Reading Proverbs Intertextually 9780567671646, 9780567667380, 9780567667397

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

629 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, Susan Gillingham, John Goldingay, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Hosarding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

READING PROVERBS INTERTEXTUALLY

Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain in 2019 Paperback edition first published 2020 Copyright © Katharine Dell and Will Kynes, 2019 Katharine Dell and Will Kynes has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-6737-3 PB: 978-0-5676-9454-6 ePDF: 978-0-5676-6739-7 Series: Library of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies, ISSN 2513- 8758, volume 629 Typeset by Jones Ltd, London To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

CONTENTS Preface List of Abbreviations List of Contributors INTRODUCTION Katharine Dell and Will Kynes

viii ix xii 1

Part I PROVERBS IN DIALOGUE WITH THE HEBREW BIBLE Chapter 1 WISDOM IS THE TREE OF LIFE: A STUDY OF PROVERBS 3:13–20 AND GENESIS 2–3 Christine Roy Yoder Chapter 2 ‘TEACH THEM DILIGENTLY TO YOUR SON!’: THE BOOK OF PROVERBS AND DEUTERONOMY Bernd U. Schipper Chapter 3 WISDOM DEFINED THROUGH NARRATIVE AND INTERTEXTUAL NETWORK: 1 KINGS 1–11 AND PROVERBS Will Kynes Chapter 4 PROVERBS AND ISAIAH 1–39 John Goldingay Chapter 5 REBUKE, COMPLAINT, LAMENT, AND PRAISE: READING PROVERBS AND PSALMS TOGETHER William P. Brown Chapter 6 THE PROVERBIAL RHETORIC OF JOB 28 Scott C. Jones

11

21

35

49

65

77

vi

Contents

Chapter 7 TWICE-TOLD PROVERBS AS INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS Mark Sneed Chapter 8 DIDACTIC INTERTEXTUALITY: PROVERBIAL WISDOM AS ILLUSTRATED IN RUTH Katharine Dell Chapter 9 EROTIC WISDOM FOR A MORE INDEPENDENT YOUTH: IS THERE A DEBATE BETWEEN SONG OF SONGS AND PROVERBS? Anselm C. Hagedorn Chapter 10 QOHELET AS A READER OF PROVERBS Markus Saur

89

103

115

129

Part II PROVERBS IN DIALOGUE WITH TEXTS THROUGHOUT HISTORY Chapter 11 INTERTEXTUALITY BETWEEN THE BOOK OF BEN SIRA AND THE BOOK OF PROVERBS Pancratius C. Beentjes Chapter 12 APHORISMS AND ADMONITIONS: THE REUSE OF PROVERBS 7 IN 4QWILES OF THE WICKED WOMAN (4Q184) William A. Tooman

141

155

Chapter 13 PROVERBS IN DIALOGUE WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT Knut M. Heim

167

Chapter 14 PROVERBS 8:22 AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY Susannah Ticciati

179

Chapter 15 ‘BETTER X THAN Y’: CONTEXT AND MEANING IN PROVERBS, QOHELET, AND MIDRASHIC COLLECTIONS Susan Niditch

191

Contents

Chapter 16 PROVERBS AND THE CONFUCIAN CLASSICS Christopher D. Hancock Chapter 17 SEX AND POWER(LESSNESS) IN SELECTED NORTHERN SOTHO AND YORÙBÁ PROVERBS: AN INTERTEXTUAL READING OF PROVERBS 5–7 Madipoane Masenya (Ngwan’a Mphahlele) and Funlola Olojede Author Index Ancient Sources Index

vii

203

217

231 237

PREFACE The concept of intertextuality reminds us of the interdependent nature of communication. Our words tumble across a turbulent sea of others’ words and depend on readers to bring them safely to their destination, which may not always be the one we intended. It is fitting, then, for volumes like this one on the intertextual potential of biblical texts to involve many different readers. As each brings a distinct understanding of intertextual methodology and of the hermeneutically profitable links between Proverbs and other texts, the contributors together demonstrate the breadth of intertextual method and the underappreciated complexity of the intertextual network surrounding Proverbs. This volume is, for us as editors at least, the final one of three to employ this approach. We have covered the three main books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament commonly categorized as Wisdom Literature with accompanying study of intertextual methodology with the aid of nearly sixty scholars from seven countries and a wide range of subspecialties. We are pleased to welcome some new contributors into that number in this volume but also to have contributions from some who contributed to the other two volumes as well, either one or both. We are very grateful for their dedication to the concept and hard work in bringing ideas to fruitful reality in their various chapters. Sophia Ridgeway did excellent work to help prepare the manuscript for submission for which we are also thankful. Though we now set down our editorial pen, we are glad to see other editors taking this approach to other books and we wish them well in this task. We would like to thank the co-editors of the LHBOTS series, Andrew Mein and Claudia Camp, for their continued support of this project. Katharine Dell Will Kynes

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABG AIL AnBib ANESSup ANET AOAT AOTC ATA ATD ATM BAR BBB BBR BBRSup BEHER BFChTh Bib BibInt Bijdr BJS BKAT BN BR BthS BZAW CBQ CBQMS CBR CE ConBOT CRINT DCLS DJD DSD EHAT EKK

Anchor Bible Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte Ancient Israel and Its Literature Analecta biblica Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplements Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Alter Orient und Altes Testament Apollos Old Testament Commentary Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Alte Testament Deutsch Altes Testament und Modern Biblical Archaeology Review Bonner biblische Beiträge Bulletin of Biblical Research Bulletin of Biblical Research Supplements Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études: Sciences religieuses Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff Biblische Notizen Biblical Research Biblisch-theologische Studien Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Currents in Biblical Research Contra Eunomium Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar

x EvT FAT FAT II FB FOTL FRLANT GNO HAL

HAT HBS HCOT HKAT HS HSS HThKAT ICC Int ISBL JAOS JBL JJS JNSL JQR JSJ JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSS JSSR JTISup JTS KAT KHC KKNT LASBF LCL LHBOTS LSAWS NCB NEB NIB NICOT OBO

Abbreviations Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zum Alten Testament II Forschung zur Bibel Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gregorii Nysseni Opera Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Fascicles 1–5, 1967–95 (KBL3). ET: HALOT Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders Biblische Studien Historical Commentary of the Old Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Studies Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament International Critical Commentary Interpretation Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplements Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Liber annuus Studii biblici franciscani Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic New Century Bible New English Bible The New Interpreter’s Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis

Abbreviations ÖBS OTE OTL OtSt PEQ PFES RB RevQ SANT SBAB SBLDS SBLSymS SCS Semeia SJT SOTSMS STDJ TED THAT TOTC TT VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT ZABR ZAW ZBK ZTK

Österreichische biblische Studien Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series Semeia Scottish Journal of Theology Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Translations of Early Documents Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1971–76 Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theology Today Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

xi

CONTRIBUTORS Professor Pancratius C. Beentjes, researcher, Tilburg University Professor William P. Brown, professor of Old Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary Dr. Katharine Dell, reader in Old Testament Literature and Theology, University of Cambridge Professor John Goldingay, Professor of Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary Professor Dr. Anselm C.  Hagedorn, professor for Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism, Universität Osnabrück Dr. Christopher D. Hancock, visiting professor, St. Mary’s University, Twickenham Professor Knut M.  Heim, professor of Old Testament, Denver Theological Seminary Professor Scott C. Jones, professor of Biblical Studies, Covenant College Dr.  Will Kynes, associate professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Whitworth University Professor Madipoane J. Masenya, chair of the Department of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of South Africa Professor Susan Niditch, Samuel Green Professor of Religion, Amherst College Dr. Funlola Olojede, research associate, Stellenbosch University Professor Dr. Markus Saur, chair of Old Testament Exegesis and Theology, Bonn University Professor Dr. Dr. Bernd U. Schipper, professor (Ordinarius) of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Humboldt University of Berlin Professor Mark Sneed, professor of Bible, Lubbock Christian University

Contributors

xiii

Dr. Susannah Ticciati, senior lecturer in Systematic Theology, Kings College London Dr. William A. Tooman, senior lecturer in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, University of St. Andrews Professor Christine Roy Yoder, professor of Old Testament Language, Literature, and Exegesis, Columbia Theological Seminary

I N T R O DU C T IO N Katharine Dell and Will Kynes

Within the Writings section of the canon are three texts commonly classified as Wisdom Literature: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job. These three have in the past been read in isolation not only from the other Writings but also from many of the concerns of the rest of the canon as products of a separate ‘tradition’ in ancient Israel, one which ‘stands outside all that is specific to the Old Testament’ (Preuss 1970, 414–17). Even when a scholarly enthusiasm for the study of ‘Wisdom influence’ found links with Wisdom throughout the canon, inspiring Roland Murphy (1969, 290) to ask, ‘Where has Old Testament wisdom failed to appear?’, the quest for the tradition’s influence controlled any interpretation of intertextual links between the three books and those beyond them. It thereby perpetuated Wisdom’s isolation even when pursuing its interaction with the rest of the canon, such that it escaped influence from Israelite religion, even as it shaped the canon into its own image (see Dell 2006, 14; Kynes 2015, 14, 24). This unidirectional characterization of Wisdom’s interaction with other texts corresponded with the dominant paradigm for literary analysis of biblical texts for much of the twentieth century: form criticism. In its efforts to draw historical information from a text’s literary features, form criticism sought to associate set forms with specific settings in life (Sitze im Leben). Praised by literary critics for its attention to the historical and sociological features of genre (Jauss 2000, 135– 36), it was also criticized for its rigidity and the determinative role its historical proposals played (Jauss 2000, 138; cf. Newsom 2005, 437–39; Sneed 2015, 60–61). On a small scale, such as an individual psalm, the new insight form criticism offered into the life and worship of ancient Israel was undeniable, but when the premises of the approach were applied to larger complexes, such as the Wisdom Literature, associating them with purported ‘movements’ or ‘schools,’ it began to buckle under the weight of the historical speculation it required, however attractive some of the possible reconstructions proved to be (e.g., Heaton 1974; 1994). In recent years, this form-critical approach has been subjected to significant criticism, and has been found wanting in numerous regards (e.g., Blum 2003; Sneed 2011; Weeks 2013).

2

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Two of those criticisms are particularly relevant to the design of the current volume (and the two which preceded it; Dell and Kynes 2013; 2014). First, the extrapolation of historical setting (Sitz im Leben) out of literary form threatens the accuracy of our interpretation of both by encouraging the segmentation and isolation of both Israel’s traditions and its literature into separate historical ‘traditions’ and corresponding literary ‘forms’. To make a clear connection between a literary form and a historical setting or tradition, both have to be distinct from their respective surroundings. A text may interweave many forms or even include the same features that may be associated with multiple forms, but it is much more difficult for it to be from multiple historical settings or traditions at once. Therefore, from the beginning, form criticism struggled with ‘mixed forms’. However, both Israel and its literature are much more complex than that. Forms are reused by different traditions, such as Isaiah’s prophetic adaptation of legal trial speeches (e.g., Isa 43:22–28), incorporated into larger forms associated with other features of Israel’s life, such as Amos’s funeral dirge for Israel (Amos 5:2), and parodied, such as the hymn Job twists into lament (Ps 8:5 [ET 4]; Job 7:17–18). Mixed forms are the norm, not the exception. Second, not only are historical settings extrapolated from the literary forms along traditional lines, but the forms themselves must be extrapolated as well. The Hebrew Bible does not include an appendix listing the literary forms it contains and describing their features (although this has been attempted, e.g., Murphy 1981). Interpreters have had to produce it based on their perceptions of the text’s literary features. However, they frequently struggle to identify the defining features of the few apparent generic labels in the text itself (e.g., ‫‘ משׁל‬proverb’ and ‫‘ משׂא‬oracle’), which are sometimes applied to some unexpected texts (e.g., Ezek 17 and Prov 30:1– 9, respectively). Moreover, as has long been realized, this inevitably focuses attent ion on generalized similarities, obscuring the particularities of individual texts (Muilenburg 1969, 5). This is a price biblical scholars have been willing to pay in exchange for the historical insight form criticism promised. However, as the viability of this interpretive method has been increasingly questioned, another has emerged to supplement it, and potentially replace it altogether:  intertextuality. Though this broad term covers more than a Victorian swimsuit, including both diachronic or ‘sequential’ and synchronic or ‘simultaneous’ methods of reading texts and theoretical reflection on what texts are, intertextual interpretation fundamentally ‘examines connections between actual texts as an aid to their interpretation’ (Kynes 2013, 202). The challenges to form criticism’s ligature between established form and historical setting allow new connections between texts across forms and purported traditions to be considered accompanied by fresh historical possibilities as to context. The challenges to form criticism’s focus on generalization encourage these new connections to be pursued. Doing so enables the complexity of these texts and the culture from which they came to emerge anew from the shackles of categorical segmentation. The so-called mainstream Wisdom texts  – Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job  – arguably stand to gain the most from this new approach, given the ways they have been sequestered from the rest of Israelite religion by their very definition, as the

Introduction

3

non-revelatory, non-cultic, non-historical, non-covenantal texts in the Hebrew canon. Indeed, intertextual study may offer the most potential of new discovery for Proverbs, since this book’s pervasive concern with wisdom means it is the starting point and mainspring of the Wisdom task/quest/enterprise/literature/ tradition, however defined (Dell 2015, 146–47). It is also for this reason, however, that this volume on Proverbs comes last in the series of studies on the intertextual potential of the ‘Wisdom’ texts that we have edited. Much less study has been done on intertextuality in Proverbs than Job or even Ecclesiastes. Inspired by the success of the previous volumes, though, we were convinced Proverbs could profit from a similar treatment, in which scholars would bring a range of intertextual reading methods to explore links between this text and others across the canon and beyond. This has led to some fascinating new connections and new intertextual insights across texts. This volume, therefore, falls into two parts  – the first covers Proverbs in intertextual dialogue with other books within the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The second casts the net more widely into the history of reception and covers a few key texts which dialogue effectively with the book of Proverbs. The volume opens with two chapters that investigate intertextual links between Proverbs and the Torah. Christine Yoder explores the key of the ‘tree of life’ to unlock a rich tapestry of intertextual connections between Prov 3:13–21 and Genesis 2–3. Proverbs is seen to echo the images of Genesis, but Wisdom as the tree of life restores the damage done in Eden by the tree of knowledge while also encouraging human flourishing on a practical, day-to-day level well removed from the naivety of the first humans in the garden of Eden. The next contribution from Bernd Schipper treats the extensive intertextual links between Proverbs and Deuteronomy. The chapter falls into three main areas of discussion. It begins by discussing literary similarities between selected examples of ‘proverbial wisdom’ from the main body of Proverbs 10–29 and Deuteronomy 12–26. It then moves on to Proverbs 1–9 and 30–31 in relation to Deuteronomy 1–11 and 27–34, both of which provide a ‘frame’ for their respective books. The particular example of the use of Deuteronomy in Proverbs 6 is drawn out. In the third section, Schipper argues that Proverbs can be linked to a wider context of discussion of ‘Wisdom and Torah’ that is emerging in the Second Temple period which also influenced Deuteronomy itself. Schipper finds various levels of interplay in directions of influence between the two texts over a long period of time, in turn revealing a complex intertextual web. After the Torah, a chapter is devoted to a text from each of the subdivisions of the second section of the Hebrew canon. In the Former Prophets, Will Kynes looks afresh at the relationship between 1 Kings 1–11, the Solomon narrative, and the book of Proverbs, referring in particular to the scholarly debate that has found their concepts of ‘wisdom’ incompatible. Starting from the narrative text in Kings rather than Proverbs and from the link through the figure of Solomon, Kynes shows how the intertextual links between the two texts are more elaborate than at first glance. The Kings text reveals ‘a definition of wisdom in which politics and prophecy, intellect and piety, the secular and the sacred intersect’ and shakes

4

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

us out of our narrow definitional ways. In the Latter Prophets, John Goldingay imaginatively considers the intertextual connections between Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39. Rather than exploring this in traditional scholarly terms, he invites us on a journey of comparison between two characters:  Isaiah ben Amoz and King Hezekiah, supported by the ‘smart’ group of the wise of Proverbs. How are their worldviews different and how far do they collide? An intertextual, thematic, and also dialogical approach reveals some very interesting similarities and differences. The next three chapters deal with the three texts in the traditional Jewish Sifrei Emet collection: Psalms, Job, and Proverbs. The fifth chapter, by William Brown, looks afresh at the question of intertextual links of Proverbs with the so-called Wisdom psalms by asking the dialogical question, ‘What does it mean to read Psalms “proverbially” and, conversely, Proverbs “psalmically”?’ This generates the discovery of parallel rhetorical forms, such as the lament and rebuke, across the two texts, of similar conceptual domains, such as happiness and praise, and, in the end, comparable didactic aims. The following chapter by Scott Jones is an intertextual reading of Proverbs 3 with Job 28, looking at echoes of the Proverbs text in the later Wisdom poem. These are largely thematic in the heartland of Wisdom concerns, such as finding wisdom, the value of wisdom, and wisdom’s role in creation. The problem of proverbial repetition is the subject of the next chapter by Mark Sneed. Though this unique form of intertextuality takes place within the book, scholars have struggled to interpret the role of these repetitions. Sneed engages in particular with the work of Knut Heim, arguing that, while novel, his theory needs further evaluation in the area of opening out possibilities rather than constraining interpretative options. Next, three texts from the Megilloth are discussed. In the eighth chapter, Katharine Dell explores the possibility of a ‘didactic intertextuality’ by which narrative texts, in this case, might deliberately draw on proverbial material for teaching and instruction. This is more likely to be a series of thematic links rather than large chunks of appropriated texts. She demonstrates this phenomenon in reference to the book of Ruth, but the method is ripe for extending elsewhere in due course. The question of the classification of the Song of Songs as a possible Wisdom text has taken on fresh impetus in recent scholarly discussion, but Anselm Hagedorn argues against this tide. He wishes to stress the erotic, sexual, and love-centred nature of the Song, unencumbered by marital vows or more measured Wisdom assessment. While there are thematic links, Hagedorn does not wish to go further towards Wisdom classification. The figure of Solomon, as in Kynes’ chapter, is a focus, as this is one of the main points of linkage with the existing Wisdom tradition. The next chapter, by Markus Saur looks at ‘Qohelet as a reader of Proverbs’. Acknowledging the links with Solomon and with the teaching enterprise in the prologue and epilogue to Qohelet, Saur goes further in identifying three exemplary texts – Qoh 2:13–15; 4:4–6; and 10:8–10 – which demonstrate the close intertextual interrelationship between these two central Wisdom texts and show Qohelet to be one of the first (at least extant) readers of Proverbs, one who engages its forms and content but then takes these elements further in his own thought as any reader would do.

Introduction

5

Part two, which consists of studies of Proverbs’ dialogue with texts outside the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament canon, begins with two chapters on texts from the Second Temple period. Pancratius C.  Beentjes examines afresh the relationship between Proverbs and Ben Sira and argues that their shared use of proverbial forms is not enough to characterize the intertexts and their relationship. Beentjes shows how other criteria must be brought into these equations and focuses especially on how Ben Sira reworks proverbial material in creative, new ways. Another increasingly important set of intertexts has emerged in recent decades in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the next chapter, William Tooman looks at the considerable intertextual links between Proverbs 7 and 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman. The subtle differences between the texts, though, reveal a slightly different rhetorical purpose and show, again, how a later text creatively refashions its inspirational predecessor. From the Second Temple period, the volume moves into early Jewish and Christian reflection on Proverbs. Susannah Ticciati takes us forward in time to the early church fathers, specifically to the Arian controversy and how Prov 8:22 featured in the discussions of the time. She focuses on the Christological use of this key Old Testament text in the work of Gregory of Nyssa (and his opponents), notably in his Contra Eunomium. She shows in detail how Gregory in his reflections on the incarnation of Jesus leads him to an account of human wisdom as discernment in line with the thought-world of the book of Proverbs. She also shows how Gregory’s vision of creation in terms of pairing of concepts has a close intertextual relationship with its Old Testament counterpart and how scripture as a whole was important to the pro-Nicene interpreters. In the next chapter, we move to the rather different thought-world of the rabbis. Here Susan Niditch offers us an insight into the ‘better than’ sayings in Proverbs, Qohelet, and the Midrashim. Recontextualization and parody of proverbial sayings in Ecclesiastes 7 leads on to a consideration of deconstruction and recontextualization in midrashic material. The various intertextual possibilities of readerly or performative engagement with proverbial material are emphasized. The final two chapters offer contextual encounters between Proverbs and two different world cultures. Christopher Hancock takes us on a fascinating tour of the very different cultural world of Chinese Confucianism, but finds a common ‘wisdom’ that links the two. He focuses on four texts from the Analects in relation to proverbial texts and finds both compelling links and dissimilarities. Wisdom itself is found to be conceived of very differently in the two cultures and yet it provides the key intertextual link too. In the final chapter, we enter another captivating cultural world, that of African wisdom, namely, from Yorùbá and Northern Sotho traditions. Here Madipoane Masenya and Funlola Olojede explore similarities and differences between these proverbial enterprises and the book of Proverbs, notably in the areas of sex and power, particularly in relation to the status of women in African culture. Proverbs 5–7 is a key intertext for exploring male sexual predatory behaviour and female ‘outsider’ roles. This then is a varied volume and these chapters are simply a representative sample of a topic that could generate many more fascinating intertextual

6

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

comparisons. It shows the richness of the intertextual method, and while it dwells less on method itself than the previous volumes, it demonstrates how varied the methodology can be within and outside biblical studies. We hope that this volume, and its two companions, will act as a beacon to guide the way to further studies and reflection upon the way Proverbs and other Wisdom books can be read and engaged with intertextually, whether on a diachronic or a synchronic level, beyond the restrictions imposed by the Wisdom Literature category. We put down our editorial pens for now, happy to have made a start in a direction that we expect will run for many years to come.

