw◊n e˙n e¶qnei [And there are three that walk prosperously and four that proceed nobly. A lion’s offspring, strongest of creatures, which does not turn away, nor fear a beast, and a cock walking fine-spiritedly among the hens, and a goat ruling the herd and a king speaking publicly among a people]. (G Proverbs 30.29–31)

132

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

In such a context, the picture of a king rising up in state to address the public assembly offers a plausible solution to the puzzling M…wqVlAa of 30.31 although it requires that the word’s initial a be deleted. If the Greek has caught the tone of the original correctly here, we may understand Proverbs 30.29–31 as a sort of royalist encomium, juxtaposed, in a dialogic text, with the more satirical comments on kings of 30.21–8. In addition to these sayings, the subject of kingship is clearly relevant to ‘the words of Lemuel’ in Proverbs 31.1–9 that conclude the book before the acrostic coda of 31.10–31. In the context of the discussion of kingship this passage (discussed at length in chapter three) can be read as a piece of somewhat benign satire. Although these verses’ words are ascribed to Lemuel, they are in fact the words of his mother. The tone she adopts is one of command, warning him against the dangers of women and strong drink and urging him to use his power for the defence of the powerless. The potential weaknesses of kings for self-indulgent conduct are thus not far from those mentioned in Qohelet 10.16–17. If the Greek Proverbs’ witness to the original Hebrew of Proverbs 30.31 is reliable, then the MT ordering sets up a contrast between a lordly king rising up to address his people and King Lemuel receiving a private ‘dressing down’ from his mother. But what of 30.32–3, the enigmatic saying between 30.31 and 31.1–9?

hRpVl dDy Dtwø;mÅz_MIa◊w aEÚcÅnVtIhVb D;tVlAbÎn_MIa byîr ayIxwøy MˆyAÚpAa XyIm…w M∂d ayIxwøy PAa_XyIm…w hDaVmRj ayIxwøy bDlDj XyIm yI;k [If you have been imprudent in lifting up yourself and if you have been devious – hand to mouth! For pressing milk produces curd, and pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife].

(Proverbs 30.32–3)

At first sight this seems to have no direct relevance to the theme of kingship, which is so significant in the surrounding sayings. However, we may understand this statement as akin to the disclaimer in Qohelet 10.20 where, it will be recalled, the author urges caution on those who might insult the king and the wealthy. In similar fashion, the author of Proverbs disavows any intention of provoking controversy. The second person singular of the verbs in 30.32 is most plausibly read as referring to the author himself. The exact meaning of these verbs needs to be clarified. The use of the roots as verbs is rare. In the noun forms they carry pejorative meanings – lDbÎn [fool]; hDm ; ˆz [evil plan] or [wickedness]. However, as Toy notes (1899, 537) in the verbal forms these pejorative associations are much less strong. They are only definite when the context plainly indicates that such a negative meaning is intended. So my renderings of tVlAbÎn as ‘you have been imprudent’ and Dtwøm ; Åz as ‘you have been devious’ are justified and the conditionality of the construction suggests the author’s reflection on his work. We might paraphrase his meaning thus; ‘If these words have been offensive and done harm then I shall be silent for I am aware of the dangers that words can provoke strife and division’.  The BHS suggests wmo_lo

Mwql Klmw as a possible original.

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

133

Proverbs 30.33 – byîr ayIxwøy MˆyAÚpAa XyIm…w M∂d ayIxwøy PAa_XyIm…w hDaVmRj ayIxwøy bDlDj XyIm yI;k [For pressing milk produces curd, and pressing the nose produces blood,

and pressing anger produces strife] describes the capacity of the author’s words to provoke anger. Alonso Schökel cites the verse as an example of the serious use made in Hebrew poetry of word play.

These ‘plays’ on words or puns, can be quite serious. Prov. 30,33 provides us with a remarkable one which takes advantage of the following words: ’ap/’appayim = ‘nose, nostrils, anger’; hem’â = ‘curds’; hēmâ = ‘anger’; dām = ‘blood (from the nose), homicide’.  (Alonso Schökel 1988, 29)

The puns reveal a disturbing subtext behind what appears an almost nonsensical saying. It is significant that several of these word plays involve words for anger. Whose anger does the author fear to provoke, so much that he states his readiness to be silent if he has offended? The anger of the King – a dialogue in Proverbs In our discussion of the use of lion imagery in Proverbs 30.30 above, it was mentioned that, elsewhere in Proverbs, the comparison between a monarch and a lion is used to emphasize the danger of provoking the king to anger. Proverbs 19.12 is one of the sayings in which this danger is mentioned, wønwøx√r bRcEo_lAo lAfVkw… JKRlRm PAoAz ryIpk ;V k ;A MAhAn [Like a lion’s growl the rage of the king and like dew upon grass his favour]. This recalls Proverbs 16.14–15 three chapters earlier in which two sayings about the king are juxtaposed,

hÎ…n®rVÚpAk◊y MDkDj vyIa◊w t‰wDm_yEkSaVlAm JKRlRm_tAmSj vwøqVlAm bDoV;k wønwøx√r…w MyI¥yAj JKRlRm_y´nVÚp_rwøaV;b [A king’s wrath – messengers of death and a wise man will deal with it. In the light of a king’s face there is life, and his favour is like a rain-bearing spring cloud].

(Proverbs 16.14–15)

The meaning of the unusual phrase t‰wDm_yEkSaVlAm [messengers of death] in 16.14 is uncertain – perhaps illness of some sort is intended as in the case of the ‘messenger of the Lord’ striking down the Assyrian army in 2 Kings 19.35. This would then offer a suitable contrasting parallel with the image of the king’s favour as another natural phenomenon, the rain-bearing spring cloud in 16.15. The one is a powerful symbol of death drawn from nature – the other a powerful symbol of life from the same sphere. So Proverbs 16.14–15 appear expressions of Perry’s wisdom, observational remarks on how things are in the world. If so, 16.32 can be read as a riposte from Wisdom – ryIo dEkl ;ø Im wøjw… rVb ; lEvOmw… rwøb ; g…ˆ Im MˆyAÚpAa JK®rRa bwøf [Better he who controls his temper than a warrior and he who rules over his spirit than he who takes a city]. The true lEvOm – ‘ruler’ also ‘users of proverbs’ – is thus he who rules over himself.

134

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Furthermore, if 19.12 recalls the verses in Proverbs 16.14–15 and 16.32, then its image of a growling lion is itself recalled in a similar saying 18 verses later in 20.2 – wøvVpÅn aEfwøj wørV;bAoVtIm JKRlRm tAmyEa ryIpV;kA;k MAhAn [Like a Lion’s growl the terror of the king – he who enrages himself sins against his very self]. The NRSV’s translation is typical of most versions in skating over the difficulties of this verse to make of it a warning against provoking royal anger – ‘The dread anger of the king is like the growling of the lion; anyone who provokes him to anger forfeits his life’. This requires KRlRm tAmyEa [terror of the king] in 20.2a to be amended to KRlRm tDmSj [anger of the king] as Toy (1899, 383) and Clifford (1999, 181) suggest. However, as McKane recognizes (1970, 543), KRlRm tAmyEa is an ‘objective genitive’ and means ‘the terror one has of the king’. If this is recognized then the meaning of the obscure word wørb ;V AoVtIm in 20.2b – hithpael participle of the root rbo [to overflow (with feelings)] with a suffixed third person masculine pronoun – can be better discerned. The usual rendering ‘who angers him’ (that is, the king) takes no account of the reflexive force of the hithpael, emphasized here by the suffixed pronoun. A better translation would thus be ‘he who incites his own passions’ and the saying is thus an attack on those in power who indulge their anger at the expense of unfortunate subordinates. The other use of the hithpael of rbo in Proverbs at 14.16 offers some support for this understanding AjEfwøbw… rE;bAoVtIm lyIsVkw… o∂rEm rDs◊w aérÎy MDkDj [A wise man fears and turns from harm but a fool becomes passionately confident]. Here the fool suppresses any sensible feelings of caution in a dangerous situation and attempts to bluster his way through. Such an understanding of 20.2 makes sense of the word aEfwøj [sinning] in 20.2b – a participle formed from the root afj [to sin]. If, as translators assume, the verse is a warning against provoking royal anger then one could see why that might be dangerous, but why would it be in any way sinful? However, if the target here is the king and his propensity for allowing his passions free rein, then the use of aEfwøj here is understandable The Greek Proverbs harmonizes 19.12 and 20.2 by its choice of translational equivalents. It uses Basile/wß ajpeilh\ [a king’s threatening] for both JKRlRm PAoAz [the king’s rage] – that is, his feeling of rage – in 19.12, and JKRlRm tAmyEa [the terror of a king] – that is, the feeling of terror he inspires in others. Its translation of 19.12 is close to the Hebrew – basile÷wß aÓpeilh\ oJmoi÷a brugmw◊ˆ le÷ontoß w‚sper de« dro/soß e˙pi« co/rtwˆ ou¢twß to\ i˚laro\n aujtouv [A king’s threatening is like lion’s roar but like dew upon grass his favour] but it renders 20.2 as a pious exhortation to loyalty – ouj diafe÷rei aÓpeilh\ basile÷wß qumouv le÷ontoß oJ de« paroxu/nwn aujto\n aJmarta¿nei ei˙ß th\n e˚autouv yuch/n [A king’s threatening is no different from the roar of a lion and he who provokes him sins against his own soul]. The sinner in the Greek Proverbs 20.2 is the victim not the royal perpetrator! So one voice in Proverbs is realistic; in 16.14–15 and 19.12 this voice uses imagery drawn from the natural world to convey the idea that the king’s moods are a fact of life. This voice clashes with another that argues in 16.32 and 20.2 that the king should control his anger. The one voice sees wisdom as the means to cope with this unpredictable ‘force of nature’; the other offers a critique that implies these natural parallels are inadequate. The king is not a beast, or a cloud, but a human being who should learn self-control.

The Powerful in Qohelet and Proverbs

135

Conclusion We have seen in this chapter that Proverbs is no tame supporter of the status quo. It is ready to include a challenge to those in authority in its discussion of rulers and kings. It is aware of the risks of expressing such sentiments and adopts strategies which could afford some measure of protection should its teaching goad the authorities to react. These strategies may include the retention or creation of major structural features. The implications of this view of Proverbs as a politically engaged text are profound. It suggests that the displacement of wisdom portrayed in Proverbs 1–9, is echoed by an unsettled political situation that the book seeks to address. Moreover, the general view of the relationships between ancient Hebrew wisdom texts needs to be modified; Proverbs and Qohelet have more in common than is generally admitted.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6

Provocative Contradiction: Gifts and Bribes in Proverbs Summary of chapter Our focus here will be on the dialogue in Proverbs about the practice of giving gifts and bribes, both for its intrinsic value and as an example of a ‘heteroglossality’. This will also facilitate a dialogue with one influential scholar, McKane, who, noting the existence of contradictions within Proverbs, sees them as providing evidence for his theory that the book reveals the reinterpretation of secular wisdom in a Yahwistic direction. It will be argued that the contradictory attitudes towards the giving of bribes and gifts in Proverbs are better understood as being deliberately included ‘to goad the wise’ to reflect on the merits and demerits of this practice. Proverbs 6.20–34 and 21.14 constitute a framework around a dialogue about the subject involving 15.27, 17.8, 17.23, 18.16 and 19.7. Do differing attitudes to bribery point to a ‘Yahwistic’ reinterpretation of an older secular wisdom? A remark of McKane’s about the sayings concerning bribery in the sentence material in Proverbs is the starting point of our discussion. There are different attitudes to bribery in the sentence literature. In 17.8 (p. 502), 18.16 (p. 517), and 21.14 (p. 555), the judicious employment of the bribe as an instrument of policy is recommended, while 15.27 (p. 485) and 17.23 (p. 512) contain high-toned condemnations of bribery. If this is not evidence of reinterpretation, it is at least irreconcilable with the view that all of the material in Proverbs can be accommodated within a single theological structure or unitary ethos. (McKane 1970, 18)

McKane believed that the ‘reinterpretation’ he mentions in the last sentence was carried out in the late pre-exilic period by the wise men of Israel. They had, he argued, come to terms with the national religion of Israel and reclothed much of an originally secular old wisdom in ‘Yahwistic’ dress. The conflicting attitudes to bribery in the sayings material formed part of his argument for this reinterpretative activity. In the passage quoted above McKane is careful not to give the contrasting views on bribery in Proverbs too much weight as support for his argument. Later, commenting on an actual instance in Proverbs 17.23, he is much more ready to dispense with his earlier qualifications and adduce them as firm evidence for his thesis.

138

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs I have suggested that the change in attitude towards bribery is an aspect of the reinterpretation of old wisdom which involved the superseding of hard-headed, pragmatic attitudes by a stringent Yahwistic ethic in which righteousness and wickedness were sharply differentiated. (McKane 1970, 512)

It is part of the strength of McKane’s approach that it makes him aware of the tensions and disjunctions within Proverbs that, as we have seen repeatedly, are either missed by other scholars or dismissed by a process of bland harmonization. However, the contradictions within Proverbs on this topic are both more radical and more deliberate than he realized. They cannot, in fact, be easily accommodated within his thesis; indeed, in some ways they count against it. We shall see that all the bribery sayings belong to a pragmatic strand of wisdom he would classify as secular old wisdom and that, on a purely ‘hard–headed pragmatic’ (McKane 1970, 512) basis, sayings in Proverbs can offer quite different conclusions on the judiciousness of bribery. We should note first that McKane nowhere explains why he describes the condemnations of bribery in Proverbs as ‘high-toned’ (1970, 18). Indeed, we shall see that this phrase is an inappropriate discussion of anything that Proverbs has to say about the practice. McKane’s own use of the word bespeaks a certain ambiguity; it could be read as praise of the condemnation but also carries with it, surely, a slightly pejorative connotation, an implication of priggishness. It is, perhaps, indicative of a deeper ambiguity on McKane’s part towards the ‘reinterpretation of old wisdom…by a stringent Yahwistic ethic ‘(1970, 512) that he saw as being evidenced in Proverbs. Elsewhere (1970, 263), he speaks, with evident approval, of that old wisdom’s ‘robust intellectual content’ but also of its ‘preoccupation with skill and aptitude’. Here the word ‘preoccupation’ might imply that it was overly concerned with such skills and might be in need of redress by ‘the language of piety and morality’ (1970, 263). Be that as it may, it is interesting that he admits that these ‘high-toned condemnations’ are not sure evidence of his theory that canonical Proverbs reveals the traces of ‘Yahwistic’ reinterpretation, but only of tensions within the text so great that they cannot ‘be accommodated within a single theological structure or unitary ethos’ (McKane 1970, 18). We may grant the absence of a ‘unitary ethos’ in Proverbs. However, I shall argue that there is a ‘single… structure’ (1970, 18) in Proverbs, but one that can hold conflicting views within its framework. Moreover, we shall see that the word ‘high-toned’ with its almost Kantian connotations does not adequately describe anything that Proverbs has to say on this subject. This having been said, given the context of the Old Testament, it is easy to say that negative statements about bribery in Proverbs might be assumed to be ‘hightoned’. Bribery is universally condemned in the Scriptures outside Proverbs. The usual word for a bribe, dAjOv, is always employed in a negative way. Though the lexicons leave open the possibility of a more neutral meaning, ‘gift’, it carries a universally negative connotation, either explicitly or implicitly. For instance, the practice of accepting a dAjOv to pervert the course of justice is forbidden in Exodus 23.8 and Deuteronomy 16.19 and those who take such gifts are among those cursed in the comminatory liturgy of Deuteronomy 26.15–26. Deuteronomy 10.17 defines Israel’s God in terms of his incorruptibility – dAjOv jå;qˆy aøl◊w MyˆnDp aDÚcˆy_aøl rRvSa

Gifts and Bribes in Proverbs

139

a∂rwøn… Ah◊w rOb; ˆg… Ah lOdg…Î Ah lEaDh [… the God who is great, mighty and terrible, who does not show partiality or accept a bribe]. In the Prophets, officials who take bribes to convict the innocent are condemned (Ezekiel 22.12; Isaiah 5.23; Micah 3.11) while those who reject a bribe are praised (Isaiah 33.15, 45.13). In 1 Kings 15.19 and 2 Kings 16.8 the translation ‘tribute’ for dAjOv is to be preferred, for here it refers to gifts given by Kings of Judah to more powerful foreign rulers to enlist their help or to buy them off. However, the word retains its negative connotations – such payments are seen by the Deuteronomic history as part of the disastrous reliance on human stratagems rather than on God which brings disaster to Judah. It is in this context that the range of attitudes to bribery found in Proverbs is surprising. In spite of what McKane supposed, any reference to high moral principles is conspicuous by its absence. God is never invoked to condemn the practice. The practice of giving bribes and gifts to sweeten adversaries or obtain favourable treatment is not regarded as universally negative in Proverbs. When it is condemned, it is on pragmatic grounds rather than on those of moral or religious principles; sayings that commend the practice and sayings that warn against it are pitted against each other. The reader is provoked to reflect on what is true wisdom in a world where bribes are a fact of life. Proverbs 6.32–5 and 21.14 – a dialogical framework McKane’s diachronic approach led him to exclude Proverbs 1–9 from his discussion of the topic of bribery. My view that all the material in the book is deliberately composed to form a complex unity receives further confirmation here, for it will become clear that the first mention of bribes in the book, found in the lecture material of Proverbs 1–9, is deliberately recalled by the last mention of the topic late on in the sentence material. However, although the two instances recall each other, they also contradict each other. The discussion of bribery in Proverbs is thus framed by an antithetical structure that recalls the antithetical framework of the two foreign women, the nokriyah of Proverbs 2 and 7 and Lemuel’s mother of Proverbs 31. The first mention of bribes is in 6.32–5, which ends the extended admonition in Proverbs 6.20–35. The main emphasis here is a warning against adultery that argues that no monetary compensation will assuage a cuckold’s anger; the largest rRpk;O [ransom] or dAjOv [bribe] will not suffice to calm him down.

hÎ…nRcSoÅy a…wh wøvVpÅn tyIjVvAm bEl_rAsSj hDÚvIa PEaøn hRjD;mIt aøl wøtDÚp√rRj◊w aDxVmˆy Nwøl∂q◊w_oÅgRn M∂qÎn MwøyV;b lwømVjÅy_aøl◊w rRbD…g_tAmSj hDa◊nIq_yI;k dAjOv_hR;b√rAt yI;k hRbaøy_aøl◊w rRpO;k_lDk yEnVÚp aDÚcˆy_aøl The adulterer [with] a woman lacks sense A destroyer of his soul, [only] such a one does [this]. He finds a beating and disgrace, and his shame will not be removed. For jealousy is a man’s fury

140

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

and he will not spare on the day of vengeance No ransom will gain his favour. He will not relent though you increase a bribe].

