She Opens Her Hand to the Poor: Gestures and Social Values in Proverbs 9781463240462

Citation preview

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 30

This series contains volumes dealing with the study of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israelite society and related ancient societies, Biblical Hebrew and cognate languages, the reception of biblical texts through the centuries, and the history of the discipline. The series includes monographs, edited collections, and the printed version of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.

She Opens Her Hand to the Poor

Gestures and Social Values in Proverbs

Jordan W. Jones

gp 2019

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2019 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܚ‬

1

2019

ISBN 978-1-4632-4045-5

ISSN 1935-6897

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

She Opens Her Hand to the Poor Gestures and Social Values in Proverbs By Jordan W. Jones

For my Rachel, a woman of immeasurable worth, who always serves others with an open hand. Do not delete the following information about this document. Version 1.0 Document Template: Template book.dot. Document Word Count: 12772 Document Page Count: 251

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents................................................................................. v Acknowledgments ............................................................................... ix Foreword.............................................................................................. xi Abbreviations .................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1. Whittling Down ‘Nonverbal Communication’ ................ 1 Nonverbal Communication in Ancient Literature .....................2 The Union of Gesture and Social Values ................................... 6 What We Have Learned So Far about Gesture in the Bible ...... 7 Following a New Compass .......................................................... 11 Taking the First Steps ................................................................. 16 Chapter 2. The Gestures of Evil People .............................................. 19 They Teach with Their Fingers .................................................. 19 Hebrew Expression ............................................................... 22 Akkadian Analog .................................................................. 23 Egyptian Analog ....................................................................27 Sumerian Analog.................................................................. 29 Synthesis ................................................................................ 32 They Speak with Their Feet ....................................................... 35 Hebrew Expression ............................................................... 38 Ancient Near Eastern Analogs .............................................43 Synthesis ................................................................................ 45 They Wink and Squint Their Eyes ........................................... 46 Hebrew Expression .............................................................. 48 Akkadian Analog .................................................................. 54 Egyptian Analog .................................................................... 57 Sumerian Analog.................................................................. 62 Synthesis ................................................................................63 v

vi

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR They Raise Their Eyes ................................................................ 65 Hebrew Expression .............................................................. 66 Ancient Near Eastern Analogs ............................................ 69 Synthesis ................................................................................ 71 They Strike Forth Their Hand ................................................... 71 Hebrew Expression ............................................................... 73 Northwest Semitic Analogs ................................................. 78 Akkadian Analog ................................................................. 79 Egyptian Analog ................................................................... 84 Sumerian Analog.................................................................. 87 Synthesis ............................................................................... 88

Chapter 3. The Gestures of Righteous People ................................... 93 They Stretch Out Their Hand .................................................. 94 Hebrew Expression .............................................................. 96 Ugaritic Analog ....................................................................101 Akkadian Analog .................................................................101 Egyptian Analog .................................................................. 103 Sumerian Analog................................................................. 108 Synthesis .............................................................................. 109 They Kiss the Lips .....................................................................110 Hebrew Expression .............................................................. 115 Ugaritic Analog .................................................................... 119 Akkadian Analog ................................................................ 120 Egyptian Analog ...................................................................123 Sumerian Analog.................................................................. 125 Synthesis .............................................................................. 126 They Place Their Hand Over Their Mouth ............................ 126 Hebrew Expression ............................................................. 129 Ugaritic Analog ................................................................... 134 Akkadian Analog ................................................................ 136 Egyptian Analog .................................................................. 139 Sumerian Analog.................................................................. 141 Synthesis .............................................................................. 143 They Spread Open Their Hand ............................................... 146 Hebrew Expression ............................................................. 147 Akkadian Analog ................................................................ 148 Egyptian Analog .................................................................. 150

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Sumerian Analog.................................................................. 152 Synthesis ............................................................................... 152 Chapter 4. Non-Ritual Gestures and Social Values in Proverbs ...... 155 An Overview of Important Themes in Proverbs .................... 156 Toward a Definitive Ethic ........................................................ 156 Natural Law ...............................................................................158 The Theme of Social Order....................................................... 161 Gesture as a Window to Social Values ..................................... 163 The Implications of Gesture on Social Values ........................ 164 Gestures Socially Perceived as Evil ........................................... 164 Gestures Socially Perceived as Righteous ................................ 173 Chapter 5. Non-Ritual Gestures in Ancient Near Eastern Art ........ 181 Teaching with the Fingers ........................................................ 182 Striking the Hand ..................................................................... 184 Stretching Out the Hand...........................................................185 Kissing the Lips ......................................................................... 187 Placing the Hand on the Mouth .............................................. 189 Spreading Open the Hand ....................................................... 197 Chapter 6. The Meaning and Spiritual Implications of Gesture .... 199 Gesture and its Spiritual Legacy .............................................. 202 Bibliography ...................................................................................... 205 Index ...................................................................................................231

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe my sincerest gratitude to the faculty and staff of Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion for their gracious acceptance of me into the MA program in 2010 and the PhD program in 2012. The faculty has been generous in ways I could never repay them, understanding my needs as a student during difficult times, especially early on in the program when my family battled medical issues and frequently required my presence. I am deeply grateful for the guidance of my faculty advisor, Dr. Nili S. Fox, whose counsel and support have been invaluable for me. She has championed many students over the years, as it has been her passion to see them graduate and succeed. I am likewise appreciative for Dr. S. David Sperling of HUC-JIR’s New York campus, whose idea it was to work on gestures/body-idioms and who has given me careful and swift direction throughout this process. Thanks also is due to Dr. David Musgrave, whose expertise in Akkadian ushered us through years of coursework following the passing of Dr. David Weisberg, whose memory we cherish. Dr. Musgrave graciously reviewed the Sumerian passages in my book and made several helpful comments. Thanks goes out as well to my fellow students with whom I shared this journey, especially Michael Lyons who has been like a brother to me since we started in 2010. I also have stores of gratitude for my church family, Belleview Baptist Church, for their interest in and support of my goal to complete this project. They have prayed for me, encouraged me, and freed me up to study. I am deeply appreciative for their presence in my life during this time. I could not have completed this book without the tireless encouragement of my parents, Jim and Jeanette Jones, who have anix

x

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

swered my phone calls and have inspired me through the toughest of times never to give up. The same goes for my cousin, Bryan Meadows, who regularly challenged me to finish what I had started. To break up the monotony of studying for days and weeks on end, I would call my good friend Chris Pascarella who would laugh with me over unspeakably absurd things. I am also thankful for my kids who have played with me and joined me on many hiking adventures over the last several years. They colored in my Akkadian grammars when I wasn’t looking—I’ve since kept them in a locked room (the books, not the kids). I love you three and I am proud to be your dad. Most important of all, I am indebted to my wife, who has repeatedly cleared space on our busy calendar for me to spend time writing. Though we do not have a shared interest in ancient studies, we are both very interested in one another’s successes—I felt that love and support from her throughout this project, and for that I am eternally grateful.

FOREWORD Body language, often designated as “non-verbal communication,” has been a subject of great interest to social scientists. This type of human behavior, consisting of visible but unspoken language conveys messages through motions: facial expressions, movements of hands and feet, etc. It is a method of communication that utilizes culturally constructed bodily symbols understood by members of a specific ethnic, religious, or social group. Researchers of body language in contemporary cultures rely primarily on native informants and observed interactive behavior to identify and define the gestures of body language. The process, however, becomes more complicated when studying non-verbal communication within social groups in antiquity. Bible scholars, for example, encounter such challenges when seeking to understand the various references to gestures mentioned in the texts of the Hebrew Bible and in ancient Near Eastern literature. In the present volume Jordan Jones examines gestures in these ancient contexts as a window to understanding cultural values. While previous studies on gestures in the Bible generally focus on those associated with rituals, Jones’ research explores body-language in non-ritual contexts, specifically those appearing in the book of Proverbs. As a collection of wisdom literature Proverbs is ideal for examining the intersection of non-verbal communication and social values. Jones divides the gestures he studies into two categories based on how they were viewed in ancient Israel—as either depicting the body language of the righteous person or of the evil person. Thereby, Israelites were instructed how to identify the person to be emulated versus the one to be avoided. xi

xii

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

Key to this study is Jones’ examination of parallel gestures in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Egyptian, and Sumerian texts. These are discussed in detail for each biblical example (when available) providing a broader view for cultural comparison and contrast. The inclusion of art from Levantine, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian sites of scenes depicting body-language serves to illuminate the information gleaned from texts. Nili S. Fox, Ph.D. Professor of Bible and Archaeology Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion

ABBREVIATIONS A full citation for each entry is provided in the body of the paper, after which only the abbreviations appear. Other minor abbreviations include: Heb. = Hebrew; Gr. = Greek; NWSI = Northwest Semitic Inscriptions; Ugr. = Ugaritic; Akk. = Akkadian; Egy. = Egyptian; Sum. = Sumerian. Abbreviations for the books of the Bible follow those of the New Revised Standard Version. ANET

CAD

COS CT DNWSI

2

DUL

Pritchard, James Bennett, ed. Ancient Near Eastern nd Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 2 edn with suppl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969. Oppenheim, A. Leo, and Erica Reiner, eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, Ill: Oriental Institute, 1991. Hallo, W. W. Context of Scripture. 3 vols. K. L. Boston: Brill, 2000. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. 16. London: Oxford University Press, 1911. Altenmüller, H., B. Hrouda, B.A. Levine, and K.R. Veenhof, eds. Dictionary of Northwest Semitic Inscriptions. Handbook of Oriental Studies: The Near and Middle East. New York: Brill, 1995. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del del, and Joaquín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Handbook of Oriental Studies = Handbuch Der Orientalistik 01, Handbook of Oriental studies. Leiden: Brill, 2015. xiii

xiv EDSL

ePSD ETCSL

ÄW

HALOT

JANES JAOS JBL JEA 3 KTU

UF VT

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Parpola, Simo. Etymological Dictionary of the Sumerian Language. Vol. 1. Publications of the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research 16. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, 2004. URL: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/ Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Ebeling, J., FlückigerHawker, E., Robson, E., Taylor, J., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford 1998–2006. Hannig-Lexica. 4 1: Ägyptisches Wörterbuch Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 98. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 2003. Köhler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J Richardson, Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt Hartmann, G. J Jongeling-Vos, and L. J. de Regt. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994 Journal of the Ancient Near East Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten: KTU 3 = The cuneiform alphabetic texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other places. 3., Aufl. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 360,1. Münster: Ugarit-Verl, 2013 Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum

CHAPTER 1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’ In a recently published volume on ancient modes of communication, Gregory Aldrete has contributed an intriguing chapter on ‘Gesture in the Ancient Mediterranean World’ wherein he describes the importance of nonverbal communication in Greco-Roman society. Aldrete recounts the famous scene from classical literature known as ‘The Day of Eleusis’ wherein Antiochus IV, who had been at war with Ptolemy VI, extends his hand horizontally to greet a Roman diplomat named Laenas. Rather than shaking the king’s hand, Laenas ‘slapped into Antiochus’ open palm a set of tablets containing a demand from the Roman senate that the war be ended.’ 1 In a footnote, Aldrete comments that the act of shaking hands was significant in the Greco-Roman context where the gesture could variously signify greeting, farewell, the sealing of a contract, or the ratification of the marriage union. 2 That Laenas’ counter-gesture was considered 1

Gregory S. Aldrete, ‘Gesture in the Ancient Mediterranean World’, in Mercury’s Wings: Exploring Modes of Communication in the Ancient World, eds. F. S. Naiden and Richard J. A. Talbert (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 149. 2 Ibid., n. 1. For further study, see S. Knippschild, Drum Bietet zum Bunde die Hände: Rechtssymbolische Akte in Zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen im Orientalischen und Griechisch-Römischen Altertum (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002).

1

2

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

rude is apparent, for the story ‘has been variously interpreted [1] as a contrast between Roman crudity and Greek refinement, [2] as evidence of the brutish nature of Laenas, as an expression of Roman arrogance, and [3] as an assertion of Roman dominance.’ 3 The scene serves as an excellent example of how nonverbal communication is, at times, intrinsically tied to the social values of a people group.

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN ANCIENT LITERATURE The study of nonverbal communication is, of course, a significant discipline in its own right. Keith Thomas writes that the study of gesture in particular ‘is primarily the business of anthropologists, linguists, and social psychologists. They are concerned with gesture as a form of non-verbal communication.’ 4 Anthropologists have long recognized the bias in how Westerners have traditionally viewed communication, casting a sense of shame on nonverbal or gestural aspects of language by viewing them as primitive and uncultured. For example, the northerners of early modern Europe regularly looked down on southerners, such as the French and Italians, accusing them of gesturing far too much. 5 The sentiment was true in certain contexts from the classical period as well—notes Thomas, ‘Fritz Graf reminds us that among the Romans gesticulation was thought to be more characteristic of slaves than freemen, while a recent account of gesture in France states that its use as an accompaniment of conversation is much more extensive among the working classes than

3

Ibid., 150. In note 4, Aldrete adds, ‘Today’s rather casual use of the handshake as a bland greeting—a near-universal part of modern social interactions—may not have been so pervasive in the ancient world. There, to clasp hands was considered a more formal gesture that often carried important specific meanings (see note 1), and would have been reserved for appropriate situations only. For this reason, Laenas’ failure to reply in kind to Antiochus especially violated etiquette.’ 4 Keith Thomas, ‘Introduction’, in A Cultural History of Gesture, ed. Jan N Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1992), 4. 5 Ibid, 9.

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

3

among the bourgeoisie.’ 6 Sherman Wilcox writes that, in contrast to those who formerly dismissed gesture as primitive and unnecessary in communication, linguists today ‘are no longer quite so certain that there is a categorical distinction between gesture and language.’ 7 The application of studies on nonverbal communication to ancient literature is welcome and needed. Regarding ancient texts, Thomas argues that we must investigate gestures since ‘we no longer speak the body language of the past and much of it has to be painstakingly reconstructed. We cannot intuitively know that when Charlemagne pulled his beard he was expressing grief or that for Quintilian the slapping of the thigh meant not exhilaration but anger.’ 8 And writing on the continued importance of research in the classics, Holoka notes, ‘the ancients knew very well that bodily movements and gestures were an important channel of communication.’ 9 Though he is writing specifically about the Greeks and Romans here, Holoka’s 6

Ibid, 10. Sherman Wilcox, ‘Sign and Gesture’, in Metaphor and Gesture, ed. Alan Cienki and Cornelia Müller (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008), 273. See Raphael Schneller, ‘Many Gestures, Many Meanings: Nonverbal Diversity in Israel’, in Advances in Nonverbal Communication, ed. Fernando Poyatos (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992), 216. Writes Schneller, ‘the general assumption that NVL [nonverbal language] is just a secondary supplement to speech, mainly emphasizing and often also illustrating the spoken word, neglects the fact that these two functions form only a small part of its various contributions to human interaction, both qualitatively and quantitatively.’ 8 Thomas, ‘Introduction’, 10. See Eugene S. McCartney, ‘Smiting the Thigh, A Widespread Gesture of Grief’, The Classical Outlook 19, no. 6 (1942): 57–58. See Meir Malul, ‘More on Pachad Yitschaq (Genesis 21:42, 53)’, VT 35 (1985): 192–200. 9 James P. Holoka, ‘Nonverbal Communication in the Classics: Research Opportunities’, in Advances in Nonverbal Communication, ed. Fernando Poyatos (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992), 242. He concludes that if scholars could be ‘sensitized to the special communicative potentials of nonverbal behavior through familiarity with modern research, classicists would be ideally equipped to detect and elucidate material largely overlooked until now [...]’ (247). 7

4

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

words are equally relevant for biblical and ancient Near Eastern (ANE) contexts. Gestures and body idioms frequently occur in ANE texts of all genres. In the Laws of Hammurabi, for example, there is a legal term for accusation in cases of adultery: ubana tar÷u ‘to point the finger.’ Someone caught in the act of infidelity might have a finger pointed against them—ubÃnum eliģa ittari·ma. 10 It is difficult to know whether idiomatic expressions such as these were literal gestures th commonly employed by Mesopotamians in the 18 c. BCE or if they are merely frozen terms that hark back to the time of their literal use. Regardless of the answer, we can safely assume that at some point these expressions did take literal, physical form. 11 Gestures occur frequently in the Bible as well. Expressions such as ‘strike the hand’, ‘wink the eye’, or ‘shake the head’ require the attention of scholars if their meaning and overall importance to the biblical text is to be understood. Such gestures not only inform us of the customs of daily life in ancient Israel, but may also serve as win10

Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Writings from the Ancient World, no. 6 (Altanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995), 106. 11 See Victor H. Matthews, ‘Making Your Point: The Use of Gestures in Ancient Israel’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 42, no. 1 (2012): 20. Matthews mentions how biblical authors will use anatomical idioms and euphemisms that do not necessarily mean an actual gesture is performed. I am arguing that such idioms and euphemisms did once have original gestural applications before they fell out of use and became merely figures of speech. Matthews’s full note: ‘A further complication arises when words and gestures evolve into euphemistic expressions that may stray quite far from their purported meaning. As a result, it will be necessary to address instances in which linguistic and literary artistry in a social context have been incorporated into a text. In those cases, an actual physical gesture may no longer be meant, but the narrative that describes it in detail betrays how an original act has been incorporated into a socially recognized poetic construction.’ ANE art is sometimes helpful for determining whether or not certain gestures were commonly employed. Where appropriate, images will be referenced throughout the book with a chapter that explains their significance.

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

5

dows into the social values system of Israelite culture. As Thomas writes in his introduction to A Cultural History of Gesture, There are two reasons why the study of gesture is of more than purely antiquarian interest. The first is that gesture formed an indispensable element in the social interaction of the past. The second is that it can offer a key to some of the fundamental values and assumptions underlying any particular society; as the French historians would say, it illuminates mentalité.’ 12

Similarly, Eugene Botha posits that, “gesture can also be indicative of social values, social boundaries, status, and the like.’ 13 The same sentiment is echoed by Paul Kruger who, in his article on ‘Nonverbal Communication in the Hebrew Bible’, provides a brief history of scholarship on the topic and in his conclusion adds that an ‘interesting theme could be nonverbal communication as indicator of social values.’ 14 Work still needs to be done on determining how the field of nonverbal communication contributes to our understanding of social values in the Bible. One way this is done is by comparing and contrasting biblical gestures with analogous gestures from ANE texts. Understanding how gestures were viewed in the social values system of Babylon, for instance, may provide insight into how the same/similar gestures were viewed in Israel. As Aldrete notes, ‘In reality, anthropological studies have shown most gestures to be cultural constructions, although some do possess the same meaning across many different societies.’ 15 By utilizing the enormous corpus of Ugaritic, Akkadian, Egyptian, and Sumerian literature, it may be 12

Thomas, ‘Introduction’, 6. J Eugene Botha, ‘Exploring Gesture and Nonverbal Communication in the Bible and the Ancient World: Some Initial Observations’, Neotestamentica 30, no. 1 (1996): 4. Botha goes on to say, ‘In antiquity where physiognomists viewed body parts and zones of the body as indicative of character and other crucial human aspects, gesture would be of equal importance.’ 14 Paul Kruger, ‘Nonverbal Communication in the Hebrew Bible: A Few Comments’, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 24, no. 1 (1998): 160. 15 Aldrete, ‘Gesture in the Ancient Mediterranean World’, 156. 13

6

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

possible to compare and contrast Hebrew gestures with similar gestures cross-culturally. 16

THE UNION OF GESTURE AND SOCIAL VALUES By highlighting commonalities and distinctions between Israelite and other ANE gestures, we are able to see whether such acts were transferrable or nontransferable across ancient borders over the millennia. Furthermore, any given non-ritual Hebrew gesture can be analyzed for how it triggers an image either of moral excellence or disgrace in the mind of the Hebrew sage, which enables us to take a glimpse into the social values of Israel and how they may compare to the values of other ANE cultures. A brief example could be how ‘teaching with the fingers’ in Proverbs 6:13 and ‘sending/pointing the finger’ in Isaiah 58:9 trigger a value assessment of moral disgrace in the sage, to be contrasted with how ‘pointing the finger’ in Akkadian (at adulterers), Sumerian (at liars), and Egyptian (at gluttons) is seen as a gesture performed by a righteous person who is attempting to highlight the deeds of a wicked person. 17 The ancient Israelite who witnesses these finger-pointing moves should, according to the sages, instantly make a value assessment on the character of the gesturer. Thomas states pointedly that, ‘To interpret an account for a gesture is to unlock the whole social and cultural system of which it is a part.’ 18 Hence, non-ritual Hebrew gestures in Proverbs function as 16

For purposes of this book, the actual physiological movement of the Hebrew gesture is considered ‘primary’ when comparing and contrasting it with ANE analogs (i.e. Of primary relevance: the act of pointing the finger in Hebrew as compared to the physiologically similar but conceptually distinct act of pointing the finger in Egyptian). Hebrew gestures that are conceptually similar (similar in meaning) to very different physiological gestures in other cultures may be introduced, but are of secondary relevance (i.e. Of secondary relevance: the act of striking the hand in Hebrew as compared to the conceptually similar but physiologically distinct act of striking the forehead in Akkadian). 17 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 105. In the Akkadian example, if the accuser cannot bring proof he is punished. 18 Thomas, ‘Introduction’, 11.

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

7

clues to understanding the ethical values system of ancient Israel. As I interpret each gesture within its biblical and ANE contexts, I will be able to formulate conclusions regarding social values.

WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED SO FAR ABOUT GESTURE IN THE BIBLE There have been a few larger contributions to the study of nonverbal communication in the Bible and ANE, in addition to which are several smaller publications in the form of journal articles that cover more specific points of interest. Carl Sittl is considered a pioneer of the study of gesture in the ancient world with his 1890 Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer, and there have been many publications since on gesture in GrecoRoman society. 19 Holma’s 1911 volume entitled Die Namen der Körperteile im Assyrisch-babylonischen sparked a great interest in anatomical studies in the Orient, 20 following which was Vorwahl’s Die Gebärdensprache im Alten Testament (1932), wherein he arranged gestures according to their motivations. 21 The primary work comparing Hebrew and Akkadian anatomical idioms and metaphors was Edouard Dhorme’s L’Emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien. 22 Also important is A. Leo Oppenheim’s study of idiomatic Akkadian wherein he listed individual body parts, sub-listing idioms or instances of nonverbal communica19

Carl Sittl, Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig: G. Teubner, 1890). There have also been numerous contributions to nonverbal communication in classical Greek and Roman literature, but they lie outside the scope of ANE texts under primary consideration in this study. 20 Harri Holma, Die Namen der Körperteile im Assyrisch-babylonischen (Leipzig: A. Pries, 1911). 21 Heinrich H. Vorwahl, Die Gebärdensprache Im Alten Testament, Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Licentiatenwürde Genehmight von der Hochwürdigen Theologischen Fakultät der Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität zu Berlin (Berlin: Ebering, 1932). 22 Edouard Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1963).

8

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

tion beneath each part. 23 Mayer Gruber, in his Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East, categorized relevant terms and phrases in the Bible according to their meaning or application, for example: ‘Gestures of Divine Worship and Supplication’, ‘Gestures and Postures of Greeting and Affection’, ‘Nonverbal Display of Joy and Happiness’, and others. 24 His work compared Hebrew gestures with other Semitic parallels, but did not include Egyptian or Sumerian. Notes Gruber, While Holma, Dhorme, and Oppenheim discussed expressions originating in gestures and postures, they did so only with reference to idioms that employ names of body parts. Thus a large number of crucial Heb. and Akk. expressions referring to gestures and postures as well as to the mental states conveyed by those body movements were omitted from the purview of their studies. 25

For this reason, Gruber’s work is incredibly helpful as a resource for interpreting gestures (primarily ritual gestures) in the Bible. There are several other publications that deal with gesture and body idiom, such as David Sperling’s 1973 dissertation entitled, ‘Studies in Late Hebrew Lexicography in Light of Akkadian’, which contains a chapter on ‘Body Idioms in Akkadian and Late Hebrew’ wherein he also lists his examples of idiom by body part rather than by the idiom’s interpreted meaning (Contra Gruber above). 26 Other works of note include Brigitte Dominicus’s text on Egyptian gesture as well as several articles on specific gestures in the Bible, written variously by Eugene Botha, Calum Carmichael, Zeev Falk, Nili Fox, Gregory Glazov, Paul Kruger, Victor Matthews, David Seely, S. David Sperling, David Wright, and many others referenced throughout 23

A. Leo Oppenheim, ‘Idiomatic Accadian’, JAOS 61, no. 4 (1941): 251–71. Mayer I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East, Studia Pohl: Dissertationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 12 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), xi–xiii. 25 Ibid., 9. 26 S. David Sperling, ‘Studies in Late Hebrew Lexicography in the Light of Akkadian’ (Unpubl. diss., Colombia University, 1973), 109–123. 24

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

9

this book. 27 Aside from these are the many biblical commentaries that interpret gestures as they occur in the text of the Hebrew Bible. David Calabro’s 2014 dissertation on lifting, extending, and clasping the hands in Northwest Semitic languages organizes gestures by the verbal phrases themselves. He states that, ‘the basic gesture phrase is useful as a heuristic means of searching out, organizing, and referring to examples of gesture descriptions.’ 28 Calabro searched for phrases that consist of ‘a verb (or verbal noun or adjective) denoting the movement of a body part or a position, and usually including a

27

Brigitte Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden in Darstellungen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches, Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 10 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1994). Botha, ‘Exploring Gesture and Nonverbal Communication in the Bible and the Ancient World: Some Initial Observations.’ Calum M. Carmichael, ‘Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt’, JBL 96, no. 3 (1997): 321–36. Zeev Falk, ‘Gestures Expressing Affirmation’, Journal of Semitic Studies 4, no. 3 (1959): 268–69. Nili Fox, ‘Clapping Hands as a Gesture of Anger and Anguish in Mesopotamia and in Israel’, JANES 23 (1995): 49–60. Gregory Yuri Glazov, ‘The Significance of the ‘Hand on the Mouth’ Gesture in Job Xl 4’, VT 52 (2002): 30–41. Paul Kruger has written several, i.e. Paul A. Kruger, ‘Nonverbal Communication and Narrative Literature: Genesis 39 and the Ruth Novella’, Biblische Notizen 141 (2009): 5– 17. Paul A. Kruger, ‘Nonverbal Communication and Symbolic Gestures in the Psalms’, The Bible Translator 45, no. 2 (1994): 213–22. Victor H. Matthews, ‘Making Your Point: The Use of Gestures in Ancient Israel.’ David Rolph Seely, ‘The Raised Hand of God as an Oath Gesture’, in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Astrid B. Beck (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 411–21. S. David Sperling, ‘Genesis 41:40 A New Interpretation’, in Ve-Eileh Divrei David. Essays in Semitics, Hebrew Bible and History of Biblical Scholarship (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2017), 37–45. David P. Wright, ‘The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature’, JAOS 106, no. 3 (1986): 433–46. 28 David Michael Calabro, ‘Ritual Gestures of Lifting, Extending, and Clasping the Hands in Northwest Semitic Literature and Iconography’ (Unpubl. diss University of Chicago, 2014), 25.