Bibliography Blum, Erhard. 2003. Formgeschichte – A Misleading Category? Some Critical Remarks. Pages 32–45 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Dell, Katharine J. 2006. The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dell, Katharine J. 2015. Deciding the Boundaries of ‘Wisdom’: Applying the Concept of Family Resemblance. Pages 145–60 in Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies. AIL 23. Edited by Mark Sneed. Atlanta: SBL. Dell, Katharine, and Will Kynes, eds. 2013. Reading Job Intertextually. LHBOTS 574. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Dell, Katharine, and Will Kynes, eds. 2014. Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. LHBOTS 587. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Heaton, E. W. 1974. Solomon’s New Men: The Emergence of Ancient Israel as a National State. London: Thames & Hudson. Heaton, E. W. 1994. The School Tradition of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jauss, Hans Robert. 2000. Theory of Genres and Medieval Literature. Pages 127–47 in Modern Genre Theory. Edited by David Duff. London: Longman. Original edition, Poetique (1970): 79–101. Kynes, Will. 2013. Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119. Pages 201–13 in Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of Professor John Barton. Edited by Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kynes, Will. 2015. The Modern Scholarly Wisdom Tradition and the Threat of Pansapientialism: A Case Report. Pages 11–38 in Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies. AIL 23. Edited by Mark Sneed. Atlanta: SBL. Muilenburg, James. 1969. Form Criticism and Beyond. JBL 88:1–28. Murphy, Roland E. 1969. The Interpretation of Old Testament Wisdom Literature. Int 23:289–301. Murphy, Roland E. 1981. Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. FOTL 13. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Newsom, Carol A. 2005. Spying out the Land: A Report from Genology. Pages 437–50 in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kevin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Introduction

7

Preuss, Horst Dietrich. 1970. Erwägungen zum theologischen Ort alttestamentlicher Weisheitsliteratur. EvT 30:393–417. Sneed, Mark. 2011. Is the ‘Wisdom Tradition’ a Tradition? CBQ 73:50–71. Sneed, Mark. 2015. ‘Grasping After the Wind’: The Elusive Attempt to Define and Delimit Wisdom. Pages 39–67 in Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies. AIL 23. Edited by Mark Sneed. Atlanta: SBL. Weeks, Stuart. 2013. The Limits of Form Criticism in the Study of Literature, with Reflections on Psalm 34. Pages 15–24 in Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of John Barton. Edited by Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Part I P ROVERBS IN D IALOGUE WITH THE H EBREW  B IBLE

Chapter 1 W I SD OM I S T H E T R E E O F L I F E :   A S T U DY O F P R OV E R B S 3 : 1 3 – 2 0 A N D G E N E SI S   2 – 3 Christine Roy Yoder

A lo ng time ago, at the beginning of things, God scooped clay from the ground, pressed and moulded it, and breathed life into its nostrils. God then set the creature, the ‫( אדם‬adam or person), in a garden. The garden was fertile and lush, with beautiful and fr uitful trees thick in every direction. Two distinctive trees stood right in the middle: the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. God gave clear instructions to the ‫ אדם‬about the first of those trees – instructions that Adam and Eve eventually transgressed. As a consequence, God sent the couple out of the garden and into the world to till and tend the soil by the sweat of their brow. God further set guards in place to prohibit any return to the garden and access to the second tree, the tree of life. With that, the story of Genesis 2– 3 ends. One imagines the scene fading to black as an adaptation of Galadriel’s opening lines in the movie Lord of the Rings – Fellowship of the Ring plays in the background: ‘And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for nearly half a millennium,1 the tree of life passed out of all knowledge. Until, when chance came, the tree ensnared a new bearer’,2 namely, the book of Proverbs. Apart from Genesis 2–3, only Proverbs, of all the books of the Hebrew Bible, refers explicitly to the tree of life.3 Three of the references occur in two-line 1.  Genesis 2–3 is considered traditionally to be a Yahwist text, which suggests a date rather early in Israel’s history. However, the sources and stages in the transmission history of Genesis and the Pentateuch more broadly are matters of ongoing debate (cf. e.g., Carr 1996; Dozeman and Schmid 2006), and scholars, particularly in Europe, increasingly propose an exilic or early post-exilic date for Genesis 2–3 (e.g., Otto 1996; but cf. Bührer 2015). Proverbs 1–9 arguably dates to the early post-exilic period (Yoder 2001, 15–38). 2.  Dir. Peter Jackson. New Line Productions, 2001. Film. For Galadriel’s exact lines about the One Ring, cf. http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000136/quotes (accessed 20 January 2017). 3. But see the tree of life in later Jewish and Christian eschatological texts, that is, 1 Enoch 24–25; 4 Ezra 8:52; and Rev 2:7; 21:9–22:5, 14. Descriptions of a ‘world tree’ or ‘cosmic tree’ are found in Ezek 17:22–24; 31:2–9; and Dan 4:7b–9. Much has been written about the

12

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

individual proverbs which, regrettably, confound much intertextual analysis (11:30; 13:12; 15:4). Each of the three proverbs is brief and disjointed from the other proverbs in its immediate literary context; and each reveals little to nothing about its possible social-historical background. The fourth reference to the tree of life in Proverbs is different, however. Rooted in the longer didactic poem of 3:13– 20 (cf. v. 18), the tree stands in the second of five poems in Proverbs 1–9 about the figure of wisdom personified as a woman.4 The speaker, purportedly a father teaching his son(s),5 invokes the tree with dramatic effect: wisdom is the tree of life. The forbidden tree is forbidden no longer. Not only is one able to find the tree, but one should, indeed must, obtain (v. 13) and grab hold of it (v. 18). While the tree of life is the most apparent allusion to the Garden of Eden in Prov 3:13–20, it is by no means the only one. The tree is but one stitch in a thick tapestry of intertextual connections between the poem and Genesis 2–3.6 From abundant waters at creation to glistening gold and jewels, from desire kindled to reaching for what one desires, from the promise of lasting life to abiding in peace and tranquillity, Prov 3:13–20 recalls and reframes the Genesis 2–3 story of human origins to new ends. Whereas desiring and taking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil led to expulsion from Eden, desiring and taking hold of wisdom as the tree of life leads back to the garden – a return or re-entry of sorts. Wisdom

extra-biblical evidence for such trees. With regard particularly to extra-biblical connections to wisdom as the tree of life in Proverbs, see, for example, Marcus 1943 and Osborne 2014. 4.  Prov 1:20–33; 3:13–20; 4:5–9; 7:4–5; 8:1–9:6, 11. Juxtaposed with the poems about personified wisdom are poems that describe wisdom’s negative counterpart, Folly, who is likewise personified as a woman (2:16–22; 5:1–23; 6:20–35; 7:1–27; 9:13–18). 5.  Set in a household in a city, Proverbs 1–9 are the instructions of an anonymous father to his son(s). The father-to-son setting is common in ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature (e.g., the Egyptian Instruction of Anii, the Sumerian Instructions of Shuruppak). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes addresses ‘my son’ (12:12). In Proverbs, the father-to-son setting continues through chapters 1–9 and is assumed occasionally later in the book (19:27; 23:15, 19, 26; 24:13, 21; 27:11). Twice, the father associates his teaching with the mother’s (1:8; 6:20), but she never speaks directly to the son. 6.  For a similar argument, see Hurowitz 2004 (and, far more briefly, Hendel 1997). Hurowitz, however, says nothing about the shared, central motif of desire and its significance in Prov 3:13–20 and Genesis 2–3 that I develop here, and our conclusions differ about the implications of the intertextual connections for interpreting the poem in Proverbs. Even so, both of our arguments challenge one made by many interpreters that the tree of life in Proverbs is a simple metaphor, an expression of healing and vitality that has been uprooted, unmoored from its original mythological context of Genesis 2–3. Marcus (1943, 120), for example, argues that the tree of life in Jewish wisdom literature ‘survives only as a secularized term or faded metaphor’; similarly, Fox (2000, 159) writes, ‘[I]n Proverbs, the tree of life is devoid of any mythological significance and serves only as a figure for vitality and healing’; and Murphy (1998, 22) contends that ‘[t]he tree of life is a frequent metaphor in the book . . . where it no longer enjoys its original mythological background reflected in Gen 2–3’.

1. Wisdom Is the Tree of Life

13

restores human flourishing; her benefits of tranquillity, delight, well-being, and abundance evoke the blessings of life in Eden. What wisdom does not restore, however, is a naïve, idyllic existence set apart from the world. Rather, wisdom enlivens and inspires the capacity and responsibility to navigate intelligently, faithfully, and justly in the world.7

Intertextual Connections: Prov 3:13–20 and Genesis 2–3 Prov 3:13– 20 celebrates wisdom’s surpassing value and many benefits. The text contains two connected units. The term ‘happy’ or ‘fortunate’ (‫אשׁרי‬, v. 13; ‫מאשׁר‬, v. 18) frames the first unit (vv. 13– 18), which signals that the unit is a macarism or bea ti tude , namely, a genre that at tributes good fortune to a person with a particular characteristic or experience (Fox 2000, 156, 161). In this case, the object of praise is wisdom personified as a woman who, as the father tells it, brings wellbeing to those who find her.8 Repetition of the terms ‘wisdom’ and ‘understanding’ (‫תבונה‬. . . ‫חכמה‬, vv. 13, 19) links the first unit to the second (vv. 19– 20), but the object of praise shifts abruptly from wisdom to God. Suddenly, the spotlight centres on God9 and the cosmological significance of wisdom. Wisdom is the instrument or agent by which God created the world (v. 19; cf. Prov 8:22–31; Ps 104:24). The combined result is a poem that extols wisdom’s value to both humans and God: 13

Fortunate is the one who finds wisdom,

the one who obtains understanding. For her profit is better than the profit of silver, her yield than that of fine gold. 15 She is more precious than jewels,10 whatever one might desire11 does not compare with her. 16 Long life is in her right hand, in her left are riches and honor. 14

7.  Proverbs insists that the beginning and fullest expression of wisdom is ‘fear of the LORD’ (cf. 1:7), namely, reverence for and obedience to God that motivates virtuous behaviour and fosters individual and communal well-being (e.g., 2:5; 8:13; 10:27; 14:2, 26–27; 15:16, 33; 16:6). The expression frames Proverbs 1–9 (1:7; 9:10) and the book as a whole (31:30). 8. Wisdom’s personification in 3:13–20 is indicated explicitly by reference to her hands (v. 16) and, implicitly, by references to her ‘profit’, ‘yield’ (v. 14), and ‘paths’ (v. 17). 9. Inverted Hebrew word order signals the abrupt shift. 10. The term ‫ פנינים‬likely means ‘corals’ or ‘pearls’ (cf. 8:10; 20:15; 31:10). 11 . R eading ‫‘ ( חפצים‬desira ble things’; so 8:11; LXX) for MT ‫‘( חפציך‬your desirable things’) . The emendation is consi stent with t he term in the sa me phrase in 8:11, and removes the solitary second person suffix from a poem that is otherwise in the third person (see Fox 2000, 157).

14

Reading Proverbs Intertextually 17

Her ways are pleasant ways, and all of her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life for the one who grasps her; the one who holds onto her is fortunate. 19 YHWH by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding [God] established the heavens. 20 By [God’s] knowledge, the waters of the abyss burst forth, and the heavens drip dew.12

The threads of intertextual connections that weave Prov 3:13–20 with Genesis 2– 3 begin in the poem’s literary frame (vv. 13, 19– 20). Prov 3:13 refers twice to ‫אדם‬: ‘happy is an ‫ אדם‬who finds wisdom; and an ‫ אדם‬who obtains understanding’. The phrase ‫‘( אשׁרי אדם‬happy is an ‫ )’אדם‬is rare in the Hebrew Bible in comparison to similar expressions, and twofold reference to ‫ אדם‬in a single verse is unique.13 The repetition of ‫ אדם‬is especially noteworthy, however, given that the final verses of the poem describe God’s creation of the world (vv. 19–20). God establishes the earth on mountainous pillars (cf. Prov 8:29; Ps 18:16), sets the sky up on columns (e.g., Job 26:11), and unleashes the waters (vv. 19– 20). ‘The waters of the abyss burst forth’ (v. 20a) – that is, the subterranean seas ‘were split open’ (‫ )נבקעו‬so that they might surge and rise through channels to nourish the rivers and oceans (cf. Gen 7:11; Job 38:8– 11; Isa 35:6– 7). The heavens begin to ‘drip dew’ like rain (v. 20b). Water rushing from below and above recalls similar imagery and emphasis on water in Genesis 2: an initial lack of rain (v. 5 ), a m ist or stream (‫ )אד‬that rises from the earth to water the ‘whole face of the ground’ (v. 6), the river that flows out of Eden and splits into four branches to saturate the world (vv. 11–13). Indeed, references to Eden elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible accentuate its abundant waters (‘well- watered like the garden of YHWH ’, Gen 13:10; cf. Ezekiel 31), as do metaphorical identifications of Zion and the Temple with Eden (e.g., Ezek 47:1– 12; Zech 14:8–11; Joel 4:18; Stordalen 2000, 363–72). The frame of Prov 3:13–20 thus sets the stage with ‫ אדם‬and a well-irrigated, newly created world. Stepping into the body of the Proverbs’ poem, the comparison of wisdom’s worth to silver, gold, and jewels (vv. 14– 15, cf. Prov 31:10) evokes the dazzling sp le ndour of Ed en a nd its enviro ns. Gen 2:1 1– 1 2 d ist in g uishes the land of Havilah, around which flows the Pishon, the first river of Eden, by its superior metals, resin, and gems: ‘there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are also there’ (cf. 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7). Another text that invokes Eden, namely, Ezekiel 28, describes the king of Tyre as once abiding in the garden, a primeval man ‘full of wisdom and perfect in beauty’, and adorned with ‘every precious stone . . . carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your

12. Author’s translation. 13. For more discussion, see Hurowitz 2004, 56–57.

1. Wisdom Is the Tree of Life

15

engravings’ (vv. 11–13).14 The king’s idyllic state and exquisite ornamentation did not last, however. For his pride, ruthless commerce, and folly, God expelled the king from the ‘garden of God’, the holy mountain (vv. 17– 19). In ancient Near Eastern literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet IX) also associates precious gems with the cosmic garden. After an arduous and long journey in utter darkness, Gilgamesh comes upon ‘the garden of the gods’ that flourishes with jewels that bear fruit: ‘[And when he attained twelve leagues], it had grown bright. On seeing the grove of stones, he heads for . . . The carnelian bears its fruit; it is hung with vines good to look at. The lapis bears foliage; it, too, bears fruit lush to behold’ (ANET, 89). Whereas Genesis declares that the land of Havilah’s gold is good (‫טוב‬, Gen 2:12), Prov 3:14–15 asserts that the profits of wisdom are ‘better than’ (‫)טוב מן‬ and more precious than any fine metal or gemstone. As if that were not enough, wisdom is also the bearer of great riches (v. 16).15 Within this lush and luminous landscape, Prov 3:13– 20 – like Genesis 2– 3 – entwines motifs of desire, long life, and the tree of life (3:15–16, 18). In both texts, desire, and ultimately desire for the tree of life, propels action. Recall the two trees that God planted in the middle of Eden – the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life – along with every beautiful tree that yields good fruit (2:9). Asked by the serpent about God’s instructions with regard to the trees, Eve recounts rather ambiguously that the couple cannot eat of the tree ‘in the middle of the garden’, and adds that they dare not ‘touch it’ lest they die (3:3). When the serpent suggests a different fate, the narration slows and lingers as Eve takes a second look at the tree and comes to desire it: the tree ‘was good to eat . . . pleasurable to look at . . . desirable to make one wise’ (3:6). Eve’s desire stirs – a potent mix of bodily appetite, craving for beauty, and hunger for wisdom. She acts. She takes from the fruit of the tree ( ‫)ותקח מפריו‬, eats, and gives the fruit to her husband, who also eats (3:6). Desire thus figures in Genesis 2– 3 as innate to the human condition, the drive that pushes and pulls and motivates action before Eve and Adam have the capacity for discriminating judgement (Newsom 2005, 11–13). Desire triggers Eve’s choice and prompts the act that turns the story and alters the fates of animal, human, and soil alike. Despite the consequences (3:14–21) of Eve’s ‘moment of desire’ – her seeing the tree and its fruit and taking of it (Newsom 2005, 11) – God predicts at the story’s end that the couple will soon repeat the same behaviour, only this time with the tree of life (3:22). God expects that eventually they will desire a different fruit and, as the divine internal deliberation anticipates step by step, they will replicate their actions: ‘now, the ‫ אדם‬may stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life (‫ )ולקח גם מעץ החיים‬and eat and live forever’ (3:22). Accordingly, God expels Adam

14. The list of stones in v. 13 recalls those in the breastplate worn by Israel’s high priest, thus also associating the king of Tyre with the priesthood (cf. Exod 28:17–20). 15. Notably, the Tyrian king not only wears lavish ornamentation but, with his wisdom, accumulates gold, silver, and wealth (Ezek 28:4–5).

16

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

and Eve from the garden, and sets the cherubim and flaming, swirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life. The garden and the tree of life are strictly off limits. Until Prov 3:13– 20, that is. The poem in Proverbs in effect opens the gates, points to wisdom as the tree of life, and urges a rush to embrace it. At the heart of that urging16 – as with Eve’s ‘moment of desire’ for the fruit in Genesis 3 – is the appeal to desire, the invitation to take a second look at wisdom and regard her as the most desirable of all desired things, more precious than gold and silver and gems (vv. 14– 15). ‘Whatever one may desire’, the father tells his son(s), ‘cannot compare with her’ (v. 15b; cf. 8:11). Moreover, to take hold of wisdom promises to transform a person’s fate: long life (lit. ‘length of days’, ‫ )ארך ימים‬from her right hand; riches and honour from her left (v. 16), happiness and well-being. Sounding the notes of desire (v. 15), long life (v. 16), and the tree of life (v. 18), Prov 3:13–20 intones a next chapter to the Eden story – the tree of life is right here – and draws readers ever closer to wisdom and her benefits until, at last, they grasp the onceforbidden tree and refuse to let go. Admittedly, Prov 3:13–20 mentions neither the fruit of the tree nor eating of it. Prov 8:19 speaks of wisdom’s ‘fruit’ (cf. 9:2, 5), however; and the other three references to a tree of life in the book allude to eating from its fruit: the ‘fruit’ or speech of the righteous (11:30), the gentle ‘tongue’ of restorative speech (15:4), and the fulfilled desire, which invigorates rather than sickens the heart (13:12).17 That said, the notion of touching the tree to benefit from its life-giving power is consistent with ancient Near Eastern drawings of a sacred tree, arguably the tree of life. Often the drawings display animals (especially ibexes), gods, or people flanking the tree, and holding up their hands or front legs to touch the tree reverently (Keel 1998, 16–57). Simply to touch or grasp the tree appears sufficient to gain vigour and long life.18 The road to t he t re e of life th at Genesis 3 leaves guarded, dangerous, and impassable is, at the end of Prov 3:13–20, open and accessible. Genesis 3 ends with the declaration that ‘the way of/to the tree of life’ (3:24; ‫ )דרך עץ החיים‬is closed to humanity, guarded by the cherubim and whirling sword of flame. In a stunning reversal of those last words, Prov 3:17 ascribes to wisdom, tree of life, many paths on which it is pleasurable and safe to journey. Emphasis on the multiplicity of paths – ‘her ways are ways of . . . all of her paths’ (‫וכל נתיבותיה‬... ‫ – )דרכיה דרכי‬carves the terrain with many lines worn into the soil over time, crisscrossed, with many points of entry.19 That each of those paths is ‘pleasant’ (‫ )נעם‬and ‘peaceful’ (‫)שׁלום‬,

16. Indeed, literarily, the appeal to desire (v. 15b) is at the center of 3:13–18. 17. The tree also has health-giving properties in the New Testament, where it yields fruit in season and leaves ‘for the healing of the nations’ in the city of God’s new creation (Rev 22:2; cf. 2:7; 22:14, 19; cf. Ezek 37:12). 18.  The idea that touching a tree may have life-and-death consequences is suggested similarly by Eve’s addition of the phrase ‘nor shall you touch it’ to God’s command (Gen 3:3). 19.  Proverbs 1–9 often refers to wisdom’s paths in the plural (e.g., 3:17; 8:32; cf. the singular only once, in 4:11), as well as those of folly, the youth and other characters.

1. Wisdom Is the Tree of Life

17

even peace itself, 20 calls to mind the serenity of living in paradise, a celebrated aspect of divine gardens in the ancient Near East and the Bible (e.g., Isa 11:1–9). ‘Pleasant’ and ‘peaceful’ are also opposites of ‘pain’ (‫ ;עצב‬cf. Gen 3:16, 17) and ‘enmity’ (‫ ;איבה‬cf. 3:15) – the harsh and broken dimensions of life at the end of Genesis 3. For the world gone topsy-turvy, wisdom is the antidote, the trailblazer of and companion along pathways that restore tranquillity and comfort (Hurowitz 2004, 58–61).

Implications for Interpreting Prov 3:13–20 By sketching wisdom as a tree of life in a poem that evokes the lush and lavish landscape of Eden, Proverbs creates an ironic reversal.21 Whereas eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil led to expulsion from the garden (Genesis 2–3), the search for wisdom as a tree of life guides one back into it (Prov 3:13–20). Moreover, Prov 3:13–20 seemingly blurs the two trees planted in the middle of Eden into one tree.22 One tree, namely, wisdom/knowledge as the tree of life, is most desirable, enlivening, and worthy of human pursuit. Identifying wisdom with the most ancient of trees commends wisdom as neither a whim nor the peculiar work of one family or people. Rather wisdom is primordial and weathered, rooted in the earth set on pillars, anchored in the world’s ‘first bits of soil’ (Prov 8:26), intrinsic to the first human home. Wisdom has been treasured from the very beginning by people and by God. At the same time, Proverbs’ blurring of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life conveys a subtle caution. As Adam and Eve discovered long ago, the opening of one’s eyes, the search for wisdom, is no simple matter. Wisdom comes at a cost and may well have unanticipated consequences. As desire sparked Eve’s reach for the tree of knowledge, so Prov 3:13–20 fuels desire for wisdom as the tree of life. The poem not only evokes those early moments of human desire in Eden by entwining references to desire, long life, and a tree of life (vv. 15–16, 18), but everything about Prov 3:13–20 is designed to direct a young man’s desire to wisdom: the poem’s structure as a macarism, its personification of wisdom as a woman, its comparisons of wisdom with jewels and gold, its promises of long life, great riches, and well-being and, most obviously, its

Moreover, wisdom weaves her ways with other paths:  she strides down the ways of the righteousness, for example, and ‘the middle’ of the paths of justice (8:20). 20. Fox (2000, 157–58) notes that insofar as a predicate noun in Hebrew can function as an adjective, the phrase ‘her ways are ‫( ’שׁלום‬peace, peaceful) may engender an intensification akin to the English phrase ‘her paths are peace itself ’. 21.  Hurowitz (2004, 61–62) observes the irony as well, but develops its significance differently. 22.  William P.  Brown (1999, 152–57) argues that the Yahwist’s story in Genesis 2–3 purposefully splits life from knowledge, representing each as a tree in the garden, to craft a blistering critique of the promises of wisdom.