(Proverbs 6.32–5)

The passage presumes a heated, potentially violent dispute between the aggrieved husband and the adulterer. However, it is possible that by 6.34’s M∂qÎn Mwøy;b V , which could mean ‘day of reckoning’ rather than ‘day of vengeance’, a quasi-judicial trial by ordeal of the sort described in Numbers 5.11–31, is to be understood. The Numbers passage also focuses on the passionate jealousy of the man who suspects he has been cuckolded. Such a judicial use would make the use of dAjOv even more appropriate here, because, as we shall see, it is often used in the context of judicial corruption. Be that as it may, the passage urges a practical morality. It stresses the disastrous consequences of adultery rather than invoking the language of high moral principle. Thus the commandment prohibiting adultery (Exodus 20.14; Deuteronomy 5.18) is not invoked; nor is there any mention of the scriptural prohibition of bribery – in Deuteronomy 16.19, for example. Of course, a warning against a practice from a consequentialist viewpoint is not necessarily irreconcilable with a deontological prohibition of the same practice. Doubtless, those readers who have noted the reference to bribery in Proverbs 6 have detected no conflict with the disapproval of the practice elsewhere in the scriptures. Nevertheless, to criticize bribery as useless in this particular situation leaves open the possibility that it might be useful in other situations. Given that Proverbs 6.32–5 can easily be assimilated to the general tenor of the rest of the scriptural teaching on bribery we might expect the Greek version to follow the Hebrew quite accurately. There would be no reason to make any amendments to ensure that the verses in question conformed to the moralistic piety that we have already established as a crucial influence on the translator. And so it proves – the Greek follows the Hebrew closely. oJ de« moico\ß di∆ e¶ndeian frenw◊n aÓpw¿leian thvØ yuchvØ aujtouv peripoiei√tai ojdu/naß te kai« aÓtimi÷aß uJpofe÷rei to\ de« o¡neidoß aujtouv oujk e˙xaleifqh/setai ei˙ß to\n ai˙w◊na mesto\ß ga»r zh/lou qumo\ß aÓndro\ß aujthvß ouj fei÷setai e˙n hJme÷raˆ kri÷sewß oujk aÓntalla¿xetai oujdeno\ß lu/trou th\n e¶cqran oujde« mh\ dialuqhvØ pollw◊n dw¿rwn [But the adulterer by reason of his want of brains obtains the destruction of his life. He bears both pain and dishonour and his shame shall never be wiped away. For replete with jealousy is her husband’s rage; he will not forbear in the day of judgement, He will not exchange his enmity for any ransom, nor may he be mollified by many gifts]. (G Proverbs 6.32–5)

Gifts and Bribes in Proverbs

141

In contrast, Proverbs 21.4 – the last of several other sayings in the Book of Proverbs that deal with the subject of bribes – has an unusually positive view of the practice. hDΩzAo hDmEj qEj;b A dAjOv◊w PDa_hRÚpVkˆy rRt;sE ;bA ND;tAm [A secret gift diverts anger and a bribe in the bosom, powerful rage]. 21.4a employs the same key words as Proverbs 6.34–5, dAjOv [bribe] and hDmEj [rage]. The latter – found in the construct form rRbg…D _tAmSj [a man’s rage] in 6.34 – denotes a burning wrath, more intense than PAa [anger]. Moreover, the parallelism in Proverbs 21.14 is one of intensification, as the qualifying hDΩzAo [power] makes clear. Thus this saying declares that a discreet gift is of great use; it can assuage the very passion that, 6.34 suggests, cannot be mollified by any bribe. It should be noted that, elsewhere in Proverbs, hDmEj is seen as a negative emotion, something to be avoided in a wise man. Thus an hDmEj vyIa [man of wrath] is called a trouble-maker in Proverbs 15.18 and 29.22, while the hDmEj_l∂dg…V [greatly angry] of Proverbs 19.19 gets himself into trouble so often that he is not worth bailing out. Not only do 6.34 and 21.14 both use hDmEj, but in both verses no criticism of those who give way to this emotion is present. In 6.32–5 there is no sense that the aggrieved husband is acting unjustly – his hDmEj is seen as the natural consequence of such a grave offence. 21.14 does not express a view on whether hDmEj is a good or a bad thing, but implies that it is simply a natural phenomenon to be dealt with. Proverbs 6.32–5 and the saying in 21.14 agree in their pragmatic view of bribes and in their silence about the morality of such gifts but they differ about their efficacy. Clearly, 21.14 is a general statement rather than a reference to the particularly shaming circumstances of a cuckold. However, it admits of no exceptions; discreet bribes are held to be universally effective. Fox notes the links between these two passages, but plays down the contrast by suggesting, in effect, that Proverbs 21.14 states a law and 6.32–5 notes one set of circumstances which constitute an exception – ‘In the normal course of events, gifts can assuage anger (21.14), but not when a man’s marriage has been violated’ (Fox, 2000, 236). This harmonizing interpretation dismisses the formal contradiction between the two sayings as insignificant. However, Proverbs 21.14 does not hint at any exceptions to the general rule it proclaims; nor should we forget that, on this analysis, the exception of 6.32–5 precedes the general rule in 21.14. It is better to acknowledge that the first and the last saying mentioning bribes in Proverbs offer different judgements on their efficacy. Even allowing for the fact that bribery is not the main focus of 6.20–35, these statements provide another instance of a framework of a discussion within Proverbs The Greek Proverbs’ 21.14 offers, once again, some evidence in support of the idea that ancient readers were sensitive to such disjunctions despite the distance between the texts. Variations between Hebrew and Greek versions are best explained by the hypothesis that the translator – aware of the different advice offered by the two passages – attempted to minimize the divergence. The Greek of Proverbs 21.4 reads Do/siß la¿qrioß aÓnatre÷pei ojrga¿ß dw¿rwn de« oJ feido/menoß qumo\ n e˙gei÷rei i˙scuro/n [A secret gift turns away anger but he who forbears giving raises strong wrath]. G 21.14a renders the Hebrew accurately but G21.14b has been subtly modified; its message is not that giving mollifies strong wrath, but rather that a refusal to give provokes rage. This inversion avoids an obvious contradiction with

142

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

the denial of the efficacy of bribery in both Hebrew and Greek versions of Proverbs 6.32–5 when rage had been provoked. It shifts the discourse from giving bribes to mollifying wrath; to the context of those situations in which giving and taking gifts – shading perhaps into bribery – oil the wheels of commerce and social intercourse. Furthermore, we should note the effect of this rendering in the context of the previous verse, Greek Proverbs 21.13, o§ß fra¿ssei ta» w°ta touv mh\ e˙pakouvsai aÓsqenouvß kai« aujto\ß e˙pikale÷setai kai« oujk e¶stai oJ ei˙sakou/wn [He who closes his ears so as not to hear the weak, he also shall cry out and there will be nobody who hears]. This is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew, hRnDo´y aøl◊w a∂rVqˆy aw… h_MAg… l∂d; _tåqSoÅΩzIm wøn◊zDa MEfOa [He who shuts his ears against the cry of the poor – he also will cry and not be answered]. In the Hebrew, Proverbs 21.13’s sentiments contrast with the worldly-wise recommendation of bribery in 21.14 – 21.13 belongs in Perry’s (1993, 117) value-laden Wisdom category while 21.14 is firmly in his ‘worldly’ wisdom class. However, the use of dw/ron [gift] in Greek Proverbs 21.14, allows a harmonization with the admirable sentiments of 21.13. For dw/ron is ambiguous; it is often used to render dAjOv [bribe] but its literal meaning is simply ‘gift’ and it is generally used for NDb ; √r∂q [ritual offering]. So its use here makes it possible to understand the giving referred to in Greek Proverbs 21.14 not as selfserving bribery but as generosity in giving alms, or perhaps even in making the liturgical offerings required under the Law. Be that as it may, we have seen that MT Proverbs contains at least two views on the efficacy of bribery; one which suggests that there are some situations that cannot be assuaged by a bribe; another which suggests that a discreet gift can calm even a very inflamed opponent. These are the two end stops of the book’s short but complex discussion of bribery. Proverbs 15.27 – practical advice or ‘high-toned’ condemnation? Common to almost all the sayings in this discussion is a certain pragmatism – the focus is always on the consequences of the practice and God’s attitude to bribery is never mentioned. Yet despite these commonalities, the sayings on the subject of bribery in Proverbs articulate rather different attitudes. Some verses commend the practice as beneficial but others see it as destructive and counter-productive. One of the latter class is Proverbs 15.27, hRyVjˆy tOnt ;D Am aEnwøc◊w oAxb ;D AoExwøb ; wøtyEb ; rEkOo [Who makes unjust gains troubles his house but who hates gifts will live]. This saying is included in our discussion even though it uses the neutral word tOnt;D Am [gifts] from the root Ntn [to give] rather than dAjOv [bribe]. By paralleling tOnt;D Am with oAxb;D AoExwøb; [he who makes unjust gains], 15.27 flags up that there is something dubious about this generosity. The Greek translator understood that the particular way of making unjust gains was receiving dubious gifts, rather than, say, robbery with violence, to which the same phrase – oAxb ;D AoExb ;O – is applied in Proverbs 1.19a. He rendered 15.27 e˙xo/llusin e˚auto\n oJ dwrolh/mpthß oJ de« misw◊n dw¿rwn lh/myeiß sw¿ˆzetai [A gift-taker destroys himself, but he who hates taking gifts will be saved]. The ‘gifts’ here are plainly regarded as destructive bribes rather than generosity between friends or ritual offerings. Interestingly, the Greek understands

Gifts and Bribes in Proverbs

143

that the bribes are being received not given – no doubt a correct deduction from the fact that the Hebrew speaks of ‘unjust gains’ rather than having to pay out. The teaching of Proverbs 15.27, in the Hebrew, is aligned with that of 6.32–5 and 21.14 inasmuch as the focus is, once again, on the consequences of the practices mentioned; the troubling of a household which comes from the unjust gains; the life which results from hating bribery. This understanding that 15.27 is dealing with a practical morality, rather than a disapproval arising from some supervening moral or religious code, needs to be asserted against McKane. It will be recalled that he believed that there are ‘differing attitudes to bribery in the sentence literature’ and cited Proverbs 17.8, 18.16 and 21.14 as sayings that recommend ‘the judicious employment of the bribe as an instrument of policy’ (McKane 1970, 18); in the same passage he argued that Proverbs 15.27 and 17.23 ‘contain high-toned condemnations of bribery’. However, as our discussion will make clear, the contradictions within these sayings are more complex than McKane allows for. He suggests that we are dealing with ‘high-toned’ condemnations on the one hand; and, on the other, worldly-wise commendations of a practice which, judiciously employed, will inevitably lead to success. Our discussion of 6.32–5 and 21.14 has already revealed that passages operating within similar pragmatic frameworks can come to radically different conclusions. It will become evident as we continue to examine this theme that sayings that are free of ‘high-toned condemnations’ can still problematize each other in complex and nuanced ways. It should be noted that McKane is not the only commentator to assume that Proverbs 15.27 is influenced by religious beliefs. Clifford (1999, 154) argues that the verse implicitly invokes the divinity; he comments on 15.27b – hRyVjˆy tOnt ;D Am aEnwøc◊w [and he who hates gifts will live] –‘“Live” means to live long because of divine protection’ cf. Isa. 1.23. If Clifford is correct and the very mention of the word ‘life’ invokes a pious discourse then McKane’s description of 15.27 as ‘high-toned’ might not be too far off the mark. However, mention of the word ‘life’ need not carry with it any sort of implication of divine protection. Isaiah 1.23, cited by Clifford, does indeed threaten ‘all who love a bribe and run after gifts’ with various sorts of divine punishment, but neither it nor the surrounding passage promises long life to those who eschew bribery. Isaiah 1.19 promises that ‘if you are willing and obedient you will eat the good of the land’, but there is no explicit mention of life or long life. Clifford’s argument might have been better served had he mentioned some other texts in Proverbs itself that do make a strong connection between finding life and blessing from God; for instance, Proverbs 8.35 hDwh◊yEm Nwøx∂r qRpD¥yÅw MyI¥yAj yEaVxOm yIaVxOm yI;k [For he who finds me (Wisdom) finds life and obtains favour from YHWH]. However, such a linkage is not inevitable. Another more relevant reference than the one Clifford cites would be Proverbs 1.19 j∂q ; ˆy wyDlDob ;V vRpRn_tRa oAxb ;D AoExb ;O _lD;k twøj√rDa NEk ; [Such the ways of all who make unjust gain; it takes away the life of those who possess it]. We have already noted that this verse contains the unusual phrase oAxb ;D AoExb ;O [he makes unjust gain] found also in 15.27. Many English translations (KJV, JB, NRSV, REB, GNB) render vRpRn – literally ‘organ of breath’ – in 1.19b by ‘life’. This seems justified for 

Reading aDxDm [finds]with the qere for the MT’s yEaVxOm [finding me].

144

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

the verse asserts that such practices are counter-productive and self-destructive; their consequences are ultimately life threatening, not just for their victims but also for their perpetrators. This is essentially the same point made by Proverbs 15.27. Unjust gain divides households, perhaps by creating a climate in which greed undermines genuine relationships. Hating bribes, on the other hand, leads to a flourishing life. Clifford may well be correct that length of days is included in what ‘life’ stands for here. In Proverbs 3.16 length of days is offered by Wisdom to those who find her; in 4.10 the father assures his son that if he accepts his words ‘the years of your life will be many’. However, crucially for this discussion, none of these verses mention God as the direct donor of this blessing. They are best understood as urging a practical morality in which wisdom is rewarded by good things. Thus Clifford is wrong to assume that a mention of life implies that God is involved. He has read ‘divine protection’ (1999, 154) into the Hebrew of Proverbs 15.27 that makes perfect sense without invoking any such notion. It is present in the Greek, however. In Greek Proverbs 15.27b – oJ de« misw◊n dw¿rwn lh/myeiß sw¿ˆzetai [he who hates taking gifts shall be saved] – sw¿ˆzetai [shall be saved] is most plausibly read as a ‘divine passive’. The piety implicit in that phrase is brought out fully in 15.25a, the next verse in the Greek, but one with no counterpart in the MT Proverbs – e˙lehmosu/naiß kai« pi÷stesin aÓpokaqai÷rontai aJmarti÷ai tw◊ˆ de« fo/bwˆ kuri÷ou e˙kkli÷nei pa◊ß aÓpo\ kakouv [By alms and faithfulness sins are cleansed away by the fear of the Lord everyone departs from evil things]. It will be recalled that the Greek version turned a commendation of bribery in the Hebrew of Proverbs 21.14 into a saying that could be read as an encouragement to make the due liturgical offerings for the support of the temple cult and its officials. Though the Hebrew of 15.27 may discourage bribery, its pragmatic rationale is insufficient for the Greek translator. He underlines his disapproval by using terms loaded with religious significance and by advocating the spiritual benefits of almsgiving, the practice that may be considered as standing at the other end of the moral spectrum from taking bribes. Thus McKane’s ‘high-toned’ aptly describes the Greek Proverbs 15.27 but does not fit the Hebrew of 15.27, which gives practical advice and views the receiving of corrupt gifts as, above all, counter-productive. Proverbs 17.8 and 17.23 – enthusiasm and doubt about bribery ; VcÅy hRnVpˆy rRvSa_ Proverbs 17.8 offers an enthusiastic endorsement of bribery – lyIk lDk; _lRa wyDlDoVb yEnyEo;bV dAjOÚvAh NEj_NRbRa [A precious stone the bribe in the eyes of its masters in every way it turns, it prospers or in everything he undertakes he is prudent]. The vocabulary of wisdom is blended here with a lyrical descriptiveness. 17.8a is united by a strong alliteration using both ‘b’ and the guttural ‘ch’ sounds – )ebenhēn haššōhad be(ênê be(ālāyw. It begins with the striking phrase, NEj_NRbRa [stone of grace]. Is this meant to provoke a distant recall of the lyrical description of Wisdom as Myˆ¥yˆnVÚpIm ayIh h∂r∂q◊y [more precious than rubies] in Proverbs 3.15? On the other hand does the phrase wyDlDoVb yEnyEob ;V [in the eyes of its masters] ironize the saying in the same way that the qualifying phrase øtyIk ; VcAmb ;V [in his estimation] ironizes the

Gifts and Bribes in Proverbs

145

rich man’s trust in his wealth as a defence against misfortune in Proverbs 18.11? This is almost certainly over-subtle. 17.8b confirms that a more straightforward reading of the entire saying is to be preferred. Of particular interest is the use of the word lyIk ; VcÅy from the root lkc, [to be prudent]. Although in the hiphil form used here it can mean simply ‘to be prosperous’, the word retains its rich wisdom associations. Thus to be ‘a master of a bribe’ – one who takes or receives a bribe (the phrase is, perhaps deliberately, ambiguous) – is ‘prudent, judicious’. It seems clear that this saying – an unequivocal commendation of bribery on prudential grounds – is the most favourable to the practice not only in Proverbs, but in the entire Old Testament. Certainly it was far too positive for the translator of the Greek. He sanitizes 17.8 in a way that we should by now find predictable – u¢parxiß plousi÷ou aÓndro\ß po/liß ojcura¿ hJ de« do/xa aujthvß me÷ga e˙piskia¿zei [A reward of precious things is instruction to those who make use of it, wherever it may turn, it shall prosper]. All reference to bribery has been deleted and replaced by a bland commendation of instruction. There seems little possibility of a textual confusion here between rAsw… m [instruction] and dAjOÚv [bribe]; rather the change reveals both the pious, moralizing mindset of the Greek translator, and the power of the worldly voice in his original against which he is reacting. Proverbs 17.23 is the last of the sayings included by McKane (1970, 18) in his ‘high-toned condemnations of bribery’ category – fDÚpVvIm twøj√rDa twøÚfAhVl j∂q ; ˆy oDv∂r qyEjEm dAjOv [A bribe from the bosom the evil man takes to pervert the course of justice]. Is the evil man taking or receiving the bribe? Some commentators (Toy 1899, 350; Oesterley 1929, 144) suggest the latter, noting that 17.23b implies the subject is a judge or another official in the position to subvert the course of justice. Others (McKane 1970, 512; Clifford 1999, 167) suggest that the evil man is the giver of a bribe here. Either view is plausible; j∂q ; ˆy [he takes] usually suggests receiving rather than extracting; on the other hand qyEjEm [from the bosom] implies that the subject is taking the bribe out of his purse; but it could also suggest that he is receiving a gift from that of another. The verse may be deliberately ambiguous, leaving open the possibility of both interpretations in order to comment on bribery from both points of view. More importantly, should the verse be characterized as ‘high-toned’ (McKane 1970, 18)? It is, at face value, not condemnatory but simply descriptive. Nevertheless, McKane could plausibly respond that, in the context of Proverbs, a condemnation can be read into the verse through such loaded descriptions as oDv∂r [evil man] and fDÚpVvIm twøj√rDa twøÚfAhVl [to pervert the course of justice]. Clearly some disapproval is implied here, but it is far from outright ‘condemnation’, never mind anything that could be described as ‘high-toned’. Furthermore, this description ignores the existence of verses in Proverbs such as 11.16 with its worldly-wise observation that ‘charming women get renown and violent men get rich’. We saw in chapter four that Proverbs 11.16 draws attention to a (perhaps unwelcome) reality; it functions as a contradiction to the more usual teaching that piety and diligence bring wealth. Proverbs 17.23, like 11.16, is silent about any negative consequences for the practitioners. It cannot easily be categorized as ‘high-toned condemnation’, although

146

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

it might be said to problematize the positive enthusiasm for bribery displayed just fifteen verses earlier by 17.8. It is left to the Greek version of Proverbs 17.23 to spell out the moral – lamba¿nontoß dw◊ra e˙n ko/lpwˆ aÓdi÷kwß ouj kateuodouvntai oJdoi÷ aÓsebh\ß de« e˙kkli÷nei oJdou\ß dikaiosu/nhß [The ways of him who receives gifts in the bosom unjustly shall not prosper, and the impious turns aside ways of righteousness]. The Greek removes any ambiguity in the Hebrew, defining the subject as the taker of bribes and removing any suggestion of worldly-wise amorality. There will be consequences for this wickedness, the Greek version asserts; don’t imagine they will get away with it! Proverbs 18.16 – can a gift be judiciously employed? What seems a return to a positive view of giving gifts can be discerned 20 verses later in Proverbs 18.16 …w…nRj◊nÅy MyIlOd◊g yEnVpIl◊w wøl byIj√rÅy M∂dDa ND;tAm [A man’s gift makes room for him and conducts him into the presence of grandees]. For McKane, this saying merited inclusion in his list of verses where ‘the judicious employment of a bribe as an instrument of policy is recommended’ (1970, 19). On this account the verse shares something of the enthusiasm for bribery found in Proverbs 17.8. We should note however that the word dAjOv [bribe] is not used here, but the rather more neutral NDt; Am [gift]. In itself, this does not preclude a reference to bribery; in Proverbs 21.14 – hDΩzAo hDmEj qEjb;A dAjOv◊w PDa_hRÚpVkˆy rRts;E b;A NDt; Am [A secret gift diverts anger and a bribe in the bosom, powerful rage] – the two terms are clearly equated by parallelism. Moreover, the context is not one of litigation; there is no question of influencing the course of justice as in 17.23; or even of preventing the sort of enquiry envisaged for cases of suspected adultery in Numbers 5.11. Given the absence of dAjOv [bribe] and the different context from other sayings, one wonders whether this saying is about bribery at all? Perhaps this is just a commendation of a wholly blameless generosity – one that merely oils the wheels of social intercourse and impresses the powerful. Such an interpretation is strengthened by the Greek of Proverbs 18.16. This registers little difficulty with the saying and makes no significant changes – do/siß la¿qrioß aÓnatre÷pei ojrga¿ß dw¿rwn de« oJ feido/menoß qumo\n e˙gei÷rei i˙scuro/n [A man’s gift makes room for him and seats him with the powerful]. The use of do/ma for ‘gift’ here – a word free of the negative associations of dw◊ron – is noteworthy. A debate about whether Proverbs 18.16 is to be read in conjunction with the sayings about bribery need not detain us long. Plainly, the topics of bribery and of the sort of giving which is designed to advance one’s standing and welfare are closely related, even though the Greek translator goes to some lengths to disguise the connection. A discussion of one area will have a bearing on the other. This having been said, Proverbs 18.16 could be regarded as the first statement in a short series on gift-giving as slightly distinct from bribery. 14 verses later Proverbs 19.6 seems to reinforce 18.16’s message – NDt ; Am vyIaVl AoérDh_lDk◊w byîdÎn_yEnVp w… l; Aj◊y MyIb; år [Many seek the face of a generous (or noble) man and everyone is a neighbour to the gift-giver]. Not only does generosity get you invited into the best society, it also means that people want to seek you out

Gifts and Bribes in Proverbs

147

and come to your parties! However, this verse is problematized by its immediate neighbour, 19.7 – hD;mEh_aøl MyîrDmSa Pé;dårVm …w…n;m R Im …wqSj∂r …whEoérVm yI;k PAa …whUa´nVc v∂r_ yEjSa lDk; [All a poor man’s kinsfolk hate him. How much more do his neighbours depart from him! One pursuing words – they (are) not]. This juxtaposition, as often in Proverbs, is designed to provoke a process of reflection. Is it a good thing that wealth attracts and poverty repels? The answer is not totally determined by the juxtaposition; it is perfectly possible to continue to read Proverbs 19.6 as wisdom, a bland, unmoralizing description of how things are in the world. However, it is also possible to read these two verses as containing a powerful comment on the potential of money to corrupt relationships between kith and kin. Such a reading also leads the reader to a reappraisal of Proverbs 18.16; its apparent recommendation of throwing money around in order to move up in society may appear somewhat suspect in the light of 19.6–7. Furthermore, 18.16’s optimism about the power of money to open the right doors appears naïve in the light of 25.6–7.

dOmSoA;t_lAa MyIlOd◊…g MwøqVmIb…w JKRlRm_y´nVpIl rå;dAhVtI;t_lAa ÔKyRnyEo …wa∂r rRvSa byîdÎn yEnVpIl ÔKVlyIÚpVvAhEm hÎ…nEh hEl≈o ÔKVl_rDmSa bwøf yI;k [Do not honour yourself in the presence of the King And do not stand in the place of grandees. For it is better if it is said to you ‘Come up here’ Than they humiliate you in the presence of a noble].