10

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

noun denoting the body part.’ 29 My book, however, organizes gestures according to their meaning (like Gruber), but I am following a criterion similar to Calabro’s in that I required a verb be attached to a particular body part in order to be properly considered an idiom or gesture. Aside from the few publications mentioned above, gesture has been shown little attention in biblical scholarship. In the abstract of his article on gesture in the Bible, Botha writes that, Gesture and other forms of nonverbal communication have been the object of research of inter alia cultural anthropologists, linguists and social psychologists. Historians have only rather recently begun to show an interest in various kinds of nonverbal communication and gesture is of course not a totally neglected field, but so far the exciting trends in this field have received scant attention from especially historians and Biblical scholars. 30

Botha remarks how few studies have been produced on gesture in the Bible, and that most ‘merely list a selection of various kinds of gesture without remarking on how they fit into the larger fabric of society, its values and norms and how it contributes to meaningful behaviour in the particular society, and how understanding gesture could significantly contribute to understanding and interpreting texts.’ 31 For example, Gruber focuses on gestures of emotion, but does not delve into the deeper implications of those gestures for the social makeup of Israel. The aim of my research in this book is to explore biblical gestures both for their literal meaning and for their contribution toward an overall understanding of social values in ancient Israel. I categorize gestures into two broad groups (chapters) separated by how the gesture was received in ancient Israel, as performed by either ‘righteous’ 29

Calabro, ‘Ritual Gestures of Lifting, Extending, and Clasping the Hands’, 25. 30 Botha, ‘Exploring Gesture and Nonverbal Communication in the Bible’, 1. 31 Ibid., 3.

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

11

or ‘evil’ people. The individual gesture phrases serve as the actual units of study within each chapter.

FOLLOWING A NEW COMPASS There is a general lack of clarity and definition in studies on nonverbal communication in the Bible. It should be noted that I am not attempting to identify the existence of sign language in ancient literature nor do I attempt to explore all of the various aspects of nonverbal communication. 32 On the contrary, I would like to move away from the oft-used and very broad term ‘nonverbal communication’ and toward the narrower term ‘gesture’, the primary term used throughout this volume. Most scholars on nonverbal communication in the Bible and ANE are quick to identify the lack of uniformity in terminology and methodology. 33 The fact that nonverbal communication remains under the radar in biblical and ANE studies may be due to this lack of clarity. Kruger provides a helpful discussion of the terminology problem in this discipline. Regarding the term ‘nonverbal communication’, he writes, ‘If one takes note of the significant advances that have taken place in the study of the field of nonverbal communication in recent decades, it is sometimes difficult to determine which features are included and which are excluded under this term.’ 34 He points out the traditional designations ‘gestures’, ‘nonverbal communication’ and ‘symbolic acts’ were problematic because they did not distinguish well between voluntary and involuntary gestures or sign acts. 35 Gruber, for example, includes some emotional expressions and involuntary displays, so one must determine whether to classify 32

For a detailed study on the distinction between ‘gestures’ and ‘signs’, which is outside of the scope of this book, see Stokoe and Marschark, ‘Signs, Gestures, and Signs’, eds., Lynn S. Messing and Ruth Campbell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 161–81. 33 Calabro, ‘Ritual Gestures of Lifting, Extending, and Clasping the Hands in Northwest Semitic Literature and Iconography’, 12–14. 34 Kruger, ‘Nonverbal Communication in the Hebrew Bible...’, 144. 35 Ibid., 143.

12

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

the emotional response of crying in the Bible, sometimes involuntary, as ‘communication.’ At the time of his article, Kruger relied upon the categories of Burgoon, Buller and Woodall in their 1989 volume Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue wherein they distinguish between informative acts, which are unintentional, and communication, which is intentional. 36 Since Kruger’s article, these categories have evolved into more precise terminology. The more recent work by Burgoon, Guerrero, and Floyd makes distinctions between information, behavior, and communication. 37 Burgoon et al. provide what will be the first degree of delimitation for my research: A starting point for arriving at a sound definition is the concept of communication itself. This term is a slippery one, because people use it to refer to everything from communing with nature, to ‘dialoguing’ with oneself, to linking computers, to transmitting via satellite. We limit the domain to human communication, that is, exchanges between two or more people. This eliminates a lot, including ‘intrapersonal’ communication, human-computer interaction, and animal or animal-human communication. Apart from philosophical justifications for such exclusions, this restriction is pragmatic. It makes it far more likely that we will uncover general principles if the types of communication phenomena to be explained have some commonality. 38

Accordingly, I have limited the Hebrew expressions under consideration in this volume to human communication between two or more persons, including communication between God and man. 39 This 36

Ibid., 144. See J. K. Burgoon, D. B. Buller, and W. G. Woodall, Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue (New York: Harper and Rowe, 1989), 13–14. 37 Judee K. Burgoon, Laura K. Guerrero, and Kory Floyd, Nonverbal Communication (Boston: Allyn & Beacon, 2010), 12. 38 Ibid., 11. 39 Robert G. Harper, Arthur N. Wiens, and Joseph D. Matarazzo, eds, Nonverbal Communication: The State of the Art (New York: John Wiley &

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

13

delimitation of the term ‘communication’, however, is still not specific enough to arrive at a manageable corpus. ‘Communication’ can encompass a range of intentional and unintentional behaviors such as dress, posture, and gesture, so a narrower definition is needed. Burgoon et al. write that ‘the passive or involuntary display of cues that an observer might want to interpret should be treated only as information or behavior and not specifically as communication. It is “given off” rather than “given”. To be communication, the behavior must be volitional and other-directed (targeted to a receiver or receivers).’ 40 Hence, I am limiting ‘communication’ to intentional interactions between humans. 41 It is also important to consider whether the author of a text is interpreting intentional, movement-based actions as communication by the source/sender/encoder (source orientation viewpoint) of the actions or the recipient/interpreter/decoder (receiver orientation Sons, 1978), 2–4. For a discussion of how different scholars on nonverbal communication have attempted to define the term, see Harper, 2–4. 40 Burgoon, Guerrero, and Floyd, Nonverbal Communication, 12–13. ‘All communication is potential information. But all information is not communication. Having green eyes, for example, may be informative about one’s ancestry, but it is not a message. Communication is a subset of information rather than something synonymous with it. In the same vein, many forms of behavior are informative, but only some of them qualify as communication.’ For this reason communication scholars like Burgoon and company do not join with the camp that views all nonverbal activity as ‘messages;’ rather ‘it seems more useful to distinguish between the broad category of behavior, which encompasses any actions or reactions performed by an organism, and the more specific category of communication. The difference is that behavior can take place without others witnessing it, responding to it, or understanding it’ (13). 41 She writes, ‘other actions like sneezing or blinking are likewise regarded as behavior, not communication, because they are involuntary acts that neither convey a consistent meaning nor can be used deliberately to send a particular meaning. The important point is that not every behavior should be regarded as communication; as with information, communication is a subset of behavior, which is itself a subset of information’ (Burgoon, Guerrero, and Floyd, 13).

14

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

viewpoint). 42 Intent is difficult to navigate since the source may be communicating habitually without thought, such as when one smiles at the sight of a friend, but from the perspective of the recipient this smile may be interpreted as intentional. Burgoon et al. affirm neither source orientation nor receiver orientation, but opt for a balanced view called ‘message orientation.’ In message orientation, Communication is viewed as only including those behaviors that form a socially shared coding system. This includes behaviors that (1) are typically sent with intent, (2) are used with regularity among members of a given social community, society, or culture, (3) are typically interpreted as intentional, and (4) have consensually recognized meanings.’ 43

Adopting this model helps us avoid ‘the trap of trying to discern communicator intent for every action and includes both habitual and mindful actions.’ 44 For example, the Israelite who communicates by raising his eyes arrogantly (Prov 6:17; 21:4; 30:13) may be doing so intentionally or habitually (a lesser degree of intent). In either case, his gesture is a communication act directed at another person. The final step in defining ‘nonverbal communication’ involves distinguishing between different types of intentional messages— signs and symbols. ‘Signs are “natural and intrinsic representations of what they signify.”’ 45 This would include crying and smiling, which 42

Ibid., 15. See also Diana K. Ivy and Shawn T. Wahl, Nonverbal Communication for a Lifetime. 2nd edn. (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2014): 51, 53. Ivy and Wahl use the terms ‘encoder’ and ‘decoder’ for the respective roles in nonverbal communication. 43 ‘From a message orientation, an unconscious frown would not qualify as communication if it occurred while a person was working alone, or was merely overseen by an onlooker, or could be attributed to a person being ‘lost in thought.’ But it would count if viewed by a recipient as an expression of irritation, even if the sender were unaware of betraying his feelings, because a frown is part of the ‘vocabulary’ of nonverbal communication’ (Burgoon, Guerrero, and Floyd, 16). 44 Ibid., 17. 45 Ibid.

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

15

are often ‘outward manifestations of internally experienced feelings or actional tendencies.’ 46 Symbols, in contrast, are intentional but nonetheless arbitrary gesticulations that represent a message. They ‘include such things like the hitchhiker’s thumbing gesture, the cleric’s white collar that signifies a religious occupation, and the “give me five” hand slap used as a congratulatory gesture.’ 47 Signs are a crucial form of nonverbal communication in the ancient world, but the specific approach to nonverbal communication I am taking in this volume is narrowed to ‘symbolic gestures.’ For example, the squinting eyes gesture of Proverbs 16:30 would be included, but expressions like ‘a graceful garland for your head’ and ‘pendants for your neck’ from Proverbs 1:9 would be excluded. 48 From larger to smaller spheres, I have so far been delimited this study in the following way: nonverbal communication > intentional nonverbal communication (message orientation) > symbols (which includes dress and gesture) > symbolic gestures (the exclusion of dress). In summary, the type of nonverbal communication I am taking into consideration is an intentional, symbolic (not ritual), gestural communication that occurs between a sender and a receiver—a purposeful gesture. 49 46

Ibid. Ibid. 48 John M. Wiemann and John P. Harrison, eds, ‘Introduction: NonLanguage Aspects of Social Interaction’, in Nonverbal Interaction, Vol. 11, Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983), 9. Wiemann and Harrison defined their study of nonverbal communication similarly: ‘By limiting our concern to social communication, we omit coverage of such ‘nonverbal’ phenomena as architecture, pictures, music, interior decorating, dress, and the like’, noting that these forms of communication ‘are of a different genre from messages produced by movement of the body (including the vocal apparatus).’ 49 Thomas writes that, ‘gesture includes any kind of bodily movement or posture (including facial expression) which transmits a message to the observer. The message can be deliberately intended and expressed in some accepted code, as when the sender winks, smiles, nods or points; it can also be inadvertent and expressed symptomatically, as when he or she blushes, 47

16

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

The biblical text itself contains ritual and non-ritual gestures. Since ritual gestures are frequently addressed in other publications (See Gruber or Calabro), my focus is on the non-ritual type (as in non-religious). 50 Since there are many non-ritual gestures throughout the Bible, another degree of delimitation is necessary. Owing to its inherent nature as an intentional source for moral pedagogy, wisdom literature may be the ideal corpus from which to study the intersection of gesture and social values. The book of Proverbs is a good starting place for such a study that could be expanded to other texts within the wisdom genre.

TAKING THE FIRST STEPS Sir James George Frazer argued that ‘essential similarities’ exist between all human beings, 51 but Henri Frankfort heavily cautioned us against making hasty generalizations whenever we observe a crosscultural pattern. 52 Regarding gesture, however, communications scholar David Matsumoto, encourages us to recognize the ‘universal bases’ of gesture, but ‘to realize that culture’s influence on nonverbal behaviors occurs above and beyond the universal bases of those behaviors that we are all born with.’ 53 For this reason I am examining grimaces with pain, or twitches with embarrassment’ (Thomas, ‘Introduction’, 1). For my purposes, gestures will not include involuntary action as our ‘symbolic gestures’ are a subcategory of Burgoon et al.’s ‘message orientation’, which is always intentional in nature. 50 The term ‘ritual’ is preferred to ‘religious’ since gestures are commonly involved in particular ritual acts, which are expressions of religion. For this reason, the term ‘religious’ is too broad. 51 James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: The Roots of Religion and Folklore (New York: Dover Publications, 2002), 2. 52 Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 5, 7. 53 David Matsumoto, ‘Culture and Nonverbal Behavior’, in The Sage Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds., Valerie Manusov and Miles L. Patterson (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006), 239. See David Matsumoto and Seung Hee Yoo, ‘Culture and Applied Nonverbal Behavior’, in Applications of Nonverbal Communication, eds., Ronald E. Riggion

1. WHITTLING DOWN ‘NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION’

17

biblical and ANE gestures as, primarily, products of their own cultural contexts, and secondarily as part of a broader spectrum of shared thinking. This delicate balance will guard against the dreaded ‘parallelomania’ of which Samuel Sandmel famously wrote. 54 I begin with the Hebrew expression in context, exploring textual variants and translations, such as the Septuagint. In order to enhance our understanding of the Hebrew expression, I will then consider any parallel expressions in the following order in which they occur: Ugaritic, Akkadian, Egyptian, and Sumerian. Egyptian I chose because of its geographic proximity and the important role Egypt played in Israel’s history and thought. Sumerian still has a close lexical and conceptual relationship with Semitic languages through logographic Akkadian. The Indo-European tongues such as Hittite and Luwian are outside of the scope of my study, since my primary interest is in the language groups of the Delta, Levant, and Mesopotamia, given their intersecting histories. Late Hebrew texts written after Proverbs, though insightful and at times relevant, may have even less direct influence on our overall understanding of gestures in the biblical context. 55 and Robert S. Feldman (Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2005), 268, 274. Matsumoto and Hee Yoo also state that, ‘cross-cultural research in applied settings, like any good research in applied settings, is definitely not easy’ and ‘cannot be conducted in solely one language.’ They observe that ‘while cultures can be unique to the groups of individuals that live in them and the contexts in which they live, they all must deal with the same set of biological needs and functions and universal social problems’ (259). 54 Samuel Sandmel, ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 18, no. 1 (1962): 1–2. Sandmel defines parallelomania as ‘that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.’ 55 Michael V. Fox, ed., Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1. ed, The Anchor Bible 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 6. Concerning Proverbs, Fox writes, ‘The end point of the [writing] process was well before Ben Sira, who was writing in the early second century BCE, for he was strongly influenced by Proverbs.’

18

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

One difficulty in interpreting gesture is that modern readers do not have the luxury of viewing the gesture naturally the way an ordinary ancient Israelite would have. Notes Sperling, Actions such as raising the eyes, lifting the hands or shaking the head communicate their messages most efficiently when seen. Thus for example, the outstretched hand may variously indicate dismay, favor, supplication, restraint, guidance, opposition and many other actions. Each of these nuances will be immediately apparent when seen. However once the gesture is transferred from the visual sphere to the verbal, ambiguity may result. 56

To aid in interpretation and to acquire a more robust mental image of the gestures under consideration, a chapter on of ANE art is included, but is referenced at various points throughout. Though art primarily depicts cultic scenes that are not relevant to the non-ritual context of much of Proverbs, these images may serve as a reference point for understanding those gestures under direct consideration. In all, there are nine non-ritual gesture phrases in Proverbs that I examine 1) in the immediate context, 2) against the backdrop of analogous ANE texts, 3) and for their contribution to an overall understanding of social values in Israel.

56

See Sperling, ‘Studies in Late Hebrew Lexicography...’, 111. On page 111 n. 6 Sperling comments on body idioms that possess opposite functions. For example, Late Hebrew ‘tps yd may mean ‘to lead’, ‘to guide’, however, it may also mean, ‘to prevent’, ‘restrain.’’ See Zoltán Kövecses and Péter Szabó, ‘Idioms: A View from Cognitive Semantics’, Applied Linguistics 17, no. 3 (1996): 326.

CHAPTER 2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE While the role of the evil man in Proverbs is discussed at greater length in Chapter Four, it is worth mentioning here that all of the non-ritual gestures of the evil man in Proverbs occur within the same biblical chapter—Proverbs 6, which makes it an important place for the study of body language in the Bible. The foolish and evil man strikes hands in pledge in 6:1, gesticulates mischievously with his fingers, eyes, and feet in v. 13, and has raised eyes in v. 17. Common among the gestures of such a man is the theme of dishonesty. The sage views his actions as indicators of corrupt thoughts lying beneath the surface of otherwise inexplicable gesticulations. The sage openly denounces these body movements to forewarn the larger Israelite community that they should keep their distance from such people.

THEY TEACH WITH THEIR FINGERS #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C! ’ :y ˜ / œ  (Prov 6:13) The gesture of teaching with the fingers (or perhaps pointing the fingers, as will be shown) is identified in Proverbs 6:13—!:y ˜ / œ #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C.’ The theme of 6:12–15 is that of the ‘worthless man’—-„ š š +4™ ™Q+– C. Ž ’ 1 He is described as a ‘man of iniquity’ who LCy +– C’  £=L)‰ až !’ k  ™ 1

As Whybray puts it, ‘It is frequently noted that Proverbs 6:12–15 is one of several miscellaneous sections in Proverbs 1–9.’—R. N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, Journal for the Study of the Old Tes-

19

20

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

tament Supplemental Series 99 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 77. Proverbs 6:1–19 is considered a loose end or miscellaneous text in Proverbs due to its lack of correspondence with the texts that immediately precede or follow it. Its content is not uniform with the larger themes in Proverbs 1–9, and it has ‘affinities with other material that seems to have been inserted secondarily into Proverbs, especially in the second half of chapter 30’—Stuart Weeks, Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 224. Writes Dell, ‘Proverbs 6:1–19 is a section that has caused difficulties for interpreters, as it is not an instruction and it is not a wisdom poem; it just seems to be an interlude that has more resemblances to themes found in Proverbs 10–31 than to other parts of Proverbs 1–9. It consists of four short pieces in verses 1–5, 6–11, 12–15, and 16–19, loosely held together by the theme of personal traits that become obstacles to the acquisition of wisdom and lead to poverty (in contrast to the perils of seductive women and evildoers in the last chapter, perhaps).’—Katherine J. Dell, The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 43. Dell talks about how Michael Fox sees close connections between the first two sections (1–5, 6–11) and between the latter two sections (12–15, 16–19). Furthermore, Fox believes that 6:1–19 was pieced together from other parts of Proverbs. Notes Dell, ‘In verses 12–15 another ‘type’, the wicked person, makes an appearance, expanding on sketches found in Proverbs 1:8–19; 2:12–15 and 4:14–19’ (44). On the connection to Proverbs 4, See Rolf Schäfer, Die Poesie der Weisen: Dichotomie als Grundstruktur der Lehr- und Weisheitsgedichte in Proverbien 1–9, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 77 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 164. The otherness of Proverbs 6:1–19 is, of course, highlighted by Whybray in his analysis of the book’s structure. These verses break from the common theme of the adulteress in chapters 5–7. Some (Plöger, Meinhold, etc.) have suggested links between 6:1–19 and chapter 5, pointing to )+ in 5:22 and 6:2 as well as :$ throughout chapter 5 and in 6:1—R. N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplemental Series 168 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 48–49. Fox and Meinhold claim that 6:13–15 draws particularly from Prov 16:27–30. See Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 220. See Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Vol. 1, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, 16.1 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1991), 113. Several suggestions for how this text originated are plausible, but the suggestion of Meinhold and Fox are the most reasonable.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

21

´  ™ X  — f™ ’' -' –1š /’ =4¡+ r — )š C3 ’ :f „ š :œ„ — % ‘with perversity in his heart devises evil all the time’ as he ‘spreads strife’ (Prov 6:14). This characteristic of devising evil becomes important as we examine the gestures associated with this man. Verse 13 assists the reader in visually identifying the man, for such individuals wink with the eyes, shift the feet, and gesture with the fingers. In Proverbs 6:13, the worthless man’s actions are perceived as intentional and wicked, which will move us away from Michael Fox’s interpretation of these gestures as merely ‘nervous gesticulations’ or the result of a personality disorder. 2 So, while Proverbs 6:13 is certainly intended as a type of caricature of the worthless man whose actions may, in some instances, be involuntary, it is implausible that the sage is fixating on subtle involuntary actions that are hard to detect; rather, he is identifying more obvious signs that the average Israelite could likewise observe and judge. The worthless man is quite intentional here in what he wishes to convey with his gestures, as some of the forthcoming comparative examples should make clear. The finger gesture of the ‘worthless man’ is condemned and marked as a sign of reproach in the social values framework of the wisdom writer.

2

Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 221. Loader also states, ‘Pointing with his fingers communicates something negative and cannot therefore be anything but a sign. This time there is no textual witness to a singular form as opposed to the plural noun #'=38 in the Masoretic text.’—James Alfred Loader and Cornelis Houtman, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Proverbs 1–9 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 267. Matthews, however, makes a suggestion similar to Fox: ‘In a living context some of these bodily movements (winking and shuffling) in fact may be involuntary or unconscious on the part of the ‘villain’ since they otherwise would comprise a form of caricature or stereotype’ (Matthews, ‘Making Your Point’, 21–22).

22

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Hebrew Expression Proverbs 6:13

#'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C! ’ :y ˜ / œ ‘...he teaches with his fingers’

The phrase contains the participle !:œ˜ /, possibly from !:'-III, ‘to instruct, teach’ also carrying the connotation ‘to show.’ Meinhold points out how, leading up to this passage, !:'-III appears in Proverbs 4:4, 11 where the term also means ‘to teach.’ 3 This interpretation of !:œ˜ / is supported by HALOT, which follows Mowinckel. 4 Most commentators have suggested, however, that !:˜ / œ is from !:'-I ‘to throw, shoot.’ The only other possible example of ‘point the finger’ in the Bible is found in Isaiah 58:9, which reads: ' –1r^— !: – / „ ™ œ ' ’#3xK™f™ k! ’ 1˜ v 4” ™'!„#!' š ™#{ :š 9’ k$ – … š ª0 ˜#¡:   š C˜ ™ ’#3C x ™ 8’ % ˜ +† ™ f! ’ &L/ vš U{ )L ’ k  /:' – 2… – k¡š – ‘Then you will call and the Lord will answer; You will cry out and He will say, “Here I am. If you remove the yoke from your midst, The pointing of the finger and speaking wickedly” ’

Here the expression 3Cx ™ 8’  ˜ %+† ™ f’ is associated with the widespread depravity in the land. Unfortunately there is not enough information available in the context to say definitively what this fingerpointing/sending indicates other than that it is part of the !&L/ vš ‘yoke’ that has resulted in the oppression of the weak. Though we 3

Meinhold, Vol 1, 113–114. Ludwig Köhler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994), 436. See Fox, 221. See Sigmund Mowinckel who mentions a few scholars who take this view, such as Frankenberg and Wildeboer—Sigmund Mowinckel and Mark E. Biddle, Psalm Studies, Society of Biblical Literature History of Biblical Studies, no. 2–3 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). 4

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

23

are limited to these two examples from the Bible, they may be enough to establish the biblical sage’s perspective on this gesture as a negative, disgraceful act. The Septuagint of Proverbs 6:13 follows the didactic sense, translating !:œ˜ / as from !:'-III ‘to teach.’ This is insightful for our understanding of the context of #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C! ’ :y ˜ / œ  as specifically a gesture of deceptive instruction from the one who is pointing: »À»ŠÊÁ¼À »òëÅżŧĸÊÀÅ»¸ÁÌŧÂÑÅ ‘he teaches with the signals of his fingers.’ 5 The Septuagint clearly reads !:œ˜ / as !:'-III, which may be the strongest and most relevant witness to the meaning of this passage in context. Akkadian Analog While Ugaritic and Northwest Semitic inscriptions seem to yield little information for this gesture, it is at least known in Akkadian. 6 The popular verb for pointing the finger is tar÷u in the expression ubana tar÷u. The verb is variously translated in the CAD: ‘to stretch, send, extend.’ This would seem to place 3Cx ™ 8’ % ˜ +† ™ f’ and ubana tar÷u in close proximity of meaning, but it is less clear that !:y ˜ / œ #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C’ should be included with this list. If !:œ˜ / is from !:'-I ‘to throw’, it perhaps should be included, but not if it is from !:'-III ‘to teach’, as the Septuagint suggests. The meanings ‘point’ and ‘teach’ for finger gestures are explored below in analogous texts.