18

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

explicit declaration that absolutely nothing desirable can compare to wisdom (v. 15). The father assumes that his son(s) must be enticed to pursue wisdom. The father assumes that wisdom begins not as a rational choice, but with a longing that is a far more enveloping experience, as it was for Eve (Gen 2:6; cf. Newsom 2005, 11).23 In this regard, Prov 3:13–20 contributes to the ‘extraordinary emphasis’ on desire in Proverbs 1–9, an emphasis that is ‘out of all proportion’ with treatment of the topic elsewhere in the book (Murphy 1988, 600). Far from repressing or eliminating desire as part of the wise and moral life, Proverbs 1–9 assumes desire’s power, and labours to cultivate and direct desire to ‘right’ objects (Yoder 2011, 148–62). In the end, Prov 3:13–20 evokes Genesis 2–3 to commend wisdom as that which restores what was lost long ago, namely, a flourishing life in Eden – an existence of tranquillity, delight, abundance, beauty, and well-being. At the same time, the poem in its immediate literary setting resists any notion that that restoration to the garden is also to a naïve, idyllic existence apart from the world. Proverbs 3 and the book as a whole anchor the feet of the wise firmly in creation. The poem of 3:13– 20 sits right in the middle of proverbs that insist on devotion to God (cf. 3:5–12) and proverbs that require behaving justly with one’s neighbours (3:27–32). Thus the peace of wisdom’s paths is not an otherworldly, utopic peace, a serenity that is removed from and immune to everyday complexities and challenges. Instead, the great fortune (vv. 13, 18) of those who find and grab onto wisdom, the tree of life, is flourishing and joy in the thick of it all.

Bibliography Brown, William P. 1999. The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Bührer, Walter. 2015. The Relative Dating of the Eden Narrative Gen *2–3. VT 65:365–76. Carr, David M. 1996. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Dozeman, Thomas B., and Konrad Schmid, eds. 2006. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: SBL. Fox, Michael V. 2000. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB18A. New York: Doubleday. Hendel, Ronald S. 1997. Getting Back to the Garden of Eden. BR 14:17, 47. Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. 2004. Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered. Pages 49–62 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the

23.  Elsewhere Newsom (2012, 12–14) observes that the fundamental grammar of the moral self in the Hebrew Bible contains three elements, namely, desire, knowledge, and submission to an external authority. Both Genesis 2–3 and Proverbs 1–9 wrestle with these elements and the relationships between them.

1. Wisdom Is the Tree of Life

19

Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz and Shalom Paul. Winona Park, IN: Eisenbrauns. Keel, Othmar. 1998. Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 261. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Marcus, Ralph. 1943. The Tree of Life in Proverbs. JBL 62:117–20. Murphy, Roland E. 1988. Wisdom and Eros in Proverbs 1–9. CBQ 50:600–603. Murphy, Roland E. 1998. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Newsom, Carol A. 2005. Genesis 2–3 and 1 Enoch 6–16: Two Myths of Origin and Their Ethical Implications. Pages 7–22 in Shaking Heaven and Earth: Essays in Honor of Walter Brueggemann and Charles B. Cousar. Edited by Christine Roy Yoder, Kathleen M. O’Connor, E. Elizabeth Johnson and Stanley P. Saunders. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Newsom, Carol A. 2012. Models of the Moral Self: Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism. JBL 131:5–25. Osborne, William R. 2014. The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 14:114–39. Otto, Eckart. 1996. Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext. Pages 167–92 in ‘Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit . . .’: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Anja A. Diesel et al. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter. Stordalen, T. 2000. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25. Leuven: Peeters. Yoder, Christine Roy. 2001. Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31. BZAW 304. Berlin: de Gruyter. Yoder, Christine Roy. 2011. The Shaping of Erotic Desire in Proverbs 1–9. Pages 148–62 in Saving Desire: The Seduction of Christian Theology. Edited by Jan-Olav Henriksen and LeRon Shults. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Chapter 2 ‘ T E AC H T H E M D I L IG E N T LY T O YO U R S O N ! ’ :   T H E B O O K O F P R OV E R B S A N D D E U T E R O N OM Y Bernd U. Schipper

I n his com m enta ry on Prove rbs, Franz Delitzsch (1874, 34) wrote on the rel ation ship betw een the boo k of Proverbs and Deuteronomy: ‘Who does not hear, to ment ion only one thing, in i. 7– xi. 18 an echo of the old ‫( שׁמע‬hear), Deut vi. 4– 9, cf. xi. 18– 21? The whole poetry of this writer savours of the Book of Deuteronomy.’ For Delitzsch, it was undisputable that ‘the poetry of this writer has its hidden roots in the older writings’. Delitzsch’s view is characteristic of the res earch on P rove rbs in the late nineteenth century. For a number of biblical scholars, it was clear that the book of Proverbs had to be read against the backdrop of other literature from the Old Testament.1 However, in current studies quite the opposite can be seen. In his influential commentary, Michael V. Fox argues that the simi larit ies between Deuteronomy and Proverbs should be explained by a sapiential influence on Deuteronomy rather than by a dependence of the book of Proverbs on Deuteronomy.2 Hence, terms such as ‫תורה‬, ‫( מצוה‬commandment) or ‫( דברים‬words) should be interpreted in Proverbs differently than in Deuteronomy. Whereas in Deuteronomy ‘Torah’ refers to the divine law, in the book of Proverbs it means a parental instruction.3 The positions of Delitzsch and Fox represent two approaches which are tied to the scholarly debates of their time. When Delitzsch wrote about the genuine connection between Proverbs and Deuteronomy, a number of other scholars dated the book of Proverbs to the Second Temple Period. Wilhelm Frankenberg (1898, 6), for example, stressed in his commentary: ‘Wisdom literature belongs fully in the postexilic period, since it was only in this period that the historical conditions existed for such literature; it presupposes the Law with its teaching that God has decreed life for the fulfilment of his laws and death for their transgression, a 1. See, for example, Hitzig (1858, 19), who pointed to some similarities between Proverbs and Deuteronomy. 2. Fox 2000, 79; 2009, 951–53. See also Clifford 1999, 243–44 and Perdue 2000, 134 and for a different position, Brown 2005, 278–80. 3. This was already stressed by Fichtner (1933, 82–83). See also Crenshaw 1999, 151–52.

22

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

teaching that became an unshakable truth through the experience of the Exile.’4 With the dating of the book of Proverbs, or parts of it, to the monarchic period, the direction of influence was reversed.5 From this perspective, it is not the book of Proverbs that draws on Deuteronomy; rather, the book of Deuteronomy must be seen in light of proverbial wisdom. In an influential study, Moshe Weinfeld (1972, 244–72) located Deuteronomy in a scribal milieu at the royal court of Jerusalem that was influenced by wisdom. Thus, individual proverbs found in Proverbs 10–22 and 25–29 stand behind some parts of the Deuteronomic law in Deuteronomy 12–26. The following chapter will show that both sides have seen something right. The proverbial wisdom in Proverbs 10–29 shows similarities with passages from the Deuteronomic law (12–26), while the wisdom compositions in Proverbs 1–9 and 30–31 draw on passages from the paraenetic frame in Deuteronomy 1–11 and 27– 34. Given that we can find allusions to Deuteronomic law also in Proverbs 1–9 and 30–31, the evidence is much more complex than has often been assumed. The chapter is divided into three parts. I  will begin by discussing literary similarities between some passages from the so-called proverbial wisdom and Deuteronomy 12–26. I will then deal in more depth with the use of Deuteronomy in Proverbs 6.  Finally, I  will show how the book of Proverbs can be connected to a discourse on ‘Wisdom and Torah’ in the Second Temple Period that also influenced Deuteronomy.

Proverbs and Deuteronomic Law Wh en co nsid e rin g the text u al evidence from the book of Proverbs and the Deuteronomic law, two types of similarities can be identified: (i) similarities in syntax and logical structure and (ii) similarities in content.6 The first relates to the so-called apodictic and casuistic law. The apodictic law presents the juridical norm in a single sentence, introduced by ‫ לֹא‬or ‫ ַאל‬, whereas casuistic sentences contain two clauses: a protasis, introduced by ‘if ’ (‫ ) ִכּי‬with the description of the case, and an apodosis with the juridical consequences. Previous research has shown that a number of verses in the book of Proverbs can be compared with apodictic clauses in Deuteronomy7:

4.  ‘Die Literatur der Chokmah gehört ganz der nachexilischen Zeit an, da erst in dieser die histor. Bedingungen zu ihrer Entstehung gegeben sind; ihre Voraussetzung ist das Gesetz mit seiner durch die Erfahrung des Exiles zur unerschütterlichen Wahrheit gewordenen Lehre, dass Gott auf die Erfüllung seiner Gebote Leben, auf ihre Übertretung Tod gesetzt hat.’ 5. For this dating, see the overview of the history of research in Schipper 2018. 6. See the overview in Malfroy 1965, 49–60; Carmichael 1967, 198–201; Crenshaw 1999, 149–51; and Fox 2009, 952. 7. See Gerstenberger 1965 and Richter 1991.

2. ‘Teach them diligently to your son!’

23

(Prov 19:18): Discipline your son while there is hope, but to kill him—do not set (‫ )אל־תשׂא‬your desire.

Other examples of constructions with ‫ ַאל‬can be found in Prov 20:13, 22 and 22:22, 24, 26, 288: (Prov 22:22): Do not rob (‫ )אל־תגזל‬the weak because he is weak, and do not oppress (‫ )אל־תדכא‬the poor at the gate.

Examples of phrases introduced by ‫ לא‬are 11:4; 17:5, 7 and 19:5. (19:5) A lying witness will not go unpunished (‫)לא ינקה‬ and he who testifies falsely will not escape.

Shamir Yona (2008, 420) has drawn attention to the phrase ‫‘( לא ינקה‬he will not go unpunished’), which is mentioned seven times in Proverbs (6:29; 11:21; 16:5; 17:5; 19:5, 9; 28:20). The phrase is characteristic of the biblical legal corpora (Exod 21:19, 28) and also appears in the Decalogue (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11). Each use of the phrase is driven by the insight that an act results in a particular consequence. Thi s can be s een in the lex talionis (Lev 24:19– 20) but also in ‘the formula of recompense’ in Deut 19:19 (see Yona 2008, 419). Similarities can also be found in the casuistic law (Rüterswörden 2012): ( Deut 24: 7 ) I f (‫ )כי‬a man is caught, having kidnapped one of his brothers, an Isra elit e , w hether he makes him a slave or sells him, that thief must die (‫)ומת הגנב ההוא‬. (Prov 15:10b) If someone hates reproof, he shall die (‫)ימות‬. (Prov 19:16b) If someone despises his ways, he shall die (Qere: ‫ ;יָמוּת‬Ketiv: ‫יוּמת‬ ָ ).

Th e tw o ex a mpl es from Proverbs are constructed in a conditional style.9 Further, the reading of the ketiv in Prov 19:16b (‫יוּמת‬ ָ ) can be found in Deut 13:16; 17:6 and frequently in casuistic clauses in the Covenant Code (Exod 21:12, 15, 16, 17, 29; 22:18). Regardless of the question of whether nomistic language found its way into Proverbs in 15:10b and 19:16b, all the examples illustrate the common ground between the world of the law and the world of wisdom. Rooted in the ‘actconsequence nexus’, the casuistic law as well as the conditional phrases in Proverbs are both based on the connection between an action and its consequence. Both sh ould be s een , as Udo Rüterswörden (2012, 330) has pointed out, within a ‘scientific’ approach where the factual world and its rules are described in terms of a ‘world order’. Wisdom sentences and legal sentences are the result of a reflection

8. See Richter (1991, 68–72) and Gerstenberger (1965, 123–24). 9. See Rüterswörden (2012, 327–29) with further examples.

24

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

that is grounded in a specific worldview. The rules and inner dynamics of the world are observed, systematized, and concentrated into individual sentences which can be easily memorized. When we turn to the similarities in content (ii) between the book of Proverbs an d De ute r ono my, two subjects have been used as classic examples: ‘false weights and measures’ and ‘removing landmarks’. There is no doubt that Prov 11:1; 16:11 and 20:23 are similar to Deut 19:14 and that Prov 22:28 and 23:10 are similar to Deut 25:13–16; in each case, the wrong behaviour is declared to be ‘an ab omination to YHWH’.10 Further similarities relate to the credibility of wit ness es (Deut 19:15–20; Prov 14:25; 19:28) and the general principle of ju stic e ( ‫)משׁ פט‬.11 In addition to these classical subjects, one other similarity between justice in Proverbs and Deuteronomy is striking.12 Proverbs 15:27 and 17:23 argue against the use of a bribe: (Prov 15:27) Whoever makes unjust gain, his household ruins, but the one who hates bribes (‫ )מתנה‬will live. (Prov 17:23) A wicked man takes a bribe (‫ )שׁחד‬from the bosom to divert the paths of justice.

The two phrases can be connected with Deut 27:25, which declares, ‘Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe (‫ )לקח שׁחד‬to shed innocent blood.’ With its critique of a bribe, Deut 27:25 stands in the context of Exod 23:8 as well as Deut 16:19.13 The quoted passages from Proverbs show the different uses of a bribe, whether in a juridical context (17:23) or in normal life (15:27). Interestingly, in Proverbs the opposite can also be found. Proverbs 17:8; 18:16 and 13:8 emphasize the positive effects of a gift. (Prov 17:8) A bribe (‫ )שׁחד‬is like a magic stone in the eyes of its possessor;

wherever it turns, it succeeds. (Prov 18:16) A man’s gift (‫ )מתן‬makes room for him

and leads him before the great. (Prov 13:8) The ransom (‫ )כפר‬of a man’s life is his wealth, but a poor man does not listen to a rebuke.

Th e t h re e passages describe cases where a gift can be helpful. The term ‫כפר‬ (ransom) refers to the price paid or demanded for saving a life and is often used in juridical contexts (Exod 21:30; 30:12; Num 35:31, 32),14 ‫ מתן‬means a regular gift, and ‫ שׁחד‬a bribe. In light of ancient Near Eastern wisdom texts and evidence

10. See Carmichael 1967, 198; Weinfeld 1972, 265; Crenshaw 1999, 149; Fox 2009, 952. 11. See Brown 2005, 255. 12. See Weinfeld 1972, 245 and Wagner 2013, 258–77. 13. For the latter, see Müller 2013, 11–15 and n. 45 below. 14. See Waltke 2005, 558.

2. ‘Teach them diligently to your son!’

25

fr om th e Elephantine papyri, a bribe was not uncommon.15 The late Egyptian instruction of Papyrus Insinger encourages the wisdom student to build his own sy st e m of protection. When emphasizing the advantage of such a system, this Demotic text stresses: (10,8) He who gives a gift when there is an accusation is vindicated without being questioned.16

In light of this evidence, it seems that Prov 17:8; 18:16 and 13:8 do not simply describe an actual fact but also the advantages of a gift or a bribe. If one reads Prov 15:27 and 17:23 against this backdrop, both texts seem to argue with a nomistic norm against a common practice. The person who takes a bribe (‫ )שׁחד‬perverts the law (Deut 27:15).

Hermeneutic of Torah: The Use of Deuteronomy in Proverbs 6 When we turn to one of the passages from Proverbs 1–9, which Delitzsch labelled an ‘echo of the old ‫ׁ שׁמע‬Deut vi. 4–9, cf. xi. 18–21’, three different aspects can be seen. The wisdom instruction on the ‘unchaste wife’ in 6:20–35 stands in an intertextual relationship with (i)  the other texts in Proverbs and Deuteronomy on ransom and bribery, (ii) the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 and (iii) the Shema Israel in Deuteronomy 6 and 11. In sum, Proverbs 6 can be regarded as a voice within the book of Proverbs that refers not only to individual laws but also to the concept of the divine Torah connected with the Ten Commandments and the Shema Israel in Deuteronomy.17 Starting with the first aspect, the subject of ransom and bribery (1), Prov 6:35 comes close to the position of Prov 15:27 or 17:23. Proverbs 6:33–35 conclude the wisdom instruction on the unchaste wife in 6:20–35 and reflect the consequences for the young man who commits adultery with an ‘evil woman’ (‫)אשׁ ת רע‬. His reproach will not be removed (v. 33) and the woman’s husband will not accept any compensation: (Prov 6:35) He will not take any ransom (‫)כפר‬ and will not accept though you enlarge the bribe (‫)שׁחד‬.18

In contrast to Prov 13:8; 17:8 or 18:16, here the problem cannot be solved with a bribe. But the position of Prov 6:35 is not only related to Deut 27:15. If one

15. See Porten and Yardeni 1986, A4.10, l. 13–14. 16. Translation Lichtheim 1980, 193. 17. This also relates to the issue of terminology, since the phrase ‘he will not go unpunished’ (‫ )לא ינקה‬also appears in Prov 6:29b (see Yona 2008, 420). 18. For the translation of 6:35, see the discussion in Schipper 2018, 426–28.

26

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

looks at the broader literary context, it can be seen that the man in Prov 6:20– 35 broke one of the Ten Commandments (Deut 5:21): ‘You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.’ The passage on ransom and bribes is part of an argument in Prov 6:20–35 that has significant similarities with the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 (ii).19 Presented in a different order than in Deuteronomy 5, three subjects are mentioned: ‘to covet one’s neighbour’s wife’ (6:25–29), ‘to steal’ (6:30–31), and ‘to commit adultery’ (6:32)20: Deuteronomy

Proverbs

5:21

‫וְ לֹא ַת ְחמֹד ֵא ֶשׁת ֵר ֶﬠָך‬

5:19

‫וְ לֹא ִתּגְ נֹב‬

5:18

‫וְ לֹא ִתּנְ ָאף‬

6:25a 6:29a 6:30a 6:30b 6:32a

‫ל־תּ ְחמֹד יָ ְפיָ הּ ִבּ ְל ָב ֶבָך‬ ַ ‫ַא‬ ‫ל־א ֶשׁת ֵר ֵﬠהוּ‬ ֵ ‫ֵכּן ַה ָבּא ֶא‬ ‫לֹא־יָבוּזוּ ַלגַּ נָּ ב‬ ‫ִכּי יִ גְ נוֹב ְל ַמ ֵלּא נַ ְפשׁוֹ ִכּי יִ ְר ָﬠב‬ ‫ר־לב‬ ֵ ‫נ ֵֹאף ִא ָשּׁה ֲח ַס‬

Proverbs 6:25–32 is linked by keywords to Deut 5:18, 19, and 21. Given that the sequence is part of the larger argumentation in Prov 6:24–32, it is not surprising that we do not find the exact wording of the Decalogue. In contrast, if one looks at the details, it seems that Proverbs 6 presents a sort of ‘midrash’ of Deut 5:18, 19 and 21.21 This can be seen in the quotations of Deut 5:18 in Prov 6:25, 29. Proverbs 6:25– 29 describes the danger of an unchaste wife with three different arguments22 and is framed by allusions to Deut 5:21: the vetitive ‘do not covet’ in v. 25a and the reference to ‘his neighbour’s wife’ in v. 29a. Both phrases together form the tenth commandment: ‘You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.’ A reference to the seventh commandment (‘you shall not commit adultery’) can be found in Prov 6:32. The keyword ‫( נאף‬to commit adultery) is used even though the category is not nomistic but instead sapiential. The one who commits adultery is a person ‘who lacks sense’ (‫)חסר־לב‬, that is, someone without sapiential knowledge (Fox 2000, 39–40). The third reference to the Decalogue in Prov 6:25– 32 goes beyond the other two examples. The phrase in 6:30 is connected to the eighth commandment in Deut 5:19 by the keyword ‫( גנב‬to steal). But the argumentation in 6:30–31 is quite different: (6:30) People do not despise a thief (‫ )גַּ נָּ ב‬if he steals (‫)גנב‬

to satisfy his appetite when hungry; (6:31) but if he is caught, he must repay sevenfold, all the wealth of his house he must give.

19. This was already mentioned by Robert (1934, 52). 20. See also Braulik 2001, 246. 21. See Maier 1997 and Buchanan 1965, 227–39. 22. See the analysis of Waltke (2004, 354–57) and Loader (2014, 281–83).

2. ‘Teach them diligently to your son!’

27

Verse 30 refers to a law in the book of Deuteronomy. According to Deut 23:25 (ET 24), a starving person is allowed to satisfy his hunger in a vineyard as long as he does not collect for storage. The same principle is illustrated in Deut 23:26 (ET 25) with the field of grain. A person can pluck the heads with his hand but shall not wield a sickle.23 Even though Prov 6:30 might have another situation in mind, it fundamentally regards such behaviour as ‘stealing’ (‫)גנב‬. Though one would think that a starving person is allowed to take food for his own appetite, v. 31 stresses the contrary. The one who steals and is caught must repay sevenfold (‫)שׁבעתים‬. Given that in Exodus a thief has to repay twofold or threefold (22:6, 8 [ET 7, 9]) and sometimes fourfold or fivefold (21:37 [ET 22:1]), a penalty of sevenfold is a remarkable intensification of the law. In Genesis 4, when Cain is to be avenged ‘se venfold’ (‫שׁבעתים‬, like Prov 6:31) this is meant as a deterrent. Although the lesser penalties of Exodus are also deterrents, the ‘sevenfold’ is even more drastic, as can be seen in Prov 6:31. Taking the evidence as a whole, Prov 6:30–31 presents an intensification of a law in Deut 23:25–26. By using the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, the Deuteronomic law is sharpened in a way in which the human dimension of Deuteronomy 23 is ruled out. Even a starving person is not allowed to take food, since stealing is against the law. The use of the Decalogue in Prov 6:25–32 is not only juxtaposed to the subject of ransom and bribery in 6:33–35 but also to allusions to the Shema Israel in 6:20–24. In short, each part of the wisdom instruction on the unchaste wife in Prov 6:20–35 has similarities with Deuteronomy. With the first verses of this instruction the allusions become more striking, since they refer to a specific correlation between Wisdom and Torah. (Prov 6:20) Keep, my son, your father’s ‫מצוה‬, forsake not your mother’s ‫תורה‬. (6:21) Bind (‫ )קשׁר‬them always upon your heart (‫)לב‬, tie them about your neck. (6:22) When you walk (‫ )הלך‬about it will guide you, when you lie down (‫)שׁכב‬ it will watch over you, when you wake up (‫ קיץ‬Hif.) it will converse with you, (6:23) for the ‫ מצוה‬is a lamp, and ‫ תורה‬is a light, and disciplinary reproof is a way to life.