(Proverbs 25.6–7)

This verse shares enough key vocabulary with 18.16 – ´nVpIl [in the presence] [grandees] – to suggest that it is dealing with the same social situation. However, it opens up a disturbing possibility not envisaged in that saying. Yes, giving gifts may get you into the presence of the great, but this may end up with you being humiliated as a pushy nouveau riche. Thus, though Proverbs 25.6–7 makes no explicit mention of giving gifts or bribes and is silent about the precise mechanism that brings one into the presence of the great, the saying offers a further surprising twist on the debate about the utility of gifts. You may use them to achieve your ends only to find that you had been striving to procure your own downfall. The Greek of Proverbs 19.6 reveals once more a tendency to trite moralism – polloi« qerapeu/ousin pro/swpa basile÷wn pa◊ß de« oJ kako\ß gi÷netai o¡neidoß aÓndri÷ [Many defer to the appearance of kings but every evil man becomes a reproach to another]. Of course, in the Hebrew consonantal text Aoér [neighbour] and oår [evil one] in 19.6b are identical. However, the propensity for moralizing appears to have been so ingrained in the translator that he opted for the (less common) possibility even though the resulting saying is inconsequential.

MyIlOd…g◊

Conclusion Within his own terms of reference, McKane was quite correct in seeing that what the book of Proverbs has to say about bribery cannot ‘be accommodated within a single theological structure or unitary ethos’ (1970, 18). However, his attempt to

148

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

comprehend this observation within a diachronic theory of development cannot be justified and led to his making an erroneous distinction between ‘high-toned’ and ‘pragmatic’ sayings. An understanding that the contradictions about bribery were incorporated within a deliberate synchronic compositional process enables a more precise understanding of the sayings on this topic in the book. Here, as elsewhere, Proverbs eschewed a monologic unitary ethos and attempted to promote a dialogue between elements of wisdom which saw bribes as useful and others that believed them to be ineffective. Once again we have seen that translational decisions in the Greek version betray both an awareness of the complexity in the Hebrew and a determined resolve to simplify it into a more pious and moralistic discourse.

Chapter 7

The Deep Waters of Counsel Summary and introduction My conclusion will argue that provocative contradictions are plentiful in Proverbs; indeed that, since they are present in the topic of when to speak and when be silent, such contradictions inform the book’s understanding of its own objectives. Some objections are considered, but we shall see that many commentators, both ancient and modern, have been sensitive to the contradictions in Proverbs and have responded to them, often in creative and imaginative ways. My approach will also be distinguished from some other readings that make much of contradictions within texts, in particular from those that see texts as inevitably and involuntarily expressing the opposite of what their authors intend to express. I press for a more aware and subtle author for Proverbs than that implied in deconstructive models. While the provisional nature of all such judgements is a given, an attempt to place Proverbs in a Sitz im Leben will be offered. Further lines of enquiry opened up by this approach will be indicated. The limits of wisdom? There are many more examples of the phenomenon I have labelled ‘provocative contradiction’ than those examined so far. Much of what are often seen as the characteristic teachings of the book are contradicted within it. For instance, von Rad (1970, 99–101) suggested that one of the deepest insights of the book was found in those sayings that indicated the ‘limits of wisdom’, ones which insisted that – for all its power – human wisdom came to nothing without the involvement of God. Von Rad cites Proverbs 16.1–2, 16.9, 19.14, 19.21, 20.24 and 21.30–31 as containing such a teaching. The last two sayings in the above list explicitly deny the efficacy of counsel in the face of God’s determination of events.

hDwh◊y d‰gRnVl hDxEo NyEa◊w hDn…wbV;t NyEa◊w hDmVkDj NyEa hDo…wvV;tAh hÎwhyAl◊w hDmDjVlIm MwøyVl NDk…wm s…ws [No wisdom and no understanding and no counsel before YHWH. A horse is readied for the day of battle But the victory belongs to YHWH].

(Proverbs 21.30–31)

This insistence on the limits of wisdom in Proverbs does not drown another voice – one unremarked by von Rad – that refuses to relativize human counsel by reference to piety. Another, albeit shorter, list of sayings – Proverbs 15.22, 20.18,

150

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

24.3–6 – could be ranged against the one he compiled. These state that all that is needed for success is plenty of wise advice. A particularly striking example of an explicit contradiction of another of the book’s statements is Proverbs 24.6 – XEowøy bOrb;V hDow… vVtw… hDmDjVlIm ÔKl;V _hRcSo;tA twøl;bU VjAtVb yI;k [For by stratagems you can make war and victory (lies) with abundant counsel]. This encourages reliance on human counsel in a way that is difficult to square with its dismissal in 21.30–31. In fact, few of the topics covered in the book do not contain a statement that ‘goes against the grain’. It might be thought, for instance, that diligence is a virtue that Proverbs never casts into doubt (Shupak 1993, 343). Some twenty five sayings or passages either commend the diligent and extol the virtues of hard work and rising early, for instance 20.13 and 31.15; or condemn or satirize the lazy, especially those who love their sleep, for instance 24.33 and 26.14. We should however, ‘sift the implications’ of Proverbs 27.14, wøl bRvDjt ;E hDlDlVq MyEk ; VvAh r®qb ;O b ;A lwødg…Î lwøqb ;V w… hEoér JKérDbVm [He who blesses his neighbour with a loud voice when he rises in the morning – it will be reckoned to him as cursing]. For once, the book’s sympathies seem to be with those who, if not lie-abeds, do not seem to greet the morning’s opportunities for hard work with the joyful zeal of the diligent early riser! Speech and silence – a self-critique in Proverbs Proverbs also introduces an expression of contradiction into those sayings that, because their subject is wise and foolish speech, bear on its own self-understanding. The sayings material after Proverbs 10.1 makes explicit what has been implicit in Proverbs 1–9 – for instance in Proverbs 4.20–22, 6.20–23, 8.6–9, 9.13 – that words spoken by the wise, the righteous or the pure have great power for good, but speech in the mouth of the foolish or the wicked has an equivalent power for evil – for instance in Proverbs 10.11, 10.20–1, 10.31–2, 11.9, 12.6, 12.18–19, 13.2; 13.14, 14.3, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.7, 15.26, 16.1, 16.10, 16.13, 16.23–4 and 16.27–8. However, other sayings, although they do not explicitly deny the power of the spoken word, emphasize rather the way that speech, when overused, becomes, as it were, a devalued currency. They hold that the wise – amongst whose virtues is selfcontrol (Proverbs 15.18, 16.32) – consider carefully what they say and are sparing of words. The foolish, on the other hand, are only too ready to express their opinions at length. Thus in Proverbs 10–15 for instance, ten sayings – 10.8, 10.18–19, 11.12–13, 12.16, 12.22–3, 14.3 and 14.23 – link loquacity to folly and restraint in speech to wisdom. Much of Proverbs rich vocabulary for folly and wisdom is deployed in these verses to drum home the message that the wise are tight-lipped and fools tend to babble, until this acquires axiomatic status within the book. A commendation of restraint in speech is a commonplace of wisdom teaching in the Ancient Near East, especially in Egypt (Shupak 1993, 158). Proverbs 17.27’s statement that the wise are guarded in their speech is perhaps the clearest and most emphatic expression of such a teaching encountered up to that point in the book. All  For instance, the warning against associating with the ‘heated man’ and reviling one’s superiors in The Wisdom of Amenemope (ANET, 423).

The Deep Waters of Counsel

151

the more remarkable then, that it is immediately problematized by the next verse; Proverbs 17.28 suggests that not all ‘still waters run deep’, that, on the contrary, some silent people may be fools.

hDn…wbV;t vyIa Aj…wr_[råq◊y]_råq◊w tAo∂;d Aoédwøy wy∂rDmSa JKEcwøj NwøbÎn wyDtDpVc MEfOa bEvDj´y MDkDj vyîrSjAm lyIwTa MA…g [One who restrains his words – one truly knowledgeable; a cool spirit – perceptive. Even a fool keeping silent is considered wise; closing his lips, (he is held to be) sensible].

(Proverbs 17.27–8)

The attentive reader does not dismiss the contradiction of the link between restraint in speech and wisdom implicit in 17.28 as the ‘exception that proves the rule’. On the other hand, neither should it lead such a reader to reject any notion of a link between silence and wisdom or loquacity and folly. In the following paragraphs we shall examine some of the reflections that might be provoked by this contradiction. Might we not need to credit some wisdom to the fool who is at least sufficiently aware of his folly to avoid making it apparent by opening his mouth? The word used for fool in 17.28 is lyIwTa. Is this a class of fool – one perhaps to be distinguished from the more frequently named lyIsk ;V – who is sufficiently crafty to disguise his folly and hence even more dangerous? Fox (2000, 40) suggests lyIwTa denotes a ‘knave’, a wicked person who is the more blameworthy because he is intelligent enough to know better. However, the contradiction is not resolved by this helpful clarification. Though it is true that, in Proverbs, all sorts of fools speak unwisely, the lyIwTa would seem particularly prone to loquacity; he figures in three of the ten sayings identified as dealing with this topic – 10.8, 12.16 and 14.3. Why then is he reported as being capable of controlling his speech to appear wise in 17.28? The contradiction offered by 17.28 remains, whatever the semantic nuances of lyIwTa. If a fool’s silence makes him appear wise when, generally speaking, are appearances reliable, and when are they deceptive? We have already noted the way that a transparent relationship between appearances and reality is cast into doubt by sayings such as Proverbs 13.7 b∂r Nwøh◊w vEvwørVtIm lOk ; NyEa◊w rEÚvAoVtIm vEy [Some pretend to be rich and nothing at all; some pretend to be poor and a great fortune]. A similar process of reflection is generated here. Indeed, reflecting on 17.27–8 gives further insight into the didactic strategy of the book of Proverbs itself. A ‘naïve reader’ might seek to accept uncritically all the sayings and the instruction material in the book by ignoring contradictions. To attend to the book’s provocative contradictions, on the other hand, is to be prompted towards a more critical approach to its own teachings and indeed towards all teaching claiming authority. It is to become a wiser person; one who does not dismiss all claims to truth but tests them against other claims and comes to one’s own conclusion. It is to be prompted to ask further questions; such as, How might the folly of a silent fool be detected? Are the wise ever loquacious?

152

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Clearly, these are my questions. For other readers additional – or somewhat different – questions might be raised by this juxtaposition. Others might pass over Proverbs 17.27–8 scarcely noticing any contradiction. In that case, I would suggest that they have ‘underread’ the text; that is they have failed to note the full meaning that inheres within it. My confidence that my own approach is not an ‘overreading’ – an importation into the text of complexities not inherent within it – is, once again, strengthened by the testimony of the Greek of Proverbs 17.27–8. The readiness of one ancient reader to produce a translation that toned down the contradictions he detected in the text before him, and whose implications profoundly disturbed him, testifies to the reality of the phenomenon. o§ß fei÷detai rJhvma proe÷sqai sklhro/n e˙pignw¿mwn makro/qumoß de« aÓnh\r fro/nimoß aÓnoh/twˆ e˙perwth/santi sofi÷an sofi÷a logisqh/setai e˙neo\n de÷ tiß e˚auto\n poih/saß do/xei fro/nimoß ei•nai [Who refrains from putting forth a hard word, [is] truly perceptive; and a patient man [is] intelligent. Wisdom shall be reckoned to a simpleton when he seeks wisdom, and he who makes himself mute shall be held to be intelligent].  (G Proverbs 17.27–8) Three features of the Greek combine to remove the contradiction in the Hebrew. Firstly, the Greek 17.27a states that ‘one who refrains from a hard word’ rather than, (as in the Hebrew), from any words at all, is perceptive; secondly, in the Greek 17.28a it is not the silence of the fool that causes him to be reckoned wise, but his seeking of wisdom; thirdly there is the use of ajnoh/toß [simpleton] for lyIwTa [fool or knave] in 17.28a. It will be recalled that my list of the questions provoked by 17.27–8 included one about the use of lyIwTa at this point. Is there, I asked, some nuance of cunning – or indeed, of ‘malice aforethought’ – implied in this word that makes its use appropriate here, as Fox’s rendering of the word as ‘knave’ suggests? We saw then that, while the word may carry such nuances, the contradiction cannot be resolved in this way as three other sayings use the word lyIwTa for the fool who is particularly liable to be talkative. The usual translational equivalent for lyIwTa in the Greek Proverbs (employed thus 14 times) is a‡frwn [senseless one]. This is the only use of ajnoh/toß for lyIwTa though it is used for the cognate noun tRlw…‰ Ia [knavery] in 15.21. So the use of ajnoh/toß in Greek Proverbs 17.28a is part of the translator’s desire to produce a bland, unproblematic text out of the ‘spikey’ and problematic original. Presumably it did not seem improbable that an ajnoh/toß might seek wisdom; the word lacks the pejorative associations of lyIwTa associations captured by the usual translational equivalent, a‡frwn. Hence, although 17.27b and 17.28b are rendered accurately, the net effect of these additions, alterations and translational nuances in 17.27a and 17.28b is that the challenging contradictions in these juxtaposed verses disappear in the Greek.

The Deep Waters of Counsel

153

As in other instances, these provocative elements are accompanied by a response in the Hebrew text of Proverbs; a response that is, once more, illuminated by my analogy of a stone being thrown into a smoothly flowing stream. This takes the form of a strong restatement of the link between folly and loquacity in three of the next ten verses, in 18.2, 18.6 and 18.7. However, there is a further complication. These restatements of the usual view are contested by 18.4, hDmVkDj rwøqVm AoEbOn lAjAn vyIa_yIp yérVbd;î MyIq; UmSo MˆyAm [Deep waters the words of a man’s mouth – a torrent flowing, a fountain of wisdom]. This suggests, for the first time in Proverbs, that wisdom may lie, not in silence but in an outpouring of words 18.4a here is to be read in apposition to the first rather than antithetically. It uses the metaphor of deep waters also used by Proverbs 20.5 – hÎn… Rl√dˆy hDnw… bVt ; vyIa◊w vyIa_bRlVb hDxEo MyIq; UmSo MˆyAm [Deep waters – counsel in the heart of a man, but a perceptive man will uncover it] – to speak of the enigmatic, hidden nature of human thinking and planning that can, nevertheless, be fathomed by the wise. However, here Proverbs 18.4a employs the metaphor with very different effect. It combines with the other metaphors in 18.4b to make an unexpectedly positive statement about the human capacity to pour out words. Until this point in the book, as we have seen, outpourings of speech have been firmly linked with folly. Indeed, the first two images of 18.4 could have been used to hint at disturbing implications. Since all these words denote abundant sources of water, their associations might appear univocally positive given the context of the Ancient Near East, where water was often in desperately short supply. However, the first two metaphors have some potentially disturbing implications. Elsewhere in the Old Testament deep waters are symbols of threat and danger – for instance in Psalm 69.3 and 15 – while lAjAn [torrent] is also the word for a wadi, a type of desert watercourse prone to sudden flash floods that have terrific destructive power. However, any such disturbing implications are suppressed by the combination with the final metaphor of a fountain (rwøqVm) in 18.4b, for this is a word closely associated with life in several other sayings in Proverbs – for instance, 2.13, 4.23, 5.18, 10.11, 13.14, 14.27 and 16.22. It is surprising then that Proverbs 18.4 applies such positive metaphors for outpourings of speech to the ‘words of a man’s mouth’, not just to those of ‘the wise’ or ‘the righteous’. It has caused commentators difficulties. Toy, for instance, rightly rejects the suggestions of Heinrich Ewald (1839) and Franz Delitzsch (1875) that vyIa [man] in Proverbs 18.4 must refer to some exalted ideal human being. This unrestricted statement does not accord with the thought of Prov., in which no such excellence is ascribed to men in general (in 12.14 the text is to be changed); nor can we take man as = ‘the ideal man,’ or paraphrase (Ew. De.) ‘it often happens that the words’ etc. – this is not the manner of the Book. (Toy 1899, 356)

However, Toy solves the discord he notes by suggesting that MAkSj_yIp yérVb;d î [‘the words of a wise man’s mouth’] be read for vyIa_yIp yérVb;d î (’the words of a man’s mouth’). Other commentators (McKane 1970, 513; Clifford 1999, 170) suggest that  I.e. with Toy (1899, 356), Barucq (1964), McKane (1970, 513) and Clifford (1999, 170) against Gemser (1963).  Cf. The modern Hebrew gloss in E-S of lAjnA as hgCh lk Mym MykCwømh aynwøa qmo.

154

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

textual changes are unnecessary, but that it should be understood that the reference is only to the words of the wise or the righteous. However, my view of the ‘manner of the book’ means that Proverbs 18.4 – though it is in dispute with other voices that associate wisdom with restraint in speech – needs no emendation. It may even offer us a picture of Proverbs as a whole. Although it praises silence, the book is itself – paradoxically – unrestrained in speech; it is a torrent of words, an outpouring fountain of wisdom whose flow, often disturbed and troubled by counter-currents, is deep and life giving. But why have such contradiction not been noticed before? If these contradictions in the book of Proverbs are so pervasive and so significant, why have they escaped the notice of readers and scholars before now? Firstly, Proverbs was structured in such a way that even alert and competent readers might fail to take full account of the contradictions within it. This is not to suggest that all previous readings of Proverbs have been shallow and inattentive. Nevertheless, very often scholars are not exempt from the pressures of the religious and academic communities in which they work and, in my view, these have reinforced the tendency to seek harmony and unity in interpretation; contradictions have been ignored, marginalized as insignificant or explained away as part of developmental processes. This having been said, one reason that many of its contradictions have escaped notice is the seemingly random arrangement of its material, especially the saying material after Proverbs 10.1. This may have led some readers to miss those contradictions that are not obvious because separated from one another by much other material. For its full meaning to be discerned, the book demands a high level of attention, an ability to cross-reference and make connections. Many readers will not be willing, or perhaps able, to respond to this challenge. In chapter five, when discussing the book’s statements about kings and rulers, I suggested that this seemingly random structure may partly be explained in terms of a strategy of deniability. The book’s ‘goads’ are ‘for the wise’; its author was unconcerned if the foolish grasped only a portion of his meaning. Indeed, when the subject-matter was politically sensitive, he welcomed the fact that he could shelter behind what he could present as simply an anthology of collections for which the ancient sages, and not he himself, were responsible. In this respect, Proverbs is not a ‘foolproof’ text in the way that Meir Sternberg (1987, 49–56) believes the narrative books of the Hebrew Scriptures to be. Fools can read it and even quote its sayings without any ; lDvDmw… real understanding, a possibility acknowledged in Proverbs 26.7 MyIlyIsVk yIpVb AjEs; IÚpIm MˆyåqOv w… yVld;å [Limp a cripple’s legs – and a proverb in the mouth of fools]. Proverbs 1.6, concluding the prologue, informs the reader that the purpose of the text before them is to help them understand difficult words. It is, ‘to understand a proverb and a paradox, words of the wise and their riddles’. Fox resists the implication here that wisdom might be paradoxical, even mysterious, concluding that 1.6 was included in order to ‘pique the reader’s interest’ (2000, 65), to encourage a search for profundity that is not truly there. He is sceptical about the presence of any truly enigmatic sayings or riddles in Proverbs and detects in the book few of the ‘earmarks

The Deep Waters of Counsel

155

of the enigma – weird images, pointless words, puzzling statements, images that were clearly ciphers’ (Fox 2000, 67). However, in the light of our inquiry, Proverbs 1.6 can be read at face value. Proverbs does contain paradoxes and riddles, even if not every reader will note them. If we do, and especially if we give the contradictions in the book their full value and do not dismiss them as random accidents or the record of a botched process of transmission, then we are goaded into critical reflection. If we do not wrestle with the contradictions then we are likely to dismiss Proverbs as a collection of banalities or a confused anthology of undigested sources; that is the risk its author believed worth taking in order to achieve his didactic aims. Awareness of Proverbs’ contradictions in the interpretative traditions Furthermore, an examination of how Proverbs has been interpreted also shows that my approach is not an unprecedented innovation. Space precludes providing a full history of interpretation here, but the work of several ancient and modern commentators, translators and exegetes from many different traditions suggests that they were aware of, and responded to, some of the book’s contradictions. Clearly the book’s acceptance into the Canon of Scripture might have prevented pious readers from acknowledging the complexities in Proverbs, though they might have perceived them. Readers from the communities that accepted Proverbs as Scripture might think that an inspired text would not contradict itself. They would then ignore or edit out the contradictions in Proverbs. So, for example, the patristic scholar, Evagrius Ponticus (died 399), in his Sco/lia eijß ta\ß paroimi/aß passes over perhaps the most obvious contradiction in Proverbs – that between 26.4 and 26.5 – without commenting upon it (Géhin 1987, 410–412). It is true that Evagrus’s work on Proverbs is not a full commentary; there are many gaps, and it is not always clear why verses are omitted. Nevertheless, he does comment on a long sequence of verses surrounding 26.4–5 and, in my view, the omission is significant. Indeed, the particular contradiction of 26.4 and 26.5 is so obvious that it represents, as it were, a test case. Commentators’ and translators’ reactions to it reveal something of the extent of their willingness to engage with the textual reality before them. In some cases at least, this particular example seems to have acted as a spur to a creative engagement with the text. We shall examine here a small sample of those exegetes who did not follow Evagrius Ponticus’ example and simply pass over Proverbs 26.4–5 in silence. The Hebrew is as follows:

hD;tDa_MÅg wø;l_h‰wVvI;t_NRÚp wø;tVlÅ…wIaV;k lyIsV;k NAoA;t_lAa wyDnyEoV;b MDkDj hRyVhˆy_NRÚp wø;tVlÅ…wIaV;k lyIsVk hEnSo [Answer not a fool according to his knavery – lest you resemble him, you also. Answer a fool according to his knavery – lest he be wise in his own eyes].