5

Fox is critical of the Septuagint here, chalking up the LXX translation to ‘G’s apparent freedoms’ that ‘are often attempts to deal with a difficult or misunderstood Hebrew text.’ See Michael V. Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 132. Fox is at times too dismissive of the LXX. 6 For the extensive ritual use of the pointed forefinger in Mesopotamian art and later Persian and Greek motifs, see Jamsheed K. Choksy, ‘Gesture in Ancient Iran and Central Asia II: Proskynesis and the Bent Forefinger’, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series 4 In honor of Richard Nelson Frye: Aspects of Iranian Culture (1990): 201–7. See Image §1.

24

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Archives Royales de Mari (ARM 10 38:7) 7 ana teri· úbanika lirdûka ‘may they lead you where your finger points’

Sasson translates teri· less literally: ‘May they lead you to wherever you signal.’ 8 This fascinating volume of ARM records correspondence written by women in the royal court in the absence of their king, Zimri-Lim. This particular letter is written by Erišti-Aya, a daughter of Zimri-Lim who complains that she is not receiving the clothing, food, and personal service appropriate to her status as a princess, so she writes to request provisions from her father. 9 She expresses her desire that the gods bless her father by leading him in whatever direction his finger points, likely referring to his role as a military commander who directs the attack of his army by pointing the finger toward his enemies in the upper Euphrates. The expression ubana tar÷u is also cited in the CAD as an idiomatic expression for cases of adultery in the Laws of Hammurabi. LH §127 10 ģumma awílum eli ugbabtim u aģģat awílim ubÃnam uģatri·ma ‘if a man causes a finger to be pointed at an ugbabtu or a man’s wife’

LH §132 11 ģumma aģģat awilím aģģum zikarim ģan°m úbanum eliģa ittari·ma... 7

A. Leo Oppenheim and Erica Reiner, eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago, Ill: Oriental Institute, 1991), U and W, 6a. See Georges Dossin, Archives Royales de Mari. 10: Correspondance féminine (Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1978), 38:7. 8 Jack Sasson, From The Archives of Mari: An Anthology of Old Babylonian Letters (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 264. 9 Georges Dossin, Archives Royales de Mari. 10: Correspondance féminine (Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1978), 5. See ‘Sommaires’ 36–38. 10 See Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 106. 11 Akk. ubana tar÷u. CAD, U and W, 6. See Roth, 106.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

25

‘if a man’s wife has a finger pointed at her concerning another man’

The expression ubana tar÷u is evidently negative and actually serves as a frozen legal term for cases involving the accusation of adultery. 12 At some point, however, this term may have been a literal, physical indication of indictment performed by the accuser against an adulterous woman, possibly pointing her out to an official as she enters or exits the city gate. Another negative use of this gesture can be seen in Babylonian wisdom literature. / XGOXO%ÕO1ÕPHTL (I:80; BWL 34:80) 13 sĭqa ab¤ǂma turru·a úbanati ‘when I walk on the street, fingers are pointed [at me]’

In this poem Tabu-utul-Bel describes how his own city has turned against him in his plight of fallen glory. One of the many signs of his disgrace is seen in how his countrymen point their fingers at him scornfully. Lambert translates ‘ears are pricked’, showing his choice to interpret ba as zu in the final word, which would make it ú-zu-na-ti instead of ú-ba-na-ti. The reading úbanati, however, is expected and even preferred since úznu is not known to function alongside tar÷u in a special way. Another use of the phrase as a gesture of condemnation may be seen in the Tukulti Ninurta Epic.

12

Edouard Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique, 152. Writes Dhorme, ‘En akkadien le geste de la dénonciation ou de la diffamation sera représénte par tar¤·u ub¤na “diriger le doigt.”’ 13 CAD, Ά, 3b; B, 179b. See Amar Annus and Alan Lenzi, Ludlul BÕl NÕmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer, Vol. 7, State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 4, 17; I:80. See Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Reprinted (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 34:80.

26

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Tukulti Ninurta Epic (II:17) 14 ú·ammar ĭmiģam ana ͏ulluq mÃt Aģģur ģutru·at ubÃnģu ‘Daily he seeks to destroy Assyria, his finger is pointed [at it with evil intent]’

The king of Assyria, Tukulti-Ninurta, petitions his god Nabû for strength in war against the Kassites. He claims that his enemy, who ‘continually devises evil’, now ‘plots daily to destroy the land of Ashur, [at which] his finger is pointed.’ 15 The CAD adds the clarifying words ‘at it with evil intent’, which seems appropriate given the context. ‘Anomaly Omens are Difficult to Read’ (ABL 688: r. 11) 16

[ģa] ubanu ina panÃtuģģu [la] tallikuni ‘one before whom the finger has not moved’

The CAD clarifies it: ‘one who has not had the meaning explained to him.’ 17 In a series of letters from astrologers comes a text from a scribe by the name Balas°, ‘a teacher of the crown prince Assurbanipal and evidently a personal friend and favourite of the king himself.’ 18 Here Balas°, writing from afar, petitions the king regarding the tablet of Šumma izbu, which was difficult to understand for the average scribe, for the king’s personal scribe had not been able to interpret for him. The more capable Balas°, however, vows to bring clarity to this mysterious text the next time he sees the king, stating:

14

CAD Ά, 92b. See R.C. Thompson and R.W. Hutchinson, The Excavations on the Temple of Nabû at Nineveh (Oxford: Society of Antiquaries of London, 1929), 128–132, pl. 49. See Peter Machinist, ‘The Epic of Tukulti Ninurta I: A Study in Middle Assyrian Literature’ (Yale, 1978). 15 Thompson’s translation. 16 See Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (ABL), State Archives of Assyria 10 (Helsinki: University Press, 1993), 44. Text 60, ln. r. 11. 17 CAD, U and W, 6a 18 Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, XXV.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

27

‘one before whom the finger has not moved is not able to understand’ or, as Parpola puts it, ‘cannot possibly understand.’ Contained in this phrase is the idiom úbanu...tallikuni, representing the idea of instruction or teaching as the scribal pedagogue uses his finger to direct the eyes of his pupil. It departs in context from the ubana tar÷u gesture as its intent is clearly didactic, like !:'III. While here used in a positive context, a possible parallel of this ‘teaching’ gesture could be Proverbs 6:13, only in a negative context where a worthless man is instructing a partner in crime. Outside of Hebrew, the examples so far show that pointing the finger can occur in a negative context, but the gesture itself is not always a morally inappropriate action, as the example below from Egypt demonstrates. Egyptian Analog The derisive use of ‘point the finger’ is present in Egyptian as well. The noun for finger is ̳bǃ and its verbal form ̳bǃ is 19 translated ‘point the finger’ in the sense of reproach. In Egyptian wisdom literature the following warning is found: Instruction to Kagemni (Pr . I:4–55) 20

͏ww pw 3fǃ iw dbǃ.t(w) im ‘Gluttony is base and the finger is pointed at it.’

It could be made active, as in ‘one (tw) points the finger at it’, but the passive works just as well. Lichtheim translates the idiom, ‘gluttony is base and is reproved’, reflecting an understanding of this gesture in 19

Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1988), 321. 20 A. Gardiner, ‘The Instruction of Kagemni and His Brethren’, JEA 32 (1946): 73.

28

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

Kagemni as one of derision or rebuke. 21 In his notes on Papyrus Westcar, Blackman makes the observation that the verb ̳bǃ is likely a derivation of the noun ̳bǃ though others have suggested the former’s connection to ̳bǃw ‘blame.’ 22 Blackman points out that the sign ‘depicts a man with his fingers raised to his lips, and so the sign may have been regarded as an appropriate determinative for an action of one or more of the fingers.’ 23 The verb ̳bǃ may still be derived from ̳bǃw ‘blame’ and, if so, would only add credence to the negative sense connoted by its translation—‘point the finger.’ It is possible in this usage that the gesture ‘point the finger’ ̳bǃ intends to be didactic, as in using one’s finger to teach others what is unacceptable in society (gluttony). The only apparent meaning in this context, however, would be pointing at someone in order to deride him for his behavior, similar to Ludlul BÕl NÕmeqi and Hammurabi. The only shared aspect of this usage with Proverbs 6:13, therefore, would be that both occur in negative contexts. Coffin Texts Spell §715 24

m ̳bǃw ͉3ty ‘...do not accuse my heart.’

21

Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Vol. 1: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, Paperback ed. (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1975), 60. 22 A. M. Blackman, ‘Some Notes on the Story of Sinuhe and Other Egyptian Texts’, JEA 22, no. 1 (1963): 43. 23 Ibid., 43. 24 Adriaan Buck and Alan Gardiner, eds., The Egyptian Coffin Texts VI. Texts of Spells 472–787, Vol. VI, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 81 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1956), 344k+p. Faulkner (Coffin Texts, Spell 715).

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

29

In this coffin text the deceased prays to the gods that they will not accuse (lit. ‘point the finger [at]’) his heart m ̳bǃw ͉3ty , with ̳bǃw being the plural imperative form of ̳bǃ ‘point the finger’, negated by m . As in the example from Hammurabi (ubana tar÷u), here the verb ‘to point the finger’ ̳bǃ means to accuse or condemn someone. Sumerian Analog The Sumerian term for ‘finger’ is ģu-si 25 (lit. hand + horn). In the Proverbs from Urim it is said that the liar will suffer the fate of having others point their fingers at him. Proverbs from Urim (UET 6/2 289:5) 26 šu-VLHßHU-a-ni mu-un-da-ßDO2 ‘There is a finger pointing at his back.’

The slanderous, lying, wicked man of this text is despised by Ninegala. The consequence of his guilt is seen in the form of others pointing their fingers at his back. Here both the noun ģu-si ‘finger’ and an accompanying verb ßal2 appear together. Þal2 is translated ‘to be (there, at hand, available); to exist; to put, place, lay down; to have’, its Akk. semantic equivalent being the common ģakÃnu. 27 The same text states that the liar will not be able to enter or exit the city gate without experiencing public defamation in the form of fingerpointing:

25

René Labat, Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne: signes, syllabaire, idéogrammes (Paris: Geuthner, 1976), 163. 26 ETCSL, ‘Proverbs: from Urim’ c.6.2.3. ln. 5. For another example of pointing the finger at wickedness: W.J. Hinke, Selected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions, 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1911), 21–27. ģa...ŠU.SI-su ana lemutti itarra·u ‘whose finger is pointed at wickedness.’ 27 Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, 2004, http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/, ßal.

30

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Proverbs from Urim (UET 6/2 260:2–33) 28 lu2-lul-la abula in-ku4-ku4 igi-bi šu-si-am3 HßHU-bi šu-si-am3 ‘Liars enter by the city gate, in front of them there is a finger [pointing at them], behind them there is a finger [pointing at them].’

In the extant Sumerian examples of finger-pointing we see here, the context is one of direct derision, similar to the Egyptian. The gesture in both Egyptian and Sumerian wisdom literature is a tool for teaching wisdom to the young—if not directly in the act itself, then certainly through the written description of it. An Incantation Text (CT 16 8:282f) 29

bar-mu-ta šu-sig5-ga he2-en-du3-du3 ‘May a finger be fixed (pointed) at my back with good intention.’

Here we have a positive use of the gesture where pointing the finger can connote something favorable to the recipient. It could also be understood as a bit of reverse evidence—if pointing the finger can be done with good intention, then the same can be done with evil intent. We know this to be true from the examples cited, and this informs our understanding of the range of this gesture in the literature. The negative use of finger-pointing is not restricted to ridicule or accusation as we have seen in previous examples, but may also intend to instruct others in how the recipient is to be considered or treated. 28

ETCSL ‘Proverbs: from Urim: c.6.2.3.’ UET 6/2 260 ln. 2. CAD, U and W, 4a. See Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, 16 (London: Oxford University Press, 1911) 8:282. Other examples of pointing a favorable finger: ŠU.SI SIG5 arkiģu [tar·at] F. Köcher, Die Babylonisch-Assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963), 315. ŠU.SI kitti littaris arkiya. Henri Limmet, Les Légendes des Sceaux Cassites (Vruxelles: Palais de académies, 1971), 7.9: 3. MUL ŠU.SI SIG5-tim arki ameli tarasi. Theophilus G. Pinches, Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (Providence: Brown University Press, 1955), 1626, r. 4. 29

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

31

This possibility helps explain the evil intentions of the ‘worthless man’ in Proverbs 6:13. He is neither flailing his hand indiscriminately nor purposelessly, nor merely to ridicule or accuse, but as an act of evil intent, possibly hoping to rope the recipient/victim of this gesture into danger. In BWL, Lambert has made accessible a fascinating bi-lingual hymn to Ninurta brought to Assur by Tukulti-Ninurta I as part of his spoils from Babylon. 30 The scribe writes the Sumerian text on the top line and the Akkadian directly beneath it. A Bilingual Hymn to Ninurta (VAT 10610 pl. 32 ln. 7–88) 31

Sumerian (ln. 7):

lu2 gaba-ri egir-ra-ni šu-hul bi2-in-du3-a

‘a man who spreads evil against his equal’ Akk. trans. (ln. 8):

ģa arki mi͉riģu úban limutti itarra·[ú]

‘one who points a finger of wickedness against his equal’

In this example the Akkadian translation of the Sumerian text inserts its own idiom to confer the meaning of ģu-hul bi2-in-du3-a. The apparent direct object, ģu-hul, is formed by two Sumerian terms: ‘hand’ + ‘bad.’ 32 The imagery created by this word is interesting in light of the present study as it depicts the evildoer engaged in literally ‘badhanding’ his victim, as if pointing the finger were a well-known sign to indicate evil intent. Though my translation does not show it explicitly, both texts use the term for ‘back’ (Sum. EGIR; Akk. warki) possibly creating an image of this evil gesture performed behind the back of the victim, which only adds to the cunning of the wicked man. The intent of the ‘pointer’ in this passage is clearly malicious, as both the Sumerian and Akkadian make clear. It is possible that the finger of accusation is being pointed at someone falsely, like the neighbor who bears false witness in the Decalogue. 33 30

Lambert, BWL, 118. Ibid., 119. 32 ePSD: šu hulu ‘to destroy.’ 33 See Exod 20:16 :9˜ f   š 4 † — xU4” :— !† ’ 1˜ 4” =¡ ™ œ +  ‘You shall not speak against your neighbor as a false witness.’ 31

32

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Synthesis

The cross-cultural examples listed here do not tell us with absolute certainty how we should read the finger gesture of Proverbs 6:13, but their contribution is not meant to do so; rather, these examples enhance our understanding of how the pointing and teaching gestures were used outside of Israel, which facilitates comparison and contrast in our search for the meaning of this phrase in Proverbs. The Septuagint reading of Proverbs 6:13 is clear as it unmistakably identifies the gesture as one of deceitful instruction. While the Akkadian example from Mari was less relevant to our text, the examples from the Laws of Hammurabi, Ludlul BÕl NemÕqi, Tukulti Ninurta, and the incantation text from CT 16 demonstrate how the pointing gesture could be used to accuse, ridicule, and even show favor. In both Egyptian and Sumerian wisdom literature this gesture is used to ridicule or scorn liars and gluttons. In both the biblical examples and the Bilingual Hymn to Ninurta, the individual who is pointing is clearly described as evil. And it is only in the Akkadian letter from ABL 688 where the finger gesture is described as a teaching movement, and so it uses a different verb (alÃku). When viewed in conjunction with the other two signal-acts in this verse, it seems more likely that the ‘worthless man’ in Proverbs 6:13 intends not to ridicule but to instruct or deceive somehow by the pointing of his finger. The example in Isaiah 58:9 is unclear, but it is possible that the same behavior is in view, only with a different verb entirely and not one that is typically associated with teaching—%+f. Regardless, the act of pointing the finger in Isaiah 58:9 is still condemned as it sits in parallel construction with the term !&L/ vš ‘yoke’, a burden that has been placed on the necks of the weak in order to oppress them. Though Akk. tallikuni (from alÃku) and Heb. !:'-III are not cognate verbs, the sense conveyed by the idiom they create with the noun ‘finger’ provides a parallel meaning. Michael Fox objects to the ‘instruction’ reading of !:œ˜ /, suggesting that the actions described in Proverbs 6:13 are, again, ‘nervous gesticulation[s]’, noting that the other gestures mentioned in the text are likely the result of a person-

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

33

ality disorder and should not be considered signs since no confederate is mentioned. 34 If, however, these gestures are in fact signs then their very existence in the text may imply that a confederate or associate is involved, regardless of whether he is actually mentioned. The receiver of the signs does not need to be mentioned in order for his presence to be intrinsically known to the reader. 35 Loader takes issue with Fox’s interpretation by arguing that his criticism of the Septuagint here is unfounded, that the very mentioning of a confederate in the passage would have been superfluous, that the clearly intended negative sense provided by the context demands that these be intentional gestures, and that Fox ‘first interprets the other movements to not be signals and then appeals to his own understanding of them. But the other movements [of the feet and eyes] are evidently signals.’ 36 Furthermore, the majority of commentators agree that the ‘movements of feet or finger must have been subtle rather than overt, yet clear signals that this person was up to no good.’ 37 Other suggestions for interpreting the gestures of Proverbs 6:13 include what McKane identifies as ‘anti-social magic’ related to sorcery based on the presence of the term f:% in v. 14. 38 Whybray offers both possibilities, stating, ‘There are two possible explanations of these gestures. The man may either be making secret signs to fellowconspirators or employing magical means in addition to lies to achieve his purpose.’ 39 Mowinckel, however, disagrees with the no93F

94F

34

Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 221. Ibid. States Fox, ‘The Greek translators understood qore· ǃayin (and the other gestures in 6:13) to be a hint or signal to others, but this does not seem right. In v 13, squinting or winking is not a conspiratorial sign, because there is no confederate in the present context and because the other movements are not signals. They are probably all symptoms of a personality disorder.’ 36 Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 267. 37 Robert L. Alden, Proverbs: A Commentary on an Ancient Book of Timeless Advice (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1983), 57. See Glendon E. Bryce, ‘Omen-Wisdom in Ancient Israel’, JBL 94, no. 1 (1975): 31–33. 38 William McKane, Proverbs, A New Approach, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 325. 39 R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs, 39. 35

34

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

tion that these gestures are typical of evil men, claiming instead that they are signs of incantation: ‘The passage can only be understood as a description of the external gestures with which the aun-ist accompanies his efficacious words. The passage must be interpreted in relation to Ezek 6:11; 21:19, 22, and the like. We see from these passages that such external gestures tend to accompany incantations’ (Biddle’s trans.). 40 He points to the ecstatic prophets who clapped their hands and stomped their feet. The problem with this association of fingerpointing with incantation is the lack of any Hebrew textual evidence outside of the gesture itself in Proverbs 6:13. It is certainly possible that finger-pointing has a place in incantation (see the incantation text cited in the Sumerian section, CT 16 8:282f), but clapping hands, stomping feet, and pointing fingers have well-established contexts outside of incantation. 41 It is more likely that this gesture is being performed by an evil man who intends to deceive his victim(s). As Longman writes, ‘More likely they are the gestures of persons who are doing something secretive and passing along signals with their eyes, feet, and fingers.’ 42 The contextual evidence alongside parallel didactic uses of the gesture phrase indicate that !:œ˜ / in Proverbs 6:13 is not, in fact, from !:'-I ‘to throw.’ In addition, there are no examples in the Hebrew Bible of the verb !:'-I used in conjunction with a body part to form an idiom. 43 For this reason we find that the most plausible root for !:œ˜ / is !:'-III, ‘to teach, show.’ The circumstance of Proverbs 6:13 could therefore be that an evil man is providing others with lessons in the art of guile—in other words, he is passing on felonious ‘street knowledge’ to his criminals

40

Mowinckel and Biddle, Psalm Studies, 29. On ‘clapping hands’, see Fox, ‘Clapping Hands as a Gesture of Anger and Anguish in Mesopotamia and in Israel.’ 42 Tremper Longman, Proverbs, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2006), 174. 43 An Accordance search resulted in 29 occurrences of !:'-I in the BHS, none of which were associated with a body part. 41

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

35

in training, his disciples of evil, similar to Proverbs 16:29 where an evil man entices and leads his neighbor on a path of wickedness. 44

THEY SPEAK WITH THEIR FEET #'+š ’:™ C’ ++œ— / (Prov 6:13) The most ambiguous gesture in all of Proverbs concerns the man who ‘speaks’ (III ++/) or ‘rubs’ (IV ++/) with his ‘foot’ (K) / ‘feet’ (Q). The difficulty in determining the meaning of this gesture is due to both the ambiguity surrounding ++/ and to how the different manuscript traditions render +:. To help elucidate the meaning of this strange gesture, it will be worthwhile to consider the larger context in which the ‘foot’ rests in the Hebrew Bible. The feet have a place of prominence in the ethical imagery of the Bible. The sage of Proverbs 1–9 warns the young man, ‘withhold your foot from their [wicked people’s] path’ -=  š 'š =– ’^/ – Uy +’ ’:3†  ™ 1™ /, ’ for ‘their feet run to evil’ K8K:r š'3:„ ™ +š !' ˜ +— ’:' Ž ™ V„ – (Prov 1:15–16; See Isa 59:7; Ezek 32:13). Falling into evil or ruin is signified by one’s foot stumbling—5L  E= – œ + „ Uy +’ ’:™ ’# (Prov 3:23; Jer 13:16; Ps 116:8), 45 but a wise per10F

44

Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 344. Waltke, quoting Plaut, ‘By his devious and invidious motions he attempts to derogate others and thereby to lower their status in the eyes of associates.’ W. Gunther Plaut, Book of Proverbs (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1961), 88. 45 Likewise, the wicked person’s demise is seen in how his feet lead him into a net—#'r+š ’:™ ’C=f˜ :„ ˜ C%„ ’ X™ f¡' ž V  – (Job 18:8; Pss 9:15; 25:15; ‘mud’ Jer 38:22, See Ps 40:3; Lam 1:13), as opposed to the man whose feet follow the path of Yahweh and do not turn aside from it—&¡   š œ + ’#'k– :’ /„ ™ fL š Vx :’ G' ™ +r – ’:!„ ™ $š %” L: š fž ” CŽ ™ (Job 23:11). Yahweh vows to no longer cause the feet of his people to wander, if only they will observe his commands—+v— :š g’ –' + ˜: „ ˜ '{ –1!š + ’ 5'2œ y–  œ +„ ’# -=L r š ” +'   ™ k– =x ™ š1:f† ˜ ! ” /šv š ” !¡0 „ š /– (2 Kings 21:8; Jer 14:10; 2 Chron 33:8). See In the Sumerian Hymn to Every God, the supplicant states, ‘In ignorance I have eaten that forbidden of my god; In ignorance I have set foot on that prohibited by my goddess’ (Stephens’s translation from James Bennett Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,

36

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

son will avoid this fate by making the path of his feet level—2X— aŽ ™ Ur+˜ ’:+„ ™ E™ 4’ /™ (Prov 4:26; Pss 26:12; 31:9; 40:3), 46 turning his foot away from evil—3:  š / — „U+’ ’:: ™ 2x — !š (Prov 4:27; Ps 119:59, 101). The wicked and impatient person is one whose feet rush to do evil—=L:y !” /™ / ’ - –'+† ™ ’:™ !4š :š +   š 7K:† +š (Prov 6:18; 19:2), whose feet may eventually ‘slip’ or ‘shake’, meaning ‘fall to ruin’—-r+š ’:&K ™ /„ k= š 4x — +(Deut ’ 32:35; Job 12:5; Pss 17:5; 18:37; 38:17; 56:14; 66:9; 73:2; 94:18; 121:3; 140:5). 47 For example, the woman of folly has restless feet that do not remain at home—š!'+  ˜ ’:™  K †1V’ f’ –'¡œ+ I=' šy — C’ (Prov 7:11), but are running all over town (v. 12); consequently, her feet lead to death = ˜#/ r š =L„ :œ’ ' !' š ˜+ ’:Ž ™ (Prov 5:5). 3. ed. with suppl., 5. printing (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992), 391). Also, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh states to Utnapishtim, ‘In my bedchamber lurks death, And wherever I se[t my foot], there is death!’ (ANET, 96), although George restores the damaged word to paniya and translates, ‘wherever I might turn my face’—A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 718–719. 46 0RVKH+HOG‫آ‬+HEUHZ0DʁJÃO$6WXG\LQ/H[LFDO3DUDOOHOLVP‫أ‬JANES 6, 1974: 107–16. See pg. 107 where Held shows the distribution of the word in the Hebrew Bible and its various functions. 47 This foot-slipping calamity may be implied by the ritual in Deuteronomy 25:9 where the man’s sandal is removed, exposing the bare sole of his foot to rocks, thorns, and other dangers (See Jer 18:22). For an alternate view, See Carmichael, ‘Ceremonial Crux’ JBL, 1997. Being barefoot in this sense can communicate vulnerability, shame, and a lowered status (Isa 20:2; Jer 2:25); See Hymn of Inanna—Enlil has blessed Inanna by tying the earth to her foot as a sandal (ANET, 579). Both Moses (Exod 3:5) and Joshua (Josh 5:15) were commanded to remove their sandals when walking upon holy ground—could this imply that holy ground is safe ground where a foot will neither slip nor strike a stone (Ps 91:12)? Consider 1 Sam 2:9—L'2– % ” '…+— ’:™ :/ œ v f’ –' ‘He will guard the feet of his faithful ones.’ This divine footprotection is evident in Isaiah 41:3 where Yahweh’s servant moves unharmed through ‘paths his feet have not traveled’ Lš'   œ +#'x † +š ’:™ C% ’ :™  œ † . Yahweh secures the feet of the righteous like those of a deer that climbs upon elevated, precarious surfaces without fear of falling (Pss 18:34; 56:14; 119:105; Neh 9:21). See ANET, 97—Gilgamesh says to Enkidu, ‘Sandals to thy feet thou shalt not fasten.’