Since a number of scholars have analysed the similarities between Prov 6:20– 23 and Deut 6:6– 9/ 11:18– 21, the following overview can be brief.24 The quoted pas sage shares ke ywo rds wit h Deuteronomy 6 and 11: the heart (‫לבב‬/‫ ;לב‬Prov 6:21a; Deut 6:7; 11:18a), the verb ‫‘ קשׁר‬to bind’ (Prov 6:21a, Deut 6:8a, 11:18b) and the verbs ‫‘ הלך‬to walk’ (Prov 6:22a; Deut 6:7; 11:19) and ‫‘ שׁכב‬to lie down’ (Prov 6:22b; Deut 6:7; 11:19).25 These keywords refer in Deuteronomy 6 and 11 to a specific concept of the divine Torah. The Torah of YHWH should be taken as a

23. Gerhard von Rad (1966, 106) interpreted this as a ‘humanistic dimension’ of the law. 24.  See, for example, Fishbane 1977; Maier 1997; Braulik 2001; Schipper 2012; Berlejung 2012. 25. See Schipper 2012, 235–54.

28

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

reminder on the forehead, hands, and doorposts and also be transmitted to further generations: (Deut 6:7, cf. 11:19) You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and you walk (‫ )הלך‬on the way and when you lie down (‫ )שׁכב‬and you rise up.

In light of Deut 6:7 and 11:19, the wording of Prov 6:22 sounds like an implementation of Deuteronomy. The parental instruction should be taken like the divine Torah to determine the whole course of life. Even though the imagery of Proverbs refers to an amulet, which is different from Deuteronomy,26 the textual strategy is the same. In Deuteronomy 6 and 11 the divine law is revealed to the people of Israel in the same way that children are educated by their parents; the people are instructed to hand down to the next generation what YHWH told his people through Moses.27 The introduction of Prov 6:20– 23 follows this concept, not in the sense of a quotation of whole verses but by using specific keywords. And with this intertextual allusion, the ‫ מצוה‬of t he father and the ‫ תורה‬of the mot her come close to the ‫ תורה‬and ‫ מצוה‬of God. Even though they appear in the textual strategy of Proverbs as a parental instruction. This instruction refers to the will of YHWH (Schipper 2013, 58– 60). Thus, Prov 6:20– 23 continues a theological concept that is initiated by Deuteronomy with the only difference that the addressees of Deuteronomy are the people of Israel, while the book of Proverbs focuses on the individual student of wisdom.

Proverbs, Deuteronomy, and the Discourse on ‘Wisdom and Torah’ Proverbs 6:20–23 is not the only text within Proverbs 1–9 that uses Deuteronomy 6 and 11; the introduction of the wisdom instructions in Proverbs 7 and Proverbs 3 also draws on these chapters.28 Particularly interesting here is Prov 3:1–5. Although referring to Deuteronomy 6 and 11 in the same way as Proverbs 6 and 7, the paragraph presents a different thought: (Prov 3:5) Trust in YHWH (‫ )בטח אל יהוה‬with your whole heart, but do not rely on you own insight (‫)בינתך‬.

Th e verse marks a sharp difference betwee n human understanding (‫ )בינה‬and trusting in YHWH (‫)בטח אל יהוה‬. Although Prov 3:1– 5 follows Deuteronomy 6

26. See Berlejung (2012, 143–51) for a slightly different position. 27. See Braulik 1997, 51 with n. 159. 28. See Schipper 2012, 230–41.

2. ‘Teach them diligently to your son!’

29

and 11, it does not present a sapiential Torah like Prov 6:20–23. The divine Torah is placed in fundamental contrast to the insight of the wisdom student. It would go beyond the scope of this chapter to deal with the consequences of this evidence for the composition of the book of Proverbs or with what can be called the ‘discourse of wisdom and Torah’.29 But if we look from Prov 3:5 to the book of Proverbs as a whole, a passage from the end of the book comes into focus. Strictly speaking, in Proverbs 30 we can find a voice within the book of Proverbs which uses the Decalogue like Proverbs 6 but presents a concept of wisdom which comes close to Prov 3:5: The sapiential instruction cannot be determined by the divine Torah but stands in sharp contrast to it.30 The ‘Words of Agur’ in Prov 30:1–14 can be divided into two parts:  the relationship to God (vv. 1–9) and the relationship to fellow humans (vv. 10–14). The first part begins with a critical reflection on the human being and wisdom and ends with a prayer: (30:7) Two things I ask of you;

do not withhold [them] from me before I die. (30:8) A deceit and lie keep far away from me. Poverty or riches do not give me. Provide me my quota of food, (30:9) lest I become sated and dissemble and I say, ‘Who is YHWH?’ and lest I become poor and steal, and misuse the name of my God.

The passage contains two references to the Decalogue (Meinhold 1991, 496). The wording of v. 9a ‘and lest I become poor and steal’ refers to the eighth commandment ‘you shall not steal’ (Deut 5:19). The phrase in v. 9b ‘and misuse the name of my God’ can be compared with the third commandment ‘you shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain’ (Deut 5:11). The wording of Prov 30:9 as well as the context shows that the commandments are used in the same way as in Prov 6:25–32. We do not have quotations but allusions where the main idea of the commandment is taken up. This can also be seen in Prov 30:11: the phrase ‘a generation that curses its father and does not bless its mother’ alludes to the fifth commandment in Deut 5:16 (‘Honor your father and your mother’), but not in a literal way. The connection is more at the level of the main idea, since one who curses one’s father and does not bless one’s mother does not honour one’s parents as demanded by the Decalogue. Further, like Prov 6:20–35, the allusions to the Decalogue occur alongside another similarity with Deuteronomy. Just before the prayer in 30:7–9, a reference to the so-called canon formula can be found31: 29. See Schipper 2012, 2013. 30. For the following, see Schipper 2013, 69–71. 31. See Wildeboer 1897, 86 and Crenshaw 1999, 149.

30

Reading Proverbs Intertextually (Prov 30:6) Do not add to his word, lest he convict you and you be proved a liar. (Deut 4:2) You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, in order to keep the commandments of YHWH your God that I command you.

The passage from Proverbs 30 draws on the first part of Deut 4:2 and omits the second half of the canon formula ‘do not take away from his word’.32 This is done because of a fundamental difference between the sapiential teaching and the divine Torah. Whereas Proverbs 6 builds on Deuteronomy and ‘adds’ a sapiential midrash of the Torah, Proverbs 30 rules this out by stressing a fundamental contrast: (30:2) Surely I am more a beast than a human being I do not have the understanding (‫ )בינה‬of a human being, (30:3) I have not learned (‫ )למד‬wisdom (‫)חכמה‬, or have knowledge of the holy one (‫)דעת קדשׁים‬.

The author neglected ‫ בינה‬in the sense of understanding and declared the human being to be a beast (‫)בער‬.33 And in order to make this thought explicit, he did the same as the author of the wisdom instructions in Proverbs 6, using Deuteronomistic phraseology and referring to central passages from the book of Deuteronomy. In the sentence ‘I have not learned wisdom’, the keyword for the didactic concept of Deuteronomy has been taken up (‫)למד‬.34 But by using this keyword and by referring to central passages from Deuteronomy, such as Deuteronomy 4 and 5, Proverbs 30 presents a different concept of wisdom. Whereas according to Deuteronomy the divine will, YHWH’s Torah, can be taug ht ( ‫ למד‬Piel; see Deut 6:1; 11:19) from one generation to the other, Proverbs 30 turns the Deuteronomistic idea upside down. Humans cannot learn wisdom and, at the end of their study, can only compare themselves with an uncultivated beast. What is presented in Prov 6:20– 35 as a concept where keeping the divine will, that is, the commandments, can be taught to the next generation by wisdom instruction, is declared in Proverbs 30 as something that cannot be learned by humans but only requested in a prayer from God. In sum, Proverbs 6 and 30 present two different concepts of ‘Wisdom and Torah’: on the one hand, the concept of a sapiential Torah which influences all areas of life,35 and on the other hand, the insight of a fundamental difference between human knowledge and the divine Torah. In both texts this is done by

32. See Fox 2009, 952. 33. For the meaning of the word ‫בער‬, see Schipper 2012, 251, n. 143. 34. See, for example, Deut 4:1, 5, 10; 6:1; 11:19; 14:23. The root ‫ למד‬is mentioned in Proverbs only twice: 30:3 and 5:13 (see Waltke 2005, 470). 35. See, for example, Prov 6:23, which come s close to the ‘Torah wisdom’ of Ps 119:105: ‘for ‫ מצוה‬is a lamp and ‫ תורה‬a light, and disciplinary reproof is the way to life’.

2. ‘Teach them diligently to your son!’

31

drawing on the same biblical book, Deuteronomy, and by using the same literary technique, keywords and allusions, but with a totally different outcome.

Summary When we summarize our argumentation so far, it can be said, first, that previous research has seen something right. There is evidence which supports the assumption that the authors of Deuteronomy were familiar with the world of wisdom, and there is also evidence for a use of Deuteronomy within Proverbs. To start with the first, it cannot be ruled out that on the level of single proverbs the world of wisdom has influenced Deuteronomic law. Whether on the level of syntax and style or whether on the level of particular subjects, passages from Deuteronomy share the same values as the so-called proverbial wisdom in Proverbs 10–29. Passages such as Deut 19:19 and 24:7 or Prov 15:10b and 19:18 are both bound to a worldview which believes in a world order determined by the act- consequence nexus. Whether this can be explained by a direct influence of particular Proverbs on Deuteronomy or instead by the scribal education of the authors of both books cannot be decided. The crucial point is that within the different parts of the book of Proverbs, a characteristic use of Deuteronomic law and other key texts like the Decalogue or the Shema Israel can be found. This also means that with reference to a juridical norm an actual practice is declared to be bad (see Prov 15:27; 17:23 in contrast to Prov 17:8; 18:16; 13:8). The passages on bribery illustrate how different positions in Proverbs can be explained by the use of a Deuteronomic law (see Deut 27:25). Interestingly, the reflection on bribery continued beyond these passages. In a detailed exegesis of Deut 16:18–20, Reinhard Müller (2013, 14–15) has shown that Deut 16:19 draws on sapiential categories as well as on Exod 23:8. In Deut 16:19, a bribe is ruled out ‘because a bribe makes the eyes of wise men blind’ (‫)כי השׁחד יעור עיני חכמים‬. It is a fundamental result of contemporary research that later redactional layers in the bo ok of Deuteronomy can be c onnecte d wit h a literary discourse on ‘Wisdom a nd Torah’. This is als o tr ue for Deut 4:5– 8. According to 4:6 it will be Israel’s ‘wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the nations who will hear all these laws’ and will say: ‘Surely, this great nation is a wise and discerning people (‫)עם־חכם ונבון‬.36 Deuteronomy 4 presents a combination of Wisdom and Torah which can be contextualized by other literature from the Second Temple Period. This is also the background for the use of Deuteronomy in Proverbs 6 and 30. Starting with the evidence itself, the wisdom instruction on the unchaste wife in Prov 6:20–35 is structured by three allusions to Deuteronomy. Verse 35 refers to the subject of bribery, vv. 25–32 can be read as a sort of midrash on the Decalogue and v. 20–23 draws on the Shema Israel. By defining wisdom in light of the divine Torah, Prov 6:20–35 presents a line of thought where actual practices as well as Deuteronomic law are corrected by the Decalogue (Deut 23:25–26 and 5:19; see

36. See Krüger 2013, 37–41.

32

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Prov 6:30–31). By taking the Decalogue as a norm which stands over individual laws, Proverbs 6 forms a link with the outer frame of the Book of Deuteronomy. The Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 and the Shema Israel in Deuteronomy 6 serve as a codified law, as is demonstrated by the so-called canon formula in Deuteronomy 4. Precisely this concept is taken up in Proverbs 30 to present a totally different view on ‘Wisdom and Torah’. It is not a sapiential Torah that can guide the human beings (Proverbs 6), since all instruction and education turn out to be lacking in comparison to the divine will as expressed in the Torah of YHWH. In sum, the interplay between Proverbs and Deuteronomy is much more complex than previous research has acknowledged. There are cases where the world of wisdom has influenced biblical law or even the literati which stand behind Deuteronomy. But there are also examples where Deuteronomy has been taken by the authors of Proverbs as a norm, whether in arguing for a connection between the divine law, YHWH’s Torah, and human wisdom, or in marking a contrast between the two. All of this can be seen as part of a theological debate on the relationship between Wisdom and Torah, or, more precisely, between an empirical approach based on (sapiential) insights into the world order and the concept of a divine Torah revealed by God himself.

Bibliography Berlejung, Angelika. 2012. Zeichen der Verbundenheit und Medien der Erinnerung: Zur Religionsgeschichte und Theologie von Dtn 6,6–9 und verwandten Texten. Pages 131–65 in Ex Oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Raik Heckl. ABIG 39. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1995. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. 2nd ed. OBS. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braulik, Georg. 1997. Weisheit im Buch Deuteronomium. Pages 225–71 in Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. Edited by Georg Braulik. SBAB 24. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Braulik, Georg. 2001. Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Ijob, Sprichwörter, Rut. Pages 214–85 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und seiner Nachgeschichte. Edited by Georg Braulik. SBAB 33. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Brown, William P. 2005. The Law and the Sages. A Reexamination of Tora in Proverbs. Pages 251–80 in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr. Edited by John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Buchanan, George W. 1965. Midrashim Pré-Tannaïtes: A propos de Prov I–IX. RB 72:227–39. Carmichael, Calum M. 1967. Deuteronomic Laws, Wisdom and Historical Traditions. JSS 12:198–206. Clifford, Richard J. 1999. Proverbs: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster. Crenshaw, James L. 1999. The Deuteronomists and the Writings. Pages 145–58 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

2. ‘Teach them diligently to your son!’

33

Delitzsch, Franz. 1874. Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Translated by Matthew George Eaton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Fichtner, Johannes. 1933. Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jüdischen Ausprägung: Eine Studie zur Nationalisierung der Weisheit in Israel. BZAW 62. Giessen: Töpelmann. Fishbane, Michael. 1977. Torah and Tradition. Pages 275–300 in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Edited by Douglas A. Knight. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress. Fox, Michael V. 2000. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Frankenberg, Wilhelm. 1898. Die Sprüche. HKAT II/3,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gerstenberger, Erhard. 1965. Wesen und Herkunft des ‘apodiktischen Rechts’. WMANT 20. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Hitzig, Ferdinand. 1858. Die Sprüche Salomo’s. Zürich: Orell Füssli. Krüger, Thomas. 2013. Law and Wisdom According to Deut 4:5–8. Pages 35–54 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. JSJSup 163. Leiden: Brill. Lichtheim, Miriam. 1980. Ancient Egyptian Literature. Vol III. The Late Period. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Loader, James A. 2014. Proverbs 1–9. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters. Maier, Christl. 1997. ‘Begehre nicht ihre Schönheit in deinem Herzen’ (Prov 6,25): Eine Aktualisierung des Ehebruchsverbotes aus persischer Zeit. BibInt 5:46–62. Malfroy, Jean. 1965. Sagesse et loi dans le Deuteronome. VT 15:49–65. Meinhold, Arndt. 1991. Die Sprüche: Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1–15. Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Müller, Reinhard. 2013. The Blinded Eyes of the Wise: Transformation of Wisdom Tradition in Deut 16:19–20. Pages 9–33 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. JSJSup 163. Leiden: Brill. Perdue, Leo G. 2000. Proverbs. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni. 1986. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press. Rad, Gerhard von. 1966. Deuteronomy. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Richter, Walter. 1991. Recht und Ethos: Versuch einer Ortung des weisheitlichen Mahnspruches. SANT 15. Munich: Kosel. Robert, André. 1934. Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov I–IX. RB 43:42–68, 172– 204, 374–84. Rüterswörden, Udo. 2012. Das kasuistische Recht und die Weisheit. Pages 323–31 in Ex Oriente Lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments für Rüdiger Lux zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Raik Heckl. ABIG 39. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Schipper, Bernd U. 2012. Hermeneutik der Tora. Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1–9. BZAW 432. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schipper, Bernd U. 2013. When Wisdom Is Not Enough! The Discourse on Wisdom and Torah and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs. Pages 55–80 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. JSJSup 163. Leiden: Brill.

34

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Schipper, Bernd U. 2018. Sprüche (Proverbia) 1–15. BKAT 17/1. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Veijola, Timo. 2006. Law and Wisdom. The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teaching of Law. Pages 144–64 in Timo Veijola. Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetischhistorische Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by Walter Dietrich. FRLANT 224. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wagner, Volker. 2013. Israelitisches Recht in der Weisheitsliteratur des Alten Testament. ZABR 19:267–81. Waltke, Bruce K. 2004. The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Waltke, Bruce K. 2005. The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 15–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Weinfeld, Moshe. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon. Wildeboer, G. 1897. Die Sprüche. KHC 15. Freiburg i.B.: Mohr. Yona, Shamir. 2008. The Influence of Legal Style on the Style of Aphorism: The Origin of the Retribution Formula and the Clause lo’yinnaqeh ‘He Will Not Go Unpunished’ in the Book of Proverbs. Pages 413–23 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Chapter 3 W I SD OM D E F I N E D T H R OU G H N A R R AT I V E A N D I N T E RT E X T UA L N E T WO R K :   1 K I N G S 1 – 1 1 A N D P R OV E R B S Will Kynes

Never neglect the charms of narrative for the human heart. – Davies (1996, 75) The perceived dissonance between the depiction of Solomon in 1 Kings 1–11 and the wisdom attributed to him in Proverbs has long been a source of scholarly discomfort. At the turn of the nineteenth century, for example, Georg Laurenz Bauer (1801) struggled to reconcile the ‘enlightened and right way’ Solomon speaks of God in his writings with his behaviour in the historical books, where he worships ‘only a national God in Jehovah’. He concluded, ‘It is undeniable that the historical books follow more the general principles of popular religion than the concepts that wiser and more talented Israelites acquired through reflection and scholarly education’ (152; trans. Schwáb 2013, 21). More recently, Brevard Childs (1979, 552), even while pursuing his canonical approach, was unwilling to acknowledge that the Solomonic superscription of Proverbs connected the book with anything more than the ‘sapiential material’ in Kings, lest ‘the uniqueness of the sapiential witness’ be merged with ‘more dominant biblical themes’ through Solomon’s participation in Israel’s sacred history. Walther Zimmerli (1964 [1963], 147)  also acknowledged that the report of the divine gift of wisdom to the king of God’s covenant people (1 Kgs 3:14–15) might well lead one to deduce a relationship between history and Wisdom Literature. And yet, he argued, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes make no attempt to incorporate ‘this way of thinking’. In his commitment to this separation, he even argued that though both books speak of the king, this king ‘is never the anointed king of God’s people Israel and the son of David, who received God’s special promise’, despite the fact that Solomon is explicitly identified in Prov 1:1; 10:1; 25:1 and strongly implied in Eccl 1:1, 12. In fact, Proverbs and 1 Kings 1– 11 are not only intertwined by the figure of Solomon but also by the concept of wisdom. If mention of the word ‘wisdom’ (‫ חכמה‬and its derivatives), which appears twenty-one times, or interest in the topic are the main criteria for the category, then 1 Kings 1–11 should be chief among the

36

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Wisdom texts (Whybray 1974, 91; Lemaire 1995, 106– 107). Some, such as R. B. Y. Scott (1960, 269–71), have recognized that there are several types of wisdom in the Solomonic account: wisdom for skilful and successful rule (1 Kgs 2:1–2, 5–9; 5:15–26 [ET 5:1–12]), wisdom as discernment to render true justice (3:4–15, 16– 28), and Solomon’s superior knowledge and intellect (1 Kgs 5:9–14 [ET 4:29–34]; 10:1–10, 13, 23–24). However, most, like Childs, have followed Scott’s conclusion that only the latter, intellectual aspect of wisdom connects the king to the Wisdom Literature. A modern definition of Wisdom Literature as enlightened, universalistic, scholarly reflection, distinct from Israel’s history and cult, has been projected back onto the description of Solomon in Kings, sundering most of it from the Solomon of Proverbs and the wisdom attributed to him there. In this chapter, I will reverse this hermeneutic, instead reading Proverbs according to the definition of wisdom 1 Kings 1–11 provides. In the past, interpreters have ignored, excluded, or denigrated several of the features of wisdom mentioned in 1 Kings, employing a definition of wisdom that Katharine Dell (2010, 35–36) argues is ‘too narrow’. Instead, this reading will use those features to uncover a broader definition of wisdom in Proverbs, recognizing that it, as Dell writes, ‘is not a monochrome concept but has different manifestations’. Indeed, given the numerous connections between them, ‘it is hard to imagine ancient readers interpreting these two texts independently of each other’ (Camp 2000, 150).