(Proverbs 26.4–5)

Our earliest witness to the extent of the phenomenon of provocative contradiction is the Greek version. We have already seen many times that its translator detected

156

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

these contradictions and dealt with them by emending the text, sometimes quite radically. In the verses presently under consideration he dealt with the perceived difficulty with some subtlety. mh\ aÓpokri÷nou a‡froni pro\ß th\n e˙kei÷nou aÓfrosu/nhn iºna mh\ o¢moioß ge÷nhØ aujtw◊ˆ aÓlla» aÓpokri÷nou a‡froni kata» th\n aÓfrosu/nhn aujtouv iºna mh\ fai÷nhtai sofo\ß par∆ e˚autw◊ˆ [Do not answer a fool against his folly, lest you yourself become like him; but rather answer a fool according to his folly, lest he appear wise in his own sight]. (G Proverbs 26.4–5) This translation has resolved the puzzling openness created by his original’s juxtaposition of two contradictory pieces of advice into a more obviously coherent piece of instruction. The Hebrew preposition V;k [like or according to] – found in both 26.4 and 26.5 in the compound wøt ; Vlw…Å Iak ;V [according to his knavery or stupidity] – was translated by two different Greek prepositions, pro\ß [against] and kata [in accordance with]. Thus the Greek 26.4 reads pro\ß th\n e˙kei÷nou aÓfrosu/nhn [against his stupidity] and 26.5 kata» th\n aÓfrosu/nhn aujtouv [in accordance with his stupidity]. This results in two verses offering two strategies for dealing with the one fool – one that will fail and one that will be successful. The use of the emphatic conjunctive ajlla» [but rather] underlines the message that, for the Greek version, Proverbs 26.4 is to be rejected and 26.5 preferred. Clearly this message is not present in a Hebrew that in no way privileges either of the two alternatives that it simply offers side by side. The meaning of the two verses in the Greek might thus be paraphrased along these lines. ‘A fool is not to be contradicted – your conversation with him would then, perhaps, degenerate into a mutual exchange of insults; but rather reasoned with in accordance with his own false presuppositions in order – in a Socratic manner – to reveal their incoherent and contradictory nature’. Both Gillis Gerleman (1956) and Cook (1997, 2001) suggest that Proverbs was most probably translated into Greek in Alexandria in the mid-second century BC. Many scholars have suggested that the philosophical systems of the surrounding Hellenistic culture, particularly Stoicism, influenced the translator, although Gerleman, for one, argues that such influences were indirect. ‘The reminiscences of Hellenistic philosophy found in this version certainly give us no right to characterize the translator as a Stoic’ (1956, 57). Rather the prime influence on the translator is his own background in a Judaism that was aware of increasing tensions with the surrounding culture. Apologetic motives may thus have been behind his desire to harmonize contradictions in his original before presenting it to an audience that might have included gentiles who took an interest, not always a kindly one, in the Sophia of the Jews. As Cook puts it, ‘The translator exhibits a conservative Jewish exegetical approach that has to be understood against the background of an increasingly hostile Hellenistic background’ (2001, 29). Cook’s use of ‘exegetical’ here recalls the use of the same word in relation to the Greek version of Proverbs by Emmanuel Tov (1990, 44). As in the case of Tov’s usage,

The Deep Waters of Counsel

157

‘exegesis’ is, perhaps, an inappropriate concept here. It would be more accurate to speak of a tendency towards harmonizing and sanitizing what the translator perceived to be a difficult text. Moreover, although it is perhaps incorrect to speak of Proverbs being regarded as a canonical text in second century BC Alexandria, it was certainly one that, in the eyes of its translator, contained teaching that was distinctive of the wisdom of his people. As he made it accessible, not just to Greek-speaking Jews, but also to the Gentiles amongst whom his community lived, one of his prime concerns was that its teaching should be consistent and straightforward. Awareness of the contradictions in Proverbs is to be detected, as we have already noted, in the Talmud. It will be recalled that Proverbs 26.4–5 were mentioned in b. Shabbath as being a prime example of the book’s ‘self-contradictory’ statements. The Book of Proverbs also they [the sages] desired to hide, because its statements are self-contradictory. Yet why did they not hide it? They said, did we not examine the Book of Ecclesiastes and find a reconciliation? So here too let us make a search. And how are its statements self-contradictory? It is written Answer not a fool according to his folly, yet it is also written, Answer a fool according to his folly. There is no difficulty: the one refers to matters of learning; the other to general matters.  (b. Shabbath 30b)

For the Tannaim, it appears that the contradiction is only an apparent one because each saying refers to a different context of debate. When the subject matter involves dw;… mVlt;A yEdVkr…î [matters of learning] then the fool is not to be challenged. When the subject is less elevated, then it is possible to take him on. Their exegesis here may be regarded as evidence of the power of the contradictions in Proverbs to stimulate critical and imaginative reflection. The difficulty I have with it is the remark that ‘There is no difficulty’. The Tannaitic solution to the problem is a valid one, given their presuppositions and interpretative methods; it is the confidence of their closure that is unsatisfactory. The contradictions in Proverbs are not meant to be so easily resolved; they are meant to provoke complex and ongoing reflections. In the Reformation period, Phillip Melanchton (1497–1560) in his commentary on Proverbs acknowledges the tension between 26.4 and 26.5. In a remark that Bakhtin might have applauded for its awareness of a clash within a text, Melanchton remarks on these verses, ‘Sententiæ duæ pugnantes’ [the two sayings are in conflict]. Melanchton resolves this conflict (Draco 1564, 97) by an appeal to New Testament passages about those who will eventually listen to wise reproof and those who will never accept it. Thus the fool of Proverbs 26.5 – who is to be answered – corresponds both to the sinning brother in Matthew 18.15–17 and the one who, it is implied in Titus 3.10, will listen to one or two admonitions. Ergo his verbis (resonde [sic] stulto de stultitia eius: ne sibi videatur sapere) vult idem docere, quod Christus Math.18 dicens: si peccaverit in te frater tuus, eum inter te & ipsum solum corripe: si non audierit te, adhuc unum aut duos adhibe: si nondum audierit dic Ecclesiae. Et Tit.ult. Paulus: aiJrelikou/ iterum atq. iterum mone. (Melanchton in Draco 1564, 97)

The fool of Proverbs 26.4, on the other hand – who is not to be answered – is the person who is obdurate in heresy and slander. The same New Testament texts

158

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

suggest that one should have nothing to do with such a person but treat him ‘as a gentile and tax collector’. Non respondere est, obstinatum & incurabilem hæreticum & calumniatorem, habere pro gentili et telone Matth. 18 & devitare Tit. Ult. (Melanchton in Draco 1564, 97)

The contradictions in these two verses thus stimulated Melanchton to an imaginative exegesis in line with the Reformers’ belief that other texts of Scripture are the best guides to understanding scriptural difficulties. We may deny that Matthew 18 and Titus 3 have any intrinsic connection with Proverbs and also query the validity of the method. However, it is clear that Melanchton was provoked by the text into a piece of imaginative and – within its own sphere of reference – coherent exegesis. Not all more modern commentators have been totally unaware of the contradictions in Proverbs. Toy’s comment on Proverbs 26.4–5 that ‘such juxtaposition of contradictories belong to the nature of gnomic teaching’ (1899, 473) is noteworthy. He occasionally notes the inclusion in Proverbs of sayings expressing antithetical statements about a particular subject. For instance, he comments on Proverbs 19.10 – MyîrDcb ;V lOvVm dRbRoVl_yIk ; PAa gw… nSot ;A lyIsVkIl hRwaÎn_aøl [Luxury is not fitting for a fool not is it fitting for a slave to rule with princes] – ‘On the other hand, slaves sometimes made excellent governors; cf. 17.2 14.35’ (1899, 371). However, Toy does not develop any overall theory of the literary effect of the phenomena he observes. We have already examined McKane’s theory that Proverbs shows the marks of a pious reworking of an older secular wisdom tradition. While his thesis cannot be sustained, it represents an imaginative engagement with the book as an explicitly contradictory text. McKane’s commentary on the book is shaped by his understanding that there was an irreconcilable tension between those sayings within it that originate from a supposedly secular ‘old wisdom’ and those that come from circles shaped by an accommodation between wisdom and ‘yahwistic’ piety. We have already noted that the tensions between sayings do sometimes appear to correspond to his classifications, for example in the opening verses of Proverbs 10.1–9. McKane’s theory also seems to shed light on the contradictions mentioned at the opening of this chapter; that is between sayings that give God the credit for victory and those which ascribe it to counsel. Thus McKane classifies 21.30–1 (1970, 549) as class C, ‘yahwistic’. On the other hand, he sees 24.6 as heavily influenced by the Egyptian strand of a supposedly secular and international wisdom because, he argues (1970, 371), the section in which it is found is freely adapted from the Wisdom of Amenemope. However, many other contradictions are between sayings that McKane puts into the same categories. So, for example, the contrasting opinions on the king we examined in chapter five are expressed by sayings that – according to McKane – are all old wisdom, that is 16.14–15 and 19.12 on the one hand and 16.32 and 20.2 on the other. Furthermore, a saying such as 21.1, which he classifies as ‘yahwistic’, is in basic accord with the positive view of the king expressed in such supposedly secular sayings as Proverbs 20.26. Weeks (1994, 57–73) argues that the designation ‘secular’ is wholly inapplicable to early wisdom traditions in the ancient Near East,

The Deep Waters of Counsel

159

including those of Israel. Moreover, apart from such considerations, the notion, entailed in McKane’s thesis, that there are different classes of sayings in Proverbs that can be distinguished from one another on the basis of consistent ideological positions, appears doubtful given the discrepancies noted here. We have seen that the ‘fault lines’ in Proverbs are both differently situated and more extensive than allowed for by McKane. However, his view of the book as one riven by contradiction has a basic affinity with the view taken here. McKane nowhere addresses explicitly a question that would seem to be raised by his thesis – namely why were the tensions he detects not resolved, for instance by a more extensive revision of the ‘old wisdom’ sayings in the direction of a ‘yahwistic’ piety? He appears to take for granted that the book just happens to be the textual embodiment of an historical process at a particular point. So he states that in Proverbs we detect one early point in this process. …in the late pre-exilic period the wise men who stood in an international tradition of wisdom were beginning to come to terms with Yahwism, that wisdom had begun to make its bow to distinctively Israelite biblical traditions and that the wise men were in the way of becoming biblical scholars, devoted to sacred learning. The material in class C and the Instruction in its Yahwistic dress reflect this change in the occupation of the wise men, a change whose full effects can be studied in Ben Sira. (McKane 1970, 19)

The developmental and evolutionary picture that underlies this understanding is unconvincing. Clearly, Ben Sira knew and valued Proverbs and the book influenced his own general style and specific individual passages in his work. Literary influence and deliberate allusion to an older, revered text are a sufficient explanation for this relationship. Furthermore, McKane’s views were likely to encourage in readers of his commentary the perception that Proverbs is of principal value in relationship to a hypothetical history of the overall development of Israelite wisdom. The possibility that Proverbs is, as it were, a ‘finished product’, one that deliberately includes contradictions in order to develop the critical understanding of the reader, is never raised. On the other hand, McKane himself did not let this analysis prevent him from engaging with the book of Proverbs in a number of highly illuminating ways. His approach enabled him to discern contradictions within Proverbs, although it obscured both their extent and their complexity. So, while McKane’s thesis may not convince at a number of points, his commentary reveals how creative can be the response of a modern exegete, working in the historical-critical tradition, to the book’s ‘goads’. As far as our test case in Proverbs 26.4–5 is concerned, McKane’s response is perceptive. The two verses, … constitute a paradox or dialectic. The intention is not to deny the validity of v.4 by asserting v.5, but to say that that both verses contain aspects of the truth and that an approximation to the whole truth can only be achieved by taking both verses together.  (McKane 1970, 596)

However, McKane does not let the insights of this comment inform his reading of the whole book, a reading which is ultimately an attempt to situate the dialectic

160

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

of the book within an historical process and thus to make it more acceptable to a rationalizing and harmonizing modern academic sensibility. Finally, we have already seen that many modern scholars – for instance, Murphy, Clifford, Perdue and Hinds – are aware of the provocative and troubling effects of some of the sayings in Proverbs. Dermot Cox expresses an understanding of how contradictory proverbs prompt reflection that is close to my own. From the very form of the proverb it can be seen that its function is not directly to teach, but to make one think effectively about life. That its primary aim is to provoke thought is evident from the fact that many are put in contradictory terms, for example 26.4–5. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes. The reader must ask: which applies in my situation? One is not meant to be passive, a mere receptacle for the teacher’s wisdom, but an active collaborator in learning from experience. (D. Cox 1982, 88)

My only quarrel with Cox here is his opposition between ‘teaching’ on the one hand, and ‘thinking effectively’ on the other; this implies that teaching is simply the process of imparting facts. Pace Cox, Proverbs is didactic, but not in a narrow sense; its didacticism lies precisely in teaching its readers to think effectively by engaging critically with wisdom. Even this brief survey suggests that an awareness of the contradictions in Proverbs can be detected in readers from many different periods and traditions. It may even be that this awareness, even when it was not explicitly expressed, has been one of the major forces that has prompted exegetes to engage with this text and has made their exegesis creative and imaginative. Apparent similarities with deconstructive readings So this approach is by no means unprecedented. Furthermore, it might seem to have a great deal in common with the deconstructive criticism that has been an increasing feature of biblical studies in recent years. Deconstructive readings draw attention to the way that both elements in a text and the ‘gaps’ – the things it does not say – stand against what is generally perceived to be its accepted meaning; they address the binaries that structural critics detect in texts aiming to destabilize – deconstruct – them; they seek to discern the power of what the text covers up and suppresses, as well as what it expresses; they are interested in how those who have interpreted and translated a text have reacted to the troubling ambiguities, the potentially subversive contradictions within it. At first sight such approaches would seem to have much in common with my own. However, though the readings of deconstructive critics are often challenging and creative, the similarities between their readings and those offered here are superficial. So, for instance, David Penchansky (1995, 9) is intrigued by contradictions because

The Deep Waters of Counsel

161

they reveal the ‘ideological struggles which took place during the transmission of the material’. His use of the word ‘struggles’ here might seem to accord with my own ‘bakhtinian’ view that Proverbs is a text in which voices are in conflict. However, Penchansky’s stress on the importance of the transmission of the material implies that he views texts as incorporating conflicting elements unintentionally; against this I have argued consistently for a deliberate and creative shaping of the material in Proverbs. David Clines and Cheryl Exum leave open the possibility of a more synchronic inclusion of opposing views. However, in their view, such inclusions are evidence of the inherent weakness of texts, or rather of the intentions of their authors, their inevitable ‘Achilles heel’. A text typically has a thesis to defend or a point of view to espouse; but inevitably texts falter and let slip evidence against their own cause….The deconstruction of texts relativizes the authority attributed to them, and makes it evident that much of the power that is felt to lie in texts is really the power of their sanctioning community. (Clines and Exum 1993, 19)

This closes down the possibility that the inclusion within a text of evidence that counts against its dominant thesis might be a deliberate strategy; that the author might wish to provoke the reader into critical examination of the power of the sanctioning community. We might agree that a recognition of the book’s contradictions opens up more ‘pleasing’ readings (Penchansky 1996, 99), but the complexities of Proverbs are not simply intended to increase the reader’s pleasure in reading, though they may do that; nor is the phenomenon of provocative contradiction simply something that enables us to see through the book of Proverbs, identify the book’s manipulative strategy and, perhaps, reject it. The contradictions do indeed make the book more aesthetically appealing, but I would argue that they also make the book a more adequate guide to the seeker after wisdom. The intentions expressed in Proverbs 1.1–6 are to be taken seriously. The author of the book of Proverbs was not primarily interested in entertaining readers but in teaching them. My most profound disagreement with the deconstructionists concerns their discussion of the power relationship between author and reader. Deconstructing a text in the way that they suggest involves an exercise of power over those who were responsible for its production that cannot ultimately be justified. Some comments on Danna Fewell’s thoughtful account of deconstructive method may clarify this point, To begin with, the point is that there is no one point to a text. There are many points, and deconstruction refuses to allow any one point to prod the others into submission. This does not mean that a text can say anything that the reader wants it to say. Texts have rights, too. Texts have constraints. Deconstruction does not give the reader permission to violate those constraints. Nevertheless within those constraints, a text can mean a lot of things. Within those constraints, a text can always be read otherwise. And deconstruction would suggest that we have an ethical responsibility to read otherwise. (Fewell 1995, 141)

At first sight this appears to be a balanced anti-authoritarian argument for exegetical lateral thinking. However, for all her qualifying remarks about the rights and limits of the text, Fewell’s picture of the relationship between text and

162

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

reader is essentially an authoritarian one. If ‘deconstruction refuses to allow any one point to prod the others into submission’, then ‘deconstruction’ is a powerful arbiter holding the ring between the conflicting voices in the text. The image of the deconstructive reader (a more accurate description in my view than the impressively abstract sounding ‘deconstruction’) is of one who has the whip hand over texts and, by implication, those who produced them. I assume that the readers of Proverbs are not in such a powerful position; as we attend to the conflicting voices within the book, we are not in the privileged position of a teacher who restrains the class bullies to let the quiet ones at the back have their say; rather we are drawn into the debate and may be profoundly changed by it. Why not assume that the writer of Proverbs was as subtle as any modern reader? That the book is indeed complex and ambiguous – ‘slippery’ to use Fewell’s approving description (1995, 121) – but this is not accidental; its author was aware of these qualities in the work and would have owned many instances of them that a deconstructive reader might have drawn to his attention. I express myself deliberately in this way in order to avoid the complex question of authorial intention, a question that would require another book to deal with as thoroughly as it deserves. Of course, we need not go to the other extreme and defer to a perception of what the author of Proverbs intended. We should reject Erich Auerbach’s (1946) understanding of the power relationship between readers and a biblical author, an understanding at the other extreme to that of the deconstructive critics. Auerbach believed that the ‘Elohist’, responsible, inter alia, for the story of the ‘Binding of Isaac’ in Genesis 22.1–14 wants to compel the reader’s submission. The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not seek to flatter us that they may please and enchant us – they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels.  (Auerbach 1946, 15)

Ironically, there is a considerable amount of underlying agreement between Auerbach and the deconstructive critics; both imply that the biblical texts contain a bully. I believe that the reader can recognize the author of at least one biblical text, the book of Proverbs, as a potential partner. He sought to draw us into dialogues that are, of course, determined by him, but which have an open-ended relevance to other topics than the ones he chooses to deal with. Of course, these dialogues are not cosy fireside chats. Our partner here is one who seeks to goad us into new ways of thinking, into adopting a critical awareness, including an awareness of our own potential for folly and ignorance. Rightly understood, his provocations are pervasive and profound; reminiscent of the koan, the seemingly irresoluble riddle set for his disciples by the Zen master.