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

37

The many texts listed above provide a conceptual backdrop for the gesture of the feet in Proverbs 6:13. Accordingly, it appears that the direction or firmness of one’s feet is a basis for assessing one’s moral character. This is why Job requires that Yahweh judge him as to whether his feet have walked with ‘falsehood’ or chased after ‘deceit’—'+  – ’:! ™ /„ š :’ /¡+ – 4f ™ %™ kx ™ ™# ’#f¡r š 4' – k– )’ +† ™ !¡š – (Job 31:5). 48 103F

48

Job’s foot has not hastened upon ‘deceit.’ Conceptually related to the deceitful foot is the term for ‘spy’ -'+– ’E:™ /. ’ Joseph’s brothers declare to him that they are ‘honest men’, as opposed to being ‘spies’ (lit. ‘those who go on foot’)— -'+  – ’E:™ /U' ’ x ˜ š 4K ” †'!¡ š œ +K1%’ 1™v -'„ ” 1– V— (Gen 42:11). See HALOT, 1184— ‘Some etymological connection between the meaning to slander (qal und piel) and to spy out must exist (see Jenni Piǃel 220) but it cannot be determined with certainty.’ See Ernst Jenni, Des hebräische Pi’el: SyntakstischSemasiologische Untersuchung einer Verbalform im Alten Testament, Hebreeus (Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1968), 220. In priestly contexts (i.e. Exod 30:19) the hands and feet become ceremonially unclean through common use, hence the ritual of washing the hands and the feet, which may not be just for physical, ceremonial cleansing, but could also be symbolic of purging the instruments/extremities with which one has sinned (William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19 - 40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1. ed, The Anchor Bible 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 480). Propp adds that the hands and feet needed cleansing ‘because these parts are liable to tread upon or handle impurity (ibn Ezra).’ Observe also the symbolism of having one’s hands and feet removed as judgment for having sinned, as when David ordered his men to do so to Rechab and Baanah— -!' v˜ +— ’:¡= ™ ˜ ’# -{ !' ˜ — ’'¡= ˜ K8… c’ 9™ ’'Û #™ -Ky :’ !™ ™Q ™# -':~ – 4š ’^!¡= ™  ˜ #‰ – Gš Š#8™ ’' ™# ‘Then David commanded the men and they killed them—they cut off their hands and their feet’ (2 Sam 4:12a). V. Philips Long notes on this verse, ‘Though mutilation of this sort was not uncommon in the ancient Near East, there may be a special significance here, that is, the removal of the offending members—hands that committed the murder and feet that brought the news’ (John H. Walton, ed., Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2009), 428 (See Judg 1:6–7; Dan 2:5). Contrast with Isa 52:7 and Nah 2:1 where feet of someone who brings good news are blessed—‘How lovely upon the mountains are the feet of the one who brings news and announces peace, bringing good news š µ'™ /ˆ – f’ / ™ :j—y ™ / ’ '„+— ’:™ -':~ – !š !¡+ ˜ 4 ™ K ‰# š^¡!/™ and announcing salvation.’  -L }+f !4Kf r š ’' µ'  ™ /„ – f’ /L ™ &: x j† — ™ /’ (Isa 52:7a).

38

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Hebrew Expression Proverbs 6:13

#'+š ’:™ C+„ ’ +œ— / ‘He speaks with his feet’

It has been proposed that this foot gesture points merely to the man’s emotional instability, but if this gesture is supposed to be a clear indicator of ‘a worthless man’ +4™ ™Q+– CŽ ’ „ š , š then it must amount to more than just a nervous tick—contra Fox who states, ‘The movement is best understood as a restless shifting and shuffling, a sign of inner disquietude.’ 49 It is argued elsewhere in this book that both the finger and eye gestures in Proverbs 6:13 function as signals to co-conspirators or confederates in crime. It would follow here that +: functions in the same way. 50 If so, it would be helpful to know how to best render this gesture in translation. Weeks comments on this gesture, ‘Many commentators dispute the existence of a verb ++/ (‘rub’) here, and read the participle as from the late verb ++/ (‘speak’), used metaphorically. The general sense is obvious either way.’ 51 While it does seem apparent that a form of communication is intended by this gesture, it would be helpful to consider the interpretive options. There have been a range of translations offered for L+ ’:™ C’ / #'+š ’:™ C ’ +„+œ— /, such as ‘shuffles his foot’ (Fox), 52 ‘mit seinem Fuß redet’ (‘speaks with his foot’, Plöger), 53 105F

107F

49

108F

Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 221. Contra Fox: A person who has criminal intent may be physically jittery or restless, but restlessness alone is not an adequate indicator that the person is a ‘worthless man’, especially when one considers that his hand and eye movements are certainly gestures of some kind. Such a man’s character is not just irrational or erratic, but intentional. See also David Sperling, ‘Belial’, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed. (Boston: Brill, 1999), 169–71. 50 Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 267. Notes Loader, ‘The scoundrel is not just restless (many scoundrels are successful because their outward composure gives away nothing; See ‘poker face’).’ 51 Stuart Weeks, Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9, 228. 52 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 211.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

39

‘scharrt mit seinen Füßen (‘scrapes with his feet’, Meinhold), 54 ‘deutet mit seinen Füßen’ (‘signals with his feet’, Sæbø), 55 ‘shuffles his feet’ (Loader), 56 ‘a touch with the foot (Whybray)’, 57 ‘draws patterns with his feet’ (McKane), 58 and ‘appelle du pied’ (‘beckons with his foot’, Barucq). 59 The two translational difficulties are 1) the number of +: as determined by the manuscript evidence and 2) the meaning of ++/. The ketib, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate versions maintain L+ ’:™ C’ ‘with his foot’, but the qere, Targums, and MT have the dual #'+š ’:™ C’ ‘with his feet.’ Both LXX and K have singular ‘eye’ L1'4— C’ and singular ‘foot’ L+ ’:™ C’ in Proverbs 6:13, with only ‘fingers’ #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C’ being plural. To determine whether the correct reading is L+ ’:™ C’ or #'+š ’:™ C,’ it is important to consider not only the manuscript evidence, but also the context. Since ‘fingers’ #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C’ must be plural, the sound agreement would suggest a reading that maintains # š1'4— ‘ CŽ ’ and #'+š ’:™ C.’ Addi53

Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 60. See H. A. Ironside, Notes on the Book of Proverbs (London: Pickering & Inglis, Ltd., 1908), 65. 54 Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Vol. 2, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, 16.2 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1991), 107. 55 Magne Sæbø, Sprüche, Das Alte Testament Deutsch, 16.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 93. 56 Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 250. See Waltke, Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, 327. See Robert Alter, The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), 218. For ‘shifts his feet’ see Roland E. Murphy et al., Proverbs, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 22 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 35. See Alan Moss, Proverbs, Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 35. 57 R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 38. See Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 267. Notes Loader, ‘He softly treads on a toe or touches another’s foot to communicate with a fellow scoundrel.’ 58 McKane, Proverbs, A New Approach, 325. Contra Fox, Proverbs 1–9, who states, ‘The notion that the worthless man is drawing patterns with his feet (McKane) has no etymological support, and in any case this would be very difficult to do’ (221). 59 André Barucq, Le Livre des Proverbes (Paris: Gabalda, 1964), 76.

40

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

tionally, the idioms may be forming a pattern wherein the verb clauses with dual/plural body parts are bookended by noun phrases that have a singular body part, forming a semantic inclusio: v. 12 ‘crookedness of mouth’ !a=K   ˜ f† d’ 4– v. 13a ‘he squints with his eyes’ #š1'4— C’ 7:œ— 9 v. 13b ‘he speaks with his feet’ #'+š ’:™ C+„ ’ +œ— / v. 13c ‘he teaches with his fingers’ #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C! ’ :y ˜ / œ v. 14 ‘perversions in his heart’ LCy +– C£=L ’ )‰ až !’ k  ™ This is not a simple mirror chiasm (ABBA) and could not fit easily with an alternate chiasmic pattern such as ABXBA, where X is somehow different or neutral. 60 It is better to refer to this pattern as a singular-plural-singular semantic inclusio of vv. 12–14. This pattern, along with the end-rhyme scheme of v. 13, lends credence to the more difficult reading of # š1'4— ‘ CŽ ’ , #'+š ’:™ C,’ and #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C’ rather than the smoothed-out Septuagint version of ‘eye’, ‘foot’, and ‘fingers.’ As can be seen from the variety of translational options proffered for ++/, there is difficulty in determining its meaning. For example, Waltke assumes the correct reading is ‘feet’ both because of the potential merism with ‘eyes’ and because of his interpretation of ++/ as ‘shuffles’, noting that ‘BDB and later HALOT reckon with a root, based on postbiblical Hebrew, which they gloss ‘rub, scrape’ (so Vulg., Sym., Aquila).’ 61 The other possibility for ++/ is ‘to speak’ (III 60

For an example of thematic ABXBA, See Ps 44:5–9 and see Fokkelman’s comments in J. P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, trans. Ch. E. Smit, Vol. 3 The Remaining 65 Psalms, Studia Semitica Neerlandica (Assen: Royal van Gorcum, 2003), 67. 61 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, 344. See Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 221. See HALOT, ++/, 594. See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903), II ++/, 792. The verb is used in Shabbat 12a to describe the activity of crushing a bug one finds in one’s garments—See Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 682, ++/ 2.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

41

++/), but the only other passages where this word occurs (Gen 21:7; Ps 106:2; Job 8:2; 33:3; Dan 6:22; 7:8, 11, 20, 25) are contexts in which the verb is used in a literal sense. The figurative idea of ‘speaks with his feet’ would, therefore, be unusual. For this reason, the majority scholarly opinion has been to view ++/ as coming from the post biblical term for ‘to crush, rub.’ If, however, it is true that #'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C! ’ :y ˜ / œ  means ‘he teaches with his fingers’ (III !:') then #'+š ’:™ C+„ ’ +œ— / could mean ‘he speaks with his feet’ as a parallel concept. 62 In fact, this could work well with understanding all of the idioms/gestures in Proverbs 6:12–14 as describing features that belie the secret cognition of the worthless man, for in v. 12 his mouth is one of =Kf† d’ 4– ‘falsehood/crookedness’ (See Prov 4:24), and in v. 13 his squinting eyes, his talking feet, and his teaching fingers are signals to co-conspirators. These central activities of the eyes, feet, and fingers are not only gestures used by the worthless man, but are actions observed by the righteous onlooker who may thereby judge the worthless man’s heart as being full of ‘perversion’ =L)‰ až !’ k  ™ (v. 14). All of the anatomical idioms in vv. 12–14 indicate that he is thinking about or communicating evil. The semantic inclusio mentioned above is also a conceptual inclusio: Verse

Gesture/Idiom

Semantic Inclusio

v. 12

‘crookedness of (his) mouth’

noun + sing. noun !a=K   ˜ f† d’ 4–

v. 13a

‘he squints his eyes’ (a sign)

ptc + du. noun # š1'4— C’ 7:œ— 9

his communication

v. 13b

‘he speaks with his

ptc + du. noun +„+œ— /

his

62

Conceptual Inclusio his thoughts 63

With this the Septuagint seems to agree, using the phrase ʾĸţżÀ »ò ÈÇ»ţ‘signaling with the foot.’ 63 The noun =Kf† d’ 4– comes from the verbal form fd— 4– ‘twisted, false’ (HALOT, 876). His contorted mouth is an indicator that his thoughts are perverse. See Prov 16:30 !4  š :š !X† š V – #'=šy 6š g ’  7:œ† — 9 ‘the one who compresses his lips completes evil.’ The contortion of the mouth is a subconscious indicator given off by the man who is devising wickedness in his heart.

42

v. 13c v.14

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR feet’

#'+š ’:™ C’

communication

‘he teaches with his fingers’

ptc + pl. noun !:y ˜ / œ

his communication

‘perversions in his heart’

#'=œ  š 3C’ 8’ ˜ C’ noun + sing. noun LCy +– C£=L ’ )‰ až !’ k  ™

his thoughts

To argue that ++/ means ‘to speak’ here is not to deny that a literal gesture is in view. How else could he speak with his feet unless he moves them in a suggestive manner? However, unless one is concluding that ++/ means ‘to rub or scrape’, the precise movement of this gesture is lost. Though the form of this bodily movement is unclear, we can at least understand the possible meaning of the gesture and its outcome. Some scholars have connected the passage with Proverbs 4:22–27. 64 To help visualize the relationship to Proverbs 4:25, Shäfer provides a side-by-side comparison of 6:12–15 and 4:22–27, with 6:13a #'+š ’:™ C+„ ’ +œ— / set across from 4:26a Ur+˜ ’:+„ ™ E™ 4’ /2 ™ X— aŽ ™ ‘make level the path of your feet.’ 65 This connection could imply that the worthless man moves his feet in such a way that he winds up on crooked paths where his feet may slip, a behavior that is to be contrasted with that of the righteous man whose feet are firmly planted on level ground (See Ps 26:12). This may imply that the gesture involves leaning or stepping in a certain direction (as toward the intended victim—see the Sumerian example below), but this is conjectural. 120F

64

Notes Moss on Proverbs 6:13, ‘He turns his feet toward every evil, shuffling this way and that (compare 4.25)’ (Moss, Proverbs, 35). See Clerical/pastoral notes such as Meir Leibush Malbim, Malbim on Mishley: The Commentary of Rabbi Meir Leibush Malbim on the Book of Proverbs, trans. Charles Wengrov (New York: Feldheim, 1982), 62. Notes Malbim, ‘’Scraping with his feet’ implies that he rushes to do evil.’ Likewise, See Eliezer Ginsburg, Mishlei: Proverbs / A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources, Vol. 1, ArtScroll Tanach Series (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1998), 123. 65 Rolf Schäfer, Die Poesie der Weisen, 165.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

43

Ancient Near Eastern Analogs Since we cannot know the precise movement of the gesture, it is difficult to draw parallels to ANE texts. The relationship of the foot to morality and behavior is, however, present. The term ‘foot’ pǃn appears in a Ugaritic formulaic expression: hlm . ǃnt . tph . ilm . bh . pǃnm tΑΑ ‫آ‬:KHQʁ$QDWXVDZWKHWZRGHLWies, her feet shook.’ 66 This behavior appears to be a knee-jerk reaction of surprise, so there does not seem to be a connection to the worthless PDQ‫أ‬V IRRW PRYHPHQW XQOHVV ʁ$QDWX‫أ‬V DFWLRQ EH XQGHUVWRRG VRPehow as a sign or a physical manifestation of mental planning, just like the man who squints his eyes devises perverse things (Prov 16:30). 7KLV LV OHVV OLNHO\ KRZHYHU ZKHQ RQH FRQVLGHUV KRZ ʁ$QDQWX‫أ‬V Eehavior is very similar to Belshazzar’s reaction of surprise when he witnesses the writing on the wall (Dan 5:6; See Ezek 21:11–12 where the people react similarly upon receiving bad news.). The Akkadian term ģÕpu ‘foot’ occurs in idioms related to having an established foot or being on the right path. A bilingual text from the epic entitled Lugale u melambi nergal states, gir3-zu ki-a sibi2-ib2 = ģÕpka ina er·eti kín ‘keep your foot firm on the earth’ (trans. of Akk. only). 67 In a dedicatory text for an Enlil priest, Kusu the 66

Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín, Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und Anderen Orten: KTU 3 = The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places, 3., Aufl, Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 360,1 (Münster: UgaritVerl, 2013), 1.3, III:32. See Gregorio del del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Handbook of Oriental Studies = Handbuch der Orientalistik 01, Handbook of Oriental studies (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 643, 650. W. W. Hallo, Context of Scripture, K. L. (Boston: Brill, 2000), 252. See 3 KTU 1.4, II:16–20 pǃnm tΑΑ ‘her feet shake’; COS I, 257. 67 CAD, Š II, 295. In both Akkadian and Hebrew, the imagery of the foot is used to symbolize strength and stability— ‘Signalons pourtant que, chez les Akkadiens comme chez les Hébreux, la force de résistance tient dans les pieds aussi bien que dans les genoux. Avec les formules que nous avons ctées en parlant de ‘birku’ on comparera aussitôt: ‘mes genoux marchent, mes pieds ne se fatiguent pas’. En hébreu, on aime à dire qu'on tient debout sur les

44

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

High Priest declares, líģera ģepía ‘may my feet walk straight.’ 68 In contrast, the anatomical idiom of removing the foot certainly carries negative connotations, but is not necessarily evil—ana ģaǂal ģulmiya II GIR3 -ģú iprusma translates literally, ‘he removed his foot from asking of my wellbeing’, which the CAD smooths out with ‘He did not bother to ask after my well-being.’ 69 Oppenheim notes that ģÕpà parÃsu ‘to separate the feet’ means to part ways or remove oneself and corresponds with id¤ parÃsu. 70 It is clear that the ethical imagery of the foot has a degree of shared conceptual meaning in Akkadian and bibical literature. In the Egyptian wisdom text entitled Intef Son of Sent, Intef states approvingly of himself, ink mn-rd ‘I am firmfooted!’ Lichtheim translates, ‘I am firm-footed, well disposed, Loyal to him who advanced him.’ 71 The firm-footedness of Intef suggests he possesses stability, certitude, loyalty, and honesty, which may be

pieds on que les pieds chancellent, pour symboliser la force ou la faiblesse. L'idéogramme GIR ‘pied’ équivaut parfois à l'akkadien ‘emuqu’ ‘force, puissance’ ou à ‘gaģru’ ‘fort’’ (Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique...’, 158). 68 CAD, Š II, 296. R. Borger, ‘Die Weihe eines Enlil-Priesters’, Bibliotheca Orientalis 35, no. 3/4 (1973): 169, 173; III:21'. 69 CAD Š II, 303. 70 Oppenheim, ‘Idiomatic Accadian’, 299. Oppenheim gives the example, GÍR-ģu ultu dÃríti la ilaqqi ‘whose foot will not be removed forever.’ The movement of the feet also has a negative connotation in religious incantation texts where one may twist the feet of a clay figurine—Theophile James Meek, ‘Some Bilingual Religious Texts’, American Journal of Religious Languages and Literatures 35 (April 1919): 134, 141; Th. 1905-4-9, 93:15. See CAD Š II, 295. Sumerian: gir3-bi-ne u3-me-ni-gil-gil : Akkadian translation: ģepiģunu uggir ‘twist their feet.’ 71 Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 122. E. A. Wallis Budge, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae in the British Museum, Vol. II (London: Harrison and Sons, 1912), pl. 23, §25. Joachim Spiegel, Die Idee vom Totengericht in der ägyptischen Religion, Leipziger Ägyptologische Studien 2 (Hamburg: J. J. Augustin, 1935), 40.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

45

contrasted with the worthless man of Proverbs 6:13 whose feet move suggestively and surreptitiously. There is a correlation in Sumerian between righteousness and feet that are planted on solid ground. In A Hymn to Nana, the house of Prince Šulgi is described as a place where ‘speech and opinions are good, to where lips and hearts are pure, to where feet are firm on the ground’ inim inim-ßar sag9-ge-ģe3 ģu-um-du-um ģag4 ģuba ba3 -ģe3 me-ri ki-a sig10-ga-ģe3. 72 Conversely, a violent person is identi? ? fied by ‘[winking ] his eyes, grinding his teeth, and shuffling his 73 feet’ lu2...igi TUM zu2 guz ßiri3 ki te-te. The tum sign may be a variant writing for tum3 ‘to bring up, raise’ (Akk. abÃlu ‘to carry’), which would render the meaning ‘lift the eyes’, but this is only conjectural. 74 The phrase ßiri3 ki te-te ‘shuffling his feet’ contains the sign for ‘feet’ ßiri3, ‘place’ ki, and the verb ‘to approach’ teß3 (te). 75 The listing of multiple body parts in this passage, each accompanied by a verb and describing a wicked person, is reminiscent of the list of gestures in Proverbs 6:13. Unfortunately, both in the Sumerian hymn and in Proverbs the exact movement of the feet is unclear. Synthesis The conceptual importance of the foot for understanding righteousness, stability, and strength cannot be understated. In the literature of the ANE, anyone who has a problem in life can be described as one whose feet are not secured by the gods or by one’s own righteousness. This loose-footedness may be the self-imposed result of personal sin or some blight inflicted by the deity. Similarly, a worthless (Heb.) or violent (Sum.) man is one whose feet are moving about unpredictably and in such a way as to keep others guessing about his next action or the direction he will 72

ETCSL, ‘A Hymn to Nanna (Nanna O)’ c.4.13.15, ln. 8–10. ETCSL, ‘A Hymn to Nanše (Nanše A)’ c.4.14.1, ln. 155. 74 Simo Parpola, Etymological Dictionary of the Sumerian Language, Vol. 1, Publications of the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research 16 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 368 §2599; 264, §1873. 75 EDSL, 355 §2506. 73

46

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

choose. If it is to be understood in relation to the other gestures in Proverbs 6:13, then the worthless man is intentionally communicating somehow with his feet. The communication may be intended for a partner in crime, or it may be the threat of advance toward a victim. The possible parallel line from Sumer, ßiri3 ki te-te (te=teß3 ‘to approach’), can be understood as the violent man stepping toward someone to initiate an attack. In this way, the worthless man ‘speaks’ threats with his feet. Either way, Meinhold comments that the gesture of the feet, arranged among peers, cannot mean a good thing for the victim. 76

THEY WINK AND SQUINT THEIR EYES 0 –'47 Ž ™ :  — œ9„ (Prov 6:13; 10:10; 16:30) The physical movement itself is limited to winking or squinting the eyes, a limitation set both by the available textual examples and by the naturally limited range of the human eye. ANE texts contain the social (meaning ‘ordinary’, non-magical), medical, and magical uses of the gesture, but the general scarcity of magic in Israel and the immediate biblical contexts in which this gesture occur make the social sense the most likely interpretation for these verses. 77 76

Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Vol. 1, 113. See McKane, Proverbs, A New Approach, 325. See Murphy et al., Proverbs, 73. See Longman, Proverbs, 233–234. See Mowinckel and Biddle, Psalm Studies, 30. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1 - 15, 343. Examples of the medical use: CAD, P, 345: ‘if (a patient) IGIII-ģú NU BAD im¤t ģumma II IGI -ģú BAD u ikattam cannot open his eyes, he will die, if he blinks his eyes (and they tear when one pours water on him, he will recuperate).’ See Labat TDP 152:57, 156. r. 11; ipta inà katimÃti (Ugaritica 5 162:44). See David Sperling, ‘Israel’s Religion in the Ancient Near East’, in Jewish Spirituality, ed. Arthur Green, Vol. 1 (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 18–21. Notes Sperling, ‘Whether an Israelite ritual was ‘magical’ (keshÃfim) or ‘divine service’ (ǃavodÃh) depended on its performers, on the group with which it was associated, and on the writer responsible for its extant description’ (18). The use of magic by biblical protagonists was considered a divine service, but the same from biblical antagonists was considered evil (i.e. Exod 7–8). 77

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

47

The concept of the ‘evil eye’ is known throughout biblical and ANE literature, from Sumer to Galilee, where Jesus condemns the sin of the Ěο¸ÂÄġËÈÇžÉŦË ‘evil eye / envy’ in Mark 7:22 that serves as a window into the darkness of a person’s inner being—ëÛÅ »ò ĝ Ěο¸ÂÄŦËÊÇÍÈÇžÉġËĂ ‘but if your eye is evil’ (Matt 6:23; or ‘diseased’). In biblical wisdom literature, a man who is 0 –'43 ™ :™ ‘evil of eye’ is depicted as ungenerous, obsessed with wealth (Prov 28:22), such that one should not eat from his table (Prov 23:6). Non-biblical texts depict both magical and social uses of the evil eye. A Phoenician apotropaic amulet from Arslan Tash depicts a man-eating demon called ‘Big-eye’, against whom the amulet says, br͉ ǃyn ‘Flee, you who are casting the (evil) eye’, understanding ǃyn to be a G-stem participial form known from Ugartic and Hebrew. 78 Del Olmo Lete has ar3 gued that KTU 1.96 is an incantation against the evil eye, rejecting the older mythological reading of ǃnt ‘Anat’ in line one and instead reading ǃnn ‘eye’ to create the phrase ǃnn hlkt ‘the restless evil eye.’ 79 To this del Olmo Lete compares the Akkadian phrase ínu lemuttu muttalliktu ‘the wandering evil eye’ from which the Ugaritic phrase is likely derived. 80 The expression ǃn bΓy ǃn bΓt ‘the eye of the evildoing man, the eye of the evil-doing woman’ refers to a sorcerer and sorceress. 81 The gesture of squinting the eyes for an omen occurs in Akkadian texts as well, 82 as does the broader concept of the evil eye. The Old Babylonian Lu series, primarily from Nippur, is a Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual text listing classes of people in Mesopotamian 13F

134F

135F

136F

137F

78

H. Altenmüller et al., eds, Dictionary of Northwest Semitic Inscriptions, Handbook of Oriental Studies: The Near and Middle East (New York: Brill, 1995), 840–841 (Del Olmo Lete’s translation). J.C. de Moor, ‘Demons in Canaan’, Jaarbericht 27 (1983): 110–111. 79 DUL2, 165 (Del Olmo Lete’s translation). See Gregorio del Olmo Lete, ‘KTU 1.96 Once Again’, Aula Orientalis 28, no. 1 (2010): 42–54. 80 Ibid, 43. For an extensive discussion of the evil eye in KTU 1.96 and other ANE literature, See J.N. Ford, ‘Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye and One from Natural Causes’, UF 30 (1998): 201–78. 81 DUL2, 52. 82 CAD, K, 182 ‘kap÷u.’