Intertextual Method 1 Kings 1–11 does not provide a succinct dictionary definition of wisdom. Instead, the account depicts the term’s semantic range, including its antonyms (1 Kgs 11:1–8) in a narrative. Norman Whybray (1968, 72)  notes the long-recognized pedagogical power of narrative to grip imagination and conscience evidenced in parables and fables from both Israel and the broader ancient Near East. He writes, ‘A vivid account of the life of specific persons, embellished with circumstantial detail, is a hundred times more effective as a means of persuasion then a brief, bare statement of fact or principle, whether to sell a commercial product or to teach a moral or religious lesson.’ He argues that the records of political intrigue in the Succession Narrative (2 Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1–2) result from a deliberate effort ‘to illustrate specific proverbial teaching’ for school pupils (95). Solomon’s execution of his political rivals in 1 Kings 2, for example, demonstrates the ‘royal wisdom’ of Prov 20:26: ‘A wise king winnows the wicked, and drives the wheel over them’ (90). Whybray is not alone in considering narrative a means of inculcating wisdom, whether that is the Joseph Narrative (von Rad 1953); the ‘edifying stories’ of Jonah, Ruth, and Esther (Wolff 1973 [1970], 120–3); the exemplification of the difference between wisdom and folly through Abigail and Nabal, Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, and Tamar and Judah (Sneed 2011, 70); or Abraham as the ‘parent idéal’ according to the proverbial model (Ska 2014). In this volume, Dell argues the literary interplay

3. Wisdom Defined through Narrative

37

between the book of Ruth and maxims from Proverbs is an instance of ‘didactic intertextuality’. As James Kugel (2001, 22) writes, ‘In the world of the ancient sage, a story had always been an excellent way of teaching people proper conduct, and such later wisdom narratives as Tobit or Susannah attest to the durability of this genre. Indeed, even Proverbs’ stern warning against adultery (or foreign wisdom) is introduced sub specie fabulae.’ Rather than the widely debated historical value of the depiction of Solomon in 1 Kings 1–11 (e.g., Crenshaw 2010, 42–50; Dell 2010), therefore, I will pursue its commonly overlooked hermeneutical significance. This material may be late and legendary, as James Crenshaw argues, but even he acknowledges that the Solomonic connection must tell us something about how wisdom was understood. Without specifying a precise date for these legends, he claims that Solomon exemplifies the success that wisdom promises (Crenshaw 2010, 50). To this end, the other types of wisdom Scott recognizes in the text deserve more attention. He also observes that the Deuteronomist glorifies Solomon as builder of the Temple, which the text presents as a further expression of wisdom.1 The text incorporates prophetic elements as well (see below). Just as Proverbs’ superscription invites the book to be read according to the wisdom attributed to Solomon in 1 Kings, so the variegated presentation of wisdom in that account draws other texts across the canon into the interpretation of Proverbs. This expands the intertextual network in which the book and its concept of wisdom are understood beyond the boundaries of Wisdom Literature.2 Though Proverbs certainly shares a number of features with the books in that category, a comparison with 1 Kings 1–11 reveals that the book also has significant verbal, formal, and thematic similarities with other groups of texts. When making this intertextual comparison, I am not attempting to reconstruct a particular diachronic relationship between the two texts. I  aim instead to demonstrate that wisdom has a similar semantic range in both, which illuminates how wisdom was understood in ancient Israel however the texts are historically related. I am also not attempting to argue that 1 Kings 1–11 should be considered Wisdom Literature or its content the result of Wisdom influence. Both these concepts encourage precisely the type of overly strict divisions between texts and traditions that this chapter aims to overcome.3 Similarly, I  am not arguing that Proverbs should be classified in these other categories of texts with which it shares these affinities. Proverbs is not historical narrative, law, liturgy, or prophecy, but

1.  Taking all the references to wisdom in the Bible into account, including those in 1 Kings, Stéphanie Anthonioz (2016, 56)  creates a similar list of types of sapiential knowledge:  building and manufacturing (including of the tabernacle and temple), governance, and scribal concerns about writing, singing, or praying. 2.  For a developed intertextual network approach to the so-called Wisdom texts, see Kynes forthcoming. 3. For more on the weaknesses of the ‘Wisdom Literature’ category, see Sneed 2011 and Kynes forthcoming.

38

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

its affinities with texts commonly categorized as such create alternative textual groupings around the various definitions of wisdom in 1 Kings that cut across these classificatory barriers, as previous scholarly work noting such cross-category connections has demonstrated.

Political Education The first definition of wisdom in 1 Kings 1–11 is education for good governance. Solomon receives his wisdom in 1 Kgs 3:9 after asking, ‘Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people.’ Even so, Crenshaw (2010, 44)  declares that ‘the putative “wisdom” language [in 1 Kgs 3:4–15] belongs to royal ceremony’, and Scott (1960, 270) claims that this political type of wisdom ‘has nothing to do with the making of proverbs’. However, some argue significant sections of Proverbs, such as chapters 28–29 (Malchow 1985; Tavares 2007), if not the entire composition, commonly deal with political education, were produced in a court setting, and were intended primarily to train courtiers (e.g., McKane 1970; Ansberry 2010). They would disagree with the disjunction Crenshaw and Scott create between the proverbial and the political. Passages such as Prov 4:7–9; 8:14–16, 23 reflect the common ancient Near Eastern conviction that ‘wisdom was required in quite a special way by those who were charged with the duty of government’ (Porteous 1960, 253–54; cf. von Rad 1993 [1970], 15–16; Ansberry 2010, 11–35). Whybray’s work on the Succession Narrative groups Proverbs with the Succession Narrative according to their common interest in wise government. The mention of Solomon’s ‘wisdom’ in 1 Kgs 2:6, 9 bridges the artificial boundary between this narrative and the account of his ‘wise’ reign beginning in 1 Kings 3 (Gordon 1995, 104). Though it must be acknowledged that the presentation of wisdom in these historical texts is somewhat ambiguous and even ‘divided’ (98), the same could be said of Job and Ecclesiastes. Like the Wisdom Literature corpus, which incorporates a wide variety of smaller genres, interest in a common theme, in this case political training, ties these texts together, not formal similarity. Reading Proverbs in this group of texts reveals the importance of that political theme in the book and invites connections to other political texts, such as Genesis 2–3, the Joseph Narrative, the Succession Narrative, Solomon’s Reign, the prophetic critique of the royal counsellors in Isaiah and Jeremiah,4 and Ezekiel’s criticism of the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:1–19). These form a group of texts (though not a formal literary classification) that Maurice Gilbert (2003, 17) argues dispute a certain conception of power that pretends to be wise without actually practicing the teaching of the Wisdom sages. In 1 Kings 3–11, for example, Gilbert claims that even the wisdom of Solomon fails because of his political and religious extravagances. Whether or not a separate class of sages were responsible for

4. See the section ‘Inspired Instruction’.

3. Wisdom Defined through Narrative

39

teaching wisdom, Gilbert rightly observes that just political power was a crucial application of the concept.

Ethical Paraenesis Second, 1 Kings 1–11 defines wisdom as ethical paraenesis. When Solomon asks for skill in governance, he requests forensic wisdom, the ability ‘to discern between good and evil’ (1 Kgs 3:9). The text puts this discernment in the context of the law. His dream ends with the divine proclamation, ‘If you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your life’ (1 Kgs 3:14) (see Weinfeld 1972, 257). The broader account is widely considered to have a strong Deuteronomic cast, thereby creating ‘a textual conversation between wisdom and Torah’ (Camp 2000, 147). When Solomon defies the law in 1 Kings 9–11, his wisdom becomes folly, which suggests that efficacious wisdom must be subservient to the Law, at least as presented in Deuteronomy (Parker 1992). Solomon’s behaviour in Kings therefore violates the wisdom attributed to him in Prov 3:7; wise in his own eyes, he fails to ‘fear the Lord and turn away from evil’. While Deuteronomy equates wisdom with observance of the commandments (Deut 4:6), the broader context of these words in Proverbs 3 identifies wisdom, in effect, with observing the law (Blenkinsopp 1995, 156). Deuteronomy reverberates throughout Proverbs 3, in the emphasis on choosing life (3:8; cf. Deut 4:40; 5:16; 11:9, 21), the mention of offering first fruits (3:9; cf. Deut 14:22–29; 26:1–2), and allusions to the Shema (e.g., Prov 3:3, 5; Deut 6:4–9) (see Overland 2000, 440; Anthonioz 2016, 45–6), which recur in Prov 6:20–24 and 7:1–5 (Dell 2006, 170– 6; Schipper 2013). These features contribute to the widespread Deuteronomic flavour of Proverbs 1–9 (Delitzsch 1873, 29), in which ‘instruction’ may even refer to Deuteronomy itself (Weeks 2007, 103, 126, 172). Collectively, these allusions equate parental instruction with the will of YHWH and continue the parental transmission of the law initiated by Deuteronomy (see Prov 3:12; Deut 8:5; Brown 2005, 272–78; Weeks 2007, 102–3; Schipper 2013, 60). Further ‘echoes’ of Deuteronomy also ring out across the rest of Proverbs. These include common references to the falsification of weights (Deut 25:13–16; cf. Prov 11:1; 20:23), moving property boundaries (Deut 19:14; cf. Prov 22:28; 23:10), treatment of slaves (Deut 23:16; cf. Prov 30:10), partiality in judgement (Deut 1:17; cf. Prov 24:23), and pursuit of righteousness (Deut 16:20; cf. Prov 21:21; see Weinfeld 1972, 265–74; Brown 2005, 268–72; Dell 2006, 176–78; Fox 2009, 951–52). The repeated references to torah in 28:4–9 suggest a broader Deuteronomic background to the Hezekian collection (Prov 25:1–29:27; Brown 2005, 268–72), and allusions to Deuteronomy also appear in the Words of Agur in Proverbs 30 (e.g., Prov 30:6; cf. Deut 4:2; 13:1 [ET 12:32]; Fox 2009, 956–57; Saur 2014, 579). The resonance between Proverbs and texts in the Torah is broader than potential allusions to Deuteronomy, though. Law and Wisdom share similar ethical obligations (Scott 1961, 4), including a common concern for the welfare of

40

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

society in general (Gerstenberger 1965, 49). This shared content is matched with formal similarities (though not complete identification) both between the casuistic case law and popular proverbial sayings, and between apodictic commandments and sapiential instruction (Weeks 2010, 138; see also Blenkinsopp 1995, 92, 151). Whether or not this ‘congruence in form and content’ means ‘a common background for wisdom maxims and legal commandments can no longer be denied’ (Gerstenberger 1965, 50), it certainly legitimates reading Proverbs together with legal texts such as Deuteronomy in a common literary grouping. Appropriately, then, a recent move towards reading the Law as ethical paraenesis has drawn it closer to the Wisdom Literature (Barton 2014, 21–22). Along these lines, John Gammie (1990, 66, 51) argues, ‘the entirety of the books of Deuteronomy, Proverbs and Sirach may be assigned without any hesitation’ to the genre ‘Paraenetic Literature’, given their pervasive use of paraenesis, ‘a form of address which not only commends, but actually enumerates precepts or maxims which pertain to moral aspiration and the regulation of human conduct’ (emphasis original). For Gammie, Proverbs has a closer generic affiliation to these other Paraenetic texts than the rest of the Wisdom Literature, which he places in a different subdivision of ‘Reflective Essays’. Gammie’s proposed genre highlights a significant affinity between Proverbs and legal texts, though it is only one of many ways texts could be grouped in the Hebrew Bible.

Cultic Guidance Providing a third definition of wisdom as cultic fidelity, 1 Kings associates the concept with the building of the temple by presenting Solomon as ‘the wise master-builder’ of God’s house (Gordon 1995, 100). Hiram, king of Tyre, responds to Solomon’s plan to build a house for the Lord by praising his wisdom (1 Kgs 5:7), and Hiram, the Tyrian craftsman, is filled with wisdom for the task of doing the building (1 Kgs 7:14). Chronicles accentuates this cultic characterization of Solomon’s wisdom (e.g., 2 Chron 2:12; see Abadie 2008, 348–50). This accords with the broader sapiential significance of architecture indicated by the close parallels between the descriptions of YHWH’s foundation and filling of the earth (Prov 3:19–20), the building and stocking of a house (Prov 24:3–4), Hiram’s construction of the temple (1 Kgs 7:13– 14), and Bezalel’s crafting of the tabernacle (Exod 31:1– 3; Van Leeuwen 2010 ). All these passages include the parallel terms ‘wisdom’ ( ‫)חכמה‬, ‘skill’ ( ‫)תבונה‬, and ‘knowledge’ ( ‫ )דעת‬in the same order in similar architectural contexts. Raymond Van Leeuwen argues that in the wider ancient Near Eastern conception of wisdom, all these types of construction were considered of a piece, interlocked like Russian dolls. The ‘West er n s eparation of th eo retical and practical wisdom’, which contributes to th e sch olarly distinct io n between Wisdom Lite rature and the historical traditions of Israel, he argues, has fragmented this integrated presentation of reality and action ‘grounded in a creation suffused with the wisdom of God’

3. Wisdom Defined through Narrative

41

(418– 1 9). Bálint Ká ro ly Zabán (2012), then, claims the three speeches of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 (1:20–33; 8:1–36; 9:1–6) integrate the imagery of path, house, and treasure with the ancient Near Eastern imagery of building and filling a house to build these chapters into a cohesive argument around these pillars of the house of Wisdom. Zoltan Schwáb (2013, 190) takes this argument further still, and claims that the book of Proverbs as a whole ‘understands wise living as living in a temple’. He argues that the temple- universe- wisdom topos found throughout the ancient Near East and across the Bible, from Genesis 1 onward, combined with the close connections between Proverbs and 1 Kings 1– 11, suggest that the temple is the ‘hermeneutical key’ for Proverbs (202). Read together in the canon, the two texts suggest, ‘living wisely is like building a temple’ (205).5 Schwáb (2013, 205–208) draws on similarities between Proverbs and a number of psalms to support his cultic interpretation of Proverbs.6 Psalm 15, his prime example, is generally not considered a ‘Wisdom psalm’, likely because it appears to be a cultic entrance liturgy. However, the qualifications it requires for the one who may abide in YHWH’s tent and dwell on his holy hill (v. 1) are all ethical behaviours endorsed by Proverbs. These include ‘walking blamelessly’ (‫;הולך תמים‬ Ps 15:2; Prov 28:18) and not ‘doing harm’ (‫ )רעה‬to one’s ‘neighbour’ (‫( )רע‬Ps 15:5; Prov 3:29), both phrases uniquely used in these pairs of passages. According to Schw áb, therefore, as Proverbs advocates temple- worthy behaviour, it sanctifies sec u l a r, everyday lif e, transforming it into liturg y, such that ‘[m]aking wise decisions becomes worship of Yahweh’ (211–12). Gi v e n th e book’s use of ‘the language of t he priestly world’, such as ‫תועבה‬ (‘ab omination’; 17:15; 20:10), divine ‫‘( רצו ן‬pleasure’; 11:1, 20; 12:22), and ‫טהור‬ (‘c l e a n’; 15:26) (Zim mer li 1964 [1963], 1 54), and the references to a range of cultic practices in Proverbs, including sacrifice (15:8; 21:3; 21:27), prayer (15:29; 28:9), vows (20:25; 31:2), sacred lots (16:33), feasts (17:1), and the offering of first fruits (3:9– 10), one might also argue that in Proverbs properly worshipping Yahweh becomes a wise decision.7 Solomon’s extended prayer (1 Kgs 8:22–53), his extravagant sacrifices (1 Kgs 8:63), and the judgement levied against his idolatry (1 Kgs 11:11) in the narrative suggest the same. Comparing these texts indicates wi s d o m a nd worship, cr eation and cult are more intertwined than modern conceptions of Wisdom Literature may lead one to believe.

5. Similarly, Claudia Camp (2000, 183) speaks of a shift in Proverbs ‘to the temple as the book that, in turn, is Wisdom’s house’ (emphasis original). 6. Dell (2006, 181–85) likewise notes a broad range of connections between Proverbs and the Psalms and takes the existence of ‘wisdom psalms’ as ‘[p]erhaps the most compelling evidence of mutual influence’ between sapiential and cultic traditions. 7.  See Perdue 1977, 145–46, 155–65; Brown 2005, 262–63; Dell 2006, 178–80. Perdue (1977, 160) claims, ‘The wise were quite aware of cultic theology and were in accord with it’, to which Brown (2005, 263) adds that ‘the sages drew from cultic legislation and actively endorsed cultic participation’ (emphasis original).

42

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Inspired Instruction Finally, 1 Kings 1–11 defines wisdom as inspired instruction. Though Solomon’s dream at Gibeon may have been originally intended to give temple-building instructions, as it now stands, it resonates with a prophetic call (1 Kgs 3:7; cf. Jer 1:5–6; Weinfeld 1972, 252). Moreover, Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8:22–53) is ‘prophetic’ in its presentation of history (Ben Zvi 2013, 86). Early Jewish and Christian interpreters frequently referred to Solomon as a ‘prophet’, which, Gerald Sheppard (2000, 389) argues, ‘confirms his appointment by God to “write” and to “testify”, like Moses (cf. Deut 31:24–30)’. Through its attribution to this Solomon, who received his wisdom from God (1 Kgs 3:12), the book of Proverbs claims for itself an authority that comes not from human reason, but divine inspiration (Sneed 2015, 254–55). As Prov 2:6 declares, ‘The LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding’ (cf. 21:30). While affirming that true wisdom comes from God, Proverbs, like the prophets, is sceptical of autonomous human insight (Prov 3:5–7; 9:10; 15:33; cf. Isa 11:2–4; 33:5–6; Jer 8:8–9; Whedbee 1971, 126; Van Leeuwen 1990, 300, 306). This means the sages cannot be distinguished from the prophets by the former’s reliance purely on human reason (contra Rylaarsdam 1946, 70–72; Gilbert 2003, 14). In fact, this concern with establishing Proverbs’ ‘divine backing’ (contra Crenshaw 2010, 13)  is consistent with ancient Near Eastern texts before Proverbs,8 later texts associated with Wisdom, such as Ben Sira (1:1–10), which draws a parallel between prophecy and wise instruction (24:33; cf. 39:6; Blenkinsopp 1995, 163–64), and rabbinic interpretation.9 The ‘suspiciously modern’ separation of secular from theological thought, even if applied only to the earliest strata of Proverbs, would leave it radically distinct from this broader ‘Wisdom tradition’ (Boström 1990, 36; see also Weeks 2010, 115). Though the Solomon to whom Proverbs is attributed may be a divinely called and inspired prophetic figure and the book may oppose autonomous human wisdom like the prophetic books, Proverbs lacks explicit verbal revelation (Fox 2009, 950). Proverbs never declares, ‘Thus says the Lord’. Lady Wisdom, however, does cry out as a ‘bearer of revelation’ (Offenbarungsträger) (von Rad 1993 [1970], 163). The ‘extensive prophetic portrayal’ of this figure (Dell 2006, 161), both in Proverbs 8 and 1:20–33, where words from Jeremiah 7 and 20 are recontextualized (Harris 1995, 95), conveys the authors’ intent to enhance the authority of their teaching through presenting it prophetically (Blenkinsopp 1995, 158–59). Wisdom, as they

8.  The father in the Egyptian Instruction of Ptahhotep, for example, describes his teaching as the transmission across generations of a body of knowledge taught by the gods (Weeks 2016, 15). 9. Midrash Proverbs identifies ‘my instruction (torah)’ and ‘my words’ in Proverbs with divine speech (Fox 2009, 948)  and b. Baba Bathra 12a declares that prophecy has been transferred from the prophets to the sages (Blenkinsopp 1995, 159).

3. Wisdom Defined through Narrative

43

present her, takes on the ‘mantel of the prophetess’ and the authority that goes with it (Baumann 1996, 289). W h e t her the focus is on how Proverbs pro vides a practical outworking of prophetic instruction, as was often the case before the 1930s (Schwáb 2013, 14, 30), or on potential ‘Wisdom influence’ on the prophets, as has tended to be the case since (Whybray 1982, 195), the similarities between Proverbs and the prophets are notable. In addition to their shared conviction that true wisdom comes from God, Proverbs also shares with the prophetic books a similar range of ethical concerns, including care for the poor (e.g., Prov 14:21, 31; 29:7; cf. Amos 5:11–12; Jer 5:28; Isa 10:2) and the dangers of drunkenness (e.g., Prov 23:29– 35; cf. Isa 5:11– 13; Delkurt 1993, 88– 92, 114– 22). Like the prophets, Proverbs intertwines religion and morality by repeatedly critiquing ‘cold’ cultic practices separated from such ethical behaviour (Prov 15:8, 29; 17:1; 21:3, 27; 28:9; cf. Amos 4:4– 5; 5:4– 7, 10, 21–27; Hos 6:6; Isa 1:10–17; Jeremiah 7; Murphy 1998, 274; Ernst 1994). This unity of piety and morality is evident in Proverbs’ emphasis on righteousness, which it communicates by pairing ‫‘( צדק‬righteousness’) along with ‫‘( משׁפט‬justice’), ‘key terms in the prophetic corpus’, with ‘wisdom’, ‘instruction’, and ‘understanding’ in its programmatic opening verses (Prov 1:2–4; Dell 2006, 162; see also Steiert 1990, 129–30; cf. 85–95; Lyu 2012).10 Warnings against the ‘strange woman’ in Proverbs 1– 9 bring to mind the prominent prophetic use of adultery as a metaphor for idolatry, indicating this image may be intended to enjoin both marital and religious fidelity (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1– 8; Perdue 1977, 154– 55; Blenkinsopp 1995, 159; Camp 2000, 42). Further, Proverbs shares with the prophets an emphasis on retribution (e.g., Isaiah 24), even individual retribution (Ezekiel 18; Jer 31:29–30; Rylaarsdam 1946, 56; Boström 1990 , 153– 54), order (e.g., Prov 30:21– 23; cf. Isa 3:1– 2; 5:8– 10, 20; 29:15– 16; Barton 2014, 95, 115– 16), and the internalization of the Law (Prov 2:10; cf. Jer 31:33– 34; Ezek 11:19– 20; 36:26–27; Weeks 2007, 112). Finally, the pronounced prophetic aspects of the Words of Agur (30:1– 9), including its prophetic superscription (cf. Jer 1:1; Amos 1:1) and designation as a ‫( משׂא‬oracle; cf. Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1; Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1), suggest a theological convergence between prophetic and sapiential circles (Saur 2014, 573–74). Proverbs could be characterized along with the prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible as divinely inspired instruction for righteous living. Proverbs itself acknowledges that prophecy provides important ‘restraint’ on behaviour (Prov 29:18). If passages such as Prov 11:4 (‘Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death’) or Prov 21:3 (‘To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice’) sound like they could be uttered by the prophets, and other passages such as Prov 3:7 (‘Do not be wise in your own eyes’) actually are (Isa 5:21), then further literary and theological connections between the texts are worth pursuing, whether or not historical influence can be demonstrated.

10.  William McKane (1970, 265)  attributes this language to his proposed ‘prophetic reinterpretation of old wisdom’ (cf. 10–22).

44

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Conclusion According to the reigning consensus, Proverbs is Wisdom Literature. And yet, Proverbs does not merely invite comparison with Ecclesiastes and Job, but political, legal, cultic, and prophetic texts as well. Stuart Weeks (2007, 174), for example, argues that Proverbs 1–9 participates in a broader Persian and early Hellenistic Jewish milieu, in which Deuteronomy (4:6) associates wisdom with law, Isaiah (11:2; 33:6) connects it to the knowledge and fear of YHWH, and Jeremiah (10:12; 51:15) sets it in the context of divine creation. Understanding Proverbs and the wisdom it seeks to communicate through such connections shines new light on both so that facets obscured by the Wisdom Literature category can sparkle again. Form criticism, with its emphasis on pairing each literary genre with a specific historical Sitz im Leben, has reinforced the ‘rigidity’ of approaches to genre in biblical studies (Newsom 2005, 437–39). However, given the diversity of genres already included in the Wisdom category, such as proverb, dialogue, and fictional autobiography, refusing to group Proverbs with other texts due to formal differences would be special pleading. The category’s formal diversity indicates its ultimately thematic foundation, which invites other thematic comparisons like those briefly explored above. Further, since the concerns of a purported class of ancient sages are derived from the contents of the category, using those commitments to exclude further texts would be circular (see Van Leeuwen 2003, 73). The Solomonic attribution invites Proverbs into the complex intertextual network represented in the description of the wise king in 1 Kings, which provides a definition of wisdom in which politics and prophecy, intellect and piety, the secular and the sacred intersect. As interpreters have noted some of these features in Proverbs, they have pointed to the potential of reading the book in multiple intertextual groupings rather than only as Wisdom. They have also demonstrated the variegated nature of Proverbs and the wisdom it describes. The compilers of 1 Kings 1–11 were a step ahead of them.