 See Richard Rohr ‘Everything Belongs’ (2003, 32–36) for the use of koans in Buddhism.

The Deep Waters of Counsel

163

Towards a Sitz im Leben of Proverbs When and where did this paragon produce his work? Here we should remember that, as Waltke remarks, ‘the final editor’ is ‘the real author of the book’ (2004, 37). Any attempt to locate him and the character of his original audience, is bound to be problematical. If Proverbs were an anthology of unproblematic commonplaces then a complacent, status quo supporting author and a correspondingly dull audience could be read off from the text. In chapter two we saw that many commentators regard the book, its author and its audience in these terms. However, an awareness of the book’s complexities makes the task more difficult. Norman Habel’s words on the book of Job could also be applied to Proverbs; The difficulty here is that the polarities and theological conflicts of the book are so diverse and the resolutions considered so paradoxical, that the identification of a particular audience is almost impossible.  (Habel 1985, 41)

With this in mind, some attempt can be made, on a provisional basis, to locate Proverbs against a plausible background. Firstly, it is clear, from the evidence of the book itself, that it was intended for advanced study by sophisticated students who enjoyed the considerable leisure necessary to read and reread it and to master its complexities. Eaton’s assessment of the time required to digest the full message of the sayings in Proverbs could be applied to the whole book. From Chapter 10 onwards we have collections of short sayings still in poetry. Each saying needs much pondering. No doubt the sage himself expected his disciple to consider a saying deeply, sometimes meditating on it for hours and finding in it promptings for many reflections.  (Eaton 1989, 5)

Who in ancient Israel and/or Judah would have had such opportunities? William Dever argues that the evidence from seals, ostraca and inscription suggests that ‘functional literacy’ – the ability to read and write simple texts relevant to everyday life – was ‘reasonably widespread by the 10th Century’ (Dever 2001, 203). William Schniedewind points to Judah in the period immediately before the exile as being a society in which many people were literate; ‘Hundreds of Hebrew inscriptions of a variety of types testify to the widespread use of writing during the late Judaean monarchy’ (Schniedewind 2004, 98). Such a general level of literacy might offer some support for Whybray’s thesis (1974) that a middle-ranking, moderately prosperous class within ancient Israel – one that did not identify itself with either court-based administrative or scribal circles – could have had the time, the ability and the inclination to indulge in intellectually demanding studies. On the other hand, analogies from other ancient cultures challenge the notion of a wide spread of literacy among the general population. On the basis of his study of literacy in Athens in the fifth century BC, William Harris argues (1989 13, 328–30)  Waltke’s robust argument for Solomonic authorship of most of Proverbs 1–24 is intriguing. My own position would not be affected if he is correct since I emphasize the role of the final editor and believe that he arranged his source collections so as to create the literary effects he sought.

164

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

that only a small elite in the ancient world could read and write. Crenshaw maintains (1998, 8–23, 206–13) that most people in ancient Israel had little time or energy left over from the day-to-day struggle for existence to learn to read and write and that writing remained the prerogative of a relatively small scribal class whose advanced texts were such books as Qohelet and Proverbs. However, both the amount and type of the epigraphical evidence from eighth and seventh century Judah tell against literacy being restricted to one class, at least in the period of the pre-exilic monarchy. The evidence of the expectation of some level of literacy on the part of a junior officer in the Judean army revealed by The Letter of a Literate Soldier is particularly telling; in this fascinating text from the Lachish ostraca a subordinate vehemently rejects a superior’s accusation that he was unable to read and write (Schniedewind 2004, 101–3). Yet it does not follow from this that literacy was widespread throughout the population of pre-exilic Judah. Clearly, writing had spread beyond the court and temple and was increasingly necessary in the ordinary business of life, but the main bulk of the population may have remained, to all intents and purposes, illiterate. Nevertheless, in a world where writing was becoming more commonplace even an illiterate farmer might find use for writing. For example, an ostracon from Meshad Hashavyahu contains ‘a complaint dictated to a scribe by a poor field labourer whose outer garment has been seized’ (Dever 2001, 216). Alan Millard (1995) argues that the available evidence suggests that there were scribes in ancient Israel whose livelihood was not dependent on the patronage of the Court or the Temple. Payment by the illiterate or semi-literate members of the community to amanuenses in return for the writing of letters, appeals to authorities and legal documents – like that found at Meshad Hashavyah – as well as for writing such religious articles as phylactery texts, could well have supported some scribes who were not beholden to the ruling elites. It is in such a class that the author of Proverbs may be placed; the independence of mind we have discovered in the book would sort well with such a writer and he would have been well placed to hear many conflicting voices, since he functioned as an intermediary between different classes in society. The author of Proverbs may be plausibly located in a section of the scribal class who were not part of the ruling establishment as Clines (1989) and P. Davies (2002) assume all scribes to have been. On the other hand, the book of Proverbs is unlikely to have been a ‘set text’ in the scribal schools that some scholars (Lemaire 1981; E. Heaton, 1994; G. Davies, 1995) maintain existed in ancient Israel. I consider that the question of whether such schools existed – and what level of education they provided if they did – remains unresolved. If they did exist, then it is possible that parts of the book may have begun their existence as elements in the curriculum. Our scribal author could have first encountered lists of traditional sayings and Wisdom lectures based on Egyptian models in the process of his education but there is no direct evidence for the use of such texts in schools. The archaeological record has provided us only with such simpler forms as abecedaries (Lemaire 1981, 7–11). Moreover, while elements of the book may have their origins in the schools, or, for that matter, in compilations of traditional folk wisdom made in the court environment (Golka, 1993), the whole book is not, in my judgement, a school text. It is more plausibly understood as intended

The Deep Waters of Counsel

165

for those who had progressed beyond an education that focused on literacy and the rudiments of wisdom. Its author wrote for an audience of those who, like himself, were struggling to make sense of a world in which traditional certainties were cast into doubt by rapid changes. He believed that his book, by making explicit some of the contradictions in the moral climate of his day, would provoke the discerning among his readers into the sort of critical awareness in which true wisdom could be found. When and where might such a scribe have produced such a book? In spite of the ascription to Solomon, the internal evidence of Proverbs 25.1 rules out the book reaching its final form in the time of any united monarchy; this verse gives us a terminus ad quem of King Hezekiah of Judah (ca. 714–695 BC) whose men, we are told, collected additional sayings of Solomon. The terminus a quo is supplied by an external date, that of the Greek Version in the mid second century BC. Within this range a number of historical epochs provide a plausible setting for this complex work. Its concern is to make its readers more critically aware in a period of change and uncertainty – such periods are not in short supply. The ascription to Solomon in Proverbs 1.1 makes a Judean provenance highly likely, as an author from the northern Kingdom would not have wished to associate his work with the house of David; the mention of ‘the men of Hezekiah’ in Proverbs 25.1 strengthens this location. The long but troubled reign of Mannaseh; the period of turmoil following the death of Josiah; the time of the Babylonian invasions; and the post-exilic period in the Persian province of Yehud, are periods of turbulence and uncertainty that offer some of the most plausible dates. Acknowledging once again the provisional nature and subjectivity of any judgement for which so little hard data is available, my instinct is to select the relatively late period of Persian Yehud between 400 and 333 BC, as offering the best match with the troubled wisdom of Proverbs. In this period the entire eastern Mediterranean underwent unprecedented change as the Persian empire was challenged by revolts in Egypt and the rise, firstly of Greek, and then of Macedonian, power. Such upheavals may have been particularly disturbing in Yehud that lay on the invasion route followed by armies to and from Egypt (Berquist 1995, 123–6). Against such a dating we should note that some sayings in Proverbs, for instance 24.6–7, speak of entering into the presence of the king, (JK J RlRm) in his local court, presumably in Jerusalem. Such an accessible monarch could hardly be the Great King in far away Persepolis. Furthermore, amongst the many words the book uses for those in power – for instance, JKRlRm [king], lEvwøm [ruler], byîdÎn [noble] and rAc [high official] – one that might have been expected at such a late date, is conspicuous by its the absence. This is the Akkadian loan word hDjRp, [governor]. It is used in later Biblical Hebrew – for instance in Nehemiah 5.14 and 18 – to denote the powerful individuals who ruled the administrative districts of imperial Assyria and Babylon as well as the satraps of the Persian empire and also employed for any ruling official particularly of foreign states, as in 1 Kings 20.24. However, the use of KRlRm in this context can be plausibly accounted for by archaism; either that following inevitably from the incorporation of older collections into the book, or – to my mind more plausibly – as a deliberate literary device aimed at strengthening Proverbs’ status as the proponent of the royal wisdom of Solomon.

166

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

On the other hand, hDjRp [governor], might have been deliberately avoided in order to prevent any clash with the Persian authorities, given the book’s complex and occasionally subversive discussion of power. Schniedewind (2004) has challenged the conventional dating of many biblical books – including Proverbs – in the Persian period. He notes that recent archaeological evidence reveals ‘a very bleak picture’ of Persian Yehud, ‘a depopulated and impoverished region’ (2004, 165). In his view, the economic and social conditions could not have supported any original and creative literary activity. Rather than the great flourishing of the biblical literature this would be a time of retrenchment …. I will argue that the priests and scribes were preserving the literature of Israel rather than creating it. Writing was limited and reflected the Aramaic linguistic world of the Persian Empire.  (Schniedewind 2004, 166)

Schniedewind locates Proverbs in Judah in the reign of Hezekiah (715–687 BC). He believes the book was part of a court-sponsored literary project that looked back nostalgically on the supposed ‘golden age’ of David and Solomon. Nostalgia for the past and for roots is part of the fabric of the human condition. Hezekiah however, gave this nostalgia a political and literary form. He and his royal scribes codified the golden age of David and Solomon through literature.  (Schniedewind 2004, 74)

This project included the collection of historical sources into what is essentially the canonical books of Samuel and Kings; the writing down of Mosaic and priestly traditions to form a large part of the Pentateuch; and such prophetic works as Amos, Hosea and Isaiah of Jerusalem (2004, 74–77). In fact, the casual evidence provided by the ascription in Proverbs 25.1 of a collection of sayings to the ‘men of Hezekiah’ is a crucial piece of evidence for Schniedewind. It reveals the central role of nostalgia for a past ‘golden age’ in the collecting of the sayings in Proverbs. The point of the observation in the very first verse of the chapter, that Hezekiah’s men copied down some of the proverbs of Solomon is that the proverbs are Solomonic. That Hezekiah’s men committed them to writing is merely an aside.  (Schniedewind 2004, 75)

Schniedewind’s arguments are ultimately unconvincing. Proverbs’ discussion of power and the role of kingship is too subtle to be characterized simply as part of a nostalgic yearning for a golden age of royal kings; indeed, in spite of its ascription to Solomon, the book includes voices that imply that kingship is not necessary. If, as Schniedewind argues, Aramaisms indicate a later date, then, on linguistic grounds, one could argue that Proverbs contains material that is later than Hezekiah. We noted the use of the Aramaic word for ‘son’ (rAb ; ), rather than the Hebrew (NRb) in Proverbs 31.2. We should also recall the relationship between Proverbs 23.13–14 and Ahiqar l.83 and Proverbs 25.15 and Ahiqar l.103. Ahiqar is usually dated to the sixth century BC (ANET, 427), although Jonas Greenfield (1995, 49) argues that the compilation of its sayings material may date back to the reign of Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) and, in any case, individual sayings could have circulated independently before that. Thus relationship with Ahiqar does not provide conclusive proof that Proverbs

The Deep Waters of Counsel

167

was written after the sixth century BC, but casts doubt on Schniedewind’s confident designation of the book to the period of Hezekiah. Furthermore, Schniedewind himself believes that several important biblical texts were authored in Persian Yehud, supposedly too impoverished to have sustained any major literary endeavours. ‘The most likely books composed in the Persian Period would be the Book of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah’ (Schniedewind 2004, 166). Indeed, he leaves open the possibility that priestly scribes, attached to the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem, edited many biblical texts in the Persian period or in the early Hellenisitic period (Schniedewind 2004, 166). This included the attachment of the prose prologue to Job; the collection of the ‘minor prophets’ into one scroll; and the final shaping of the Psalter. Such literary activity casts doubt on the notion that this was a complete ‘dark age’. Even if Yehud was a difficult a place for literary work, a period that saw the composition of Chronicles and the final editing of Job could surely have also seen the composition of Proverbs. It might be argued that the number of potential readers would have been too small to justify such an enterprise in a depopulated Yehud. However, its author might have had Hebrew speakers among the diaspora communities in Mesopotamia and Egypt in mind as his potential readers. Of course, even if Schiedewind’s thesis is unconvincing, it does not follow that Yehud must have been the location for the composition of Proverbs, only that it cannot be ruled out on the grounds he adduces. In the final analysis the case for locating Proverbs in Yehud is a provisional one; it cannot be pressed beyond saying that this epoch is the one in which a dispossessed Wisdom would seem very much at home. Some other lines of enquiry What are the implications of this approach for further study? The most significant are those for the study of other biblical texts. Proverbs is, in my view, far from unique in the Old Testament in its use of the device of provocative contradiction, as the work of several scholars demonstrates. For instance, P. Davies (1995) has pointed out that the accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 can be understood as deliberately framed to contradict each other at crucial points; George Savran (2003) analyses Psalm 95 as a poem in two halves in which a voice urging the claims of piety and obedience in the first part is challenged point by point in the second half. Robert Polzin (1980) – whose work is heavily influenced by Bakhtin – maintains that, in the Deuteronomic History, voices expressing contradictory ideologies – ‘critical traditionalism’ on the one hand; ‘authoritarian dogmatism’ on the other – are encouraged to interrogate each other. I have already commented on Newsom’s (2002) understanding of Job as a dialogue facilitating the clash of genres and standpoints; this will be discussed again below. So several other Old Testament texts invite a reading in terms of the contradictions they espouse. Does this commonality in literary technique imply further commonalities in terms of the circles that produced both these texts and perhaps others in the canon not mentioned above? Further study, open to the possibility of contradiction as a deliberate device, may establish the extent of this

168

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

phenomenon and confirm its value in determining the nature of those circles that produced those Scriptures. Furthermore, my contention that the Greek version of Proverbs is sensitive to the ‘spikey’, contradictory nature of the Hebrew text and repeatedly translates in a way that smooths out the contradictions, could be a valuable hermeneutic device in identifying similar complexities in other scriptures. Turning to the New Testament, Birger Gerhardsson’s view of Jesus as one who used meshalim ‘to evoke curiosity, wonder, pondering, questions’ (1986, 36) prompts a further possible enquiry. Could the influence of Proverbs have helped shape this feature of his teaching style? Hints of the book’s influence can be detected in his reported teaching – for instance, in the parable of the wise man and the fool and their houses (Matthew 7.24–7), which can plausibly be regarded as a narrative expansion of Proverbs 10.25. Does a verse like Matthew 10.16 with its command to the disciples to be as ‘wise as serpents and innocent as doves’ indicate that one first century reader of Proverbs understood the book’s deliberate playing with paradox and contradiction and incorporated aspects of it into his own often paradoxical teaching? A further field of enquiry takes us away from the canonical scriptures to compare Proverbs with another ancient text. There are some striking similarities between Proverbs and the fragments of the teaching of Heraclitus that have come down to us. The full text of Heraclitus’ book is lost, but some of its sayings are recoverable from quotations in other ancient authors. These are mostly short, aphoristic statements some of which would not seem out of place in Proverbs – for instance, D. 95 ajmaqi/ hn ga\r a¡meinon … kru/ptein, e¡rgon de\ ejn ajne/sei kai\ par’ oij◊non [It is better to hide one’s folly but that is difficult when one is in one’s cups and at ease]. Other surviving fragments include longer passages and ‘a carefully wrought proem, which suggests the beginning of a well planned book’ (Kahn 1979, 7); these show that, like Proverbs, Heraclitus’s book contained examples of different sorts of poems. Other sayings in the Heraclitean fragments problematize each other – for instance, D100, Wn oJ h¢lioß ejpista/thß w¡n kai\ skopo/ß, ojri/zein kai\ brabeu/ein kai\ ajnadeiku/nai kai\ ajnafai/nein metabola\ß kai\ w¡raßv ai¢ pa/nta fe/rousi. [The sun is overseer and sentinel of cycles, for determining the changes and the seasons which bring all things to birth] and D48, ¡Hlioß oujk uJperbh/setai me/ tra: eij de\ mh\, jErinu/eß min Di/khß ejpi/kouroi exeurh/sousin. [The sun will not transgress his measure. If he does, the Furies, ministers of Justice, will find him out]; and (perhaps) D40, polumaqi/n no/on ouj dida/skei [much learning does not teach understanding] and D112, swfronei~n ajreth/ megi/sth kai\ sofi/h [thinking well is the greatest excellence and wisdom]. Not for nothing was Heraclitus known as the oJ skoteino/ß [the obscure one] (Kahn 1979, 95), but his work fascinated both pagan and Christian thinkers as long as antiquity endured. Of course, Heraclitus lived in the Ionian city of Ephesus a hundred years or so before the date suggested here as the most plausible for the composition of Proverbs. Nevertheless, Heraclitus and the author of Proverbs may have experienced some similar pressures that shaped their books, even though Ephesus and Yehud were so different in many respects. For instance, both writers were subjects of the Persian Empire and experienced the tensions of living in that vast multi-cultural entity in which many certainties were challenged. More detailed comparisons might lead to a

The Deep Waters of Counsel

169

better understanding of the cultural forces at work in the Ancient World in a crucial epoch before the rise of hegemonic Greek culture in the wake of the conquests of Alexander. Conclusion: ‘Dialogues about ultimate question’ – Proverbs, Qohelet and Job We saw in chapter one that Proverbs was undervalued in relation to Job and Qohelet, seen as complex and interesting texts reacting against a simplistic conventional wisdom exemplified by Proverbs. It is held that Qohelet examines Proverbs’ supposedly optimistic assumption that righteousness is always rewarded with a sceptical eye and rejects it, while Job takes issue with the views expressed by Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar – whose standpoint is, supposedly, that of Proverbs. The paradigm implied by these analyses appears increasingly unsatisfactory in the light of our inquiry. Wisdom in Proverbs is often complex and intriguing; it bears comparison with some of the most profound insights contained in the other Israelite wisdom texts. A picture of the relationship between Proverbs, Qohelet and Job has emerged that is one of essential similarity. The differences between these texts are those of degree, not of kind. Those studies of Qohelet (Fox, 1989), and Job (Newsom, 2002), that have focused on the indeterminacy of these texts – on their willingness to live with crucial matters unsettled – echo much of what we have discovered about the book of Proverbs. So, as Fox (1989) puts the matter, Qohelet ‘believes both that God is just (thus retribution is the rule; thus God will judge) but that he allows injustice’; he does not seek ‘Philosophical consistency’ but ‘resolutely maintains … the tension between two beliefs, both of which Qohelet presents as equally his own, and neither of which he ascribes to another form of wisdom’ (Fox 1989, 145). There are even closer parallels with my understanding of Proverbs in Newsom’s use of Bakhtin’s language of dialogism to describe the literary effect of the contradictions she discerns in Job (2002). Taking her cue from Bakhtin’s discussion of the clash of genres within Dostoevsky’s novels, Newsom argues (2002, 94) that the inclusion of different genres in the book of Job – the prose ‘folk-tale’ and poetic dialogues – is a deliberate device on the part of a ‘hypothetical’ fifth century BCE Judean author, ‘intrigued by piety and suffering’. What was intriguing to my Judean author was precisely the sharply contrasting ways in which the two genres, the didactic tale and the wisdom dialogue, managed to conceptualize the same situation.  (Newsom 2002, 94)

Furthermore, the effect of this conflict of genres is, Newsom argues, amplified by the conflicting voices within the poetic dialogue itself. Consequently, the book creates multiple tensions that are never resolved into an integral, harmonious, if complex truth. ‘There is only their unresolvable, unfinalizable scrutiny of one another’ (2002, 103). Newsom does not see this lack of resolution as a weakness of the book of Job’s but rather its strength; it contributes to what has made the book such an intriguing text.