48

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

society. 83 One type of person is listed as ģa inam lemnu ‘one with an evil eye.’ 84 This is also likely an idiom referring to a sorcerer. An Akkadian and Sumerian bilingual hymn to Šamaš reads lú igi-͏ul-gál-e igi-͏uģ ba-an-ģi-íb-íl-la, translated in the very next line as ģa inu lemuttu ezziģ ikilmûģu ‘upon whom an evil eye has looked in anger.’ 85 There are similar examples from Sumer, such as The Lament for Sumer and Urim where Enlil dumu lu2 zid-da-ke3 dumu-saß-e igi ͏ul dim2-me-de3 ‘put the evil eye on the sons of the righteous men, on the firstborn.’ 86 The biblical examples of winking or squinting the eye(s) provide the necessary visual for this broader concept of the evil eye. The Bible always presents the activity of winking or squinting as evil. The main difficulty with interpreting this gesture in the Bible is determining whether it refers to the act of winking at coconspirators as a signal to carry out evil, or squinting at an individual as a less subtle gesture of disdain toward them. Hebrew Expression The act of winking the eyes normally refers to signaling, while squinting the eyes is more consistent with devising evil in the heart when glaring directly at the object of one’s hatred. Proverbs 6:13 is a possible exception, where both eyes are squinted, yet the immediate context and the Septuagint suggest that the act is a signal.

83

M. Civil, ed., Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon, Vol. 12, The Series Lú = Ša and Related Texts (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1969), 151. See CAD, I-J, 155. 84 Ibid., 175–186. 85 P. Anastasius Schollmeyer, Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen und Gebete an Šamaģ, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums (Paderborn: Druck und Verlag von Ferdinand Schöningh, 1912), 31; No. 1, I:71–72. See CAD, I-J, 155. 86 ETCSL, ‘The Lament for Sumer and Urim’ c.2.2.3, ln. 74.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

49

Proverbs 6:13

7:œ— 9# š1'4— C ’ ‘He squints with his eyes’

As discussed elsewhere in the section on ‘teaching/pointing the finger’, this gesture is listed as a descriptive behavior of the +4™ ™Q+– CŽ ’ -„ š š ‘wicked man’ mentioned in v. 12. 87 The cognate range of meaning for 7:œ— 9 indicates motions of breaking, cutting, biting, chopping, and hacking. 88 Fox argues that the translation ‘squint’ is to be preferred over ‘wink’, ‘since one can be said to qr· the lips (Prov 16:30) and to qr· clay with the fingers (Job 33:6), both of which actions are more than momentary compressions.’ 89 Still, with the verb only occurring five times in the biblical text, it is difficult to say with certainty whether an instantaneous wink or a longer squint is consistently in view. One helpful clue could be whether the noun 0 –'4™ is singular or dual as the object of the verb. In Proverbs 6:13 the dual # š1'4— C’ (Syriac, Targum, Vulgate) suggests that the evil man is squinting both eyes rather than winking a single eye. Though the wink gesture is normally the eye movement reserved for signaling, the squint gesture could also be employed as a sign. For example, the text from Nergal and II Ereģkigal below has Ea squinting (·apÃru) his IGI. .MEŠ ‘eyes’ at Nergal in the divine assembly as a sign to the latter, not just a hateful glare. Others, however, contest the translation ‘squint’, such as Loader who takes 7:9 to mean ‘wink’ since ‘there is no reason to 87

Sperling, ‘Belial’, 169. Notes Sperling, ‘In most of its OT attestations, b×liyyaǃal functions as an emotive term to describe individuals or groups who commit the most heinous crimes against the Israelite religious or social order...’ (169). 88 HALOT, 1147. Meinhold takes the term 7:œ— 9 ‘screw’ as an indication that some evil had been decided. Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Vol. 1, 113. 89 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 220. For an Akk. parallel of 8:9 in Job 33:6 See CAD, K, 209. Here the Babylonian sufferer likewise proclaims: dZulummaru kari·(var. -·u) Αiddaģina ‘Zulummaru who pinched off the clay for them’, referring to a deity pinching off the clay necessary to form human beings (Lambert, BWL, 88:277).

50

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

think that people with squinted eyes were regarded as malicious.’ 90 Job does complain, however, that his enemies are ‘sharpening’ their eyes at him (16:9), though with a different verb. Loader further argues his point, stating as evidence that the dual #'1'3 is not attested in Codex Leningradensis nor the Septuagint; however, the dual is supported by a considerable number of manuscripts, such as Qumran, Peshitta, Targum, and Vulgate versions. 91 The man in Proverbs 6:13 is squinting both eyes in order to signal to a confederate. 92 The absence of an indirect object (for example, ‘at me’, such as can be found in Job 16:9) only reinforces the idea that this ‘squint’ in 6:13 is meant to be a signal to a confederate instead of a glare. The Septuagint smooths out this text by replacing the dual # š1'4— C’ with the singular dative Ěο¸ÂÄŊ ‘with the eye’; however, the Septuagint renders the singular 0 –'4Ž ™ of Proverbs 10:10 as dative plural—ĝëÅżŧÑÅĚο¸ÂÄÇėË ‘the one who signals with the eyes.’ So the Septuagint is elsewhere willing to understand the squinting of both eyes as a signal act. 146F

Prov 10:10

=˜ cr š 40 ™ k–'0 „ — –'47 Ž ™ :  — œ9„ ‘Whoever winks the eye causes trouble’

The singular object0 –'4Ž ™  makes it possible to take this action as a conspiratorial wink, which is how the Septuagint understands it, though 0 –'4Ž ™ becomes Ěο¸ÂÄÇėË. The only other text with 7:9 followed by singular 0'3 is Psalm 35:19 where the psalmist prays that evil men not be allowed to wink their eye: 0 –'4¡K8   š :’ 9’ –' -^šy %–  '† ™ ’1œ g (+) ™ ‘let (not) those who hate me without cause wink the eye.’ The singular object makes ‘wink’ the preferred interpretation. Hausmann calls 0'3 7:9 in Proverbs 10:10 a gesture of malicious looking that intends to cause pain 90

Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 266. Ibid., 266, n. 35. 92 See Fuhs, who agrees that there must be a confederate involved—Hans F. Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2001), 122. 91

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

51

for its recipient. 93 But unlike Proverbs 16:30, the evil man in 10:10 is not ‘devising evil’ through ‘squinting’, but actually perpetrating evil by winking his eye at a partner in crime. Proverbs 16:30

=L)r až !’ k ™ œ f„ %’ +#' ™ š1'4!„ Ž — 8œ˜ 3 ‘Whoever squints the eyes (does so in order) to plan perverse things.’ 94

The hapax 95 term !83, which has the basic meaning ‘to shut’, is paired with the participle 7:  — œ9„ in #'=šy 6š g7 ’  :œ† — 9 ‘the one who compresses his lips’, suggesting a longer, sustained squint rather than a wink. The worthless man is planning rather than performing the evil act itself, which is why the translation ‘squint’ is preferred. The suggestion that the squinting individual is using magic is unconvincing. 96 15F

93

Jutta Hausmann, Studien zum Menschenbild der Älteren Weisheit (Spr 10), Forschungen zum Alten Testament 7 (Tübingen: Paul Siebeck, 1995), 214. 94 Driver notes, ‘An infinitive form preceded by + in the sense of ‘is likely to’ may serve as predicate to a nominal or participial subject’, (G. R. Driver, ‘Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs’, Biblica 32, no. 2 (1951): 196). Fox, however, suggests that the sages are not stating likelihoods, but certainties, making it safer to translate ‘is certain to’ as in Jer 43:11 or ‘in order to’ (See Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible 18B (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2009), 622, 651. Waltke also rejects Driver’s ‘exceptional meaning’ (See Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31, 24, n. 96. 95 Psalm 32:8 is typically translated ‘I will counsel’, but is rendered by Fox ‘I will squint’ where he takes the MT verb 73' to be !83, thus rendering !8˜ 4’ ˜ for ‘I will squint my eye against you’, presumably as an expression of pedagogical sternness, since it is immediately followed by a rebuke. HALOT also suggests !83 as a conjectural reading for 73' (866). The potential problem with Fox’s interpretation is that none of the other examples of 7:9 nor the one example of !83 take an indirect object. For this reason, the older reading is preferred. See Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 32. 96 See Glendon E. Bryce, A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979), 197.

52

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

Again, evidence that this squinting gesture is non-communicative (not intended to send a message) may be observed in the other gesture occurring in this verse—‘to purse the lips.’ Proverbs 16:30b states, !4  š :š !X† š V – #'=šy 6š g ’  7:œ† — 9 ‘the one who compresses his lips completes evil.’ There is an idiom !+) 3: ‘to complete evil’ used for when one determines to do evil in one’s heart. For example, 1 Samuel   – 3G w ™ L+v !{ :˜ % “ '˜ !œ :… %¡š – ’# UGr ˜ ’ 4™ + ’ -L+„ f š L& x :/ } ™ œ ' !œV† ¡-– 20:7 states, ¡'V L]  4– /! — 4x š :š !! š =† š +’ )š ‘If he says ‘good’, then your servant is safe, but if he becomes very angry, then know that evil is completed from within him.’ 97 As Whybray puts it, ‘these mannerisms are reminiscent of those condemned in 6:13, but here they are probably to be understood as signs of an evil character (as opposed to evil actions in particular) which ought to warn others against such a person.’ 98 152F

153F

Writes Bryce, ‘Babylonian diviners not only used lots to predict the future, a practice also employed by Israelite priests and alluded to in proverbial utterances, but they also developed a specific lore interpreting the movements of the body. This lore, found in the omen collections of Babylonia, is strikingly similar to a small cluster of sayings in the book of Proverbs (16:30; 10:10; 6:12–15, 4:15; 9:12).’ For an example, Bryce cites Kraus (1.17), ģumma í>QÕ@ģu ukattam sartam itammu, which he translates ‘If (a man) closes his eyes, he will speak falsehood’, to which he compares Proverbs 16:30. Though the context of Proverbs 16:30 is not magic, both the Akkadian and biblical texts agree that a man with shut/squinted eyes is somehow dishonest. See Rudolph Kraus, ‘Babylonische Omina mit Ausdeutung der Begleiterungscheinungen des Sprechens’, Archiv für Orientforschung 11 (1936): 219– 30. 97 See 1 Samuel 20:9, where Jonathan states, !4š ~ :š !! š =š‰ +’ )¡' š V3   – y ™  — µ™ œ „ š'¡-£' – V„ – T+   š '†E– ™  I=œx š  œ +† ’# U'+˜ v 4 š L„ + š '{ –  š -4… – /— ‘For if I had surely known that evil would be completed from within my father that [harm] would come upon you, would I not have told it to you?’ See 1 Samuel 20:33b, ¡'V0   – =šv š1L!„ ’' 3{ ™ {—Q ™# #  –šG¡==' ˜ /† – !š +#' ’ x – š 4† – /' — !! } – +š )† š ‘So Jonathan knew that it was completed within his father to kill David.’ See 1 Samuel 25:17,'g–v 4” k¡! ™ /   ™ ' { – :K’ '4… – G! ’ kšy 4™ ’# #'+  š : — Cx — G™ /+ – 4™ Q™v +– C¡0 ’ C ˜ K! { ’#L=' r C¡+ — V+„ š 4™ ’#K1'x1œ— ¡+ ” ! ˜ 4} š :š !! š =ˆ š +’ )¡' š V  – ‘For he saw that evil was completed to him with the king.’ See Esther 7:7, ¡'V   – !vš :š 'V„ – T+˜ ]  ˜ ! ™ =† — / — !4x š :š ! š #'}+š  — !=† š +’ )š ‘For he saw that evil was completed to him with the king.’ 98 R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs, 96.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

53

Waltke’s translation, ‘pursing his lips, he brings evil to pass’ is inadequate. 99 This is about determining to do evil, not actually bringing it to pass. As Alter puts it, ‘[He] purses his lips and fixes on evil.’ 100 More precisely, while the squinted eyes demonstrate the presence of evil ruminations and the formulation of a plan, the pressed lips represent a determination to carry out the plan. 101 Furthermore, the Septuagint reads, ĝÉţ½¼À»òÌÇėËϼţ¼ÊÀŸĤÌÇıÈŠÅ̸ÌÛÁ¸ÁŠ ‘With his 99

Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2005), 24. See Murphy, Proverbs, 118. Murphy translates, ‘Whoever purses the lips accomplishes evil.’ The proper English sense should connote the plan or intention to do evil as is consistent with the way !4  š :š !X† š V– is used elsewhere. Murphy does comment correctly, though, that the gestures in this verse ‘betray the evil designs of the inner spirit.’ See André Barucq, Le Livre des Proverbes, 144. Barucq also understands the action as having already been accomplished—’et qui pince les lèvres a déjà accompli le mal.’ See Hausmann, Studien zum Menschenbild der Älteren Weisheit (Spr 10), 299. Hausmann—‘er hat Böses vollbracht.’ See Malbim, Malbim on Mishley, 176. Malbim also took the gesture of the lips as the execution of evil itself—‘The evil man makes malicious plans with ease and speed: A slight gesture of the eye, and an entire project of destruction is worked out. A gesture of the lips, and it is executed.’ The same opinion is held by Ironside, Notes on the Book of Proverbs, 202. 100 Alter, The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, 265. See Plöger, Sprüche Salomos, 187. Plöger comments that by pursing his lips the man has already prepared to do evil—‘wer seine Lippen zusammenpreßt, hat das Böses.’ See Sæbø, Sprüche, 223. Sæbø—‘hat Böses vollendet’, meaning that he has consummated the thought to do evil, not having actually done it yet. See Moshe ben Chayim Alshich, The Book of Proverbs with Rav Peninim, trans. Eliyahu Munk (Jerusalem: L. Lehmann Hebrew Booksellers, 1991), 282. Oddly, Alshich understands these gestures as coming from the victim of evil—‘By the time the intended victim otze eynav, shuts his eyes to consider the situation calmly and to wonder if he had been lured into this situation by the ish chamass, it is too late already, he has bitten his lip realising that he had fallen for the smooth talk of the ish chamass. The evil has already come to pass, kilah ra-ah.’ 101 Plöger, Sprüche Salomos, 196. See Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Vol. 2, 278.

54

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

lips he determines all evil things.’ 102 McKane notes that the condemned gesture is the ‘nastiness of his pursed lips which are evidence that he has effectively expressed his hatred of his fellows.’ 103 So pursing one’s lips is not a gesture intended to communicate something, but a subconscious physical indicator of evil thought. This is not an example of a gesture so much as it is an outward sign of inward evil ruminations. The man who squints subconsciously as he devises evil is likely to later wink or squint conspiratorially at a partner in crime. In a similar example from Job 16:9, the righteous sufferer states, '+#'„   – 1'š 4fL — &x +’ –'£':u – 8š ‘My adversary sharpens his eyes against me.’ The less ambiguous verb f&+ occurs five times in the Bible and refers to sharpening a blade—compare with the Ugaritic ‘sharpened tongues’ of Yammu’s messengers: ͉rb . lΑģt [lš]nhm ‘their tongue is a sharpened sword.’ 104 The imagery suggests that Job’s enemies are narrowing their eyes like a blade in order to squint angrily at him. This interpretation is preferred both because the activity of squinting is consistent with the imagery of whetting a sword and because we know the recipient of the gesture is not an evil companion, but a hated individual. 159F

Akkadian Analog As seen in the examples below, the social gesture can refer to either a glare of disdain or a conspiratorial signal.

102

Michael V. Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, 253. Notes Fox, ‘The textual situation of G in this verse is complex, but the text in GBS is best, with ĝÉţ½¼Àrepresenting basically the same understanding of 7:9 as in 6:13, where it is translated ëÅżŧ¼À, which means to mark out, hint at, or the like.’ The direct object clause ÈŠÅ̸ÌÛÁ¸ÁŠ fits with the verb ĝÉţ½¼À, but not with the verb ëÈÀ»ŠÁÅÑÅ, which appears in secondary translations and is closer in meaning to 7:9 and so translates it as ‘bites.’ The cognitive sense of ĝÉţ½¼À is preserved in the Hebrew phrase at the end of the clause, !4  š :! š X† š V.– 103 McKane, Proverbs, A New Approach, 495. 104 KTU 3 1.2, I:32, pg. 6.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

55

L udlul bÕO1ÕPHTL (1:81) 105 errub É.GAL-liģma i·abbura ínÃti ‘I enter the palace and eyes squint.’

Lambert originally translated ·abÃru as ‘eyes are rolled’, noting his struggle at that time to determine if the verb was ·abÃru, or ·apÃru. 106 The verb is either ·abÃru ‘to prattle’ (the lips) / ‘to flitter’ (of birds), as the CAD translates it, or ·apÃru ‘to squint’ as Lambert (1960) and Annus/Lenzi render it. 107 Morphologically, the form appears to be ·abÃru, but normally one would expect to see ·apÃru with its less ambiguous meaning ‘to squint.’ The –bu sign and –pu sign are identical, doubled for the durative by the –am sign that precedes it: i-·aam-bu/pu-ra with the feminine plural ending to follow. The term i·abbura is the durative/present of ·abÃru (u/u) with the vowel u immediately preceding the third radical instead of the a of ·apÃru. Contextually, ·apÃru is always associated with the eye and means ‘squint’ in reference to eye diseases and signaling gestures. Some of the confusion is due to the fact that a few of the tablets are damaged around line 81 where this gesture occurs, making the interpretation difficult. 108 The CAD suggests that ·apÃru is a variant of ·abÃru A, but prefers the latter, both because of the u theme vowel and the Hebrew parallel 7:9 which, like ·abÃru, can also refer to the lips (as in Prov 16:30). 109 The righteous sufferer of the text claims he is the object of hatred. For proof, he mentions how the people of the city point their fingers at him and squint their eyes. Magic would not fit the context 164F

105

Annus, Ludlul BÕl NÕmeqi, 17. W. G. Lambert and O. R. Gurney, The Sultantepe Tablets (Continued), Reprinted from Anatolian Studies Vol. IV (London: British Institute of Archaeology at Anarka, 1954), 79. 107 CAD, Ά, 3b. Lambert, BWL, 34. Annus, Ludlul BÕl NÕmeqi, 17. 108 D. J. Wiseman and J. A. Black, Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû, Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 4 (Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1996) pl. 153 (photo), 120–121 (drawing). For an undamaged copy of I:8–9, see Lambert, The Sultantepe Tablets (Continued), 75, 1:81. 109 CAD, Ά, 3b–4b, 96b. 106

56

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

here, especially since in line 82 he clarifies the nature of the gesture by stating, URU.MU k° Ãbi nekelmanni ‘my city looked angrily at me as an enemy’, with the verb nekelmû ‘to look angrily, with disfavor.’ 110 The people of the palace are looking upon him with disgust, as in Job 16:9. N ergal and Ereškigal (II:8–99) 111 II

IGI. .MEŠ-ia a··anaprakkamma

‘I keep squinting my eyes at you!’

The text is damaged around these two lines, but the larger context makes the narrative clear enough—since Ereškigal cannot personally leave the underworld in order to attend a heavenly feast, she sends her messenger, Namtar, to the celestial gods to receive her portion of the feast and bring it back down. While there, Namtar is offended by Nergal who refuses to bow down in his presence (as the representative of Ereškigal), despite the fact that Ea was continuously squinting at Nergal, signaling for him to bow along with everyone else—‘Why do you not kneel down before him? I keep winking at you’, as Dalley translates it. 112 Ea thereafter orders Nergal to descend to the underworld to apologize for this impropriety. Gurney originally translated the gesture ‘rolling my eyes’, but notes that ‘the exact motion is uncertain.’ 113 The lengthy verb a··anaprakkamma (as a Gtn from ·apÃru), however, suggests that Ea 110

Annus/Lenzi translation, 33. O. R. Gurney, ‘The Sultantepe Tablets’, Anatolian Studies 10 (1960): 105–31; II:8–9. O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets I, Vol. I, Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Anarka 3 (London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Anarka, 1957), no. 28, pl. 31, ln. 8–9. 112 COS I, 385, ln. 9. More likely ‘squinting’, since IGI.II.MEŠ-ia is plural. See Stephanie Dalley, trans., Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 167. Dalley’s translation: ‘I keep winking at you, But you pretend not to realize.’ 113 Gurney, ‘The Sultantepe Tablets’, 113 n. 26, 128. 111

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

57

was repeatedly signaling to Nergal, which may be a rapid winking to reflect the iterative stem, or a sustained glare that honors both the II Gtn and the plural object IGI. .MEŠ-ia. Ea squinted at Nergal in order to signal an action and to communicate his frustration, which Nergal should have noticed, but ignored (la mudêma ‘to not notice’; Gurney: ‘ignorant’). 114 Egyptian Analog Regarding the standard Egyptian term for ‘to wink’ Γrm , Breasted notes, ‘The act involved unpleasant implications among the Egyptians and the deceased denies in the Book of the Dead.’ 115 The term appears in a medical text (with a slightly different determinative: ) in reference to a man whose eyelids are drooping as if he is winking. 116 Interestingly, in a Coptic coffin text Osiris instructs a man to whom he has given legs, ‘Rush like the winking eye!’ 117

114

Ibid, 112–113. Henry James Breasted, The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, Vol. I, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, III (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), 199. 116 Ibid, 198. 117 Von Wilhelm Spiegelberg, ‘Koptische Kleinigkeiten’, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 54 (1918): 134. 115

58

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Instruction of Amenemope118

m Γn͉wty n.f ‘Do not wink/squint? at him...’

The teacher in this wisdom text instructs his pupil in how to behave when confronted with a froward man. The pupil should not go out of his way to ingratiate himself toward such a man, nor take a bribe from him. Furthermore, he should not squint at him disrespectfully. This example is not without difficulty. The term used for squint is not the standard Γrm, but ‘Γn͉wty’ as Lange transliterated it, though he notes that his translation ‘blink’ is a bit of a guess. 119 A more recent treatment by Grumach takes the term as Γn͉ and prefers Griffith’s translation of ‘do not be shy’, pointing to both the downward facing determinative and parallel phrase ‘do not lower your eyes’ in line 21, while both the Erman-Grapow and Hannig lexicons represent

as ‘look.’ 120 Vernus likewise takes

118

Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Vol. 2: The New Kingdom (Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press, 1976), 156. See H. O. Lange, Das Weisheitsbuch des Amenemope, Vol. 2, Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 11 (København: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri, 1925), 82–83. See F. Ll. Griffith, ‘The Teaching of Amenophis the Son of Kanakht. Papyrus B.M. 10474’, JEA 12, no. 3/4 (1926): 213. 119 Lange, Das Weisheitsbuch des Amenemope Vol 2, 84. ‘...die Bedeutung ‘blinzeln’ ist nur erraten.’ Lange does not include the first sign in his transcription. 120 Irene Grumach, Untersuchungen zur Lebenslehre des Amenemope, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 23 (Münich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1972), 104. See Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, eds, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, Vol. 5, 6 vols. (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1926), 384.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

59

the phrase as ne t'humilie pas devant lui ‘do not humiliate yourself before him’, pointing also to the determinative. 121 Simpson adds to ‘humilie’ a sense of fear with ‘do not be afraid of him, nor bend down your head, nor turn aside your gaze.’ Though more modern interpretations of this text translate the phrase as ‘do not avert your gaze’ or ‘do not humble yourself before him’ or ‘do not be afraid of him’, the earlier reading was to take this as a blinking gesture that could connote either timidity or, as I suspect, hostility. The Maxims of Ptahotep contain a parallel passage where the pupil is instructed to not act out of hostility, specifically by turning away his face, m iΑ-͉r ‘do not avert your face’ DFFWRĿ£ED)DXONQHU-XQJH EXW/LFKWKHLPVXggests a translation more aggressive than this—‘don’t attack.’ 122 Regardless of the exact translation of

, the pupil

is instructed to not act in hostility. Additionally, the n.f him’ of

of ‘at

may suggest that the activ-

Rainer Hannig, Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800–950 v. Chr.): die Sprache der Pharaonen, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt, Bd. 64 (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1995), 1031. The Hannig entry reads, ‘

,

det. ґnч blicken auf, observieren.’ 121 Pascal Vernus, ‘La Sagesse d’Aménemopé: philosophie de la traduction’, Orientalia 79, no. 4 (2010): 545–546. See Pascal Vernus, Sagesses de l’Egypte Pharaonique (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 2001). 122 =E\QÕNĿ£EDLes Maximes de Pta͉͉otep, Éditions de L’Académie Tchécoslovaque GHV 6FLHQFHV 3UDJXH 1DNODGDWHOVWY¯ ÎHVNRVORYHQVN« $NDGHPLH 9×G OQ See Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 34. See Friedrich Junge, Die Lehre Ptahhoteps und die Tugenden der ägyptischen Welt, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 193 (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 2003), 182. Lichtheim Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 72.

60

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

ity is performed with the froward man as the indirect object, as with '+– ‘at me’ in Job 16:9. Vernus, however, prefers to take n.f as a dative of advantage: ‘for him, for his advantage.’ 123 The consensus interpretation is that this term is difficult and perhaps lost. Nevertheless, the pupil is instructed to take a neutral approach when confronting a morally uncouth man. Gestures of the eyes in this context, whether this involves winking/squinting or looking downward, are considered anti-social and in bad taste. He is instead instructed to face the man and behave politely despite what may come. 178F

A Theban Coffin Text124

bw Γrm.i m-d irt.i ‘I have not winked with my eye.’

Why is it good to have abstained from winking? In his discussion on Γrm

, Spiegelberg inquires about the significance of the

expression n Γrm.i ‘I did not wink’ for a deceased Egyptian. 125 He then mentions the present Theben tomb text where, as in the context of a court case, someone is swearing that they have not signaled with their hands nor blinked their eye so as to corrupt another person—‘nicht habe ich mit dem Auge zugeblinzt.’ 126 The winking gesture here may be functioning as a surreptitious signal to a confederate, which is listed among behaviors despised by the gods. 123

Vernus, ‘La Sagesse d’Aménemopé: Philosophie de la Traduction’, 546. n=f serait tout bonnement un datif ‘pour lui, à son avantage’, qu'on rendrait ‘devant lui’ dans cet environnement particulier. 124 Spiegelberg, 135. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

61

The Book of the Dead (125:26) 127

n Γrm.i ‘I have not winked...’