Bibliography Abadie, Phillipe. 2008. Du roi sage au roi bâtisseur du Temple: Un autre visage de Salomon dans le livre des Chroniques. Pages 339–55 in Le roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen. Edited by C. Lichtert and D. Nocquet. Brussels: Lessius. Ansberry, Christopher B. 2010. Be Wise, My Son, and Make My Heart Glad: An Exploration of the Courtly Nature of the Book of Proverbs. BZAW 422. Berlin: de Gruyter. Anthonioz, Stéphanie. 2016. A Reflection on the Nature of Wisdom: From Psalm 1 to Mesopotamian Traditions. Pages 43–56 in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism. JSJSup 174. Edited by Hindy Najman, Jean-Sébastien Rey, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Brill: Leiden. Barton, John. 2014. Ethics in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3. Wisdom Defined through Narrative

45

Bauer, Georg Lorenz. 1801. Beylagen zur Theologie des alten Testaments. Leipzig: Weygand. Baumann, Gerlinde. 1996. Die Weisheitsgestalt in Proverbien 1–9: Traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Studien. FAT 16. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Ben Zvi, Ehud. 2013. Prophetic Memories in the Deuteronomistic Historical and the Prophetic Collections of Books. Pages 75–102 in Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History. AIL 14. Edited by Mignon R. Jacobs and Raymond F. Person. Atlanta: SBL. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1995. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boström, Lennart. 1990. The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs. ConBOT 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Brown, William P. 2005. The Law and the Sages: A Reexamination of Tôrâ in Proverbs. Pages 251–80 in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr. Edited by John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Camp, Claudia V. 2000. Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible. JSOTSup 320. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Childs, Brevard. 1979. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Crenshaw, James L. 2010. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Davies, Robertson. 1996. The Cunning Man. New York: Penguin. Delitzsch, Franz. 1873. Salomonisches Spruchbuch. Leipzig: Dörfling & Franke. Delkurt, Holger. 1993. Ethische Einsichten in der alttestamentlichen Spruchweisheit. BThSt 21. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Dell, Katharine J. 2006. The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dell, Katharine J. 2010. Solomon’s Wisdom and the Egyptian Connection. Pages 21–36 in The Centre and the Periphery: A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Jill Middlemas, David J. A. Clines, and Else Holt. Sheffied: Sheffield Phoenix. Ernst, Alexander B. 1994. Weisheitliche Kultkritik: Zu Theologie und Ethik des Sprüchbuchs und der Prophetie des 8. Jahrhunderts. BThSt 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18b. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gammie, John G. 1990. Paraenetic Literature: Toward a Morphology of a Secondary Genre. Semeia 50:41–77. Gerstenberger, Erhard. 1965. Covenant and Commandment. JBL 84:38–51. Gilbert, Maurice. 2003. Les cinq livres des sages: Proverbes, Job, Qohélet, Ben Sira, Sagesse. Paris: Cerf. Gordon, Robert P. 1995. A House Divided: Wisdom in Old Testament Narrative Traditions. Pages 94–105 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Scott L. 1995. Proverbs 1–9: A Study of Inner-Biblical Interpretation. SBLDS 150. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Kugel, James L. 2001. Ancient Biblical Interpretation and the Biblical Sage. Pages 1–26 in Studies in Ancient Midrash. Edited by James L. Kugel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies. Kynes, Will. Forthcoming. An Obituary for ‘Wisdom Literature’: The Birth, Death, and Intertextual Reintegration of a Biblical Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

46

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Lemaire, André. 1995. Wisdom in Solomonic Historiography. Pages 106–18 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyu, Sun Myung. 2012. Righteousness in the Book of Proverbs. FAT II 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Malchow, B. V. 1985. A Manual for Future Monarchs: Proverbs 27:23–29:27. CBQ 47:238–45. McKane, William. 1970. Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. London: SCM. Murphy, Roland E. 1998. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Newsom, Carol A. 2005. Spying out the Land: A Report from Genology. Pages 437–50 in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kevin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Overland, Paul. 2000. Did the Sage Draw from the Shema? A Study of Proverbs 3:1–12. CBQ 62:424–40. Parker, K. I. 1992. Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1–11. JSOT 53:75–91. Perdue, Leo G. 1977. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East. SBLDS 30. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Porteous, N. W. 1960. Royal Wisdom. Pages 247–61 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. VTSup 3. Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. Leiden: Brill. Rad, Gerhard von. 1953. Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma. Pages 120–27 in Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953. VTSup 1. Leiden: Brill. Rad, Gerhard von. 1993. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by James D. Martin. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. Translation of Weisheit in Israel. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Rylaarsdam, John Coert. 1946. Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saur, Markus. 2014. Prophetie, Weisheit und Gebet. ZAW 126:570-83. Schipper, Bernd. 2013. When Wisdom Is Not Enough: The Discourse on Wisdom and Torah and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs. Pages 55–80 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. JSJSup. Edited by B. U. Schipper and D. A. Teeter. Leiden: Brill. Schwáb, Zoltán S. 2013. Toward an Interpretation of the Book of Proverbs: Selfishness and Secularity Reconsidered. JTISup 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Scott, R. B. Y. 1960. Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel. Pages 262–79 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. VTSup 3. Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. Leiden: Brill. Scott, R. B. Y. 1961. Priesthood, Prophecy, Wisdom, and the Knowledge of God. JBL 80:1–15. Sheppard, Gerald T. 2000. Biblical Wisdom Literature and the End of the Modern Age. Pages 369–98 in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998. VTSup 80. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. Leiden: Brill. Ska, Jean Louis. 2014. Abraham, maître de sagesse selon l’idéal des Proverbes. Pages 18–29 in Wisdom for Life: Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. BZAW 445. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sneed, Mark. 2011. Is the ‘Wisdom Tradition’ a Tradition? CBQ 73:50–71.

3. Wisdom Defined through Narrative

47

Sneed, Mark. 2015. The Social World of the Sages: An Introduction to Israelite and Jewish Wisdom Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress. Steiert, Franz-Josef. 1990. Die Weisheit Israels – ein Fremdkörper im Alten Testament? Eine Untersuchung zum Buch der Sprüche auf dem Hintergrund der ägyptischen Weisheitslehren. Freiburger theologische Studien 143. Freiburg: Herder. Tavares, Ricardo. 2007. Eine königliche Weisheitslehre? Exegetische Analyse von Sprüche 28– 29 und Vergleich mit den ägyptischen Lehren Merikaras und Amenemhats. OBO 234. Fribourg: Academic Press. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 1990. The Sage in the Prophetic Literature. Pages 295–306 in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and John G. Gammie. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 2003. Form Criticism, Wisdom, and Psalms 111–112. Pages 65–84 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 2010. Cosmos, Temple, House: Building and Wisdom in Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel. Pages 399–421 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. AOAT 366. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Jamie Novotny. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Weeks, Stuart. 2007. Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weeks, Stuart. 2010. An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature. New York: T&T Clark. Weeks, Stuart. 2016. The Place and Limits of Wisdom Revisited. Pages 3–23 in Perspectives on Israelite Wisdom: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. LHBOTS 618. Edited by John Jarick. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Weinfeld, Moshe. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Whedbee, J. William. 1971. Isaiah and Wisdom. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Whybray, R. N. 1968. The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20; I Kings 1 and 2. London: SCM. Whybray, R. N. 1974. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter. Whybray, R. N. 1982. Prophecy and Wisdom. Pages 181–99 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by R. Coggins, A. Phillips, and Knibb M. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolff, Hans Walter. 1973. The Old Testament: A Guide to Its Writings. Translated by Keith R. Crim. Philadelphia: Fortress. Translation of Bibel – Das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung in seine Schriften und in die Methoden ihrer Erforschung. Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1970. Zabán, Bálint Károly. 2012. The Pillar Function of the Speeches of Wisdom: Proverbs 1:20–33, 8:1–36, and 9:1–6 in the Structural Framework of Proverbs 1–9. BZAW 429. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zimmerli, Walther. 1964. The Place and Limit of the Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology. SJT 17:146–58. Translation of Ort und Grenze der Weisheit im Rahmen der alttestamentlichen Theologie. Pages 121–37 in Les Sagesses du Proche-Orient Ancien: Colloque de Strasbourg 17–19 mai 1962. Edited by Centre d’Études Supérieures Spécialisé d’Histoire des Religions de Strasbourg. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963.

Chapter 4 P R OV E R B S A N D I S A IA H   1 – 3 9 John Goldingay

Among the distinctions between forms of intertextuality are the way texts can refer to other texts and readers can see links in texts that were not directly connected but that might be seen as linked, because in the end all texts are connected. In this chapter I experiment with a form of intertextual study that lies between these two. Intertextuality presupposes the notion of dialogue between texts. The Isaiah scroll constitutes a dialogue in several senses. Most spectacularly it constitutes a dialogue between its three main parts (Goldingay 2014, 44– 58). But Isaiah 1–39 also implies an internal dialogue over what is commonly designated ‘wisdom’. The definition of wisdom has long been a topic of controversy in Old Testament study, and when we get into a tangle over the meaning of key words and concepts, it can be a sign that we should withdraw from the morass and give up using the word.1 In this case, it is also doubtful whether there is much overlap between what people mean by ‘wisdom’ in ordinary speech, and the way the Old Testament uses the word ‫חכמה‬. That word stands for something insightful and practical, and in this chapter I render it by the word ‘smartness’. Isaiah ben Amoz, then, enthuses about smartness, but only about the sort of smartness he approves. He can also be trenchantly critical about smartness. He aspires to something like monologic discourse, though inevitably his aspiration deconstructs as he has to deal with reality. Proverbs, too, implies an internal dialogue, and it manifests no aspiration to monologic discourse. William McKane distinguished between sentences concerned with the education of the individual for a successful and harmonious life (class A), sentences that describe the harmful effects on the community of various forms of antisocial behaviour (class B), and sentences deriving from Yahwistic piety that refer to God or to ethical ideas (class  C). His further conviction was that the class C material represents a reinterpretation of the class A material, so that it issues from a later stage in the development of the Old Testament wisdom tradition (McKane 1970, 11). The classification is more convincing than the supposed implications it has for dating (Fox 2009, 483). Rather than representing 1. See the broad discussion in Sneed 2015.

50

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

three stages of chronological development, it’s more likely that the three classes of saying long coexisted. And whatever the process whereby the Book of Proverbs came into being, come into being it did, so that one can think of it as embodying a dialogue, or at least as setting a conversation going, especially in the context of a discussion of intertextuality. Setting Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39 alongside each other then generates a dialogue between texts which are themselves in internal dialogue, and/or it brings their own internal dialogue into the open. Proverbs hardly came into being as a pedagogical textbook for training people for the Judahite administration (cf. Weeks 1994), but it may plausibly be seen to embody the thinking and attitudes that came naturally to people in the administration. The smart people were not a class or group, any more than they are in our world. But it was desirable that the administration should be made up of smart people. When Isaiah ben Amoz talks about smart people, he is surely referring to people who would be enthusiastic about the kind of teaching that appears in Proverbs. His oral and written words embody a polemic against aspects of the views or worldview expressed in that teaching, at least as they were argued in Jerusalem in his day.2 Further, these smart people would surely be acquainted with the kind of position regarding politics that Isaiah held and argued. I cannot prove either of these points, but intertextuality is also interested in what happens when readers put texts alongside each other, and my own reader may understand this to be what I am doing. I present here a ‘thought experiment’ of a possible dialogue between Isaiah and the king and his ‘smart people’ (the wise as represented in Proverbs) incorporating material from these two texts in order to draw out their intertextual, thematic links in narrative form.

Kingdom of Judah: Transcript of a Special Meeting of the Cabinet Thirteenth year of the reign of King Hizqiyyahu, First Day of Zib. Present: His Majesty the King Cabinet Members: Elyaqim ben Hilqiyyahu (administrator), Shebna (secretary), Yo’ash ben Asaph (recorder) By invitation (voice no vote): Yeshayahu ben Amoz The King: You know that I’ve called this special meeting in light of intelligence we’ve received that Sennacherib is planning a further westward expedition with a view to getting more complete control of the trade routes between Assyria and Egypt, which seems likely to imperil our sovereignty, at least in the coastal plain. We need to formulate a policy with regard to this prospect. I’ve invited Yeshayahu

2. See McKane 1965; Whedbee 1971.

4. Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39

51

because you know I respect his opinion and because we know that he takes a similar stance to the prospect of this invasion to the one he took when my father was under pressure from Aram and Ephraim. I also respect Shebna’s opinion as a voice of insight in my administration. I know that you both speak in the name of Yahweh and of what you see as good sense. So I want us to have the chance to argue out the issues. Shebna: Thank you your majesty. Yeshayahu and I  do hold different views and I’m glad to have the chance to talk things out. Your majesty, you are indeed right that the country is likely to face invasion by Assyria, and we need to formulate plans to protect our security and our sovereignty. As we in Judah necessarily function more on the world stage I appreciate the fact that your majesty has already taken broader initiatives to ensure that we have access to the kind of practical political insight that we need. We have a tradition of such insight here in Jerusalem that’s expressed in ‘The Aphorisms of Solomon ben David king of Israel’ and you’ve encouraged its development in ‘The Aphorisms of Solomon, which the men of Hizqiyyahu king of Judah have compiled’.3 It’s particularly striking that one of our smart thinkers has commended such insight to all of us on the basis of its being of key importance to the king and his administration – and of its being of key importance to Yahweh himself. It was with that kind of insight that Yahweh brought the world into being. Here’s the message of smartness to us: I, smartness, dwell with shrewdness;

I find knowledge of strategies . . . Mine are counsel and adeptness; I am understanding, I have strength. By me kings reign and rulers decree what is faithful. By me officials govern, leaders, all who exercise authority faithfully . . . Yahweh acquired me4 at the beginning of his way, before his actions of old. Long ago I was formed, at the beginning, at earth’s origins.5

3. Prov 1:1; 25:1. All translations are my own. 4. For this translation, see Vawter 1980. 5. Prov 8:12, 14–16, 22–23. Proverbs 8 likely dates from the Second Temple period (see, e.g., Fox 2000), but I appeal to the conceit that Shebna would have quoted it if he could have done so. Similar considerations apply to some other quotations from Proverbs and Isaiah in this chapter.

52

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Yeshayahu: Your majesty, I’m not clear that this is the right starting point for our deliberations. I certainly recognize the value of sharp thinking and I recognize that empirical observation even helps us understand Yahweh’s ways with us. But your experts are always looking for rules by which history operates, whereas history and economics and politics don’t operate by rules. Or perhaps a better way to put it is to say that Yahweh does operate by rules in the sense of logic, but we can’t necessarily see the logic – at least, not until we have the benefit of hindsight. Is it all the time that the plowman plows to sow,

opens up and harrows his ground? . . . Someone disciplines him for acting with judgement: his God instructs him. Because caraway isn’t threshed with a sled, and the wheel of a cart isn’t rolled over cumin . . . Cereal is crushed, because the thresher doesn’t thresh permanently. The wheel of his cart may rumble, but he doesn’t crush it with his horse-riders. This too comes from Yahweh Armies; he formulates extraordinary plans, he shows great skill.6 People learn sense through looking at how Yahweh acts. But paradoxically, what they learn is that there isn’t much to be learned that you can apply to practical decision-making. History and politics and economics are not sciences.

Shebna: Your majesty, Yeshayahu is much too negative. He’s offering you a recipe for irresponsibility, for doing nothing. We all know that disaster comes to people who do nothing. It’s true in everyday life and it’s true in politics. One who gathers in summer is an insightful son; one who sleeps in harvest is a disgraceful son.7

Yeshayahu: You see, your majesty, when I  offer wisdom to the sort of people who work in your administration, they simply scoff. They say, Whom does he instruct in knowledge,

whom does he help to understand a report?

6. Isa 28:24–29. 7. Prov 10:5.

4. Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39

People weaned from milk, moving on from the breast? . . . Because with mockings of lip and in another tongue he speaks to this people, The one who has said to them, ‘This is the place to settle down, Settle the weary person down, yes, this is the place of repose.’8

Shebna: If you’re so keen on insight and smartness, why did you say that thing about Yahweh telling you he didn’t want us to understand things? Go, and say to this people: ‘Keep listening, but don’t understand,

keep looking, but don’t acknowledge.’9 That doesn’t sound like the message of someone who’s interested in people being smart.

Yeshayahu: The trouble with you experts is that you have no sense of humor, no sense of irony. You’re literalists. The reason why Yahweh told me to tell you that he didn’t want you to understand was because he wanted to get through your thick skulls. It’s strange, really, because your sort of smartness is often poetic and clever. Your aphorisms make people think. But you can’t see it when I try to get through to you that way. Here’s another example. I’ve said that Yahweh calls you People who’ve said to seers,

‘Don’t see’ And to visionaries, ‘Don’t give us visions of straightness. Speak nice things to us, give us visions that are deceptions. Depart from the way, turn away from the path, make Israel’s sacred one cease from before us.’10 You haven’t literally said that. But it’s the implication of what you do say.11

8. Isa 28:9–12a. 9. Isa 6:9. 10. Isa 30:10–11. 11. See, e.g., Wildberger 2002 on the passage.

53

54

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Shebna: Yeshayahu, you’re arrogant. You think you’re always right. You talk too much and you don’t listen to other people. You’re just interested in insulting the intelligence and the honour of people who are putting a lot of effort and insight into formulating policies that will work. You’re in danger of making yourself look a fool and of being disloyal to his majesty and of getting yourself into trouble. People who put themselves on a pedestal get knocked off it. Assertiveness comes, and slighting comes,

but with modest people there is smartness. A smart son [listens] to a father’s discipline, but someone arrogant doesn’t listen to a reprimand. The ear that listens to life-giving reproof lodges among the smart. One who lets go of discipline despises himself, but one who listens to reproof acquires sense. Awe for Yahweh is smartness’s discipline; lowliness is before splendor. All an individual’s ways are clean in his eyes, but Yahweh weighs spirits. Anyone lofty of mind is an offence to Yahweh; hand to hand he won’t go free of guilt. Majesty goes before brokenness, loftiness of spirit before collapsing. One who gives word back before he listens – it’s his denseness and shame.12

Yeshayahu: I’m just asking you to look at some facts. Look at the facts about preparing for invasion. You don’t have a wide enough perspective. You’d looked that day

to the armoury in the Forest House. The breaches in David’s Town – you’d seen them, that there were many. You’d collected the water of the Lower Pool and counted the houses in Jerusalem. You’d torn down the houses to strengthen the wall and made a basin between the two walls for the water from the old pool. But you didn’t look to the one who made it, you didn’t consider the one who formed it long before.13

12. Prov 11:2; 13:1; 15:31–33; 16:2, 5, 18; 18:13. 13. Isa 22:8–11.

4. Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39

Shebna: Yeshayahu, you are being irresponsible. A  king and an administration have to operate on the basis of good sense. Yeshayahu: But that’s exactly the question, whether the king’s administration is giving him advice that counts as good sense. I want us to deal with the facts about politics, but my facts include visionary facts whereas your facts are merely empirical facts. I’m very keen on us showing discernment as a nation. I want people to deal with facts, and not least with the facts about Yahweh. Your political advisers look at our neighbours and at the regional powers and they go in for the same sort of calculations as the political experts in Babylon or Philistia or Edom. It’s on that basis that they make recommendations about who we should be concerned about and who we should court as allies. But that means they’re leaving Yahweh out of account. On one hand, Yahweh does have a plan about the Assyrians. He’s said this: Yes, as I envisaged, so it’s happening;

as I counselled, it arises, To break Ashshur in my country – I will crush it upon my mountains . . . This is the counsel that has been formulated for the entire earth, this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. Because Yahweh Armies has taken counsel, and who can contravene it?14 What’s even more important, from a practical viewpoint, is that Yahweh has intentions about Egypt, to which you are so attracted. You can’t know about those intentions by collecting data and writing reports. There are considerations that will always catch you out. That’s why diplomacy often doesn’t work. You say you want Jerusalem to face facts, but you actually encourage escapism. The Lord Yahweh Armies called

on that day To crying and to lamenting, to shaving the head and to wrapping on sack. But here – celebration and rejoicing, killing cattle and slaughtering sheep, Eating meat and drinking wine: ‘Eat and drink, because tomorrow we die!’ Yahweh Armies revealed himself in my ears: ‘If this waywardness of yours is to be expiated before you die . . .’15

14. Isa 14:24–27. 15. Isa 22:12–14.

55

56

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Shebna: We don’t leave Yahweh out of account. We know that awe for Yahweh is of the essence of smart leadership and that thinking things through mustn’t replace reliance on Yahweh. What we teach is, The first principle of knowledge is awe for Yahweh;

dense people despise smartness and discipline. Rely on Yahweh with all your mind, don’t lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he himself will keep your paths straight. Roll your actions onto Yahweh, and your intentions will be established. The mind of a person thinks out his course, but Yahweh establishes his step. The horse is prepared for the day of battle but the deliverance belongs to Yahweh.16 I’m just as sceptical as you are about the enthusiasm for worship festivals that comes over Judah three times a year. The sacrifice of the faithless is an offence to Yahweh,

but the plea of the upright is acceptable to him. Exercising authority in a faithful way is to be chosen for Yahweh over a sacrifice.17

Yeshayahu: But you collude with it. The Lord has said, Since this people has come near with its mouth,

and with its lips has honoured me, But has kept its mind far from me, and their awe for me has been a learned human order: Therefore here I am,

once more doing something extraordinary with this people, acting in an extraordinary way, something extraordinary. The smartness of its smart people will perish, the understanding of its people of understanding will hide. Hey, you who go deeper than Yahweh to hide your counsel,

16. Prov 1:7; 3:5–6; 16:3, 9; 21:31. 17. Prov 15:8; 21:3.

4. Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39

Whose action is in the dark, and who say, ‘Who sees us, who knows about us?’ Your overturning of things! – If the potter is thought of as like the clay, or the thing that’s made says of its maker, ‘He didn’t make me.’, Or the pot says of its potter, ‘He didn’t understand.’18 You say you operate on the basis of trust in Yahweh, but your actions belie it. Look at the way you think about Pharaoh. We’re committed to the belief that Yahweh is our protection, our shelter, our shade and our help. Your political policies belie them. Hey, defiant sons (Yahweh’s declaration),

in forming counsel but not from me, . . . You who go to descend to Egypt, but have not asked my bidding, In protecting yourselves by Pharaoh’s protection and in taking shelter in Egypt’s shade. But Pharaoh’s protection will become shame for you, and shelter in Egypt’s shade, disgrace.19 Hey, you who are going down to Egypt for help,

who lean on horses, Who’ve relied on chariotry because it’s vast, and on cavalry because they’re very numerous, And not turned to Israel’s sacred one, and not inquired of Yahweh. But he too is smart, and he has brought bad fortune, and not made his words turn away . . . The Egyptians are human not God, their horses are flesh and not spirit. When Yahweh stretches out his hand, helper will collapse and the one who is helped will fall; all of them will be finished together.20

Shebna: I’d say that one of your problems, Yeshayahu, is that you have this dualist/protectionist/colonial/closed-minded attitude to the world outside Judah. The rest of the world is not our enemies and it’s not all bad. We can learn a lot from the Egyptians. The fact that they don’t believe in Yahweh doesn’t mean they’re all wrong. They say some

18. Isa 29:13–16. 19. Isa 30:1–3. 20. Isa 31:1–3.

57

58

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

things that we can learn from, things you would agree with. They have a set of Thirty Sayings that you would like.21 Here’s something we learned from them: Rescue people who are being taken off to death,

who are slipping toward slaughter; if you hold back . . . When you say, ‘There, we didn’t know this,’ the one who weighs minds will discern, won’t he. The one who preserves your life, he will know, and will give back to a person in accordance with his deed.22

Yeshayahu: Well maybe I  have a dualist/protectionist/colonial/closedminded attitude, but the problem as I see it is that you’ve bought into the way the Egyptians think about being smart. And they aren’t really smart, because naturally they leave Yahweh out of account. The officials at Zo’an are simply dense,

Pharaoh’s smart counsellors – stupid counsel. How can you say to Pharaoh, ‘I’m a son of experts, a son of the kings of Qedem?’ – Where on earth are your experts, so they may please tell you, may acknowledge, what Yahweh Armies has planned against Egypt. The officials at Zo’an have become fools, the officials at Noph have deceived themselves. They’ve made Egypt wander – they, the cornerstone of its clans. Yahweh has mixed within it a spirit of distortion. They’ll make Egypt wander in all it does, like the wandering of a drunk in his vomit. There’ll be no action by Egypt that head or tail can take, palm branch or reed.23 Your majesty, one can’t blame the Egyptians for leaving Yahweh out of account, but it’s a different matter that your experts won’t listen to what Yahweh has to say to them because it doesn’t fit their worldly smartness.