170

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

As far as Proverbs is concerned, the book’s goads are not meant simply to intrigue or entertain but also to prompt readers to come to their own critical appropriation of wisdom and help them to live and act in a complex world. Nevertheless, much of what Newsom says about the clash of genres in Job could be said with equal justice about Proverbs. This study has concentrated on the conflicting voices within the sayings material in Proverbs, but further work on the effect of the differences between the instruction genre of Proverbs 1–9 and the sayings material which dominates after 10.1, based on ‘bakhtinian’ assumptions, might greatly illuminate our understanding of the book. However, our enquiry, limited as it has been, has established that Proverbs is a truly dialogic text in which voices that express genuine conflict are allowed to address the reader. In fact, all three wisdom books – Job, Qohelet and Proverbs – are dialogic texts that examine issues which are too complex and profound to admit of easy determinacy; each is, to use a phrase from Bakhtin’s late notebooks (1970–71), a ‘dialogue about ultimate questions’ (1986, 151). However, the confidence of the prologue (Proverbs 1.2–7) that the perceptive can truly acquire wisdom and understanding is not misplaced. By attending to the complex dialogues in the book; by refusing to jump to premature conclusions; by reading sensitively and holding contradictions together rather than seeking to harmonize them away the reader can become one of those who are able to act wisely, responsibly, in a complex world. Here, I would, however, part company with Newsom or at least suggest that I would not want to press a parallel with her understanding of Job and mine of Proverbs too far. For Proverbs understands that we cannot rest forever holding conflicting views together in indeterminacy and reflection. At some point, wisdom has to inform, and result in, action. Proverbs 20.5 speaks of the difficulty of discerning the right course while attending to the conflicting advice but is confident that such discernment is indeed possible – hÎ…nRl√dˆy hDn…wbV;t vyIa◊w vyIa_bRlVb hDxEo MyI;qUmSo MˆyAm [Deep waters counsel in the heart of a man, but a perceptive man will uncover it]. The ‘waters of counsel’ in Proverbs are deep and troubled by many counter-currents; but in them is real wisdom. For those who are prepared to immerse themselves in the waters, there are treasures to be brought to the surface.

APPENDIX

Recent Articles Dealing with Wisdom Literature in JSOT, VT and ZAW Proverbs, Job, Qohelet and general wisdom in recent issues of JSOT JSOT testifies both to the ‘tradition of neglect’ of Proverbs and a recent upsurge in interest in the book. Until 2004 there is very little on Israelite wisdom in general to be found in JSOT in the period surveyed – the total to that year comprises seven articles on Qohelet; four on Job; two on Proverbs together with a short note on the book, although it should be noted that one article on Proverbs, Scherer’s ‘Is the Selfish man wise?’ (1997), is an unusually sympathetic attempt to harmonize teaching of Proverbs with what appears to be the more altruistic teachings of the law codes in the Old Testament. Otherwise, until 2004, Proverbs is either not mentioned in articles on other wisdom books or wisdom in general or only in passing for the purposes of unfavourable comparison. However, issue 29.2 in 2004 was totally devoted to Proverbs with five articles given at a conference by some of the most respected scholars specializing in the book. Several of these focus on the most neglected area of the book, the meshalim. Fox’s paper on the ‘Rhetoric of Disjointed Proverbs’ is especially welcome since it addresses what Alter would call the ‘wit’ of the individual sayings. This feast is followed by a fine paper on Proverbs 1–9 in 2005. The balance in JSOT has been redressed but, given the strength of the dominant paradigm, sustained attention to this important part of the biblical tradition cannot be guaranteed. There has been nothing on wisdom, apart from reviews, in the last eight issues. Year

Volume

1990 1991

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

1992

1993

Article/Short Note/Nil Nil Nil Article Nil Article Article Article Article Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Subject (Proverbs, Job, Qohelet and/or General Wisdom)

Qohelet Qohelet General Wisdom (in 1 Kings 1–11) Qohelet Job

172 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Article Article Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Article Nil Nil

75 76 77 78

Nil Article Nil Article

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Nil Nil Nil Nil Article Nil Nil Nil Article Article Nil Nil Article Article Short Note Nil Nil Nil Nil Article Article Nil Article Nil Nil

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 26.3 26.4 26.5 27.1 27.2 27.3

Proverbs Qohelet

Qohelet (although some examples from Proverbs in    A. Niccacci’s Article on ‘Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry’) Proverbs General Wisdom (Proverbs, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon)

Job

Job Job

Qohelet Job Proverbs

Job General Wisdom Qohelet

APPENDIX

2004

2005

27.4 27.5 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5

2006

30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5

2007

31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5

Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Review Issue Nil Five articles Nil Article Review Issue Article Article Nil Nil Review Issue Nil Nil Nil Nil Review Issue

173

Whole issue devoted to Proverbs! Qohelet

Proverb 1–9 Job

Proverbs, Job, Qohelet and general wisdom in recent issues of VT Three articles on MT Proverbs here and one on the Septuagint version of the book. Moreover, Proverbs features in two joint articles. It is also commented on in eight short notes. In comparison, however, there are no less than eight articles on Job plus a short note and five on Qohelet (including one joint article) plus a short note. Indeed, in this context, the fact that there are so many short notes on Proverbs is significant. They deal, for the most part, with relatively narrow, perhaps even obscure, textual issues. Noteworthy in this respect is Snell’s note on ‘The most obscure verse in Proverbs: Proverbs xxvi 10’ (1991). On the other hand the articles on Proverbs by Carasik (1994) and Maire (1995) do deal with broader issues (the third, by Lang in 2004, is a fascinating comparison between the ishet-hayil and the women in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus). Carasik takes issue with the general assumption that the ascription in Proverbs 25.1 to the ‘men of Hezekiah’ gives us reliable historical information on the process by which the book’s sayings were collected. Maire attacks the even more widely accepted belief that Proverbs 22.17–24.22 is closely paralleled to Amenemope and argues rather that this section should be regarded ‘comme un enseignement israélite’ (Maire 1995, 234). These are admittedly important issues bearing on such matters as the place and date of Proverbs’ Endredaktion and the degree to which the book is indebted

174

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

to foreign models, but neither article represents an attempt to evaluate some central theme of Proverbs or say something about how the book functions as a text. As such they contrast with many of the other articles in VT on the other wisdom books – for example, Wolfers (1993), on ‘The Speech cycles in Book of Job’; or Dell (1994), on what light early interpreters can shed on our understanding of Qohelet; or Steinmann (1996) ‘On the structure and message of the Book of Job’. Of course, VT is a journal that deliberately facilitates brief notes and studies. However, even when due allowance has been made for this, the comparisons suggest that scholars contributing articles and notes to VT about Proverbs are overwhelmingly concerned with minor textual and linguistic problems. There seems little appetite for exploring ways of reading the book that might contribute to an overall appraisal of its meaning. Year

Volume

XLI (1991)

1

Article/Short Note/ Nil Nil Nil Nil Article Article Short Note

XL (1990)

1 2 3 4

XLII (1992)

2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Short Note Short Note Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1

Nil Nil Article Nil Short Note Article Article Nil Nil

2 3 4 1 2 3

Article Nil Nil Article Nil Nil

XLIII (1993)

XLIV (1994)

XLV (1995)

XLVI (1996)

Subject (Proverbs, Job, Qohelet and/or General Wisdom)

Job Job Proverbs xx 26 and Wisdom of Solomon xxiii 11 Proverbs vii 16–17 Proverbs xxvi 10

NB discussion of traditions in Job in discussion of Ezekiel xiv 12–20 (21–23)

Job Proverbs vi 34 Proverbs xxv 1 Qohelet NB review of Whybray’s Composition of Proverbs and Week’s Ancient Israelite Wisdom Proverbs xxii 17ff

Job

APPENDIX 4 XLVII (1997)

XLVIII (1998)

XLIX (1999)

L (2000)

LI (2001)

LII (2002)

LIII (2003)

LIV (2004)

LV (2005)

LVI (2006)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Article Short Note Nil Article Nil Nil

Article Nil Nil Nil Article Article Short Note Short Note Nil Nil Article Nil Nil Article Nil Short note Article Short Note Article Article Article Nil Nil Article Short Note Nil Nil Nil Article Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Short Note

175

Qohelet Proverbs xxx 1 Qohelet

Qohelet

Job Septuagint Proverbs Qohelet Proverbs viii

General Wisdom (Joseph story in Genesis)

Proverbs xxii 17 – xxiv 22 (and Amenope) Job xl 2b and Proverbs iii 6a Wisdom of Solomon Proverbs xi 5–6 Proverbs vii and 4Q 184 Job General Wisdom – learning methods in Ancient Israel; focus on Proverbs and Qohelet

Proverbs xxxi 10–31 Job xii 18

Fourfold Structure of Job

Job

176

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Proverbs, Job, Qohelet and general wisdom in recent issues of ZAW At first sight the number of articles on Proverbs in ZAW suggest that the book is indeed the most significant text for the study of Israelite wisdom. During the period eight articles on Proverbs (and two on Septuagint Proverbs) have been published. In addition there have have been six Mitteilungen (explanatory notes). The comparative figures for Job are six articles and one Mitteilung; for Qohelet, three articles and one Mitteilung. So it seems that there is no neglect of Proverbs in recent issues of ZAW. However, as in the case of VT, closer inspection reveals that scholarly interest in Proverbs is generally restricted to investigating minor issues. Once again there seems less appetite for pursuing more significant topics than is the case for articles concerning Job and Qohelet. Thus Treves analyses Job as a ‘philosophical dialogue in verse’ (1995, 261); Levine explores ‘The Humor in Qohelet’ (1997); Fischer’s ‘Beobachtungen zur Komposition von Kohelet 1.3–3.15’ (1991), is not narrowly restricted to technical arguments about composition but seeks to demonstrate that the final editing process brought together component parts to make a significant whole. … zumindest Koh. 1,3-3,15 bzw. 1,12-3,15 als eine vom Verfasser entworfene, in sich geschlossene Darlegung verstanden werden kann, in der dieser seine Grundanschauung im Zusammenhang mitteilt.  (Fischer 1991, 72)

In contrast, Rogers – whose article on ‘The Meaning and Significance of the Hebrew Word, Nwma in Proverbs 8.30’ (1997) concludes that the word should be rendered ‘workman’, ‘master craftsman’ or ‘architect’ (Rogers 1997, 220) – makes no attempt to draw out the significance of his findings for Proverbs 1–9 – still less the whole book. Investigations into relatively minor textual matters or articles that concentrate on parts of Proverbs but say nothing about its overall composition or significance predominate in ZAW. Although some of the textual investigations in Proverbs do have a wider significance, for instance Luc’s argument that there are only five titles in Proverbs and therefore its structure is ‘possibly intended to parallel the fivefold division of the Pentateuch’ (Luc 2000, 255), or Schipper’s suggestion (2005) that the editor of Proverbs 22.17–24.22 transformed Amenemope in a free and creative way, following established Egyptian practice in handling earlier textual models, but these are exceptions. Proverbs is of interest to scholars contributing to the ZAW for what it can say about the origins of wisdom sayings (Loader, 1999) or issues concerning verses or short passages rather than for what might be said about the whole book. This contrasts once again with the approaches taken to Job and Qohelet. Volume

Issue

1990 (102)

1 2 3 1

1991 (103)

Article/Mitteilung/ Nil Mitteilung Article

Subject (Proverbs, Job, Qohelet and/or General Wisdom) Job Job

Article

Qohelet

APPENDIX

1992 (104) 1993 (105)

1994 (106)

1995 (107)

1996 (108)

1997 (109)

1998 (110)

1999 (111)

2000 (112)

2001 (113)

2002 (114)

2003 (115)

2

Article

3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1

Article Nil Nil Article Mitteilung Article Nil Article Nil Article Nil Article Nil Nil Nil Article Article Article Mitteilung Article Nil (check) Nil Nil Mitteilung Mitteilung Article Nil Nil Mitteilung Article Nil Nil Nil Article Mitteilung Nil Article

2 3 4 1 2 3

Mitteilung NIl Nil Nil Nil Article

177

Rediscovered Wisdom text (WKG) from the Cairo Geniza Job

Ben Sira Job 42.6 Qohelet Proverbs Septuagint Proverbs Job

Job Qohelet Proverbs Exodus 33.22 and Proverbs 8.30 Qohelet and Song of Songs

Proverbs 14.28–35 Exodus 15.8; Proverbs 30.33; Daniel 11.20. Proverbs

Proverbs Proverbs

Proverbs Proverbs 30.1–4 Wisdom influence on Paradise narrative of Genesis 2 Proverbs

Ben Sira

178

2004 (116)

2005 (117)

2006 (118)

2007

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

4 1 2 3

Mitteilung Mitteilung Nil Nil Nil Article

4 1

Nil Article

2

Article

3 4 1 2 3 4 1

Article Article Nil Nil Nil Nil Article

2

Article

Qohelet 7.16–18 Proverbs 5.19c

Sapiential Didactic Narratives – e.g. Genesis 37–50, Tobit, Ahiqar Amenemope and Proverbs 22.17–24.22: Part 1 Amenemope and Proverbs 22.17–24.22: Part 2 Job, the Pious Job, an Edomite parallel

Proverbs 24.23 and inner–biblical exegesis at Qumran Greek Proverbs 26.11

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, L., A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome, Editrice Ponitifico Istituto Biblico, 1988). Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, Basic Books, 1982). ———, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York, Basic Books, 1985). ———, The World of Biblical Literature (London, SPCK, 1992). ———, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York/London, Norton, 1996). ———, The David Story: a Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York/London, Norton, 2000). ANET, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Pritchard, J. (ed.) (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1950). Auerbach, E., Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, trans. Trask, W. (1974 reprint Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1946). b. Shabbath, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo’ed in Four Volumes, Freedman, H. (trans. and ed. 1938),Vol. 1 (London, The Socino Press) Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays Holquist, M. (ed. and trans.) (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1981). ———, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, McGee, V. (trans.), Emerson, C. and Holquist, M. (eds) (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1986). Balme, D.,Historia Animalium Books VII–X: Loeb Classical Library; Balme, D. (ed.) (Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1991). Barucq, A., Le Livre des Proverbes (Paris, Sources Bibliques Gabalda, 1964). Bauer-Kayatz, C., Studien zu Proverbien 1–9, WMANT 22 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1966). Baumgartner, W., Israelitische und altorientalische Weisheit (Tübingen, Mohr, 1933). Behnke, P., ‘Spr. 10,1. 25.1’, ZAW 16, pp. 120–23. 1896. Bergant, D., Israel’s Wisdom Literature: A Liberation-Critical Reading (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1997). Berquist, J., Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1995). BHS, Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia, Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W. (eds) (Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983). Bleek, F., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, bearbeitet von J. Wellhausen, 4th edition (Berlin, Reimar, 1878). Boström, G., ‘Paronomasi i den äldre hebraiska mascalliteraturen’ Acta universitatis Lundensis –Afeling 1, Teologi, juridikoch humanistika ämnen/Lund Universitets Årrskrift. 23, 8 (Lund/Leipzig, Gleerup/Otto Harrasowitz, 1928). Boström, L., The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs (Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990).

180

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Brueggemann, W., ‘The Social Significance of Solomon as a Patron of Wisdom’ in Gammie, J. and Perdue, L. (eds) The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 117–32. ———, ‘Wisdom, Order, Protest’, in Birch B. et al. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1999), pp. 373–415. Brünner, H., ‘Geleitwort’, in Shupak, N., Where can Wisdom be found? The Sage’s Language in the Bible and in Ancient Egyptian Literature (Fribourg/Göttingen, UP Fribourg/Vandenhoek u. Ruprecht, 1993), xxvii–xxxi. Byrne, J., Glory, Jest and Riddle: Religious Thought and the Enlightenment (London, SCM Press, 1996). Camp, C., Wisdom and the feminine in the Book of Proverbs, Bible and Literature Series 11 (Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1985). ———, ‘The Female Sage in Ancient Israel and in the Biblical Wisdom Literature’, in The Sage in Ancient Israel and the Near East (Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 1990), pp. 116–31. ———, ‘What’s so strange about the Strange Woman?’, in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis, Jobling, D. (ed.) (Cleveland, Pilgrim Press, 1991). Carasik, M., ‘Who were the ‘men of Hezekiah’ (Proverbs xxv 1)?’ VT XLIV, 3, 1994, pp. 289–300. Clifford, R., Proverbs: a Commentary (Louisville Kentucky, Westminster John Knox Press, 1999). Clines, D., ‘The Wisdom Books’, in Bigger, S. (ed.) Creating the Old Testament: The Emergence of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford, Blackwell, 1989), pp. 269–91. ———, ‘The New Literary Criticism’, with Exum, C., in Clines, D. and Exum, C. (eds) New Literary Criticism and The Hebrew Bible, JSOTsup143 (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Clines, D. and Exum, C., ‘The New Literary Criticism’, Clines, D. and Exum, C. (eds) New Literary Criticism and The Hebrew Bible, JSOTsup 143 (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Cook, J., The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of the LXX Proverbs, VTsup 69 (Leiden, Brill, 1997). ———, ‘The Ideology of Septuagint Proverbs’, in Taylor, B. (ed.) X Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Oslo 1998, SBLSCS Series 51 (Atlanta, Society for Biblical Literature, 2001). ———, ‘The Greek of Proverbs – Evidence of a Recensionally Deviating Hebrew Text?’, in P. Shalom et al. (eds) Emmanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in honour of Emmanuel Tov, pp. 605–18 (Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2003). Cox, D., Proverbs: with an introduction to the Sapiential Books. Old Testament Message Volume 17 (Wilmington, Michael Glazier Inc., 1982). Cox, H., The Secular City: Secularisation and Urbanisation in Theological Perspective. (London, SCM Press, 1965). Crenshaw, J., The Sage in Proverbs’ in Crenshaw, J. (ed.) 1995, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom (Macon, Mercer UP, 1990), pp. 406–16.

Bibliography

181

———, ‘The concept of God in Old Testament Wisdom’, in.Perdue, L., Scott, B., Johnston, W. (eds) In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 1–18. ———, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York, Doubleday, 1998). D., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Griechisch und Deutsch von Hermann Diels, 6th Edition, Kranz, W. (ed.) (Berlin, Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1951). Davies, G., ‘Were There Schools in Ancient Israel?’, in Day, J., Gordon, R. and Williamson H. (eds) Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of John E. Emerton (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 199–211. Davies, P., Whose Bible Is It Anyway? (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). ———, ‘The False Pen of the Scribes’, in Hunter A. and Davies, P. (eds) Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Caroll, JSOT Supplement 348 (Sheffield, University Press, 2002), pp. 117–26 Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon, trans. Easton, M. (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1875). Dell, K., ‘Ecclesiastes as Wisdom: Consulting Early Interpreters’, VT XLIV, 1994, 3 pp. 299–329. ———, Get Wisdom, Get Insight: An Introduction to Israel’s Wisdom Literature (London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 2000). ———, The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006). Dever, W., What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids/ Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2001). Draco, I., hmlWv ylvm Text by Draconites, I, with commentary by Melanchton, P. (Wittenberg, 1564). Driver, G.,‘Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs’ Biblica 32, 1951, pp. 173– 97. Eaton, J., The Contemplative Face of Old Testament Wisdom: Wisdom in the Context of World Religions (London, SCM Press, 1989). Ehrlich, A., Randgloßen zur hebräischen Bibel: textcritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. (Hildesheim, Verlag Olms, 1913). Eichrodt, W., Theology of the Old Testament, Volume 2., ET J. Baker 1966 (London, SCM Press, 1964). Erman, A., ‘Eine ägyptische Quelle der Sprüche Salomos’, Sitzungsberichte der preuβischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin: Philosophie, Historie, Klassizmus xv, 1924 (86–93). E-S, A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible, Hebrew and Aramaic Words, Proper Names, Phrases and Synonyms. EvenShoshan, A. (ed.) (Jerusalem, Kiryat Sefer, 1985). ESV, The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments: English Standard Version (London, Collins, 2003). Ewald, H., Die poetischen Bücher des alten Bundes, 8 Bände (Göttingen, Vandenhoek u. Ruprecht, 1839).