The earliest interpretations, such as those given by Renouf and Naville, translated the line as, ‘I am not the cause of weeping to any’, 128 but more recent interpretations have understood Γrm as ‘wink.’ 129 Lichtheim notes regarding Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, ‘The chapter’s principal illustration is the scene that shows the weighing of the dead person’s heart on the scales before an assembly of gods who are presided over by Osiris.’ 130 She goes on to highlight the magical nature of the text, but the broader magical context does not inform the interpretation of the gesture itself. If the context suggests anything, it is that ‘winking’ is one of many sins that the now deceased person has abstained from committing during their life:

127

Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II, 127. The hieroglyphic text version chosen here is Papyrus Nebseni as published in E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Dead: The Chapters of Coming Forth by Day (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1898), 256; 125:26. See P. Le Page Renouf and Naville, E., The Egyptian Book of the Dead (London: Harrison and Sons, 1904), 212–213; 125:26. 128 Renouf, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 212–213; 125:26. See Charles H. S. Davis, The Egyptian Book of the Dead (New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1901), 136; no. 26. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Dead (London: Arkana, 1984). James Wasserman, The Egyptian Book of the Dead (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994). 129 William Kelly Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, 3rd ed. (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2003), 272. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II, 127. 130 Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II, 119.

62

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR ‘O Foreteller who comes from Wensi: I have not quarreled. O Bastet who comes from the shrine: I have not winked. 131

The deities are implored by the deceased supplicant to consider the latter’s righteousness. Listed among the potential sins avoided by the supplicant is that of winking the eye. Simpson notes that a variant reading adds the words ‘at another’, which only aids in understanding the gesture as a signal to a confederate, a metaphor for dishonest behavior, generally. Sumerian Analog A potential Sumerian equivalent for the Akkadian verb ·apÃru men2 tioned above may be lu -igi-ģid ‘a man who squints(?)’ from the Bab132 ylonian Lu lists. The Lu lists provide no context, so it is difficult to expound on the extent of the potential parallel. Another Sumerian term that may refer to squinting the eyes is igi tur gid noting that igi = eye, tur = small, and gid = long. 133 Proverbs Collection 2 + 6134 ukur3 bu-lu-uэ si-il-/le?\ lu2 QLß2-tuku-e igi tur nam-ba-e-gid2-i ‘A belching, vagrant?, poor man should not squint disdainfully at a rich man.’ ?

The ETCSL translates ukur3 bu-lu-u͏ si-il-/le \ lu2 ‘The belching poor man’, leaving out si-il-le. My inclusion of ‘vagrant’ is an attempt at understanding si-il-le as sil ‘(to be) remote’ and the -e suffix marking the agent at the end of the nominative unit. The term igi...tur...gid2 generally means ‘to look contemptuously at someone’, but is made up of the body part igi ‘eye’ along with the components tur ‘small’ and gid2 ‘long’, which, like fL&x +’ –' ‘sharpens’ in Job 16:9,

131

Ibid, 127. CAD, I-J, 154. 133 ePSD: igi tur gid [DESPISE]. 134 ETCSL ‘Proverbs: Collection 2 + 6’ 2. 16 (ETCSL transliteration: c.6.1.02), ln. 31. 132

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

63

may provide a visual image of the eyelids compressing as the poor man squints jealously at the rich man. Synthesis

The biblical example of 7:œ— 9# š1'4— C’ from Proverbs 6:13 may refer to a squinting signal, since the other body parts mentioned in 6:13 are likely dual/plural. There is also the similar example from the Nergal and Ereģkigal text where squinting appears to be a signal. The phrase 0 –'47 Ž ™ :  — œ9„ in Proverbs 10:10 (and Ps 35:19), appears to involve conspiratorial winks of the eye to other evil-doers, while #' š1'4 Ž — !„8œ˜ 3 in 16:30 and #'„1'š 4fL — &x +’ –' in Job 16:9 depict a squinting glare directed at an individual. The example of i·abbura ínÃti from Ludlul matches the sense found in Job 16:9, while a··anaprakkamma in Nergal and Ereģkigal situates the gesture as an angry (not evil) signal, though likely a squint since both eyes are involved. The Egyptian Coffin texts contribute to an understanding of the gesture of winking as evil with the term Γrm.i

. The phrase m Γn͉wty

in Amenemope is difficult, but may also refer to an anti-social glare. Finally, the Sumerian igi-ģid from the Lu lists provides little useful information, but the term igi tur gal2 is comparable to the #'„1'š 4fL — &x +’ –' of Job 16:9. Fox rejects the notion that ‘winking the eyes’ could be a signal to a co-conspirator, since no such confederate is mentioned in the biblical texts. 135 The Septuagint, however, understands Proverbs 6:13 and 10:10 as acts of signaling with the eyes, using the verb ëÅżŧÑ ‘to signal.’ 136 Proverbs 16:30 employs the verb Ê̾Éţ½Ñ ‘to place [the eyes] firmly and determinedly’ at someone in order to ruminate over

135

Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 220–221. Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 239. 136

64

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

perverse things, which is consistent with ‘squinting.’ 137 Psalm 35:19 (LXX 34:19) mimics the Hebrew text with »À¸Å¼ŧÇÅ̼Ë Ěο¸ÂÄÇėË ‘winking their eyes’, »À¸Å¼ŧÑ meaning ‘to signal consent by winking the eye.’ 138 What lends further credence to the idea that these are conspiratorial winks is that in none of these passages are the verbs 7:9 or ʤʶʲ followed by an indirect object, which would be expected if the recipient of the gesture were the hated individual. Only in Job 16:9, where the recipient is clearly the hated individual, is an indirect object supplied ('+), – and here a different verb is used (f&+). The singular ‘eye’ indicates a wink (Prov 10:10; Ps 35:19) while ‘eyes’ can possibly be a signal (as in Prov 6:13), but are normally a hateful squint (Prov 16:30; Job 16:9). Notes Waltke regarding the wicked man of Proverbs 6:13, ‘His gestures imply that he has followers who agree and conspire with him and understand his nonverbal speech’, Proverbs 1:10–14 being ‘a good example of how someone recruits a confederate to be involved in their wicked scheming, symptomatic of which are the gestures of scheming.’ 139 The negative connotations of the winking eye or squinting eyes can be seen throughout the ANE in various time periods, sometimes representing a conspiratorial sign and other times representing a disdainful glare. This gesture is consistently depicted as a violation of the broader scope of social values in the ancient world, such that a treaty from Boghazkoy wistfully dreams that one day the inhabitants of distant lands will never again peer down upon one another ina ini lemutt[i] ‘with an evil eye.’ 140

137

Ibid, 636. Ibid, 155. 139 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, 343. 140 CAD, I-J, 156. See H. H. Figulla, E. Forrer, and E. F. Weidner, eds, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, Vol. I, Wissenshaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 30 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung, 1923), 8; No. 1 1:68. 138

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

65

THEY RAISE THEIR EYES =L/:Ž š –'ۄ1'™ 4— (Prov 6:17; 21:4; 30:13) Lifting up one’s eyes can be a ritual gesture of prayer or worship, as when the righteous man described in Ezekiel 18:6 refuses to lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel—gšv š1 œ + „ #'{ š1'4— ’# ‘and he does — %™ :’ ‘wide heart’ of the arrogant man is not lift his eyes.’ 141 The r+¡ accompanied by - –' ™1'4¡-K: Ž— ‘height (haughtiness) of eyes’ (Prov 21:4). 142 Notes Dhorme, ‘Le verbe -#: ‘être exalté’ dans le sense d'être fier ou orgueilleux, s'emploiera tantôt du cœur, tantôt des yeux.’ 143 Though awkward at times, the most literal translation of the Hebrew text is provided below in order to best display the body idiom or gesture under consideration. The term -#: ‘pride’, when standing by itself (without -–' ™1'4Ž — ‘eyes’), should not be considered an example of gesture or body idiom, though the meaning of -#: as ‘pride’ or 145 Ž— ‘act haughtily’ 144 is likely derived from - –' ™1'4¡-K:. 20F

141

See Ezek 18:15; 33:25; Dan 4:31 =+— y &’ –1„Qš /™ f’ +£'„ – 1™ ’'4™ Similarly, doing something !/šv :š „'š C’ ‘with a high hand’ symbolizes defiance (Num 15:30; 33:3; Job 38:15), while being š +¡-K: ’ ‘high of heart’ signifies self-exaltation and pride (Deut 8:14). See HALOT, 1203. See Deut 17:20; Ezek 31:10; Hos 13:6; Dan 11:12. 143 Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique...’, 76. 144 Sometimes the English versions translate -#: ‘haughtiness’, the English word originally from Latin altus ‘high’—See Deut 17:20  L { š +¡-K: ’ 'k… – +’ – +’ #'%vš ˜ /  — ‘Thus he will not act haughtily toward his fellows’ (JPS). The etymology of the English word ‘haughty’ is ‘from Middle English haute, from Anglo-French halt, haut, literally, high, from Latin altus’ (Etymology of ‘haughty’ from www.merriam-webster.com, URL: https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/haughty). 145 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31, 171. Waltke writes, ‘Rûm (‘height’), apart from its literal use in 25:3, is always a metaphor for censured pride.’ See 2 Samuel 22:28 where -–'ۄ1'™ 4— is elided, leaving only the participle: +'a  – f’ k ™ -'/† – :¡+ š 4 ™ U'x1'˜ 4— ’# ‘but your eyes are on the proud (whom) you bring down.’ The term ʭʩʠʢ ‘the proud’ in Ps 94:2 functions similarly—+K/y E  ’ f† — !š -'  – —E¡+4™ ‘return recompense on the proud ones!’ Also, g1 in Isaiah 2:12— 142

66

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Hebrew Expression Proverbs 6:17

'9Ü  – š1¡-G=L š )† 6œ’ f-–'y ™ š' ’#:9˜ f0L r š f„ +=L/ ’ :-–'ۄ Ž š 1'™ 4— ‘Raised eyes, a tongue of lies, and hands that shed innocent blood.’

The qal active participle of -#: is functioning as an attributive adjective here—‘high eyes’, but can also be translated as a qal passive— ‘raised eyes.’ While certain gestures can also be idioms, such as ‘to point the finger’ = to accuse, others are better understood metonymically. The ‘raised eyes’ gesture of Proverbs 6:17 is one such metonymy, representing the arrogant man and placed in apposition to the !š^!¡f Ž — f˜ ‘six things’ that God hates (See v.16). The gesture itself is lost in the Septuagint of this verse, though the negative sense is retained in Ěο¸ÂÄġË Ĩ¹ÉÀÊÌÇı ‘the eye of the insolent.’ The metonymic use of =L/:Ž š - –'ۄ1'™ 4— is seen also in Psalm 18:28—+'a  – f’ k ™ =L/„ :š - –'Ûx1'™ 4— ’# ‘and you (Yahweh) cast down high/haughty eyes.’ Proverbs 21:4

=P  š %-' ™ 4„ – fš ::x ’ 1r – +¡ — %™ :K’ –' ™1'4¡-K: Ž— ‘Raised eyes and a wide heart—the harvest of the wicked is sin.’

In this stand-alone proverb the haughty eyes and proud (lit. %: ‘wide’) heart of the wicked are in apposition to the noun :1,x – thought to be either ‘lamp’ or :1x – II ‘cultivated land.’ 146 The Septuagint treats :1x – as ¸ÄÈÌüÉ ‘lantern’, with which Fox agrees, understanding the metaphor in connection with Psalm 119:105—just as the righteous have the word of Yahweh as their ‘lamp’, so the wicked have =P  š %™

+6  — fš ’# j† š –1¡+V š +4x ™ ’# ‘and against all who are proud—they will be brought low.’ 146 Elsewhere r+¡ — %™ :’ occurs as a positive term. See 1 Kings 5:9; Ps 119:32. Here it is understood in relationship to the parallel term, -–' ™1'4¡-K: Ž — , which is known to connote arrogance.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

67

‘sin’ as a lamp, but one that produces only !+š 6— ” ‘darkness.’ 147 The irony of a lamp producing darkness seems unlikely, so one may be drawn to the second reading of :1x – , where these two body idioms are understood as the ‘land-produce’ of the wicked person. Toy points out that, in Hosea 10:12 and Jeremiah 4:3, ‘preparing one’s heart for a new life is called ‘breaking up the fallow ground’; so here in the second cl. the bad man’s preparation for life may be supposed to be called sin, but this is not a probable sense—the meaning is rather that his life itself is sin.’ 148 Haughty eyes and a proud heart are the ‘agricultural product’ or ‘harvest’ of such a person. 149 Such a man raises his eyes arrogantly, unwilling to submit to the wisdom of Yahweh. The expression -–' ™1'4¡-K: Ž— occurs also in Isaiah 10:12, where Yahweh vows to bring judgment down upon the king of Assyria, specifically upon ‘the pride of the height of his (Sennacherib’s) eyes’ =:˜ x ˜ 6’ k– #' 1'š 4 — -K:.† King Sennacherib is also rebuked by Isaiah who declares, +   — :š g’ –'fL† 9¡+ ’ 4U'x ™ 1'˜ 4-L — :} / š j† š k– ™# ‘[Against whom] have you lifted your eyes toward the high place?—against the Holy One of Israel’ (2 Kings 19:22; parallel to Isa 37:23). The verb g1 has the object U'x1'˜ 4— and the adverbial accusative -L:} /š ‘height/high place’, which may refer to heaven or Jerusalem as it stands in parallel relationship to the second colon—+  — :š g’ –' fL† 9¡+ ’ 4. ™ Sennacherib has arrogantly lifted his eyes against (though ʬʲ ‘against’ is elided) the dwelling place of Yahweh (-L:} /), š which is metonymic for the Holy One of Israel. 203F

204F

147

Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 680. See Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, 287. Longman (Proverbs, 390–391) follows this reading, but Murphy (Proverbs, 157) reads :1 as ‘tillage’ as does McKane (Proverbs, 243). The arguments for either side are not particularly strong. 148 C. H. Toy, Proverbs, International Critical Commentary 16 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916), 399. 149 See New English Translation of Prov 21:4 which translates : –1 ‘agricultural product.’

68

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Proverbs 30:13

ªKg  — š^ –'#'ašy 4™ 6’ 4™ ’##'r1'š 4K — /„ :¡! š /:L š ŽG ‘There is a generation—Oh how its eyes are raised and its pupils 150 are lifted!’

In the first half of chapter 30, Agur son of Jakeh laments the wickedness, foolishness, and finitude of man as contrasted with the wisdom and infinitude of God. In vv. 11–14 he poetically repeats four times that there is a :L ŽG ‘generation’ that persists in wickedness. The minor themes of these four verses appear to be arranged chiastically: v. 11 A: wicked deeds – ‘There is a generation who curse their fathers and do not bless their mothers.’ v. 12. B: arrogance – ‘There is a generation who are pure in their own eyes, but in their filth they are unwashed.’ v. 13 B’: arrogance - ‘There is a generation—Oh how its eyes are high and its eyelids are lifted!’ v. 14 A’: wicked deeds - ‘There is a generation whose teeth are swords and their fangs are knives, to devour the poor from the earth and the needy from mankind.’ At the center of this chiasm are two verses that describe how this wicked generation views itself. The exclamatory particle !/š ‘vents the sage’s amazed indignation at proud sinners (See Esth. 5:11; Isa. 16:6; Jer. 48:29; Ezek. 28:2; Dan. 11:36).’ 151 The Septuagint interprets #'r1'š 4 — K/„ :š as a description of haughtiness—ìÁºÇÅÇÅ Á¸ÁġÅ ĨоÂÇİË Ěο¸ÂÄÇİËìϼÀ ‘an evil generation has arrogant/high eyes.’ The term 150

See KTU 3 1.14:vi:30. In The Legend of King Keret Ginsberg translates ǃpǃph ‘eyeballs’ (H.L. Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret, 17 (KRT A 3:147). ‘It is time the practice of rendering the Hebrew ǃpǃappayim by ‘eyelids’ was discontinued; see Ps 11:4 for example’ (Ginsberg, 39). Ps 11:4 states that -  š '„ š 1— CK ’ y1%” ’ '#' – a† š 4™ 6’ 4™ ‘his eyes examine mankind’, something the ‘eyelids’ cannot do. 151 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs 15–31, 485–486.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

69

ĨоÂŦË, meaning both ‘high’ and ‘arrogant’, is more precise than the Hebrew gesture alone and serves as a clear condemnation of such a — K/„ :š occurs also in generation’s hubris. 152 The verbal phrase #'r1'š 4 Psalm 131:1— 'r1'™ 4K — /„ :¡ š œ + ’#'CŽ– +I – „ ™ š¡œ+£!…#! š ’' ‘Oh, Yahweh, my heart is not lifted up and my eyes are not raised!’ The nominal form of the verb ! appears as =K!… ’ ™E '1'—€ 4— ‘eyes of pride’ in Isaiah 2:11, which Yahweh will bring low according to the prophet. The same outcome is destined for the man who slanders his neighbor secretly, including all those who have an arrogant heart (Ps 101:5; Isa 2:11–17; 10:33). 153 It was after the completion of the wall of Jerusalem that Nehemiah’s enemies became afraid of the Jewish people and ‘they fell greatly in their own eyes’ -!' r ˜ —1'4— C ’  œ x / ’ K+† a’ –Q ™#. The English Standard Version translates the phrase, ‘they fell greatly in their own esteem.’ Ancient Near Eastern Analogs Neither Ugaritic, Akkadian, Egyptian, nor Sumerian appear to contain a close parallel to the Hebrew body idiom / gesture of raised eyes, so they will not be treated separately here. In a number of places, ANE texts do describe the upward movement of the eyes, but not as a way of connoting arrogance. 154 152

Muraoka, 708. Muraoka cites examples of ĨоÂŦË as ‘pride’ in Isa 2:11; 10:12; 2 Chr 32:26. 153 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, 346–347. 154 Ugaritic: DUL2, 165. Lifting the eyes in Northwest Semitic can connote sympathy for a person, as in Aчiqar:ǃyny zy nΑlt ǃlyk ‘my eyes which I lifted up on you.’ In Ugaritic, one may raise one’s eyes generically (w yģu ǃnh w yǃn ‘he raised his eyes and saw’) or lift one’s eyes to Baal in prayer (ǃnkm l bǃl tģun ‘raise your eyes to Baal’). Akkadian: Akkadian does not employ an eye gesture for pride, but instead uses the verb kadÃru ‘to be arrogant’ (CAD, K, 30). See the adjectives dÃǂi·u / d¤·u ‘arrogant’ (CAD, D, 27, 118) and gapģu ‘proud’, (CAD, G, 45) and the nouns baģtu ‘pride’ (CAD, B, 142) and muģtar͏u ‘proud person’, (CAD, M II, 286), which are similar to how -#:, ! and g1 sometimes function in Hebrew. The gesture of lifting one’s eyes in Akkadian can function generically (naģu ínu ‘to look intentionally, to look for something’—CAD, N II, 104), or more literally (atata͏a ÕnÕya

70

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

kapra Ãtamar ‘I raised my eyes and saw a village.’—CAD, M I, 404. with matÃ͏u. See dekû (CAD, D, 126). See Gilgamesh: iģģima íníģu ítamar awílam ‘he looked up and saw the man.’—CAD, N II, 104). It may occur as an expression of prayer (ínÃya...ul úģáqa ana elÕni ‘I have not lifted my eyes to the gods’—CAD, Š II, 22. with ģaqû A, See Ezek 18:6 ¡+ ˜ gšv š1œ + „ #'{ š1'4— ’# +r — :š g’ –' ='„C— 'x+KX — –E ‘but he does not lift his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel.’ In astrology: ģumma Sin ina IGI.LÁ-ģú ģaquma IGI (CAD, Š II, 17). It may also represent covetousness (ģa ana alti tappíģu iģģu íníģu ‘he who coveted his friend’s wife.’— CAD, N II, 105. See CH §25:59 – ‘ana num¤t bÕl bítim ínģu iģģima num¤t bÕl bítim ilteqe(!) if a man who went to extinguish a fire has his eye on the furnishings of the owner of the house...’ (CAD, N II, 104). Notes Oppenheim, ‘There is but one reference for the idiom naģû ên¤ (basic meaning: ‘to look’ as exemplified e.g. in Thompson, Devils and Spirits I 46.16) in our letters, i.e., niģ ênê patû which is a combination of ên¤ naģû (‘to lift up the eyes’ See the synonymous idiom ên¤ mat¤͏u in IV R 61.28b) and ên¤ patû (‘to open the eyes’). The first one (See also Streck, V AB VII 114 n.6, 377 n. 4) means, in old-Babylonian and old-Assyrian texts, ‘to lift the eyes up to something=to covet a thing’’ (Oppenheim, Idiomatic Accadian, 259). Egyptian: Likewise, the Egyptian term ǃ3-ib ‘arrogant’ (Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Egyptian, 37) is used rather than a body idiom involving the eyes. The expression ‘raise the eyes’ can function generically, as in The Blinding of Truth by Falsehood when Falsehood ‘raised his eyes’ f3i irtw.f so that he could observe ‘the virtue of Truth, his elder brother.’—ÄW II, 477 §4671 for several examples, e.g. the Middle Kingdom coffin text CT (Sp 436) V 288b. This gesture is not to be confused with 3wi ib ‘to be happy’ (ÄW I, 4 §106). See Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II, 211. Alan H. Gardiner, LateEgyptian Stories, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, I (Bruxelles: édition de la fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1932), 30; 2,4. Sumerian: The Sumerian term igi-il2 ‘to look at’ consists of igi ‘eye’ and il2 ‘raise’ and corresponds to Akkadian naģû ģa íni ‘to look at’ (ePSD: igi.il [LOOK]). In the text of Inana and Enki, drunken Enki is beginning to sober up when en-e abzuģe3 igi mi-ni-ib2-il2-il2-e ‘the lord looked up at the abzu.’ His attention was turned or redirected somehow—ETCSL: ‘Inana and Enki’ c.1.3.1 (Segment F, ln. 12).

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

71

Synthesis

That this gesture holds significance in the Bible is evident by the repeated conjoining of - –'ۄ1'™ 4— with -#: to form ‘raise the eyes / raised eyes’ (2 Kings 19:22 (g1); Pss 18:28; 131:1; Prov 6:17; 21:4; 30:13; Isa 2:11 (ʤʡʢ); 10:12; 37:23 (g1). The textual examples of raised eyes from the ANE indicate that this gesture, though prominent in the Bible, does not share similar significance in its broader cultural context—at least not in the literature). The moral indictment on the man who raises his eyes is that he will be judged by Yahweh, who does not tolerate an arrogant heart, for he casts down =L/„ :š –'Ûx1'™ 4— ‘the eyes of pride’ (Ps 18:28). Just as a man’s pride K^r+'˜ a– f’ k™ ‘will bring him low’, the man who is already  ™ :¡+ ´K y 6™ f’ ‘low of spirit’ will obtain L  Vš ‘honor’ (Prov 29:23).

THEY STRIKE FORTH THEIR HAND 5V r š µ™ 9܄ — Lk (Prov 6:1; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26) These verses in Proverbs describe the phenomenon of confirming an agreement with another person by means of physically striking or grasping hands 39= 5), not totally dissimilar from the gesture of shaking hands in agreement in modern Western culture. Throughout the ANE the gesture of grasping the hand has a variety of connotations, depending on the context in which it occurs. There is a broad semantic range for the concept of being ina qÃt (Akk.) / b yd (Ugr.) ‘in the hand’, which includes being seized by the hand or intentionally joining hands with another. Contexts include being cared for by a deity (in Sinuhe, ‘This servant is in the hand of one who thinks about him. He is placed under his care’), 155 being helped by the hand when in need (Ins. Amenemope: ‘Give a hand to an elder sated with beer, Respect him as his children would.’), 156 be155

COS I, 81, 489—The righteous sufferer proclaims, ‘No god came to rescue, nor lent me a hand.’ See COS I, 196, §25. See 200—‘The goddess, My Lady, held me by the hand in every respect’ (Apology of ьattušili III, §6). 156 COS I, 121, ln. 8–9. See Calabro, ‘Ritual Gestures of Lifting, Extending, and Clasping Hands...’, 43. See Aqhatu, KTU 3 1.17 i 30–31—ǂa͏d . ydh .