21. See the ‘Instruction of Amenemope’ in Hays 2014. 22. Prov 24:11–12. 23. Isa 19:11–15.

4. Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39

Shebna: Yeshayahu, you’re arrogant, and you’re also too much of a loner. Wise decisions issue from people talking things out together and trying to find their way to solutions and policies. That’s why the king has a cabinet. He doesn’t just decide things on his own. When there’s no steering, a people falls,

but deliverance comes with an abundance of counsellors. The way of a dense person is upright in his eyes, but the smart person listens to counsel.24 And, Yeshayahu, as well as being arrogant and a loner, you’re too angry and you’re a troublemaker. It’s not a recipe for us being able to work together in order to face the crisis that we all know is real. You need to hold back from criticizing people who may know more than you do about the situation. It’s only going to make matters worse. There is one who rants like sword-thrusts,

but the tongue of smart people is a healing. A gentle answer turns back wrath, but a painful word arouses anger.25 In addition, you have to take the position and the power of the king seriously. There is divination on a king’s lips;

in giving judgement, one doesn’t trespass against his bidding. The king’s wrath is death’s envoy, but someone smart will expiate it. There’s life in the light of the king’s face, and his acceptance is like a cloud with spring rain. The king’s rage is a growl like a lion’s, and his acceptance is like dew on grass. It’s God’s splendor to conceal a thing, but kings’ splendor to explore a thing. Don’t magnify yourself before a king, and don’t stand in the place of big people, Because it’s better for someone to say to you, ‘Go up there’, than move you down before a leader.26 And you have to do that for its potential for good (and bad).

24. Prov 11:14; 12:15. 25. Prov 12:18; 15:1. 26. Prov 16:10, 14, 15; 19:12; 25:2, 6, 7.

59

60

Reading Proverbs Intertextually Exercising authority means rejoicing for the faithful

but ruin to one who brings trouble. A roaring lion or an advancing bear: a faithless ruler over a poor people. A leader lacking understanding and abundant in acts of oppression; one hostile to dishonest gain will extend his days. A king enables a country to stand by the exercise of authority, but a man of great deceit tears it down. A king who exercises authority for the poor in truth: his throne will be established permanently.27 Again, we can learn about these principles from smart people outside Israel, people like King Lemuel’s mother.28 She told him, It’s not for kings, Lemuel,

not for kings to drink wine, and for rulers – or liquor, In case they drink and put out of mind what’s been decreed, and are hostile to the cause of all humble people . . . Open your mouth for the dumb, for the cause of all the people who are passing away. Open your mouth, exercise authority faithfully, give judgement for the humble and needy person.29

Yeshayahu Your majesty, I have no doubt that Shebna is smart to be wary about the power of life and death that a king has. But I have to remind you that you are not the ultimate king of Judah. In the year your great grandfather died, I had a vision of Yahweh as our great King. I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty, with his train filling the palace.30 Your majesty, there are anti-royalists in Judah, and I’m not one of them,31 but I  do believe that you must be wary of thinking that yours is the ultimate kingship. Just as the warnings I’ve issued about Assyria and Babylon can also apply to Judah if it behaves as they do, so the warning that I declared about the Assyrian or Babylonian king32 could apply to any Judahite king if he comes to fancy himself as they do. 27. Prov 21:15; 28:15–16; 29:4, 14. 28. On Lemuel as a North Arabian king, see, for example, Fox 2009, 884. 29. Prov 31:4–9. 30. Isa 6:1. 31. Actually, the clearest Judahite anti-royalist was Second Isaiah; it’s an example of the dialogue within the book called Isaiah. 32. On the background of the prophecy, see, for example, Sweeney 1996 on the passage.

4. Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39 She’ol below has been astir for you,

to meet your coming, . . . Raising from their thrones all the nations’ kings. All of them answer and say to you, ‘You too have been made weak as we are, you have become like us!’33

Shebna: Yeshayahu, I  don’t know what the king is thinking, but I’m thinking you’ve gone too far. You’re out of order. You know that Yahweh has given us a faithful ideal of what kingship means, and that his majesty comes as near realizing it as anyone ever has. You also know that we recognize how Yahweh exercises sovereignty in relation to the king. Acting with faithlessness is an offence to kings,

because the throne stands on faithfulness. Faithful lips are what kings accept; he’s loyal to one who speaks upright things. A king sitting on a throne of judgement winnows all that’s bad with his eyes. A smart king winnows faithless people, and turns back the wheel over them. The king’s mind is a water channel in Yahweh’s hand, which he bends wherever he wants. One who is loyal to being pure in mind, grace on his lips, the king is his friend. Remove dross from silver, and an article comes out for the smith; Remove the faithless person before a king, and his throne is established in faithfulness.34

Yeshayahu: Fine, and I  acknowledge that his majesty come nearer to embodying those ideals than most of our kings. He might even be seen as an embodiment of an affirmation Yahweh gave me: Because a child has been born to us,

a son has been given to us, and government has come onto his shoulder. People have called him

33. Isa 14:9–10. 34. Prov 16:12, 13; 20:8, 26; 21:1; 22:11; 25:4, 5.

61

62

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

‘An extraordinary counsellor is the strong man God, the everlasting Father is an official for well-being.’35 Of the growing of government and of well-being there will be no end, on David’s throne and on his kingship, To establish it and support it, with authority and faithfulness, From now and permanently; the passion of Yahweh Armies will do this.36 But my point is that kings hardly ever come anywhere near to living up to that vision, and that his majesty needs to be vigilant about not falling into following the example of some of his less illustrious predecessors. That’s why Yahweh holds in front of him and of us a declaration that one day he will grant us a king who does live up to it. A shoot will go out from Jesse’s stump,

a branch will fruit from his roots. Yahweh’s breath will alight on him, a breath with smartness and understanding, A breath with counsel and strength, a breath with acknowledgment and awe for Yahweh; his scent will be awe for Yahweh.37

Shebna: It’s quite clear that we do see the faithful exercise of authority as integral to smart leadership. Smartness goes with ethics. That’s why our kind of smartness exists: So as to know smartness and discipline,

to understand words that express understanding, To get discipline so as to act with insight, faithfulness, the exercise of authority, and uprightness.38 The intentions of the faithful are the [proper] exercise of authority; the steering of the faithless is deceit.39

Yeshayahu: Yes, your administration professes a commitment to exercising authority with faithfulness. But it’s not clear that your theoretical commitments are practical commitments. There’s that matter of your impressive tomb, Shebna.40 But it’s not just you. The 35. On this translation, see Goldingay 1999. 36. Isa 9:6–7 [5–6]. 37. Isa 11:1–3. 38. Prov 1:2–3. 39. Prov 12:5. 40. Isa 22:15–19: if this is the same Shebna (see the discussion in Wildberger 1997).

4. Proverbs and Isaiah 1–39

63

officials in Jerusalem and in the tax offices in places like Lakish are corrupt. There’s no faithful exercise of authority on behalf of orphan and widow.41 You call me arrogant, but I  think you’re the arrogant ones. You think you can behave with the typical selfishness of people in leadership and government. You think you can get away with anything, that nothing sticks to you, but you’re wrong. Therefore listen to Yahweh’s word,

you arrogant, Who rule this people, which is in Jerusalem. Because you’ve said: We’ve solemnized a pact with death,

with She’ol we’ve made an agreement. The sweeping flood, when it passes, won’t come to us, Because we’ve made a lie our shelter, we’ve hidden in falsehood.42 I know you don’t even admit to yourselves that this is what you’ve done, but it is. You are people Who say, ‘He should hurry,

he should speed up his action, in order that we may see. It should draw near and come about, the counsel of Israel’s sacred one, so we may acknowledge.’43 Therefore the Lord Yahweh has said this: Here am I founding in Zion a stone,

a testing stone, a valuable corner stone, A well-founded foundation; the one who stands firm in faith will not be hasty.44 I’m not clear that you really believe that.

41. Isa 1:23. 42. Isa 28:14–15. 43. Isa 5:19. 44. Isa 28:16. On various possibilities concerning the interpretation of the verse, see, for example, Kaiser 1974.

64

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

The King: Enough. It’s almost time for the evening offering. We shall go up to the temple and pray. Then Elyaqim, Shebna, Yo’ash and I will reconvene after the morning offering tomorrow and decide about whether to send envoys to Egypt.

Bibliography Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 2000. Isaiah 1–39. AB 19. New York: Doubleday. Fox, Michael V. 2000. Proverbs 1–9. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press. Goldingay, John. 1999. The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5 [6]. CBQ 61:239–44. Goldingay, John. 2014. Isaiah 56–66. 2014. ICC. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Hays, Christopher B. 2014. Hidden Riches: A Sourcebook for the Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East. Louisville: WJK. Kaiser, Otto. 1974. Isaiah 13–39. London: SCM. McKane, William. 1965. Prophets and Wise Men. London: SCM. McKane, William. 1970. Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. London: SCM. Sneed, Mark R., ed. 2015. Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies. AIL 23. Atlanta: SBL. Sweeney, Marvin A. 1996. Isaiah 1–39. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Vawter, Bruce. 1980. Prov 8:22: Wisdom and Creation. JBL 99:205–16. Weeks, Stuart. 1994. Early Israelite Wisdom. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Whedbee, J. William. 1971. Isaiah and Wisdom. Nashville: Abingdon. Wildberger, Hans. 1997. Isaiah 13–27. Minneapolis: Fortress. Wildberger, Hans. 2002. Isaiah 28–39. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Chapter 5 R E BU K E , C OM P L A I N T, L A M E N T, A N D P R A I SE :   R E A D I N G P R OV E R B S A N D PSALMS TOGETHER William P. Brown

A motley collection in its own right, Proverbs keeps close canonical company with the book of Psalms, the most extensive collection in the Bible. Immediately preceded by Psalms in the Christian canon, and separated from Psalms only by Job in the Jewish canon, the book of Proverbs seems set for rich dialogical exchange with the Psalter. Yet comparative studies of Psalms and Proverbs (and the Wisdom literature more generally) have been limited largely to either identifying particular so-called wisdom psalms or detecting the editorial hand of the sages in the Psalter’s formation.1 But hunting merely for individual psalms and sleuthing for editorial fingerprints tend to overlook larger, more interesting issues, such as the Psalms’ didactic aims in relation to those of the Wisdom corpus. The central issue concerning how the psalmist and the sage keep canonical company needs, in my opinion, to be framed more broadly and heuristically, beyond the scope of simply identifying intertextual links and determining who alluded to whom. Rather, I want to ask: what would Proverbs and Psalms look like when read dialogically? What would it mean, in other words, to read Psalms ‘proverbially’ and Proverbs ‘psalmically’?2 Granted, this may be more a thought experiment than a rigorous investigation, but the payoff could be exegetically significant on the broadest of scales, namely, the canonical scale. It would involve identifying areas of (potential) dialogue between Proverbs and Psalms as a whole, offering rich opportunities for exploring affinities and distinctions in far greater depth. Such an investigation begins by recognizing that these two complex corpora share more than just a few words here and there; they feature parallel rhetorical forms, similar conceptual domains,

1.  For a most recent review of the history of research in this area, see Jacobson 2014, 147–57. See also my own initial foray (Brown 2005, 85–102), on which this chapter builds. 2. For studies in this series that take a similar approach to intertextual connections, see, for example, Nogalski 2013; Krüger 2014; Schultz 2014.

66

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

and comparable didactic aims.3 Yet it is precisely their commonalities that help to delineate their divergent emphases and, on occasion, vice versa.

A Rhetorical Dissimilarity There are, of course, numerous rhetorical dissimilarities between Psalms and Proverbs. Broadly speaking, the first nine chapters of Proverbs consist primarily of parental and Wisdom speeches cast in second-person address. This dominant form of address is what makes proverbial discourse so recognizably didactic. As for Psalms, there is also a predominance of second-person address, but it is directed not to a human subject (e.g., the ‘son’ as cipher for the reader in Proverbs4), so much as to God in the form of petition, complaint, praise, and thanksgiving. To be sure, the few psalms that do direct their address to the community of listeners/ readers can be construed as didactic, several of which have been labelled ‘wisdom psalms’, while others contain a smattering of divine discourse,5 a feature entirely absent in Proverbs.6 But such psalms are relatively few in number. The direction of direct address in Psalms and Proverbs, that is, to God and to the reader, respectively, stands as a significant rhetorical difference between psalmic and sapiential discourse.

Reading Psalms Sapientially: The Case of the Rebuke Nevertheless, even here there is a degree of comparative crossover. In second person address, both Psalms and Proverbs are filled with the language of admonition. In many instances, the psalmic speaker admonishes God for neglect, allowing injustice to run rampant (see below). The psalmist exhibits no reluctance in pointing out examples of human and divine injustice, from persecution to physical illness, and then telling God what to do about it through the imperative of petition. Such examples are commonly called ‘complaints’ among form critics, a term that outside of the discipline(s) of Biblical Studies

3.  By ‘didactic’, I simply mean anything that is meant for instruction and is indicated as such by form and/or content. Didactic literature, to be sure, is by no means limited to Psalms and the Wisdom corpus and could include the summons to pay attention (e.g., Deut 31:12–13; Isa 1:2–3; 28:23–29; Jer 9:20; Joel 1:2–3; Amos 3:3–8). For an overview of biblical and other ancient Near Eastern witnesses to education, see Crenshaw 1998, 51–220. As for the Psalms, see Gillingham 2014, 206. 4. See Newsom 1989, 143–44. 5.  For example, Pss 2:7–9; 50:5–6, 7–15, 16–23; 75:3–6[2–5]; 81:7–15[6–14]; 82:2–4, 6–7; 89:20–38[19–37]; 110:1b, 4; 132:14–18. 6. But is fully present in the book of Job, in the book’s climax (38:1–41:34).

5. Rebuke, Complaint, Lament, and Praise

67

can suggest whining, lamentably. From a sapiential perspective, however, such discourse in the Psalms finds particular resonance with the rhetorical category of ‘rebuke’ (‫ )תחכות‬in Proverbs, a staple of wisdom discourse.7 In Proverbs, the rebuke is a discursive form of correction delivered for the purpose of changing behaviour. Those on the receiving end of a rebuke in Proverbs include the wicked (24:25) and the scoffer (15:12; 9:7), as well as the wise or ‘intelligent’ (9:8b; 19:25b) and the one who has ‘a listening ear’ (25:12). As far as rebuke is from commendation and sapiential assent in Proverbs, so complaint is from praise in the Psalms (see below). Both rebuke and complaint excel in the art of critique for the sake of correction. Rebuke is the harshest form of counsel. Do not rebuke (‫ )אל תוכח‬a scoffer; otherwise, he will hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you (‫)ויאהבך‬.

Instruct the wise,8 and they will become wiser; teach the righteous, and they will gain insight.

(Prov 9:8–9)

This admonition, in fact, discourages rebuking the ‘scoffer’ and the ‘wicked’ (cf. 26:5), but commends rebuking the wise, whereby the rebuke fulfils its corrective goal and fosters appreciation. Indeed, what distinguishes the wise from the scoffer and the wicked is that the wise respond to rebuke with grateful appreciation. The value of rebuke is frequently highlighted in Proverbs: Better is open rebuke than hidden love.

(Prov 27:5)

A rebuke strikes deeper into a discerning person

than a hundred blows into a fool. Whoever rebukes a person will afterward find more favor than one who flatters with the tongue.

(Prov 17:10)

(Prov 28:23)

The most extended rebuke in Proverbs comes from Wisdom herself, who opens her first discourse with the following words: How long (‫)עד מתי‬, O simple ones, will you love being simple?

How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools despise knowledge? Turn to my rebuke (‫ ;)תוכחתי‬I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you. (Prov 1:22–23)

7. See, most recently, Stewart’s (2016) discussion of the ‘model’ and ‘poetic ethics’ of the rebuke in her published dissertation. 8. Literally ‘give to the wise’.

68

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

What follows is a blistering tour de force of sapiential critique that both condemns and corrects Wisdom’s audience (vv. 24–33), and it all begins with the complaint cast as a question. Compare Wisdom’s rebuke with Psalm 4. How long (‫)עד מה‬, you people, will my honor be an object of shame?

[How long] will you lust for what is worthless and seek after lies? Selah But know that YHWH has especially favored9 the faithful for himself; YHWH hears whenever I call to him. So tremble and do not sin! Ponder10 (it) in your hearts upon your bed and be silent! Selah Offer proper sacrifices, and trust in YHWH.

(Ps 4:3–6[2–5])

As in Wisdom’s address, the speaker in Psalm 4 harshly chastises his audience (v. 3[2]) and then offers counsel (vv. 5–6[4–5]).11 We find a similar, even more urgent rebuke in Ps 62:4[3]: How long (‫ )עד אנה‬will you assault someone (‫)איש‬,

to take him down,12 all of you, as though he were a toppled wall or a caved-in stone shelter?13 (Ps 62:4 [3])

But rebukes in the Psalms are not limited to fellow humans as they are in Proverbs. We find them operating within the divine realm as well. How long (‫ )עד מתי‬will you judge unjustly

and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked!

(Ps 82:2–4)

In this unique psalm, the gods are rebuked for their failure to establish justice on earth, a rebuke that begins with an accusation or complaint, then proceeds to the directive of justice, cast as a series of commands. Again, critique or indictment is followed by admonition, all framed as part of a judicial proceeding within the divine council. A verdict is ultimately rendered (guilty), followed by a sentence of

9. Hebrew verb ‫ פלה‬is a by-form of ‫פלא‬. 10. Literally ‘speak’. 11.  The intervening verse 4[3] establishes the speaker’s authority as one especially favored by God. 12. That is, murder. 13. Read ‫גדרה דחויה‬. MT has ungrammatically divided the phrase.

5. Rebuke, Complaint, Lament, and Praise

69

death (v. 7). But in a surprising twist, the psalm concludes with an admonition to God: ‘Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance’ (v. 8). The psalmist has turned the judicial scene of rebuke by God into an admonition to God by the speaker. Most typically, however, the accusing question ‘how long?’ in the Psalms is directed by a human speaker towards God. How long (‫)עד אנה‬, YHWH? Will you forget me forever? How long (‫ )עד אנה‬will you conceal your face from me?

How long (‫ )עד אנה‬must I bear counsels14 in my soul, sorrow in my heart daily? How long (‫ )עד אנה‬must my enemy rise up against me? (Ps 13:2–3[1–2]; cf. 79:5) How long (‫)עד אנה‬, O God, will the adversary scoff?

Will the enemy revile your name forever?

(Ps 74:10)

YHWH God of hosts, how long (‫ )עד מתי‬will you be angry with your people’s prayers?

You have fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in full measure.

(Ps 80:5–6[4–5])

Turn, YHWH! How long (‫?)עד מתי‬

Be moved to pity for your servants! Satisfy us in the morning with your faithful love, that we may rejoice and be glad throughout all our days.

(Ps 90:13–14)

Particularly vivid is Psalm 35. How long (‫)כמה‬, O Lord, will you look on?

Rescue me from their ravages, my only life from the lions! Then I will give you thanks in the great congregation; among the mighty people I will praise you . . . You have seen, YHWH; do not be silent! O Lord, do not be far from me! Wake up! Rouse yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and my Lord!

(Ps 35 vv. 17–18, 22–23)

14 . So MT. Frequently suggested is the emendation (without textual support) of ‫עצות‬ t o ‫‘( עצ בות‬pain, travails’, so BHS ) for better sense and parallelism. However, this is not n e c ess ary. Inner deliberation between the ‘soul’ and the ‘speaker’ can indicate a crisis of hope, such as in Psalms 42 and 62. Of course, the possibility of a wordplay cannot be gainsaid.