182

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Exum, C.,‘The New Literary Criticism’, with Clines, D., in Clines, D. and Exum, C. (eds) New Literary Criticism and The Hebrew Bible, JSOT Supplement 143 (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Fewell, D., ‘Deconstructive Criticism: Achsah and the (E)razed City of Writing’, in Yee, G. (ed.) Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Study (Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995), pp. 119–45. Fischer, A., ‘Beobachtungen zur Komposition von Kohelet 1,3–3,15’, ZAW 103.1, 1991, pp. 72–86 Fontaine, C., Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament: A Contextual Study (Sheffield, The Almond Press, 1982). ———, ‘Proverbs’, in Harper’s Bible Commentary (San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 495–517. ———, ‘Proverbs, Ecclesiastes’, in C. Newson and S. Ringe (eds) The Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville, Westminster Press/John Knox, 1992), pp. 145–53. ———, Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical Wisdom, JSOT Supplement 356 (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Fohrer, G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, begründet von Ernst Sellin. Völlig neu bearbeitet von Georg Fohrer (Heidelberg, Quelle und Meyer, 1965). Fox, M., Qohelet and His Contradictions, JSOTsup 71 (Sheffield, Almond Press, 1989). ———, The Anchor Bible; Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, Doubleday, 2000). ———, ‘The Rhetoric of Disjointed Proverbs’, JSOT 29.2, 2004, pp. 165–77. G, ‘Proverbia’ in Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Rahlfs: Volumen II Libri poetici et prophetici: Editio Nona (Stuttgart, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1971). Gemser, B., Sprüche Salomos Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Tübingen, Paul Siebeck, 1963). Gerhardsson, B., The Gospel Tradition, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series: 15 (Malmö, CWK Gleerup, 1986). Gehin, P., Évagre le Pontique, Scholiés aux Proverbes: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction, Notes, Appendices et Index, Gehin, P. (ed. and trans.) (Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1987). Gerleman, G., Studies in the Septuagint: III Proverbs, Lunds Universitets Årsskrift. N.F. Avd. 1. Bd 52 Nr 3. (Lund, Håkan Ohlsssons Boktryckeri, 1956). Golka, F., The Leopard’s Spots: Biblical and African Wisdom in Proverbs (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1993). Greenfield, J., ‘The Wisdom of Ahiqar’, in Day, J., Gordon, R. and Williamson H. (eds) Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of John E. Emerton (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 43–52. Grintz, Y., ‘hmlCl Mysjwymh ylCm ’sb Myxbqh tCwlC NybC sjyh tlaCb Myrryb: hmlC ylCm’ Lešonēnu 33 (1968) 243–69; corrections in Lešonēnu 34 (1969), trans. Snell, D. 1993 in Twice Told Proverbs and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs (Winona Lale, Eisenbrauns, 1993), pp. 88–114. Habel, N., The Book of Job: A Commentary (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1985).

Bibliography

183

Harris, W., Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1988). Hayes, J. and Prussner, F. (eds), Old Testament Theology: Its History andDevelopment (Atlanta, John Knox, 1983). Heaton, E., Solomon’s New Men (London, Pica Press, 1974). ———, The School Tradition in the Old Testament (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994). Heaton, H., A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job (Washington DC, The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982). Heim, K., Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1–22:16, BZAW 273 (Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 2001). Hermisson, H.-J., Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit WMANT 28. (Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 1968). Historia Animalium, Aristotelis Opera: ex Recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri, 2nd Edition, Gigon (ed.) (Berlin, De Gruyter, 1960). Hinds, M., ‘Teaching for Responsibility: Confirmation and the Book of Proverbs’ Religious Education, Volume 93 Part 2, 1997, pp. 207–26 Hurowitz, V., ‘An Often Overlooked Alphabetic Acrostic in Proverbs 24:1–22’, Revue Biblique. 107.4, 2000, pp. 525–40. JB, The Jerusalem Bible (London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966). Joosten, J., Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint’, Textus: Studies of the Hebrew University Bible Project Volume XXXI, Rofé, A. and Talmon, S. (eds) pp. 1–19 (Jerusalem, The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2002). Kahn, C., The art and thought of Heraclitus: An edition of the fragments with translation and commentary (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979). KJV, The Holy Bible: King James Version (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1923). Koch, K., ‘Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?’ Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 52.1, pp. 1–42. Crenshaw J. (ed. and trans.) 1983, in Theodicy in the Old Testament (London, SPCK, 1955). Lang, B., ‘Women’s Work, Household and Property in Two Mediterranean Societies: A Comparative Essay on Proverbs XXX1 10–31’, VT LIV, 2004, pp. 188–207. Leavis, F., Thought, Word and Creativity: Art and Thought in Lawrence (London, Chatto & Windus, 1976). Lemaire, A., Les Écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël (Fribourg & Göttingen, Éditions Universitaires, 1981). Levine, E., The Humor in Qohelet’, ZAW 109.1, 1997, pp. 71–83. Loader, D., ‘Wisdom by (the) people, for (the) people’, ZAW 111.2, 1999, pp. 211–34. Longman, T., How to Read Proverbs (Downers Grove, IL. Intervarsity Press, 2002). Luc, A., The Titles and Structure of Proverbs’, ZAW 112.2, 2000, pp. 232–55. Mack, B., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1985). Maire, T., ‘Proverbes xxii 17ss: enseignement à Shalishôm?’, VT XLV 1, 1995, pp. 227–38. Martin, J. Proverbs (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). McKane, W., Proverbs: A New Approach (London, SCM Press, 1970).

184

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

McKeating, H., Studying the Old Testament (London, Epworth Press, 1979). McKinlay, J., Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink, JSOTsup 26 (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Meinhold, A., Die Sprüche. Teil 1 Sprüche Kapitel 1–15. Züricher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 16:1 (Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1991a). ———, Die Sprüche. Teil 2 Sprüche Kapitel 16–31. Züricher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 16:2 (Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1991b). Mieder, W., ‘The Essence of Literary Proverb Study’, Proverbium 23, 885–906, 1974. Millard, A., ‘The Knowledge of Writing in Iron Age Palestine’, Tyndale Bulletin 46, 1994, pp. 207–17. Miscall, P., See Quinn-Miscall, P. Mitchell, S., The Selected Poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke (Mitchell, S., ed. and trans.) (New York, Random House, 1980). M-J, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Paul Joüon, S.J., 2 Volumes, 2nd Edition Muraoka, T. (trans. and ed.) (Rome, Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1996). MT, Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible; Edition – BHS. Murphy, R., Seven Books of Wisdom (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1960). ———, Wisdom Literature FOTL XIII (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1981). ———, ‘Recent research on Proverbs and Qoheleth’, in A. Hauser and P. Sellew (eds) Currents in Research: Biblical Studies, JSOT (Sheffield, Sheffield UP, 1993), pp. 119–40. ———, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature (New York, Doubleday, 1995). ———, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 22: Proverbs (Nashville, Nelson, 1998). ———, ‘A Brief Note on Translating Proverbs’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60:4, 2001, pp. 621–5 Newsom, C., ‘Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom’ in Day, P. (ed), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 144–82. ———,‘The Book of Job as Polyphonic Text’ JSOT 97, 2002, pp. 87–108 NIV, The Holy Bible: New International Version (Colorado Springs, The International Bible Society, 1984). NJB, The New Jerusalem Bible (London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985). NRSV, New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised Edition (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995). Oesterley, W., The Book of Proverbs (London, Methuen, 1929). Ogden, G., Qoheleth (Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1985). Penchansky, D., The Politics of Biblical Theology: A PostmodernReading (Macon Georgia, Mercer University Press, 1995). Perdue, L., Wisdom in Revolt (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). ———, ‘Wisdom Theology and Social History in Proverbs 1–9’, in Barré, M. (ed.) Wisdom You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 29 (Washington, Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997).

Bibliography

185

———, Proverbs: Interpetation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching (Louisville, John Knox Press, 2000). Perry, A., Wisdom Literature and the Structure of Proverbs (Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University, 1993). Plöger, O., Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament: Band XV11 Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia) (Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchner Verlag, 1984). Polzin, R., Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1980). Potok, C., The Gift of Asher Lev (London, Heinemann, 1990). Prussner, F., Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development, Hayes J. and Prussner F. (eds) (Atlanta, John Knox, 1983). Quinn-Miscall, P., Isaiah (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). ———, Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision (Louisville/Westminster, John Knox Press, 2001). REB, The Revised English Bible (Oxford/Cambridge, Oxford University Press/ Cambridge University Press, 1989). Richards, I., Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgement (London, Kegan Paul, Tench & Trubner, 1929). Ringgren, H., ‘Sprüche’ in Das Alte Testament Deutsch: Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk. Teilband 16/1, Sprüche/Prediger Übersezt und erklärt H. Ringgren and W. Zimmerli (Göttingen, Vandenhoek u. Ruprecht, 1962). Rogers, C., ‘The Meaning and Significance of the Hebrew Word, Nwma in Proverbs 8,30’, ZAW 109.2, 1994, pp. 208–21. Rohr, R., Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer (New York, The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002). Rowley, H., The Faith of Israel (London, SCM Press, 1956). Sarkissian, A Brief Introduction to Armenian Christian Literature (London, Faith Press, 1960). Savran, G., ‘The Contrasting Voices of Psalm 95’, La Revue Biblique (Tome 110.1), 2003, pp. 17–32 Scherer A., ‘Is the Selfish Man Wise? Considerations of Context in Proverbs 10.1– 22.16 with Special Regard to Surety, Bribery and Friendship’, JSOT 76, 1997, pp. 59–70. Schipper, B., ‘Die Lehre des Amenemope und Prov 22,17–24,22 – Eine Neubestimmung des Literarischen Verhältnisses. Teil 2’, ZAW 117, 2005, pp. 232–48. Schmid, H. Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit in Israel: eine Untersuchung zur altorientalischen und israelitischen Weisheit, BZAW 101 (Berlin, Töpelmann, 1966). Schniedewind, W., How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualisation of Ancient Israel (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004). Scoralick, R., Einzelspruch und Sammlung, BZAW 232 (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1995). Sellin E., Alttestamentliche Theologie auf Religionsgeschichtlicher Grundlage (Leipzig, Quelle u. Meyer, 1933).

186

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Shklovsky, V., ‘Искýсство как Приëм’ in Sborniki po teorii poetičes [russ]kogo yazyka P. 1917, II pp. 3–14 . 1965 Lemon, L. and Reis, M. (trans. and eds) ‘Art as Technique’, in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (Lincoln Nebr., Lincoln University Press, 1917). Shupak, N., Where can Wisdom be found? The Sage’s Language in the Bible and in Ancient Egyptian Literature (Fribourg/Göttingen, UP Fribourg/Vandenhoek u. Ruprecht, 1993). ———, ‘Learning Methods in Ancient Israel’, in VT LIII, 2003, pp. 418–29. Skehan, P., Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 1 (1971 Catholic Biblical Society of America), 1947, pp. 9–14. ———, ‘Wisdom’s House’, in Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 1 (1971 Catholic Biblical Society of America, 1971, pp. 27–45. Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1941). Sneed, M., ‘Dis(closure) in Qohelet: Qohlet deconstructed’, JSOT 100, 2002, pp. 115–26. Snell, D., ‘The most obscure verse in Proverbs: Proverbs xxvi 10’, VT XLI 3, 1991 pp. 330–33. ———, Twice Told Proverbs and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs (Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1993). Snijders, L., ‘The Meaning of zār in the Old Testament: an Exegetical Study’, Oudtestamentische Studien, Vol. X, 1954, pp. 1–154 Steinmann, A., ‘The Structure and Message of the Book of Job’, VT XLVI 1, 1996, pp. 85–100. Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1985). Tov, E., ‘Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs’, in H. Attridge et al. (eds) Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins (Lanham, University Press of America, 1990). ———, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Second Revised Edition (Minneapolis, Fortress Press/Assen, Royal Van Gorcum, 2001). Toy, C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs: the International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh, T. &T. Clark, 1899). Treves, M., ‘The Book of Job’, ZAW 107.2, 1994, pp. 261–73. Van Buren, P., The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, Based on an Analysis of Its Language (London, SCM Press, 1963). Von Rad, G., I Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels: trans. 1960 Stalker, D. Old Testament Theology: Vol. I (Edinburgh, Oliver & Boyd, 1957). ———, II Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels (München, Kaiser) trans. 1965 Stalker, D. Old Testament Theology: Vol II (Edinburgh/ London, T& T Clark, 1961). ———, Weisheit in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchner, 1970) trans. Martin, J. 1972, Wisdom in Israel (London, SCM Press).

Bibliography

187

Waltke, B., Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2004). WAP, The Poems of Alexander Pope; A one-volume edition of the Twickenham Text with selected annotations, Butt, J. (ed.) (London, Methuen & Co., 1963). Weeks, S., Early Israelite Wisdom (Oxford, OUP, 1994). Wellhausen, J., 1878, See Bleek, F. Westbrook, R., Property and Family in Biblical Law, JSOT Supplement 113 (Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1991). Westermann, C., Wurzeln der Weisheit: die ältesten Sprüche Israels und anderen Völker (Göttingen, Vandenhoek u. Ruprecht, 1990). White, M., ‘Authorship and Censorship in “Sir Thomas More”’, pp. xiv–xvi, in Sir Thomas More: Anthony Munday and Others (London, Nick Hern Books, 2004). Whybray, R.N., The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (Berlin, De Gruyter, 1974). ———,‘The social world of the wisdom writers’, in Clements, R. (ed.) The World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 227–50. ———, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, JSOTsup 99 (Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1990). Williamson, H., The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994). Wolf, F., Gedichte, Erzählungen 1911–1936, Pollatschek, W. and Wolf, E. (eds) (Berlin, Aufbau Verlag, 1963). Wolfers, D., ‘The Speech-cycles in the Book of Job’, VT XLIII 3, 1993, pp. 385– 402. Wolters, A., ‘Proverbs XXXI:10–31 as Heroic Hymn: A Form-Critical Analysis’, VT XXXVIII, 1988, pp. 446–57. Wright, E., God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital, Studies in Biblical Theology (London SCM, 1952). Wright, J.R., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wright, J. R. (ed.) Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 9 (Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press, 2004). WRR, Gesammelte Werke Rainer-Maria Rilke: in 5 Bänden (Leipzig, Insel Verlag, 1928). WTE, T.S. Eliot Collected Poems 1909–1962 (London, Faber & Faber, 1963). WWS, The Riverside Shakespeare, Evans, B. et al. (eds) (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1974). Würthwein, E., Wort und Existenz: Studien zum Alten Testament (Göttingen, Vandenhoek u. Ruprecht, 1970). ———, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, trans. Rhodes, E. 1995 (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988). Ziegler, J., Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (Münster, Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlungen, 1934).

This page intentionally left blank

Index of Authors

Alonso Schökel, L., 4, 76, 80, 133 Alter, R., 5–9, 47–9, 58–9, 69, 107, 171 Auerbach, E., 162 Bakhtin, M., 1, 14–20, 116, 157, 167, 169–70 Barth, K., 24 Barucq, A., 153n Bauer-Kayatz, C., 50 Baumgartner, W., 25 Behnke, P., 55 Bergant, D., 65 Berquist, J., 165 Birch, B., 35 Boström, G., 51–2 Boström, L., 40–41 Brecht, B., 14 Brueggemann, W., 3, 34–6, 118, 120 Brünner, H., 21 Byrne, J., 2n Camp, C., 40, 73 Carasik, M., 173 Clifford, R., 7, 44, 51, 55–6, 60, 61, 67, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 92, 96, 101, 102, 104, 112, 118, 131, 134, 143–44, 145, 153, 153n, 160, Clines, D., 33–5, 93, 112, 161, 164 Cook, J., 124–5, 156 Cox, D., 50, 160 Cox, H., 28 Crenshaw, J., 18–20, 58, 164 Davies, P., 3, 10, 15, 35–36, 119–20, 164, 167 Davies, G., 164 Delitzsch, F., 153 Dell, K., 17–20, 28, 174 Dever, W., 173–4 Dostoevsky, F., 14, 169 Driver, G., 104 Eaton, J., 44, 163

Eichrodt, W., 23–8, 31, 33, 43 Eliot, T., 14–15 Ewald, H., 22, 153 Erman, A., 25, 47–49 Exum, C., 161 Fewell, D., 161–2 Fischer, A., 176 Fohrer, G., 25 Fontaine, C., 9, 38–9, 44, 80, 91–2 Fox, M., 3, 7n, 21, 51, 54, 72, 78, 118, 120, 127, 128, 141, 151–2, 154–5, 169, 171 Gemser, B., 153n Gerleman, G., 156 Golka, F., 29,164 Greenfield, J., 166 Grintz, Y., 50 Gunkel, H., 31 Habel, N., 163 Harris, W., 163 Hayes, J., 22 Heaton, E., 29, 164 Heaton, H., 89, 109 Heim, K., 38, 47, 52–3, 82 Hermisson, H., 29 Hinds, M., 1, 15, 54n, 160 Hurowitz, V., 51 Joosten, J., 88–9 Kahn, C., 168 Koch, K., 17, 30–5, 38, 41–2, 83–7, 98–102, 115 Lang, B., 77 Leavis, F., 11 Lemaire, A., 164 Levine, E., 176 Loader, J., 21, 25, 29, 176

190

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

Longman, T., 29, 78 Luc, A., 50, 176 Mack, B., 79 Maire, T., 173 Martin, J., 51–2, 61 McKane, W., 2, 5, 5n, 8n, 27–9, 51–2, 61, 78, 86, 104, 118, 121, 127, 131, 134, 137–9, 143–8, 153, 153n, 158–9 McKeating, H., 37 McKinlay, J., 39–40 Meinhold, A., 52 Melanchton, P., 21, 157–8 Mieder, W., 48 Millard, A., 164 Murphy, R., 17, 29, 38, 42–5, 50–51, 69–70, 78, 92, 104, 160 Newsom, C., 15, 20, 39, 167, 169–70 Oesterley, W., 25, 30, 32, 33, 49, 55, 70, 118, 131, 145 Ogden, G., 9 Penchansky, D., 160–61 Perdue, L., 41–2, 42n, 61, 78, 160 Perry, A., 2n, 11, 83, 106–7, 112–13, 116, 133, 142 Plöger, O., 33 Polzin, R., 167 Pope, A., 7–9 Potok, C., 2n Prussner, F., 22 Quinn-Miscall, P., 49 Richards, I., 11 Rilke, M., 13–14 Ringgren, H., 27–8 Rowley, H., 25 Rohr, R., 162n Sarkissian, K., 21

Savran, G., 167 Scoralick, R., 51–2 Scherer, A., 171 Schipper, B., 1n, 176 Schmid, H., 21 Schniedewind, W., 118, 163–4, 166–7 Sellin, E., 22–3, 25, 120 Shklovsky, V., 1, 11–13 Shupak, N., 20, 150 Skehan, P., 47, 51, 54–8, 61n Smalley, B., 21 Sneed, M., 36–7 Snell, D., 50, 55–6, 58–9, 69, 173 Snjiders, L., 73 Steinmann, A., 174 Sternberg, M., 154 Tov, E., 67n, 74, 88, 156 Toy, C., 61, 64, 70, 86, 88, 95, 102, 105, 112, 121, 131, 132, 134, 145, 153, 153n, 158 Treves, M., 176 Van Buren, P., 28 Von Rad, G., 17, 18, 25, 27–8, 30, 32–3, 35, 38, 44, 149 Waltke, B., 50, 104, 104n, 105, 163, 163n Weeks, S., 28, 29n, 37, 81–2, 84, 158 Westbrook, R., 77 Westermann, C., 29 White, M., 49 Whybray, N., 18–20, 37, 93, 163, 174 Williamson, H., 49 Wolf, F., 3 Wolfers, D., 174 Wolters, A., 79 Wright, G., 31 Wright, J., 21 Würthwein, E., 41, 124n. Ziegler, J., 89

Index of References

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1 and 2 22.1–14 25.14 41.7 41.24 46.6 46.23 46.27

167 162 74 89 89 89 89 89

Exodus 43.43 7.7 20.14 23.8

15 74 140 138

Leviticus 11.5

127n

Numbers 5.11–3

140, 146

Deuteronomy 5.18 6.6 6.16 10.17 13.14 14.7 16.19 17.11 20.10–1 26.15–2 28.22

140 122 74 138 89 127n 138, 140 150 122 138 89

Joshua 10.24

123

Judges 8.21b

9

9.7–21 11.6 19.22 20.13

127 123 90 90

1 Samuel 1.1 8.10–18

75 127

2 Samuel 11.2 16.7 20.1 23.6

70 90 90 90

1 Kings 5.27 6 6 (G) 9.15–22 11.1–8 15.19 20.24

122 54 55 122 88 139 165

2 Kings 4.29 16.8 19.35

131 139 133

Nehemiah 5.14,18 13.23–9

165 77

Job Book of 1–2 2.2 28 30.11–23

20, 22–8, 32–4, 38–9, 415, 89, 163, 167, 169–70, 171–8 167 70 23 97

192 Psalms Book of 23 34 37.35 37.36 50.19 (G) 51.19 69.3 69.15 73.15–20 88.6–8 89.41 93.20 (G) 95 145 Proverbs 1–9,

1.1 1.2–7 1.2 1.6 1.7, 1.8 1.19 1.20–33 1.24–6 2.1–22 2.9 2.13 2.16–19 2.22 3.10 3.13–18 3.15 3.16 3.19–20 4.1 4.14 4.20–2 4.23 5.1–14 5.10 5.18 6