72

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

ing led out of respect (Hittite Instructions to the Royal Guard: ‘The king comes forth. The chief of the palace staff is holding him by the hand.’), 157 possessing power over another (Telipinu states that the gods helped him by putting his enemy into his hand. COS: ‘at my mercy’), 158 being insane or ill (Ins. Amenemope: ‘Don’t tease a man who is in the hand of the god, Nor be angry with him for his failings.’), 159 being seized or captured for detainment (in Sargon II’s campaigns, ‘[ьa]nunu I seized with the hand; and I brought him as a prisoner to my city Aššur.’), 160 possessing territories (Ramases II’s prayer to Seth, ‘Then he offered a great oblation to his father Seth, appealing to him about [it] with the words: ‘Heaven is in thy hands, and earth is under thy feet.’), 161 confirming international treaties (Tudэaliya of Hatti to Šaušgamuwa of Amurru: ‘I, My Majesty, Great King, have taken you, Šaušgamuwa, by the hand, and have made you (my) brother-in-law.’), 162 joining military forces (The inhabitants of Suэu (the city of Anat) defected in order to join forces with their Assyrian opponent, ‘Then the inhabitants of the city of Anat rebelled against the land of Suэu. They joi[ned] hands with the Assyrian and brought the Assyrian up to the city of Anat.’), 163 establishing agreements in general (From Nuzi—a father’s deathbed declaration, ‘then my father seized my hand [...] ‘I give you herewith bģkrn . mǃmsh // [k]ģbǃ yn ‘grasping his hand in (his) drunkenness, supporting him when he is sated with wine.’ 157 COS I, 227, §18. 158 See COS II, 245—‘:KHQ'DJÃQKDGUHQGHUHGMXGJHPHQWIRU1DUÃP-Sîn, WKH0LJKW\DQGJLYHQ5íģ-$GDGNLQJRI$UPÃQXPLQKLVKDQG‫أ‬,QVFUipWLRQRI1DUÃP-6°Q&DPSDLJQ$JDLQVW$UPÃQXPDQG(EODOQ1–81). See COS III, 240—‘When the enemy advanced against my country, Teššup, my lord, gave him into my hand, and I defeated him’ (Letter of the Ruler of Gezer (Gazru), ln. 30–35). 159 COS I, 121, ln. 11–12. 160 COS, II, 293, ln. 53–57; See ANET, 183—‘...since either an adversary (lit. ‘hand’) seized him and he had to flee’ (Middle Assyrian Laws A, §36). 161 ANET, 257, ln. 35. 162 COS II, 99, A ii.1–7. 163 COS, II, 282, i.6–22a.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

73

Sululi-Ishtar as your wife.’’), 164 restraining someone (Anatu restrains %DʀOXIURPDWWDFNLQJWKHPHVVHQJHUVRIآ‬ʁ$QDWX@JUDVSV>KLV ULJKW KDQG@ ʁ$ґtartu grasps his left hand.’), 165 taking a god’s image (·almu) to the temple (Marduk recounts, ‘[A king of Babylon] arose and led me (lit. ‘grasped my hand’) [to] Babylon.’), signifying lordship over lands (Iddin-Dagan’s marriage to Inanna, ‘she took office, her father Enki conferred it on her, laid to her hand lordship and kingship.’), 166 or making a pledge or assuming guarantee (‘The one who lacks wisdom strikes the hand [in pledge]’ Prov 17:18). This last example is the context of Proverbs 6:1, 11:15, 17:18, and 22:26. Hebrew Expression Proverbs 6:1

U'a  ˜ V:„ ™ Oš + ™ kš 4’ 9Üx ™ kUr š 4˜ :— + ’ kš ’ :„ ™ 4¡š ' – –1C Ž ’ ‘My son, if you have gone surety for your neighbor, [if] you have struck your hand for a stranger.’ Proverbs 11:15

´™ &LC-'  — 4„ – 9œ’ =x1œ— g ’#:r$ š :„™ 4¡' š V – µL:Ž ™ '¡3 — :™ ‘He will certainly suffer harm who goes surety for another, but the one who hates hand-strikes feels secure’ 167 Proverbs 17:18

K!4  — :'† — 1— 6’ +! – Cyš :ž 4 ”  :œ† — 35V r š µ™ 9܄ — Lk+¡: Ž — 2™ %” „ š š ‘A man who lacks wisdom strikes the hand, and goes surety for his neighbor.’ 164

ANET, 220. Some occurences are vague. For example, does this gesture establish an agreement or simply to draw someone physically close? 165 COS I, 246, i 38. 166 COS I, 555, ln. 20. 167 Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 536. As Fox argues, the meaning of %& ‘designates an attitude’ of feeling safe, or trusting, and so should not be translated ‘is’ safe or ‘is’ secure, which is why I chose ‘feels’ safe.

74

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Proverbs 22:26

=L  iš /-' ™ y– :œ’ 3C5 ™ )¡' r š 4— 9’ = œ   ' ’ !† – k¡+ ’ ™ ‘Do not be one of those who strike the hand [in pledge], who go surety for debts.’

In Proverbs 6:1 the verb in question, 39=, is used in biblical wisdom literature exclusively with reference to striking hands in a pledge with another person. 168 Other verbs of ‘striking’ occur with the noun 5), such as %/, and !)1, but most refer to a clapping gesture that is meant to signify either jubilation, mocking, or anger. 169 The present 24F

168

Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 213. HALOT, 492. See Fox, ‘Clapping Hands as a Gesture of Anger and Anguish in Mesopotamia and in Israel.’ For example, Job 27:23 reads, 9a„œ g’ –' L/œ  9]’ /#' – +š y 49 š  œ :† f’ –' ’#L/'ra— )L/'„ ™ +— 4š ‘It claps its hands at him and it hisses at him from its place.’ The verb 96g occurs only here and in Isaiah 2:6 where its meaning is highly debated and is discussed below (HALOT, 1349). The -'„ – 9š ‘East wind’ is introduced as the subject in verse 21 and remains the subject in verses 22 and 23. Gray takes verses 22 and 23 as having a new subject ‘men’, though a new subject is not introduced in the text—‘men clap their hands at him.’—John Gray, The Book of Job, The Text of the Hebrew Bible 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 334–339. Notes Gray, ‘The clapping of the hands, perhaps with a glancing blow of palm from palm, as in the Arab gesture to indicate that an affair is finished, is like whistling (See Lam. 2.15; Jer. 49.17; Zeph. 2.15).’ This is likely due to the fact that wind is not thought elsewhere to clap its hands, but it could be that the natural elements are being personified here as a judgment-bringer against the -x š š 3f† š :š ‘wicked man’ mentioned back in verse 13. Pope agrees, arguing that ‘the KJ’s and JPS’s supplying of the indefinite subject ‘men’ is unlikely on both logical and grammatical grounds. Being driven from one’s place by the hissing derision of men does not suit the context which speaks of tempests and terrible violence.’— Marvin H. Pope, Job, The Anchor Bible 15 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1990), 194. For Isaiah 2:6 there are two major interpretations to consider. The first understands 96g as 96g I, making the translation K9'a  – g’ ™'-':x – )’ š1'† — +’ ™'K ’ ‘and with the children of foreigners they clap/strike ? [hands ]’, where -'6– )™ is elided. This could mean that the errant Israelites are striking hands in pledge with foreigners, but nowhere else is 96g I used to indicate pledge, so it is more likely that 96g I refers to clapping hands along 169

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

75

context in Proverbs is more consistent with the ideas of contract, agreement, or assurance, such as in Prov. 11:21 and 16:5 where the expression ‘hand to hand’ communicates ‘assurance or personal commitment by the speaker.’ 170 In certain cases 0=1 is used to communicate such a commitment—-!' r ˜ f— ’1 '8L! „ – + ’ -x š š' K †1k’ –Q ™# ‘they gave their hands (‘they pledged’) to put away their wives’ (Ezra 10:19). 171 Fox wishes to read ‘hand’ as singular, because ‘the gesture accompanying an agreement uses one hand, not two’ and ‘the consistent witness of the versions supports the singular.’ 172 The phrase in 6:1 is a direct address from an advisor or father to a disciple or son, and so the second person perfect form k š 4’ 9Üx ™ kš is used. In the context of 17:18 and 22:26, the participial form µ  ™ 9܄ — Lk is more appropriate, ‘one who...strikes the hand.’ In 11:15 the nominal use -'4„ – 9œ’ = translates ‘the striking of hands.’ 173 26F

27F

28F

with foreigners. In other words, the Israelites have joined the foreigners in clapping their hands mockingly against Yahweh’s wisdom and righteousness. Another widely accepted interpretation is to take 96g as 96g II ‘to have an abundance of’, thus translating K9'a  – g’ ™'-':x – )’ š1'† — +’ ™'K ’ ‘and they have an abundance of foreigners’, taking ’ as an object marker rather than a preposition. Blenkensopp takes this third option with the translation ‘they team up with the children of foreigners’, claiming that to read the verse as 96g I ‘‘shake, clap or slap hands’, connoting trade relations, would practically require emending ûb×yaldê to ûb×yÃdê ‘with the hands [of foreigners].’—Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 19 (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2010), 192–193. See ‘and they do business with strangers’ in John D. W. Watts et al., Isaiah 1–33, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 24 (Waco, Tex: Word Books, Publ, 1985): 30–35. This emendation from '+'# to ''#, however, is unnecessary since the words ' or 5) could simply be elided, as it is in Proverbs 11:15, ´  ™ &LC   — -'4„ – 9œ’ = x1œ— g ’# ‘he who hates hand-strikes feels secure.’ 170 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 213. 171 See Deut 15:2 where the opposite idea of ‘releasing the hand’ appears. 172 Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, 124. The BHS notes for Prov 6:1 indicate that most versions have the singular Ua˜ V™ ‘your hand.’ 173 For various uses, See HALOT, 1707.

76

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

Noting the similarity of these contexts, it is sufficient to focus on the first example in Proverbs, found in 6:1. The ‘son’, who is addressed by the author, has hypothetically involved himself in an agreement whereby he functions as a co-signer of sorts, vouching for the character and reliability of a stranger, the latter having likely borrowed money from the son’s neighbor. The implication is that this activity is foolish and often results in the ‘stranger’ failing to meet his end of the bargain, thereby ensnaring the co-signer (the ‘son’) who now has to face his defrauded neighbor. 174 The precise legal arrangement of this practice is debated. Waltke claims that although the practice of giving surety is known in Babylonian, Greek, and Roman law, there is insufficient evidence in the Bible to bring us to a full understanding. 175 There is, however, what may be an implied occurrence of hand-pledging in Genesis 43 where the sons of Israel are commissioned by their father to return to Egypt to acquire more provisions in the midst of a famine. Joseph had ordered his unwitting brothers to bring their youngest brother, Benajmin, to Egypt for inspection. Before returning to Egypt, Judah assured his worried father regarding his younger brother, K^fr ˜ 9’ ™ k' ’ x – šQ/K^ – v˜ :’ 4˜    ˜ ')œ { – 1  š ‘I will 174

Fox, Proverbs 1–9. This is Michael Fox’s interpretation of the passage as well. 175 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 1–15, 330. See Loader, who summarizes the major views on this pledge in Proverbs 6:1: ‘Meinhold thinks the creditor is the stranger (:$) and the debtor is the neighbour (™µ:)— for whom the addressee has vouched. Wildeboer, Boström, McKane, Plöger, Fox and Yoder think the creditor is the neighbour and the debtor is the stranger of the second hemistich. Toy, Gemser, Murphy and Fuhs point out how difficult it is to decide what the precise intention of the text is, but identify the neighbour with the stranger, as already Delitzsch did. Sæbø favours a solution in the light of the whole context (which involves special attention to the renewed mention of the ‘neighbor’ in v. 3), as well as in the light of the other references to surety in the Book of Proverbs.’—Loader, Proverbs 1–9, 256. Loader aligns himself with Wildeboer, Boström, McKane, Plöger, Fox, and Yoder, as does Moss—See Moss, Proverbs, 33. See Longman, who takes the neighbor/friend to be the debtor and the stranger to be the creditor. Longman, Proverbs, 170.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

77

go surety for him. From my hand you may seek him’ (Gen 43:9). Judah’s statement is not empty and would likely require some kind of restitution if he is unable to keep his promise. To this could be – ' –1„ — :’ 4š  ^¡! Ž š /' š g  – added the example from Job 17:3, which reads, T]r š 4 µ  ™ 9Ü  — kš –' '† – š'+’  K!¡' y /  – ‘Please lay down my pledge with you; who is the one who will strike my hand?’ North translates, ‘who will pledge himself to me by handshake?’ 176 The same verb/noun combination appears in both Proverbs and Job. The prepositional phrase is fronted in the Job construction, which does not occur in the examples from Proverbs; also, it is likely an intentional mirror chiasm (ABBA) highlighting the fact that Job has no one to support him: A. ‘lay down my pledge’ B. ‘with you’ // B’. ‘who’ A’. ‘will strike my hand?’ The Septuagint of Proverbs 6:1 actually turns the idiom into an abstract concept. The phrase U'a  ˜ V ™ :„Oš + ™ kš 4’ 9Üx ™ kš ‘you have struck your hand for a stranger’ has become ȸɸ»ŪʼÀË ÊüÅ ϼėɸ ëÏ¿ÉŊ ‘you will deliver your hand to an enemy.’ The Greek version predicts the negative outcome of such a foolish gesture. 177 The son’s enemy in the passage is actually his own foolishness as he willingly strikes his neighbor’s hand in order to vouch for a ‘stranger’ : š$, who could behave unpredictably, but who ‘might find it difficult to set up in business unless he was vouched for by an Israelite.’ 178 The Hebrew text places the first two cola in parallel and does not deliver an apodosis until verse three, whereas the Greek presents the entire verse as a closed conditional clause. Although the Greek renders the idiom as abstract, the concept of a sealed agreement is maintained. The neighbor has a right to demand that the agreement be kept. Despite the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions, the surface-level concept is retained—that pledging one’s hand 231F

23F

176

Robert North, ‘Yâd in the Shemitta-Law’, VT 4, no. 2 (1954): 197. Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, 124. The Septuagint ‘assumes that 6:1b is the consequence of 6:1a and that the :$ here cannot be the same person who was called ‘your friend’ in the preceding verse. The translator understood the verse to mean that going surety for a friend would turn him into your enemy.’ 178 R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs, 39. 177

78

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

to another is to accept a foolish position of vulnerability and, in some cases, danger. Northwest Semitic Analogs In Michael Calabro’s dissertation on lifting, extending, and clasping the hands in Northwest Semitic, he cites a number of passages where the deity is seen grasping the hand of a human, covenant partner: Isaiah 41:9, 13; 42:6; 45:1; Jeremiah 31:32; Job 8:20. 179 He lists several ‘contextual elements’ that all essentially surround the concept of promising protection and/or joining in covenant ritually. An important point Calabro makes regarding this ‘divine covenant handclasp’ is that the agreement in view is not one met with stipulations. Unlike the Hittite vassal treaties and covenant code of Deuteronomy, conditions and stipulations are absent from the divine handclasp wherever it occurs. 180 A clear example is Job 8:20, where Bildad declares, -'4  – :— /¡ ’ ™'C’ 9'$y– %” '¡ ™ œ +  ’#-k¡2 r š ™ /–' ’ œ ++ „ ¡0 Ž — !˜ ‘Look! God will not reject a blameless one, nor will he grasp the hand of an evildoer.’ The cognate term for :3 ‘to go surety’, sometimes translated 2 ‘pledge’, is ǃrb II in DUL 181 and ǃrb V in DNWSI. 182 Both terms are used similarly to how :3 functions in the verses from Proverbs. While the pledge is known from Ugarit, the gesture associated with the pledge is absent. Volume 6 of UF contains three examples of the written pledge, but the hand-striking gesture is absent from these texts. 183 These ritual uses are distinct from the non-ritual intrahuman contact associated with 39=-'6) in Proverbs 6:1.

179

Calabro, ‘Ritual Gestures of Lifting, Extending, and Clasping the Hands’, 259. 180 Ibid. 181 DUL2, 178. 182 DNWSI, 885. 183 M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, ‘Bürgschaftsdokumente aus Ugarit’, UF 6 (1974): 466–67.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

79

Akkadian Analog Paul Koschaker’s study of the pledge in Babyonian and Assyrian texts is still a great source of information on how gestures were employed in the legal process of a debtor making a guarantee to a creditor. 184 Commenting on Koschaker’s work, North notes, ‘This handgesture is a formality, not of contracting a loan, but of the guarantor surrendering himself into the custody of the creditor.’ 185 In fact, he writes, ‘In the Old-Babylonian documents the guarantor himself is designated as q¤tu ‘hand.’ 186 Though there is an abstract term for ‘creditor’ q¤tu that literally means ‘hand’, the actual gesture of making a pledge in Akk. literature is most often seen in the debtor/guarantor striking his own forehead, not shaking hands with the creditor. The examples provided here move from the abstract notion of one individual helping another toward the specific practice of making a pledge, which primarily involved the gesture of striking the forehead (pĭtu). North suggests that pĭtu may also refer to the ‘front’ of the hand, the palm. 187 One expects kappu or qÃtu for palm, but North suggests that the object ‘palm’ may be actually implied in the phrase pĭtu im͏a·, meaning ‘he struck the front (of it)’, where ‘it’ stands in for ‘palm’, similar to the English expression which also leaves out the object—‘I’ll warrant for it.’ 188 This is an interesting possibility given its similarity to the Hebrew expression where the hand is also the object. North’s theory, however, is problematic since pĭtu is written SAG.KI ‘head place’ and in other places qaqqadu ‘head’ is also paired with ma͉÷u ‘to strike the head’ in a gesture meant to guarantee something in an agreement. 189 The phrase pĭtu 184

Paul Koschaker, Babylonisch-Assyrisches Bürgschaftsrecht (Berlin: Druck und Verlag von B. G. Teubner in Leipzig, 1911). 185 North, ‘Yâd in the Shemitta-Law’, 198. 186 Ibid. 187 Ibid, 199. 188 Ibid. 189 aģar ana kaspim qaqadni ma͏·uni dinatima lu niģqul, ‘since we have pledged ourselves to (pay) the silver, sue us and then we will pay’ CAD’s translation. See CAD, Q, 112a.

80

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

naģû ‘to lift the head’ 190 is yet another way of assuming guarantee, along with ‘hold the head’ muk°l (kullu) qaqqadim. 191 From this list are included only examples with the verb for striking ma͏a·u, since such a motion necessarily implies the use of the hand. A Letter Requesting Help (BIN 7 32:6) 192

qassu ·abat ana idiģu iziz ‘seize his hand; stand at his side’

Though not identical to the biblical phrase in Proverbs 6:1, the Akkadian qÃta ·abÃtu sometimes means ‘to seize the hand of somebody while asking for his help, to grasp the hand.’ 193 In this early Babylonian letter an individual named Balia writes to the intended recipient, Lúgisà, challenging the latter to support someone in need. The idiom qassu ·abat is translated by the CAD ‘help him.’ On the most basic level, grasping someone’s hand in order to help them does not imply a pledge, but could possibly be understood as a ‘light’ covenant or agreement for protection, which may include stipulations or reciprocation. Legend of Etana (Babyloniaca 12 Pl. III:33) 194 alik amela ģà aģapparakka qatka li·bat ‘Go to a man whom I will send you. May he seize your hand.’

In some texts it is apparent that the one who grasps the weak individual by the hand is forming a ‘light’ covenant of sorts whereby the rescued person aids or owes his savior. In the Legend of Etana, the 190

CAD, N II, 106. CAD, K, 516a. 192 John Bruce Alexander, Early Babylonian Letters and Economic Texts, Vol. 7, Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B Nies (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1943), 32:5, Pl. 10. ‘A Letter Requesting Help’ is my title for the unnamed text. 193 Oppenheim, ‘Idiomatic Accadian’, 270. 194 S. Langdon, ‘The Legend of Etana and the Eagle’, Babyloniaca, Etudes de philologie Assyro-Babylonienne, 12 (1931): 33, Pl. III:33. 191

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

81

serpent prays that Shamash will enable him to retaliate against his foe, the eagle. Shamash hears and helps the serpent defeat the eagle, leaving it to die in a valley. When the eagle prays to Shamash for deliverance, the deity offers a solution in the form of a man named Etana. When Etana finally reaches the eagle a bond is formed. For saving his life, the eagle repays Etana with a flight to heaven where Etana hopes to find the plant of birth that will help him bear a son. 195 Shamash’s statement that Etana will seize the eagle’s hand appears to carry a deeper meaning than merely one individual rescuing another. There is, perhaps, an unspoken covenant formed between the two. A Business Matter (CCT 3 44a:14) 196

qati PN la tama͏a·a ‘do not refuse to comply with PN’s request’

A more literal translation would be ‘you must not strike the hand of PN’, since striking his hand would mean that you reject him. Physiologically, this is the closest Akkadian comparison with the gesture in Hebrew, but the meanings are arguably opposite. Striking someone’s hand in Akkadian appears to have a negative connotation as it is tantamount to disagreement between two parties or a refusal to comply. This Cappadocian business letter is part of larger collection of such letters ‘intended to be read aloud to the addressee by the bearer, who was probably also the scribe who took down the actual words of the sender.’ 197 The writer instructs the recipient with a double negative that he should comply with the request of another individual. Perhaps instead of taking another’s hand in agreement, one may strike the other’s hand as a way of rejecting partnership or covenant. 198 This 195

ANET, 114. Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. Part 1 (London: Harrison and Sons, 1921), 44a:14. ‘A Business Matter’ is my title for unnamed text 113484. 197 Ibid. 198 See qÃtam nap÷u in CAD, N1, 286. See Hayim Tawil, ‘Hebrew  ™' 76™ ™1 = $NNDGLDQ 4ÃWD 1DSÃ҅u: A Term of Non-Allegiance’, JAOS 122, no. 1 (2002): 79–82. 196

82

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

example is not included as an analog to Proverbs 6:1, but as an example of how a syntactically cognate expression in one Semitic language (qata ma͏÷u) can have an opposite meaning in another (39=5)). The Prisoner Priest (BE 14 135:1–77 pl. 51) 199 I

Min¤guana-dŠamaģ ina kíli PN2 bÕlģu iklÃģuma PN3 pussu im͏a·ma uģÕ·íģu ‘The master of Minâguana-Shamash, PN2, kept him in prison, but PN3 struck his forehead in order to free him (MinâguanaShamash)’

There is a gesture for striking the body in agreement, similar to striking the hand in Hebrew. The expression pĭtu ma͉÷u means to strike the head in pledge—pĭtu ‘front’ or ‘forehead’ is joined with 3 ma͉÷u where an individual (here PN ) strikes his own forehead as a gesture of guarantee when vouching for another individual (that being Minâguana-Shamash). The CAD renders pussu im͏a·ma idiomatically as ‘assumed guarantee for him.’ This text comes from the reign of Cassite King Shagarakti-Shuriash and is described in BE as ‘an agreement to assume a debt for which a priest had been in imprisonment.’ 200 Interestingly enough, the name of the imprisoned I d priest is Minaguana- Šamaģ, which likely means ‘how have I neglected Shamash?’ 201 There are several other known examples of the gesture ‘striking the head’, very similar to its usage here.

199

Albert Clay, Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur, ed. H. V. Hilprecht, Vol. 14, The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts 8:1 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1906), 135:1–7, Pl. 51. ‘The Prisoner Priest’ is my title for unnamed tablet 135. See CAD, P, 553. 200 Ibid., 14, 71. 201 mina egû ana dŠamaģ (egû with ana sometimes used to express negligence toward a deity. See Jeremy Black and Tina Breckwoldt, eds, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 2. (corr.) print, SANTAG 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), egû(m) III, 67.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

83

A Standard Agreement 1 (HSS 9 72:11) 202 LU2 ana LU2 ma͏i·

puta

‘One man strikes the forehead (guarantees) for another man.’ A Standard Agreement 2 (CT 2 21:20) 203

annû ana ann°m ma͏i· puti ‘this (person) strikes the forehead (guarantees) for that (person)’

The phrase ma͏i· pĭti can serve as a substantive, ‘warrantor’ (lit. ‘striker of the forehead’), or be translated as the predicate, ‘one guarantees.’ Both examples above demonstrate the predicate usage. Contract Absolution (CT 8 38c:23) 204

ma͏riam u warkiam qatam issu͏u ‘They removed the hand concerning the former and the latter...’

The CAD translation provides a bit more of the context: ‘They gave up their claim to (the x barley), the earlier as well as the later (deliveries).’ 205 The noun q¤tu ‘hand’ is here joined with nasÃ͏u to describe the absolution of an agreement—qÃta nasÃ͏u ‘to deny help’ (lit. ‘to remove the hand’). To remove one’s hand from the agreement is likely only idiomatic and would not involve an actual gesture, but the abstract statement points to a broader understanding that those who enter into an agreement are metaphorically ‘inserting the hand’ and could likewise absolve the agreement or some part of it by ‘removing the hand.’ 206 A comparison could be made with the laws of release in Deuteronomy 15 where the creditor is commanded to ‘release the debt of his hand’ Lv š'!i „ — / ™ {+4™ C¡+ ™{ V&L š /y fš (Deut 15:2). North

202

CAD, M I, 101. Ibid. 204 CAD, N II, 12a. 205 Ibid. 206 Koschaker, Babylonisch-Assyrisches Bürgschaftsrecht, 26. 203

84

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

points out this connection between Akk. bÕl q¤t¤ and Heb. {+4™ C™{ Lv š'!i „ — /. ™ 207 The Middle Assyrian Laws may contain a loose parallel in the expression qassu elû ‘his hand went up’, which is used to describe forfeiture of one’s property. 208 26F

Egyptian Analog Most gestures with the noun ̳rt ‘hand’ occur in the context of assisting someone by taking their hand, such as n̳r m ̳rt ‘grasp with the hand’—‘Horus[...]has caused you to lay hold of him with your hand, lest he get away from you.’ 209 There are some examples, however, where giving one’s hand implies agreement or covenant with another. Instruction of Amenemhet I (Papyrus Millingen I:7) 210

rdi.n.i n.f ǃwy.i ‘He whom I gave my arms...’

207

North, ‘Yâd in the Shemitta-Law’, 198. The Middle Assyrian laws contain an expression that represents forfeiture qassu elû ‘his hand went up’, possibly another visual representation of the absolution of a pledge. In MAL C+G §2 ina kaspiģu qÃssu el[li...] ‘...he shall forfeit his silver.’ Literally, ‘concerning his silver, his hand shall go up.’ This law addresses the consequences of violating a pledge, which involves 20 days service for the king, corporal punishment, and the forfeiture of the silver that was acquired at the time of the initial sale/agreement. The immediate sense is that the man is losing ownership or control over his silver, but this may also imply that he has removed his hand from the original pledge agreement or sale. See Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 182. 209 R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), §582, 114. 210 J. Lopez, ‘Le Papyrus Millingen’, Revue d’Égyptologie 15 (1963): pl. 5. See Helck, 27, 30. 208

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

85

In The Instruction of King Amenemhet I for His Son Sesostris I, the deceased Pharaoh Amenemhet supposedly appears in a revelation to his son and successor, Sesostris, describing how the former was assassinated. 211 The deceased pharaoh warns his son to trust no one since trusting in man (lit. ‘giving the arms’) has resulted in Amenemhet’s demise. Lichtheim renders the idiom ‘gave my trust’—‘He whom I gave my trust used it to plot.’ 212 Helck provides a more literal translation, ‘wem ich meine Arme gereicht hatte, der schuf Schrecken.’ 213 This text is the second line of a parallel structure. Griffith’s translation of both lines reads, ‘It was the eater of my food that made insurrection—he to whom I gave a helping hand produced terror (disturbance) therewith.’ 214 Again, moving from more abstract examples to those closer in line with the idiom in Proverbs 6:1, this example from the Instruction of Amenemhet demonstrates that ‘a helping hand’, as Griffith puts it, was understood both in the general sense of a stronger person helping a weaker person and in the sense of contract or obligation. There was an expectation that by helping this individual the king was entering into an agreement whereby he was owed some degree of decency or positive reward from the person he helped.

211

Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 135. Ibid. 213 Wolfgang Helck, Text der Lehre Amenemhets I für seinen Sohn (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1986), 30. See Adolf Erman, The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, trans. Aylward M. Blackman (London: Methuen, 1927), 72. 214 Fr. Ll. Griffith, ‘The Millingen Papyrus’, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 34 (1986): 40. 212

86

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR Instruction of Papyrus Insinger (26/19) 215 t3y=f iw.t iw=s ̳r.t=w ‘...as for his pledge, it is in one’s hand.’

Römheld, when comparing Proverbs with Amenemope notes that the pledge occurring in Proverbs 22:26–27 is unknown in predemotic times, which is why I have opted to include this late example. 216 In this Demotic version of the P. Insinger wisdom text, the notion of a pledge is connected with the expression ‘in one’s hand’— ‘A wise man who is trusted, his pledge is in their hands’ (26/19). The text consists of numerous proverbs arranged in topical chapters called ‘teachings.’ 217 Notes Lichtheim, ‘In the teaching of P. Insinger morality and piety have been completely fused and they are exemplified in the character of the ‘wise man’ who is capable of enduring reversals of fortune and remains confident of vindication.’ 218 Boeser translates, ‘Wer einen Weisen vertraut, in dessen Hand ist sein Pfand.’ Lexa translates the text with a conditional clause: ‘Si l’on a confiance en l’homme sage, c’est [comme si] son gage [était] en leurs mains’, translating the 3cp pronominal suffix w as literally leurs ‘their.’ 219 In Williams’s grammar of Papyrus Insinger he translates the 215

Ronald J. Williams, ‘The Morphology and Syntax of Papyrus Insinger’ (The University of Chicago, 1948), 50. P.A.A. Boeser, Transkription und Übersetzung des Papyrus Insinger, Vol. 26, Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie, Vol. 26 (1925) = OMRO, 3/1 (Leiden, 1925), 34. Here I am following Williams’s transliteration, leaving out the Demotic script itself—iw.t iw=s ̳r.t=w ‘as for his pledge, it is in their hands’ (Williams’s translation, 50). 216 Diethard Römheld, Wege der Weisheit: die Lehren Amenemopes und Proverbien 22,17–24,22, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 184 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 38. ‘Und Prov 22,26–27 handelt von einem in Ägypten in vordemotischer Zeit unbekannten Rechtsinstitut.’ 217 Ibid. 218 Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature III, 185. 219 François Lexa, Papyrus Insinger: Les enseignements moraux d’un scribe égyptien du premier siècle après J.-C., Vol. Vol. I (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1926), 85.

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

87

text ‘as for his pledge, it is in their hands.’ 220 Lichtheim’s more modern translation ‘one’s hand’, though less literal, is the most semantically astute and thus preferred. 221 Sumerian Analog

Snijders points to Koschaker’s volume, Babylonisch-Assyrisches Bürgschaftsrecht, highlighting the symbolic nature of the guarantor placing his hand into the hand of the creditor—the debtor is ‘in die Hände’ of the lender. 222 Koschaker does not view the noun ŠU ‘hand’ as connected with the pledge found in later cuneiform texts, but considers its use in Sumerian a designation of strength or power. 223 For example, in The Instructions of Šurrupag the proverb usu-tuku ģu lu2ta ģa-ba-a-an-tum 3 ‘the strong one can escape from anyone’s hand.’ 224 Other examples include the divine hand-clasp, one person escorting another, joining hands romantically, and one person aiding another by taking their hand. The gesture appears to be embedded as an internal idiom in the term ŠU.DU8.A ‘security’, ‘guarantee’, ‘guarantor’, (ŠU ‘hand’ + DU ‘to hold’ (in hand) 225 + the nominalizing particle ‘A’). 226 It is equivalent to Akk. qÃtÃtu ‘security, guarantee, guarantor’, 227 which also may have its etymological roots in qÃtu ‘hand.’ The corollary for Hebrew would be :3 ‘to go surety for/ to pledge’ in Proverbs 6:1. Just as qÃtÃti...leqû means ‘to guarantee’ for someone, so ģu-du8-a...du means ‘to guarantee security.’ Another gloss for the verb du8 is ‘to heap up, to pile up’, 228 which leaves one to wonder 283F

220

Williams, The Morphology and Syntax of Papyrus Insinger, 50. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature III, 198; 17, 9. 222 L. A. Snijders, ‘The Meaning of Zar’, Oudtestamentische Studiën 10 (1954): 80. 223 Koschaker, Babylonisch-Assyrisches Bürgschaftsrecht, 17–19. See North, ‘Yâd in the Shemitta-Law’, 198. 224 ETCSL, ‘The Instructions of Šuruppag’ c.5.6.1, ln. 110. 225 EDSL 75; §525. 226 Ibid., 344; §2419. 227 CAD, Q, 168. 228 ePSD: ‘DU [HEAP]’ 221

88

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

if ģu-du8-a retains an older meaning ‘to pile up hands’, as in a handshake. The Sumerian term ģu-du8-a ‘to pledge/guarantee’, though its etymology hints at the imbedded presence of a gesture, does not consist of a freestanding noun for ‘hand’ like the Hebrew, Greek, Akkadian, and Egyptian analogs already discussed, and hence should not be considered a prime example for comparison with U'a  ˜ V™ kš 4’ 9Üx ™ kš of Proverbs 6:1. Synthesis There is certainly a relationship between the abstract notion of one grasping the hand of the weak and the action of striking hands in agreement. The deity or stronger human may grasp the hand of the weak or disadvantaged as a sign not just of rescue, but of agreement for protection. Falk ties the intra-human hand-strike with Calabro’s ritual hand-clasp in his very helpful article, citing all of our examples from Proverbs as further evidence of a broader ancient understanding that grasping one’s right hand indicates approval, affirmation, and agreement. 229 He notes, ‘Quite often we find phrases describing the support given by God to a certain person by saying that he keeps his right hand’, as in Isaiah 41:10 where God ‘holds’ (/= one’s hand (Akk. qata tamÃhu)—‘The primary meaning of these figures of speech is, of course, that assistance is given and a person is prevented from stumbling by grasping his right hand.’ 230 The right-hand side is considered a favorable position, as reflected in Zech. 3:1 where Joshua, the high priest, stands with his right side presumably toward God and at his left side (from the perspective of the judge’s bench looking out) stood the prosecution—‘The turning towards the left hence got its sinister meaning, which, through Jewish and Christian mysticism has been preserved in present-day language.’ 231 285F

286F

229

Falk, ‘Gestures Expressing Affirmation’, 268–269. Ibid, 268. 231 Ibid. 230

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

89

Making a covenant with another nation was symbolized by giving the hand -%˜ +   š µ  ™ œC† g’ +:K – ix  ™ 'K^ šv =„ ™ š1-{ –':{ ™ 8’ /– ‘To Egypt we have given the hand and to Assur in order to have enough bread’ (Lam 5:6). Schmitt identifies the the handshake as a Bundesritus or ‘bonding rite’ to establish a covenant in the ANE, citing Ezekiel 17:18 where Yahweh expresses disgust for Zedekiah who had broken his covenant with Babylon which Zedekiah had made in Yahweh’s name—as Yahweh says, L} š'0=† ™ š1!^—‰ !– ’# ‘behold, he gave his hand!’ 232 Falk identifies texts where one individual (or nation, when used metaphorically) takes the hand of another in confirming a contract: Ezekiel 17:18; Lamentations 5:6; Ezra 10:19; Isaiah 45:1. In certain English translations the noun ‘hand’ is preserved, but in others the expression of ‘giving the hand’ ' 0=1 is translated ‘pledge’ (English Standard Version) or ‘they gave their word’ (JPS TANAKH), such as in Ezra 10:19. God’s alliance with Cyrus involved the former grasping the latter’s hand, which Falk calls ‘a legal act resulting from a covenant and being confirmed by the shaking of hands.’ 233 Hezekiah likewise instructed the people to give their hand „'¡K1 š k’ to the Lord in unification by celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 30:8). Argues Falk regarding this verse: ‘The current legal usage at the formation of covenants provided the background for the phrase’ in 2 Chronicles 30:8. 234 My primary concern here is the nature of the gesture itself, not the particulars of the legal arrangement in Proverbs 6:1. We at least know this is a gesture related to agreement, contract, or notarization. Later in 6:3 the expression ‘you have entered into the hand of your 289F

232

Von Götz Schmitt, ‘El Berit-Mitra’, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 76, no. 35 (1964): 326. 233 Falk, ‘Gestures Expressing Affirmation’, 269. 234 Ibid. The concept of raising one’s hand to God may be due to the fact that it is not possible to physically grasp God’s hand like it would be a fellow man’s. Falk also sees a potential extension of this practice of handgrasping in the placement of the hand under the thigh (a likely reference to the male genitals) as ‘a way to affect eternal validity, as if the person making the promise was clasping the hands of future generations represented by the genital organ.’

90

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

neighbor’ reiterates the activity of verse one, though lacking the verb 39=. One being ‘in the hand’ of another is a sign of control and ownership. When something is said to be ina q¤ti ¤wilim ‘in the hand of a man’ the understanding is that it is a thing possessed by him, ‘in der Macht’ as Kosachaker puts it. 235 In pledge agreements the borrower is ‘in the hand’ of the creditor. This expression would likely be a later idiom arising from the literal practice of handstriking, for striking the hand in agreement was at one time a gesture, as confirmed by 2 Kings 10:15 where Jehonadab literally ‘gives his hand’ to Jehu as a way of confirming his commitment to him. The question remains, what is the precise movement described here in this gesture? Does this involve grasping, clapping (as in a ‘high-five’), shaking, or something else entirely? Various translations include ‘pledging your hand’, 236 ‘shaken hands’, 237 ‘struck your palm’, 238 ‘clasp your hands.’ 239 Murphy points out that a more literal interpretation of 39= would be ‘striking your palms’, though he chose ‘pledging your hand’ in his formal translation of the passage. 240 It is possible that the modern, Western gesture of hand-shaking had reverse influence on our translation of this gesture. It would be more appropriate, given the typical use of 39= and the examples from Akkadian regarding striking the forehead, that ‘striking the hand’ become the standard interpretation of this gesture. The hand-strike gesture found in Proverbs has only an abstract relationship with the divine handclasp and other instances of hand holding between humans, and parallels to the pledge itself are only seen explicitly in the Akkadian and Late Egyptian examples provided. The Septuagint differs significantly in the syntax of Proverbs 6:1, such that the gesture, if it is there, is imbedded in the phrase ȸɸ»ŪʼÀË ÊüÅ ϼėɸ ëÏ¿ÉŊ ‘you have delivered your hand to the 235

Koschaker, Babylonisch-Assyrisches Bürgschaftsrecht, 18. Murphy, Proverbs, 34. 237 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 210. 238 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, 325. 239 Longman, Proverbs, 166. 240 Murphy, Proverbs, 34. 236

2. THE GESTURES OF EVIL PEOPLE

91

enemy’, an example of the universal ina qat ‘in the hand’ theme representative of control or ownership throughout ANE texts. Ugaritic and NWSI have the standard b yd ‘in the hand’ along with handclasping gestures, and although the pledge is known, the accompanying hand-strike is not. In the Akkadian examples the gesture of striking the forehead is far more prevalent, unless of course Robert North’s translation of pĭtu as ‘palm’ is valid, but pĭtu is written SAG.KI ‘head place’ and the parallel qaqqadu ma͏a·u ‘to strike the head’ argues against North on that point. Nevertheless, the gesture of ‘striking’ (ma͏a·u) must involve the hand as there is no available evidence of someone being kicked in the head to ratify a pledge. Interestingly, to break an agreement one does strike the hand (qata ma͏a·u) or release the hand of another (qÃta nasÃ͏u). The Egyptian analog shows Amenemhet ‘giving his arms’ to someone who would later betray him, a gesture both of aid and positive relationship confirmation. The pledge, however, is not known in Egypt until much later, as in the Demotic example where one can identify a trustworthy, wise man by the fact that t3y=f iw.t iw=s ̳r.t=w ‘as for his pledge, it is in one’s hands’, presumably meaning that when he strikes hands in pledge, he follows through by honoring the agreement. The Sumerian analog contains the imbedded gesture in sign form only, as ģu-du8a ‘guarantee, pledge’, where ģu = hand, du8=hold, and a=nominalizing particle. When the verb du occurs, as in ģu-du8a...du, the phrase translates ‘to guarantee security/pledge.’ In the final analysis of these parallel accounts of handstriking/grasping, the gesture seems most explicit in the Hebrew text, though it is certainly part of a broader shared understanding of this pledge gesture in the ANE where the evidence is often not as explicit as would be expected. In concentric circles of meaning, the ANE understanding begins with the ina qÃt ‘in the hand’ concept of ownership, then moves inward to the divine and human covenant handclasp (often related to helping someone in need or forming a casual agreement), then finally to the pledge as seen in Proverbs 6:1, Late Egyptian, and possibly Akkadian. In the social values system of the Bible, the largest circle (ina qÃt) is morally neutral, the inner circle

92

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

(receiving aid from a god or a friend) is typically viewed as positive, and the inner-most circle (pledge) viewed as negative. The majority of these ANE analogs contrast with the Hebrew, rather than compare, demonstrating a degree of uniqueness for the social value system of the Hebrew Bible where a hand-strike pledge is almost always a negative gesture.

CHAPTER 3. THE GESTURES OF RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE Two of the four gestures in this chapter are performed by women— one metaphorical, the other hypothetical. Lady Wisdom stretches out her hand to rebuke the ‘scoffers’ of Proverbs 1, and the virtuous woman of chapter 31 opens her palm and sends forth her hand to care for the poor and afflicted of the land. Interestingly, none of the evil gestures of Proverbs are ascribed to women, which may be due to the fact that women did not have the freedom men did to leave the home and do business. It is likely that most women were relegated to domestic duties and did not have equal access to money, both because they did not have equal freedom to work outside of the home and because the head-of-household male handled many of the business dealings. If the sins condemned in Proverbs are any indication, men had more freedom away from the home, freedom that was sometimes used to scheme and plot evil against others. The promiscuous woman of Proverbs 5 and 7 uses her freedom for evil, but she is not given an accompanying gesture that symbolizes her activities. Only in the case of the + –'%¡= Ž ™ f˜   — do we have an example of a woman gesticulating. It is not that poor women do not gesture, but perhaps the financial means of the virtuous woman gives her the opportunity to be publicly recognized. The other two ‘righteous’ gestures concern matters of propriety in social interactions. A friend is greeted with a kiss and a wise person puts their hand to their mouth to show deference to an authority or to prevent the utterance of unwise words.

93

94

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

THEY STRETCH OUT THEIR HAND 'y – '' š =' – &† – š1 (Prov 1:24) The phrase ' !&1 plays a significant role in classical Hebrew, as evinced by David Calabro’s extensive survey of this gesture. 1 The phrase occurs several times in the plagues narrative of Exodus 7–10 where Yahweh declares, ‘Then Egypt will know that I am Yahweh, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt’ !#! v š ’''„1– ¡' ” V   – -{ –':{ ™ 8’ /K – 4… ’ š' ’# - –'r:š 8’ /¡+ – 4 ™ 'x – š'¡= ˜ '=œ† – & ’1C– (Ex 7:5). 2 Similarly, in Joshua 8:18 Yahweh commands Joshua to ‘stretch out the scimitar that is in your hand’ U{ Û ’ 'š C¡: ’ f˜ 0L ” '… V– C! ™ &— 1.’‚ This was a gesture intended to communicate 1

Calabro, ‘Ritual Gestures of Lifting, Extending, and Clasping the Hands...’ Notes, Calabro, ‘ģưla͉ yưd ‘stretch out the hand’ is the most frequently attested idiom referring to a hand gesture in the Hebrew Bible, occurring a few times in nonbiblical Northwest Semitic literature also. In most of these occurrences, the idiom refers to a non-ritual, instrumental gesture. Paul Humbert argued that the basic phrase ģưla͉ yưd is entirely distinct from nưΑưh yưd ‘extend the hand’, the former referring exclusively to mundane actions, and the latter referring exclusively to a divine gesture of judgment and destruction. We have shown that this analysis is too rigid in the case of nưΑưh yưd. While it is true that the majority of occurrences of ģưla͉ yưd refer to mundane actions, there are a couple of attestations in the book of Exodus that clearly refer to the powerful, destructive gesture that is more frequently associated with nưΑưh yưd. In these two instances, the full gesture phrase is the same as the basic gesture phrase, occurring without any additional constituents.’ (139–140). See Exod 3:20 and 9:15 where  š' %+ frefers to supernatural destructive powers. 2 For more examples featuring !&1, See Isa 5:25; 23:11; 31:3; 45:12; Jer 6:12; 15:6; 21:5; 51:25; Ezek 6:14; 14:9, 13; 16:27; 25:7, 13, 16; 35:3; Zeph 1:4; 2:13; Job 15:25; Prov 1:24. Notes Calabro, ‘As can be seen from these examples, this phrase describes the means by which Yahweh delivers Israel and performs other mighty acts, such as creating the earth. The phrase is usually conjoined with a preceding phrase, either bƲyưd ͉azưqưh ‘with a strong hand’ (10 times: Deuteronomy 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 1 Kings 8:42; Jeremiah 32:21; Ezekiel 20:33, 34; Psalm 136:12; 2 Chronicles 6:32) or bƲkoa͉ gưdowl ‘with great strength’ (3 times: Deuteronomy 9:29; 2 Kings 17:36; Jeremiah 32:17), though in the first passage, Exodus 6:6, neither of these phrases precedes’ (73).

3. THE GESTURES OF RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE

95

that the city of Ai was to be destroyed—‘So Joshua stretched out the scimitar that was in his hand to Ai.’ ¡+L ˜ x š'C¡: ’ f˜ 0L ” '† V– C ™ µ™ fL! } ž ’'&ˆQ— ™# 3 :'4  – !š (v. 19). This gesture is also used in contexts of delivery, as with the participial construction 3#:$ !'#&1 ‘an outstretched arm’, which also describes Yahweh’s power to create, destroy, or deliver, as in Exodus 6:6—-'+œ  –  ’E-'&x – 6š f’ K! – 'K& šv ’1 µL™ :„ ’$C – -{ )˜ =’ ' ˜ k… – +’ ™ š ’# ‘and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.’ 4 Yet another isolated iteration of this gesture occurs with 0'/– š' as in Exodus 15:12 where Moses declares to Yahweh, ‘You stretched out your right hand [against Egypt].’ Matthews sees a connection between the outstretched arm of wrath and the command to Ezekiel to prophesy against Jerusalem ‘with bared arm’—‘Presumably, this means he raised his arm above his head causing his robe to slip off his arm. There is also a sense here of employing a gesture of command typically used by military leaders (see God’s ‘outstretched arm’—Deut 5:5; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Kings 17:36).’ 5 S. David Sperling comments on various other meanings attached to ‘stretch the hand’, stating that ‘the outstretched hand may variously indicate dismay, favor, supplication, restraint, guidance, opposition and many other actions.’ 6 30F

301F

3

See Ezek 30:25 ¡+ ˜ I=L x š !&† š š1 ’# +v˜ C¡T š +˜ /   ˜ „'™ C ’ 'C{ – :’ % ™ 'k… – =– C ’ !#! y š ’' '„1– ¡' ” V   – K3€ ’ š'Û#  ’ -–':  š 8’ /7 – :˜ † ˜ ‘Then they will know that I am the Lord when I put my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon and he stretches it out against the land of Egypt.’ See also 1 Chr 21:16. In contrast, it is difficult to see how Moses’s outstretched staff is anything other than a symbolic act with which Yahweh accompanies a miracle—Moses ‘stretched out his hand toward the sea’ &Q—‰ ™# t šQ!¡+ ™ 4 ™ L  š'¡=! ˜ fœ „ ˜ / to part the waters (Exod 14:21). 4 For more examples featuring !'#&1, See Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:24; Isa 5:25; 9:11, 16, 21; 10:4; 14:26–27; Jer 21:5; 27:5; 32:17; 32:21; Ezek 20:33–34; Ps 136:12; 1 Chr 21:16; 2 Chr 6:32. 5 Matthews, ‘Making Your Point’, 22. 6 See Sperling, ‘Studies in Late Hebrew Lexicography...’, 111. On page 111, note 6, Sperling comments on body idioms that possess opposite functions. For example, Late Hebrew ‘tps yd may mean ‘to lead’, ‘to guide’, however, it may also mean, ‘to prevent’, ‘restrain.’’ He cites examples in Saul Lieberman, Debarim Rabbah (Jerusalem, 1964), 90.

96

SHE OPENS HER HAND TO THE POOR

While most commentators understand ‘I stretched out my hand’ 'y – 'š '=' – &† – š1 in Proverbs 1:24 as Lady Wisdom’s long-suffering gesture of invitation to fools, the context of Proverbs 1:20–31 and the broader attestation of ' !&1 in the Bible suggest that a threat of corporal punishment may be in view. Hebrew Expression Proverbs 1:24

'f  – 9’ /0' ™ „ — ’#'y – '' š =' – &† – š1K1r — /š k’ ™#'= – :š 90 Ž š 4„™ '™ ‘Since I called, but you refused, (since) I stretched out my hand, but no one has heeded’

The decision to translate 'f  – 9’ /™ as a present perfect (‘has heeded’) understands Lady Wisdom’s gestural rebuke and the fools’ responses as past actions with ongoing effects. The Septuagint agrees with the ongoing sense connoted here by employing imperfect verbs, translating the phrase Á¸Ėëƚ̼ÀÅÇÅÂŦºÇÍËÁ¸ĖÇĤÈÉÇʼţϼ̼ ‘and I would stretch out words, but you would not pay attention.’ In his review of this gesture, Calabro identifies many examples of ' !&1 that share commonalities, while giving credit to Paul Humbert for his earlier analysis of this gesture. 7 He parts ways with 302F

7

Paul Humbert, ‘Etendre la Main’, VT 12, no. 4 (1962): 383–85. Calabro does, however, disagree with Humbert’s attempt to distinguish between!&1 ' and ' %+f by translating ' !&1 ‘point the hand’ when followed by a preposition. Humbert identifies the ‘semantically similar idioms nưΑưh yưd and ģưla͉ yưd (see below) and has made an attempt to describe their distinct nuances based on context. Humbert posits that nưΑưh yưd, when followed by a preposition, should be translated ‘point the hand’ (pointer la main). However, since the deictic aspect of the gesture phrase (the Target) is already communicated by means of adverbials following the verb (when these are present), it is not necessary to interpret the verb itself as having a deictic nuance. Most other translators render nưΑưh yưd similarly to English ‘stretch out the hand’, German die Hand ausstrecken, Latin manum extendere and its derivatives in Romance languages, etc’ (Calabro, 83). Calabro’s decrial of Humbert’s translational choice is sound and, accordingly, followed here.

3. THE GESTURES OF RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE

97

Humbert, however, by excluding two texts that do not fit into the larger category of ' !&1 (Prov 1:24; Job 15:24–25), since neither refers to destruction or supernatural power. Rather, Calabro interprets Lady Wisdom’s action as an extended hand of invitation toward fools. He writes, Humbert puts this passage together with the others already listed, where the context is one of destruction or exertion of supernatural power. However, the context here [in Prov 1:24] is quite different. The descriptive setting is a poetic monologue of Wisdom rather than a prophecy or narrative of large-scale divine judgments. The gesture phrase here is parallel to the verb qưrưǂ ‘call’, whereas in the other examples listed above, there is no indication of a speech act associated with the gesture. There is no mention of supernatural or destructive results of the gesture in Proverbs 1:24 and the surrounding passage, unlike the other examples listed above. The Agent of the gesture here is the personified Lady Wisdom, not Yahweh or a male representative. Therefore, the gesture phrase in this passage should be classed in a separate contextual type. 8

Calabro also cites Ackroyd who simply states, without providing specific reasons, that ‘the gesture [in Prov 1:24] is clearly one of appeal.’ 9 The context of Proverbs 1:24 is indeed different than the typical smiting function of this gesture phrase, but not so different that it could not be informed by the destructive or supernatural contexts. In fact, the context of Proverbs 1:20–31 is that of stern rebuke, which includes an extended apodosis describing the destruction of the fools (vv. 26–32). Lady Wisdom chastises fools by calling them ‘simpletons’ - –'=š a’ who ‘hate knowledge’ =4™ ¡K   š ’1g’ –' and turn away from her =%™ )Lk ™ ‘rebuke.’ In addition, it should be remembered that Lady Wisdom is considered an extension of Yahweh, who is the agent of 8

David Michael Calabro, ‘Ritual Gestures of Lifting, Extending, and Clasping the Hands...’, 85. 9 $FNUR\G ‫