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs 4,30 80 53n 104,107 107 91 91 153 153 180 97 92 109 167 53n 3, 4, 15, 24, 25, 28, 38, 42, 50, 54, 67, 79–80, 82, 135, 139, 150, 170, 171, 173, 176 55–7, 88, 120, 121, 165 170 21 6, 154–5 2, 67, 73, 90n, 94n 39, 66, 79 142, 143 62–5, 78–9 79 51 106 153 73n 90 67 20 78, 144 78, 105, 106, 110, 111, 144 122 68 90 150 153 73n 67 153 54, 68–72

6.6–8 6.6–8 (G) 6.7 6.7 (G) 6.8 6.8a–g (G) 6.10 6.10–11 6.12 6.12–13 6.12–15 6.16–19 6.20 6.20–3 6.20–35 6.20–7.27 6.32–5 6.32–5 (G) 6.34 7.1–23 7.6–23 7.7–27 7.14–20 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.21–3 7.27 8.1–9.6 8.6–9 8.8 8.17 8.18 8.22–31 8.35 9.3 9.12 9.12α (G) 9.13 9.16 10.1–4 10.1–9 10.1–9 (G) 10.1–22.16 10.1–29.27

121–6 123–6 71, 122–4 122–4 71, 86 124–5 60 68–72 90 66 61 71 79 150 137–41 73–76 139–43 140–41 140 60 38 54 75–6 76 80 76 76 81 76 81 81 20 150 105 80 106, 110 126 143 80 79 88 150 80 87 84–91, 95, 158 87–90 4, 38, 50–55, 82, 83, 120 81

INDEX OF REFERENCES 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.4 (G) 10.5 10.5 (G) 10.6 10.6 (G) 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10–14 10.11 10.13 10.15 10.15 (G) 10.16 10.17 10.18–19 10.20–21 10.22 10.22 (G) 10.25 10.29 10.31–2 11 11.1 11.2 (G) 11.3–6 11.5–6 11.6 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12–13 11.16 11.16 (G) 11.17–21 11.21 11.21 (G) 11.22 11.24–6 11.27 11.28 11.29

3, 4, 14, 15, 29, 43, 55, 66–7, 67n, 73, 84, 86, 87, 170 85, 86, 90–91, 94, 101 85, 86, 91 85, 86, 88, 90, 96–7, 101, 108 90–91 86, 88–9 88–90 85, 88, 91, 97 88, 97 85 61, 150–51 87–9 91, 96 109, 150, 153 61 38–9, 44, 91–5, 98, 106, 107, 113 93–5 39, 92–3, 96, 107 63 150 150 39, 91, 96–8, 101 97–8 168 94, 98 150 31, 83, 98–103 31, 85, 98, 101 91 85 34 99 109, 150 65, 111, 117 65 150 99, 103–7, 112, 113, 145 108–9 31, 85, 107 100, 102, 107 102 5–6, 100, 107–8 108 100 100, 108 100

11.30 11.31 11.30–1 12.1 12.6 12.3–6 12.4 12.4 (G) 12.5–6 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.9 (G) 12.10 12.11 12.11–13 12.13–14 12.15 12.16 12.17–19 12.18–19 12.22–3 13.1 13.2 13.7 13.8 13.8 (G) 13.9 13.10 13.11 13.14 13.18 13.21 13.23 13.23 (G) 13.24 13.25 14.3 14.16 14.23 14.23–27 14.27 14.28 14.35 15.1 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 15.10

193 100 101 31 63 73n, 150 109 77, 108–9 109 109 73n, 150 109 109 110 110 6,109 109 109–10 109 61 5n, 150, 151 109 150 109, 150 112, 113 150 112–13, 151 61, 112–15 112–15 113 114 114 150, 153 63, 114 30, 114 114 115 6 114 150, 151 134 150 52 153 115 158 150 150 150 61, 63 150 63–4

194 15.12 15.16–17 15.18 15.20 15.21 15.22 15.26 15.27 15.27 (G) 15.31 15.32 16.1–15 16.1 16.1–2 16.9 16.10 16.10–15 16.13 16.14–15 16.15 16.16–30 16.18 16.22 16.23–4 16.27–8 16.32 17.1 17.1–9 17.2 17.3–4 17.4 17.8 17.8 (G) 17.10 17.12 17.21 17.23 17.23 (G) 17.26 17.26 (G) 17.27–8 17.27–8 (G) 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.10–11 18.11 (G) 18.12 18.16

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs 64, 67 111 141, 150 66, 67n 152 149 150 137, 142–4 142–3 63–4 63 53 150 149 149 118, 150 51–3, 66 150 133–4, 158 133 52 67 258 150 150 133–4, 158 52, 106 52 158 52 73n 52, 137, 143–6 145 61, 64, 113 6 67 137, 143, 144–6 146 130 130 151–2 152 153 153 153 73n, 153 73n 44, 92, 94 95 95 137, 143, 146–7

18.16 (G) 18.16­–19 18.19 18.19 (G) 19.6 19.6 (G) 19.7 19.10 19.2 (G) 19.12 19.12 (G) 19.14 19.19 19.20–4 19.21 19.25 20.2 20.2 (G) 20.5 20.8 20.9 20.13 20.16–19 20.18 20.26 21.1 21.4 21.4 (G) 21.6 21.13 21.13 (G) 21.14 21.14 (G) 21.30–1 22.1 22.2 22.17–24.22 22.17–24.32 23.13–14 24.1–22 24.3–6 24.6 24.6–7 24.23–34 24.30–2 24.30–4 24.33–4 25.1–29.27 25.1

146 52 96 96 146–7 147 137, 147 129–30,158 129–30 133–4, 158 134 149 141 149 149 73n 134, 149, 158 134 153, 170 118 118 90, 150 51, 53 53, 57, 149 158 118, 158 141 141 73n 142 142 137, 139–46 141–3 149–50 111 111 1, 25, 47, 50, 56, 173, 176 56 8, 64, 166 51 150 150, 158 165 50, 56 69 60 68–9, 72 79, 90, 98 3, 56, 117, 120, 165, 166, 173

INDEX OF REFERENCES 25.1–29.27 25.6–7 25.15 25.21–22 26.3 26.4–5 26.4–5 (G) 26.7 26.17 26.18–28 27.5 27.6 28.3 28.3 (G) 28.23 29.5 29 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.8 29.12 29.14 29.15 29.16 29.17 29.22 29.23 29.23 (G) 29.26 29.27 30.1 30.1–14 30.7–33 30.15–33 30.21–3 30.21–3 (G) 30.22 30.22 (G) 30.24–8 30.24–8 (G) 30.24–31 30.25 30.26 30.27 30.28 30.29 30.29–31 30.29–31 (G)

50 147 6–8, 166 31 61, 64 115, 95, 155–6 156 154 6 73n 64, 73n 6, 73n 112–3 108 73n 73n 60–8 60, 61–5, 66, 67 65–6 66–7 65, 122 73n 67 65, 122 65, 122 65, 67 65 67 67, 141 67, 91 91 65, 122 61, 67–8 74 50, 68 56 50, 68, 72 128, 130 129 117, 120, 127–30 129 21, 121, 126–30 128 121, 126–33 71, 122 126, 127 71, 127 127 131 117, 130–32 131

30.30 30.31 30.32–3 31 31.1 31.1 (G) 31.1–9 31.2 31.2–9 31.3 31.6 31.8 31.9 31.10 31.10–31 31.11 31.13–15 31.14 31.15 31.16 31.17 31.17 (G) 31.19–20 31.21 31.22 31.23 31.24 31.26 31.27 31.29 31.30 31.31 Qohelet Book

195 131, 133 131–2 120, 132 72–7 74, 120 74 50, 60, 68, 72–3, 75, 132 74, 75, 166 74 73–5 75 74, 75 74, 75 60, 77, 78, 81, 108 15, 20, 50, 51, 60, 68, 77–82, 132 77 78 81 80, 150 80 131 131 78 80 80 80 80 79 77 80 105, 108 80

8.2–9 8.3–8 9.9 10.16 10.16–17 10.20 11.11

1–3, 17–92, 116–35, 164, 169 119 119 155 118, 120, 127 132–3 119, 120, 132 12

Isaiah Book 1.19 1.23 3.6–7

89, 116, 166 143 143 123

196

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

5.23 13.11 19.17 33.15 45.13

139 104 89 139 139

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 7.42–7 10.16 18.15–17

168 168 157–8

Ezekiel 22.12

139

Titus 10.10

157–8

Jeremiah 11.11 36.1­­–29 36.9–26

104 118 118

Hosea Book 1.1 8.7 (G)

166 56 89

Amos Book 1.6–2.4

166 9

Micah 1.1 3.11

56 139

APOCRYPHA 1 Maccabees 1.11 1.34 10.61 11.21

90 90 90 90

2 Maccabees 4.11 4.14 6.21 8.4, 13.7

90 90 90 90 90

Ben Sira

2, 8n, 23, 23n, 24, 27, 79, 139, 159

BABYLONIAN TALMUD b. Shabbath 30b

11, 157

OTHER TEXTS Ahiqar 83 92–94 103

8, 8n, 166 8, 166 9 8, 166

Amenemope

1, 1n, 25, 47–8, 50, 150n, 158

Aristotle, Historia Animalium 488a.10,12 125 622b.19–20 124 623b.17–624a.18 125 624a.26–34 125 Evagrius Ponticus 155 Heraclitus D40 D48 D95 D100 D112

168 168 168 168 168

Philo Mechanicus 431.431

89

Index of Selected Subjects

Acts-Consequence ‘Construct’ 2, 30–33, 35, 38, 41, 85–116 Agur, words of (Proverbs 30.1–4) 50, 68, Ahiqar dating 166 parallels with Proverbs 8–9, 166 Amenemope, Wisdom of dating 1n,47 discovery by Bunce 1n dismissal as butchered by Erman 47–8 parallels with Proverbs 1, 25, 47–8, 50, 158, 173, 176 restraint advocated in 150n Amos, Book of 9, 166 Ancient Israel ‘old’ wisdom in 2–3, 24, 27, 41, 86, 137–8, 157–9 schools in 27, 29, 164 worship of goddess in 2 Aristotle, Historia Animalium 124–5 Ben Sira, Book of 27, 79, 159 Brecht, Bertolt 14 Bribery, differing attitudes to in Proverbs 137–48 Contradictions in Proverb as elements in riddles 6 as goads to thought 12–16, 38–9, 48, 92, 94, 107–9, 138–42, 145, 165 as stones in flow of sayings 83–4, 116 awareness of in interpretative traditions 155–60 concerning bribery 137–48 concerning limits of wisdom 149–50 concerning speech 150–3 deconstructive reactions to 160–2 ignored as insignificant 59 indicating flaws 1, 38 paralleled elsewhere 167–9 pervasive 10–11, 147–54

p lacement of 4, 82, 83–4, 94–5, 118 noted by McKane 138, 143, 158–60 noted by Tannaim 11 reduced in Greek version 152 Criticism Cambridge ‘school’ 11 deconstructive 36–7, 149, 160–62 feminist 39–40 historical 22–9 postmodern 11, 160–62 Russian Formalist 1, 11–15, 20, 116, 157, 161, 167–70 Deuteronomy, Book of 34, 74, 89, 89, 122, 127n, 138, 140 Deuteronomist 25, 122, 139, 167 Dialogism 13–15, 20, 59, 77, 116, 118–20, 132–5, 137–48, 161, 169–70 Diligence, as defining virtue in Proverbs 70, 84, 86, 96, 101, 106, 109, 122, 145, 150 Dostoevsky, Feodor 14, 169 Eliot, T.S. 14 Exodus 15, 74, 138, 170 Feminine In Proverbs 40, 60, 73–7, 80–81, 105, 139 Folly as cause of poverty 36 different reactions to 11, 15, 156–7 different sorts of 90n, 132, 151–2, 156 equated with wickedness 36, 67 examined in Lear 59 incorrigible nature of 61–4, 67 linked to loquacity 134, 150–51, 153 of trusting in wealth 108 punished 35, 42, 59 Genesis, Book of 15, 49, 74, 89, 162, 167 God

198

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

a s concerned for justice 53, 59–60,169 as dread warrior 104 as giver of wisdom 28 as hater of bribes 138–9, 142 as intervening in the world 30–38, 42, 85–6, 89–90, 149, 158 as personal 41 as source of blessings and curses 86–8, 96–8, 101, 143–4 counsels of 24 in Job 19, 41 in Proverbs 26, 41 in Qohelet 24, 169 linked to Wisdom 77–80 mystery of 24, 26, 41, 112, 149 wisdom teachers belief in 23, 26 Greek Philosophy encountered by biblical authors 24–6, 124–5, 156, 168 Greek Translation contradictions in 115 date of 156 deficiencies of 74 measurement of temple in 55, 68 thought-world of translator of 89–90, 95–7, 156–7 translational mentality of 36, 72, 83, 85–90, 98–103, 108–10, 114–15, 117–18, 123–6, 128–30, 134, 140–42, 144–8, 152, 155–6 Hannah 75 Heraclitus 168 Hezekiah collection made by ‘men of’ 50, 60, 117, 120, 165 numerical value of name 56–7 reign of 19, 118, 166–7 Hosea, Book of 56, 89, 166 Humour in Proverbs 6, 10, 150 Hypostasis – see ‘Wisdom, personification of’

Jesus held to be culmination of Old Testament 22 user of Meshalim 168 Job, Book of as philosophical dialogue 176 as ‘polyphonic text’ 15, 20, 167–70 compared with Proverbs 1–3, 17–20, 22–4, 28, 30–32, 33–45, 169–70 dating of 22, 163, 167 God in 41, 97 not regarded as wisdom text 18 Satan in 70 translation technique of Greek version 89, 109 valued by historical critics 22, 23–5 Joshua, Book of 123 Judah as Persian province of Yehud 42, 165–8 literacy levels in 25, 27, 163–5 numerical value of 56 provenance of Proverbs in 165–6 tribute given by Kings of 139 Judges, Book of 9, 90, 123, 127 King Lear, Play of – see ‘Shakespeare’ Kings and Kingship accessible in ancient Israel 165 Aramaic form used 74 discussion of in Proverbs 65–6, 71, 73, 79, 117–32 tribute given by 139 Kings, Books of 54–5, 61n, 88, 122, 131, 133, 139, 166 Lemuel mother of 60, 75–7, 132, 139 words of (Proverbs 31.1–9) 50, 60, 68, 73–7, 132, 139 Leviticus, Book of 127n

Isaiah, Book of 49, 89, 104, 123, 139, 143, 166 Isaiah of Jerusalem 166 Israel – see ‘Ancient Israel’ Ishet-hayil 4, 51, 60, 68, 77–81, 173

Maat 26, 36 Maccabees, Book of 90 Matthew, Book of 157–8, 168 Meshalim – see ‘Sayings’ Micah, Book of 56, 139 Monarch, monarchy – see ‘Kings and Kingship’ More, Sir Thomas, Play of 49

Jeremiah, Book of 104, 118

Nehemiah, Book of 77, 165

INDEX OF SELECTED SUBJECTS Nokriyah 60, 73–7, 80–81, 105, 139 Numbers, Book of 140, 146 Numerical sayings In Ahiqar 9 in Confucius 9 In Proverbs 9, 50, 71–3, 117, 126–30 Ostraca 163–5 Persian period as one of decline for Judaism 22 literary activity in 166–8 poverty in 166–7 satraps of 165 status of women in 40 turbulence in 165 Poetry as ‘defamiliarising’ familiar 12 as inevitably’ monologic’ 13–14 manner of in Hebrew 4, 69, 80, 133 word play in 53, 57, 133 Pope, Alexander 7–9 Protestant Theology Calvin 24 Reformation 157 Proverbs, Book of acrostics in 4, 15, 50–52, 53n, 54, 60, 68, 72, 77, 81, 132 as chief example of Israelite wisdom 20–22, as poetry 4, 80 as ‘river’ of sayings 82, 84, 153, 170 bribery, discussion of in Proverbs 52, 127, 137–48 chapter 29 as summary of 60–68 clusters in 31, 52–3, 82, 85 compared with Job and Qohelet 1–3, 17–20, 22–5, 28, 30–32, 33–45, 117–35, 169–70 composition of 3–4, 81–2 contradictions in 1, 10, 11, 13, 107–16 contrast between worldly wisdom and absolute Wisdom in 106–10, 112–16, 133, 142, 144, 147–8 dating of 22, 118, 163–7 didactic strategy of 1, 4, 15, 54, 117–20, 151–61 difficulties of reading 38 diligence as key concept in 70, 84, 86, 96, 101, 106, 109, 122, 145, 150

199

equation of righteousness and Wisdom in 67 humour in 6, 10, 150 kingship in 117–32 neglect of 22–30 not a ‘foolproof’ text 154 numerology in 54–8, 67–8 oral traditions behind 29, 59, 164 pejorative accounts of 33–8 puns and word play in 53, 57, 133 reading strategies for 11–15, 43–5 references to in Talmud 11, 157 repetition in 5, 10, 12, 47, 50, 57, 58–81 restrained speech in 150–53 resumptive repetition in 59–81 retribution as key teaching of 19, 21, 29–33, 42 riddles in 2, 6–7, 14–15, 107, 154–5, 162 sections in 47–52, 120 strategy of deniability in 118–30 sympathetic scholarly response to 38–45 unity of 10–11, 47–82 valued by Christian and Jewish traditions 21–2 wit in 10, 11, 13–15 women in 4, 51, 40, 60, 68, 73–7, 80–81, 105, 132, 139, 173 written for young men 39–40, 68 Psalms, Book of 4, 30, 53n, 80, 91, 92, 97, 104, 107, 109, 153, 167, 180 Qohelet, Book of as subversive text 36, 118–30 compared with Proverbs 1–3, 17–20, 22–5, 28, 32, 33–45, 117–35, 169 kingship in 117–32 strategy of deniability in 118–22 supposed limitations of 27 Rilke, Rainer-Maria 13–14 Sages – see ‘Scribes’ Samuel, Books of 70, 75, 90, 127, 166 Samuel, the Prophet 127 Sayings eddies in flow of 4 held to be randomly arranged 2, 4, 10, 38, 48, 51–3, 86, 120, 154 intended to provoke thought 44

200

Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs

linked by Stichworte 51 performance of 9 paradox and incongruity in 5 ‘tightness’ of 7, 9–10 used by Jesus 168 Scholarship, critical neglect of wisdom by 21–9, 36–42 Schools – see ‘Ancient Israel’ Scribes as ‘fideists’ 42 as’filters’ of sayings 3 as self-serving 34–6 coming to terms with Israelite religion 23 creative role in Proverbs 82, 95, 164–9 errors by 58, 88, 112 held to be propagators of monotheism 36 lack of detailed evidence for37 social status of35–7, 42, 164–6 Septuagint – see ‘Greek Translation’ Shakespeare 49, 59–60 Solomon as patron of wisdom 34, 36, 88, 120–23, 166 claimed as author of Proverbs 34, 36, 120–23, 163n, 165–6 criticised for imposing forced labour 122 numerical value of name 55–7 supposed renaissance under 2, 29, 47 Titus, Book of 157–8 Unity of Proverbs As Wisdom’s House (Skehan) 54–7 compared to collage, film, medieval cathedrals, Elizabethan drama 48–9 in spite of contradictions 10–11 Wisdom as giving gifts to her lovers 67, 144 as partisan and ungenerous 19 as rejected and displaced 62, 78–81, 167 house of 54–7 linked to Ishet-Hayil 77–81 mythical status of 43, 79

personification of 1–3, 19–20, 24, 40, 42, 77–80, 144 wisdom, Israelite as dominant in intellectual life of west 21 as God-given 28 as ‘judaistic’ and legalistic 22, 48 as meditative tradition 44, 163 as oppressive and unacceptable 34–6 as paradoxical 44 as secular and ‘old’ 24, 27, 41, 86, 137–8, 157–9 as subversive 119–35 as third way in Israelite religion 23 as traditional 15, 26–7, 30, 31, 41, 43, 44 connected to Solomon 34, 36, 88, 120–23, 166 dating of 22 developmental models of 18, 27 diligence as key concept in 70, 84, 86, 96, 101, 106, 109, 122, 145, 150 discipline as key concept in 75 exemplified by Proverbs 17–18, 20, 23–4 equated with righteousness in Proverbs 67 held to be confident and optimistic 3–4, 17–20, 24, 26, 30, 80, 82, 93, 112, 170 international parallels with 1–2, 7–10, 25–8, 58, 71 limits of 149–50 marginalized by critical scholarship 21–9, 36–42, 48 oral traditions of 29, 59, 164 rationalism in 23–4, 26, 42 rekindled interest i 25, 29 scepticism in 19 wisdom, Egyptian 1, 2, 25, 26, 36, 41, 47–8, 50, 150n, 158, 173, 176 wisdom, Mesopotamian 25 Wisdom of Solomon, Book of 24 Wit in Proverbs 10, 11, 13–15 Pope’s definition of 7 Yehud – see ‘Judah’