70

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Such impassioned addresses ‘rebuke’ God for negligence, injustice, lack of compassion, unrestrained anger, and rejection. The list goes on. Rhetorically equivalent to the question ‘how long?’ is the frequently posed question ‘why?’ in the Psalms.15 Why (‫)למה‬, YHWH, do you stand far off?

Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? In arrogance the wicked persecute the poor. Let them be caught in the schemes they have devised. (Ps 10:1–2) For you are my God, my stronghold.16

Why have you rejected me? Why must I walk about in gloom, while the enemy oppresses? (Ps 43:2) Wake up! Why do you sleep, O Lord?

Awake, do not reject (us) forever! Why do you hide your face? Are you oblivious to our affliction and oppression? For we are sinking down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help. Redeem us for the sake of your faithful love. (Ps 44:24–26[23–25]) YHWH, why do you spurn me? Why do you hide your face from me?

(Ps 88:15[14])

And most famously: My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?

Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?

(Ps 22:2[1])

As Walter Brueggemann has pointed out, power is redistributed through the utterance of complaint.17 In complaint and petition the speaker rhetorically assumes the ‘superior’ position of admonishing and motivating God to take corrective action. A  comparable, if not similar, structure is evident in the sapiential rebuke, namely critique and counsel. It would not be difficult, therefore,

15 . The question marker ‘why’ (‫ )למה‬is found in Prov 5:20; 17:16; 22:27, the first one serving as a rebuke. Examples abound in Job (7:20–21; 13:24; 18:3; 19:22; 27:12; 33:13). 16. Masoretic pointing renders, ‘the God of my stronghold’. Read ‫ֹלהי‬ ַ ‫ ֱא‬for ‫ֹלהי‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬. 17. Brueggemann 1995, esp. 101–104. Brueggemann unpacks the implications with the help of ‘object-relations theory’ in personality development.

5. Rebuke, Complaint, Lament, and Praise

71

to construe the psalmic complaint as a way of teaching God ‘a thing or two’ about the speaker’s plight (complaint/critique) and what should be done about it (command/petition). Given the rhetorical similarities between proverbial rebuke and psalmic complaint, what would happen form critically if psalmic complaints were regarded as ‘rebukes’? Pressing further, what would it mean to categorize the ‘lament psalms’, some of them at least, as ‘rebuke psalms’? It would tie the complaint and the petition more tightly into a seamless whole. Perhaps it would also resolve the form-critical debate on whether the petition (or plea, cry for help) or the complaint is the most central feature of the so-called lament psalm – itself a misnomer in all cases except Psalm 88, which has little by way of petition, let alone praise. Both elements would be considered equally crucial, equally critical in psalmic rhetoric. Treating the psalmic complaint/petition as a rebuke would highlight the psalm’s rhetorical force, setting in sharper relief the speaker’s boldness in complaining to (‘rebuking’ or correcting) God. Put another way, as a ‘rebuke’ every psalmic complaint is an accusation, and every plea is a call to accountability. A s a form of rebuke, the act of complaint is rheto rically empowering. Th e olo gically, psalmic complaints/ petitions regard ed as rebukes would set in sharper relief God’s responsibility for a lamentable state of affairs, as described in the complaint proper, and for rectifying it, as directed by the petition. One intriguing question is: if the rebuke in Proverbs elicits favour from the wise (e.g., appreciation and gratitude), does it do so in a comparative sense from God? Does God accept the complaint as much as the wise welcome the rebuke? Does God welcome complaints as much as praise? The psalmists seem convinced that God fully accepts rebukes/ complaints, that God would be moved by them, because God is benevolent – the consummate ‘listening ear’ and responsive witness, this God of ‫( חסד‬see, e.g., Pss 6:5 [4]; 25:6– 7; 31:17 [16]; 51:3 [1]; 69:17 [16]; 85:8 [7]). As the wise demand honest rebuke, the sages intone, so God expects sincere complaint, the psalmists assume. A more controversial issue is whether God ‘learns’ from the complaint in the Psalms, as the wise gain in learning from the rebuke in Proverbs. This could be where the comparison breaks down. Nevertheless, from the psalmist’s perspective at least, the complaint does point out to God matters that otherwise would be left unaddressed by God, such as the sheer gravit y of a distressing situ ation, a s i tu ation that warrants complain t. Complaints in the Psalms, in other w ords, serve as correctives as much as rebukes do in Proverbs. Regardless of whether such a comparison transgresses the rhetorical and generic boundaries of Psalms and Proverbs, it is easy to see the psalmic complaint and the sapiential rebuke as rhetorical counterparts in the broader discourse of accountability, both human and divine.

Reading Proverbs Psalmically: Lament and Praise If the sapiential rebuke finds its psalmic counterpart in the complaint/petition, do lament and praise find any resonance in Proverbs? In contrast to the Psalms, there

72

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

is l ittle room for complaint to God in Proverbs: the conditions of perse cution, disease, grief, deprivation, and mortal combat, to name a few examples of psalmic d i st ress, are scarcely referenced in Proverbs. The only petition to be f ound in Proverbs is the prayer that seeks from God a moderation of provision, not too much and not too little, a balance of sufficiency so as to avoid prideful delusion (‘Who is YHWH?’) and ‘seizing’ (‫ )תפ׳׳שׂ‬God’s name (30:9). There is, nevertheless, one clear example of abject lament in Proverbs, strategically placed near the end of the book: the opening words of Agur, which offer self-deprecating testimony to the insurmountable limits of human knowledge.18 The words of Agur, son of Jakeh, the oracle, the utterance of the man: I am weary, O God, I am weary, O God,

wasting away,19 for I am too beastly to be human, and have not human understanding. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his cupped hands? Who has wrapped the waters in [his] garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know! (Prov 30 vv. 1–4)

A gu r’s opening discourse is a confession of ignorance in the face of questions comp arable to those that issue from the whirlwind theophany in Job (38:2– 4). Underappreciated by commentators, Agur’s confession is a self- rebuke cast as a lament, a confession of failure to attain knowledge/wisdom.20 His words bespeak hu mi lity to the point of self- debasement. Agur’s ign orance, li kened to a beast ( ‫ )בער‬in v. 2, matches, for example, the debasement of the speaker in Psalm 22, who casts himself as a “worm” (v. 7[6]). 18. See also Prov 5:12–14, in which the speaker laments having rejected ‘discipline’ and ‘rebuke’. 19. The opening verse of chapter 30, particularly the second half, is fraught with textual and interpretive challenges. The translation above involves only slight emendation (from the verbs ‫ לאה‬and ‫[ כלה‬so Fox 2009, 854]: ‫)לאיתי אל לאיתי אל ואכל‬, a translation preferable to taking the words as proper names (so also Yoder 2009a, 280). 20.  Of note, Job’s final words also indicate an internalization of God’s rebuke (see Job 42:3a, 4). For similarities between Agur and Job, see Crenshaw 1995, 376–78. The questions are cast rhetorically:  ‘no human being’ or ‘God’ is the answer. The answer regarding the ‘name of his son’ (v. 4), however, is possibly Agur himself, since ‘son’ designates primarily the student of wisdom throughout Proverbs. So Yoder 2009b, 261.

5. Rebuke, Complaint, Lament, and Praise

73

It is significant that Agur’s sayings are placed near the end of Proverbs, casting a long shadow over everything that precedes it. If the objective of Proverbs is the appropriation of wisdom (1:2–7), then Agur’s confession effectively hits the reset button on the sapientia project in its entirety. For Agur, lament trumps learning, a profound awareness of limitation that overturns all sense of sapiential advancement. But as lament is rarely the last word in any given psalm, so Agur’s lament begins, rather than concludes, the collection attributed to him in chapter 30, a revelry of insight and awe, wonder, and wisdom. What follows his self-rebuke is an eclectic mix of evocative sayings, admonitions, observations, and, unique in Proverbs, a prayer (see above), all prefaced by Agur’s lament of ignorance.21 The admonition in vv. 5–6 lifts up the sufficiency of God’s ‘word’: adding to divine discourse warrants divine ‘rebuke’. Slandering and cursing, mocking and scorning, whether of servants or parents, are forbidden acts of hubris. On the flip side is a series of observations cast numerically (vv. 15–16, 18–19[20], 21–23, 24–28, 29–30), each of which conveys a sense of shock or awe, whether it is the insatiable appetite of Sheol (v. 16), the ‘way’ of a soaring eagle (v. 18), the ‘way’ of an adulteress (v. 20), the overturning of social hierarchies (vv. 21–23), the wisdom of God’s smallest creatures (vv. 24– 28), or the royal bearing of various animals (vv. 29–31). As Agur recognizes the insurmountable gulf between Creator and creature, so he also lumps together animals and humans, including kings, with little distinction.22 In his discourse, humility and wonder, abasement and amazement, are tightly connected, more so than anywhere else in Proverbs.23 As a whole, Agur’s discourse moves from ignorance to insight, in modest parallel to the psalmic move from lament to praise. Ignorance, in fact, is confessed both in the sage’s opening statement (vv. 2–3) and in the numerical list of wonders in vv. 18–19 (‘Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand’). But whereas the former passage is cast as a self-deprecation, the latter gives testimony to the marvellous. The rhetorical movement of the chapter suggests that self-abasing humility yields to new perception, indeed new orientation. To put it paradoxically, the lowering of pride leads to the lifting of eyes to see new things. It is no coincidence that the Agurian collection is a rich, visual feast of wisdom laid out before the reader in chapter 30, all to suggest that only in humility is one able

21.  Due to the lack of superscriptions within the chapter and any literary markers signaling a change in speaker, I take all of chapter 30 to be attributed to Agur, despite the LXX separation of vv. 1–14 from vv. 15–33 by 24:23b-33, which is arguably a secondary rearrangement (Yoder 2009a, 278). 22. As Yoder (2009b, 261) points out, Agur ascribes human qualities to animal creatures (30:15, 25– 26, 30) and likens the king to stately striding animals (30:29– 31). Conversely, Ag ur identifies himself with an ignorant beast in his opening words (‫ בער‬i n v. 2; cf. Ps 73:22). 23.  For further discussion on the role of wonder in Proverbs 30, see Brown 2014, 1–2, 63–64.

74

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

to see the world afresh with wonder and, indeed, wisdom. If the ‘fear of YHWH is the beginning of knowledge’ (Prov 1:7a), sapiential impotence, according to Agur, is the beginning of wonder. The situation of sapiential impotence, however, is not given definitive pride o f place in Proverbs any more than lament is in the Psalms. As indicated in the Psalter’s Hebrew title (‫)תהלים‬, the Psalms collectively point towards praise. Wit h few exceptions, even the lament psalms conclude on a note of trust or ( a vow to) praise to God, and as a whole the book of Psalms concludes on a climactic five-note chord of praise (Psalms 146–150). As the prologue indicates, ‘ga ining instru ction’ is the expressed goal in Pr overbs, as much as praise is i n the Psalms.24 Throughout the first nine ch apters of Proverbs, the reader is repeatedly exhorted to appropriate wise counsel and discipline.25 As for Wisdom herself, such appropriation verges on the erotic,26 a rhetorical feature entirely l ac king in the Psalms. Nevertheless, the Psalms are filled with the passion of desire, specifically the desire for God’s personal presence (e.g., Pss 42:2–3[1–2]; 63:2[1]). As Wisdom is lover and intimate friend who enables her partner to navigate the complexities of life, so God in the Psalms is the object of ultimate desire, the transcendent deity who saves, protects, bestows blessing, and teaches Tor ah. In sum, praise of God in Psalms is matc hed by assent to Wisdom in Proverbs. Viewed sapientially, praise to God involves assent to God, of casting o ne’s allegian ce to YHWH, of trust amid crisis . What is praise if not assent suffused with joy and hope? The language of praise is in fact not alien to wisdom. Proverbs, like Psalms, ends on a note of praise, although not praise of God: Her children rise up and call her happy;

her husband too, and he praises her: ‘Many woman have done excellently, but you surpass them all.’ Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears YHWH is to be praised. Give her a share in the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the city gates. (Prov 31:28–31)

As God is to be praised in ‘the assembly of the faithful’ (Ps 149:1b), so the ‘woman of resource’, the veritable incarnation of Wisdom within the household, is to be praised in the city gates. As these verses conclude the book of Proverbs on a note of praise, indeed a command to praise (v. 31), so too the book of Psalms (Psalm 150). Perhaps, then, the book of Proverbs could be titled ‘In Praise of Wisdom’.

24. For a general discussion of the pedagogical aims of Proverbs, see Estes 1996, 63–87. 25. For example, Prov 1:8a; 2:1, 2; 4:1a; 5:1; 7:1, 2, 24; 8:32–33; 9:4–6. 26. Prov 4:6–8; 8:34–36; cf. 5:15–19.

5. Rebuke, Complaint, Lament, and Praise

75

Conclusion Despite their differences, the psalmist and the sage are canonically engaged in dialogue o ver what con stitutes the true vision of life coram deo. It is no accident that the accolade ‘happy’ (‫ )אשרי‬concludes Proverbs (31:28) and opens the Psalter (Ps 1:1), a designation that commends the kind of person who seeks what is good and righteous, including God (e.g., Pss 2:12; 34:9b[8b]; 41:2[1]; 106:3; 119:1– 2). From Pss 1:1 to 146:5, numerous commendations are made that might lead one to regard the Psalter as a sort of manual of ‘happiness’, or to be more generically accurate, a hymnbook for happiness (although the Psalter is more than a hymnbook).27 Something comparable could be said of Proverbs. The commendation ‘Happy are those who find wisdom’ (Prov 3:13; cf. 3:18b; 8:34) is matched with ‘Happy are all who take refuge in [YHWH]’ (Ps 2:12b; cf. 34:9b[8b]; 146:5). But the road to such happiness, whether psalmic or sapiential, is a rugged one. The path to praise is marked by complaint and plea; the path of wisdom turns on rebuke and admonition. Both paths run parallel.

Bibliography Brown, William P. 2005. ‘Come, O Children . . . I Will Teach You the Fear of the LORD’ (Psalm 34:12): Comparing Psalms and Proverbs. Pages 85–102 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by R. L. Troxel, K. G. Freibel, and D. R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbruans. Brown, William P. 2012. Happiness and Its Discontents in the Psalms. Pages 95–115 in The Bible and the Pursuit of Happiness: What the Old and New Testaments Teach Us about the Good Life. Edited by Brent A. Strawn. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, William P. 2014. Wisdom’s Wonder: Character, Creation, and Crisis in the Bible’s Wisdom Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Brueggemann, Walter. 1995. The Costly Loss of Lament. Pages 98–111 in The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress. Crenshaw, James L. 1995. Clanging Symbols. Pages 371–82 in Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Crenshaw, James L. 1998. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. New York: Doubleday. Estes, Daniel J. 1996. Hear, My Son: Teaching and Learning in Proverbs 1–9. New Studies in Biblical Theology; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31. Anchor Yale Bible 18B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gillingham, Susan E. 2014. The Levites and the Editorial Composition of the Psalms. Pages 201–13 in The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. Edited by W. P. Brown. New York: Oxford University Press.

27. For a detailed examination of the ‫ אשרי‬sayings in the Psalms, see Brown 2012, 95–115.

76

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Jacobson, Diane. 2014. Wisdom Language in the Psalms. Pages 147–57 in The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. Edited by W. P. Brown. New York: Oxford University Press. Krüger, Thomas. 2014. ‘And They Have No Comforter’: Job and Ecclesiastes in Dialogue. Pages 94–105 in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. LHBOTS 587. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Newsom, Carol A. 1989. Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1–9. Pages 142–60 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress. Nogalski, James D. 2013. Job and Joel: Divergent Voices on a Common Theme. Pages 129–41 in Reading Job Intertextually. LHBOTS 574. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Schultz, Richard L. 2014. Qoheleth and Isaiah in Dialogue. Pages 57–70 in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. LHBOTS 587. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Stewart, Anne W. 2016. Poetic Ethics in Proverbs: Wisdom Literature and the Shaping of the Moral Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoder, Christine Roy. 2009a. Proverbs. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon. Yoder, Christine Roy. 2009b. On the Threshold of Kingship: A Study of Agur (Proverbs 30). Int 3:254–63.

Chapter 6 T H E P R OV E R B IA L R H E T O R IC O F   J O B   2 8 Scott C. Jones

Despite the typical presentation of the friends’ theology as traditional or the folk tale’s portrayal of Job as the consummate God-fearer, the book of Job has little direct connection with the book of Proverbs. Job’s blamelessness and avoidance of evil in the book’s opening sentence (1:1; cf. 1:8; 2:3) no doubt evoke the same sapiential pairing in Prov 3:7; 14:16; 16:6, 17 (cf. Job 28:28; Seow 2013, 253), and potential allusions to the Proverbs are scattered across the dialogues (e.g., Job 21:17; cf. Prov 13:9; 24:20). But the closest point of contact between Job and the book of Proverbs is in Job 28, a poem which is constructed on a proverb and which is dense with intertextual allusion to Prov 3:13–20.1 Job 28 is therefore the most ‘proverbial’ portion of the book of Job. Just as a proverb contracts a narrative world into a pithy axiom, conversely a proverb can also serve as the catalyst for the creation of a larger narrative as an exposition of the truth contained in the saying (see Van Leeuwen 2018). The poem in Job 28 represents just such a narrative expansion of a proverb that actually answers the question posed in the saying that consists of 28:1a and 28:12a: ‘There is indeed a source for silver . . . But wisdom – where is it found?’2 This chapter outlines the proverbial structure of Job 28 and then reads the poem’s three sections against portions of Proverbs 3, using phrases from that chapter as rubrics for interpreting the Joban poem. I hope to demonstrate that in its structure and intertextual relationship to Prov 3:13–20, the rhetoric of Job 28 is thoroughly proverbial, and that by reading Prov 3:13–20 and Job 28 together, one can discover fresh ways of reading both. 1.  This connection is all the more remarkable, since, as Katharine Dell (1991, 65) has pointed out, ‘The simple proverbial form is at the heart of all wisdom literature . . . This is clearly not the case in Job where examples of proverbs are few and can only be found on the smallest genre level.’ Though I do not follow Dell’s ultimate point that Job is thus not mainstream wisdom literature but ‘sceptical literature’, her observation about the relative rarity of the simple proverbial form in the book of Job still obtains. 2. For more data suggesting that these two lines may be read as a couplet, see Jones 2009, 39, 61–62.

78

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Reading Job 28 together with Proverbs 3 underscores each text’s unique contribution to wisdom theology, as well as the similarities between the two. Job 28 stands apart from Proverbs 3 in its extensive presentation of the search for wisdom in 28:1–11 (cf. Prov 3:13) and in portraying wisdom as something God encounters during creation in Job 28:27 (cf. Prov 3:19–20). Yet other features draw the two texts more closely together. Not only is Job 28 (as I will argue) built on a proverbial frame, but reading Job 28 together with Proverbs 3 suggests that Job 28:15–19 need not be dismissed merely as a secondary interpolation that has nothing to do with the logic of the poem.3 Nor should verse 28 be swept aside as a traditional comment on an otherwise sophisticated composition. Both the rhetoric of Job 28:15–19 and Job 28:28 are at home within the same proverbial contexts that define Prov 3:13–20:  seeking wisdom, creating by wisdom, and lauding wisdom’s value.

The Proverbial Structure of Job 28 In his monograph Der Aufbau des Buches Hiob, Claus Westermann (1977, 130) argued that the poem in Job 28 ‘ist die Erweiterung eines kurzen Spruches, der aus Frage (12 = 20) und Antwort (23) bestand; also eines Rätselwortes, bestehend aus Aufgabe und Lösung’. While Westermann’s observation that Job 28 was the expansion of a riddle was largely a form-critical judgement, others have set forth this basic idea on slightly different grounds (Hoffman 1995, 279; Fiddes 1996, 172; Clines 2006, 906, 911, 923). Job 28 is not only proverbial in its origin, but also in its structure and theology (see Jones 2009, passim). The poem consists of three sections that are stretched across a proverbial frame. These are: (i) a lyric presentation of a human’s attempt to obtain wisdom through expedition (vv. 3–11); (ii) an extended encomium on wisdom’s incomparability, situated between two refrains (vv. 12–22); and (iii) a short narrative about God’s perceiving wisdom during the process of creation and revealing it to the human (vv. 23–28). As I have argued extensively elsewhere (see Jones 2009, especially 39, 61–62), the frame of the poem is made up of vv. 1a, 12a, and 28a: ‫כי ישׁ לכסף מוצא‬

1

There is a source for silver

‫והחכמה מאין תמצא‬

12

but wisdom – where is it found?

‫הן יראת אדני היא חכמה‬

28

Fear of the Lord – that is wisdom.

3.  By ‘intertextual reading’, I  mean what John Barton (2013, 5)  describes as ‘nonhistorical, synchronic, completely non-intentional links between texts’. He goes on to call this ‘spatial’, rather than ‘temporal’, intertextuality that is essentially ‘a literary approach partaking to a greater or lesser degree in a “postmodern” style of thought that sits very lightly to authorial intention and to the historical context of texts, and is interested in what texts can be taken to mean rather than in hypotheses about what they “really” mean’ (7; emphasis original).

6. The Proverbial Rhetoric of Job 28

79

The juxtaposition of vv. 1 and 12 reveals a proverbial formulation: ‘There is a source for silver . . . but wisdom – where is it found?’ Similar ְ‫ו‬. . .‫ יֵ שׁ‬constructions a re found throughout the book of Prov erbs, often setting som ething valuable a ga inst something priceless (Prov 14: 12; 16:25; 20:15). No doubt just such a thought process animated the poet to inscribe Job 28:15–19 as an extended theme on wisdom’s pricelessness. And yet in Job 28, the valuable (silver) and the priceless (wisdom) are not simply set in contrast. Rather, the silver (‫ )כסף‬of the poem’s opening line is a metaphor for wisdom (‫)חכמה‬, and gold (‫ )זהב‬is a metaphor for understanding (‫)בינה‬. After reading the whole of vv. 1– 12, it becomes clear that the narrative about the human search for the ‘dark stone’ (‫ )אבן אפל וצלמות‬of v. 3 is in fact a narrative about the human search to obtain wisdom. As Pierre van Hecke (2003, 158 n. 42) says, ‘By this juxtaposition of verses [1–11 and 12], the digging of the earth is implicitly presented as a metaphorical model with which the searching for wisdom can be understood.’ The statement ‘There is a source for silver’ is, as David Clines (2006, 906) has noted, ‘riddling discourse’. And as he also notes, the poem is characterized by a ‘key riddling question’ in vv. 12 and 20. What, then, is the answer to this riddle – ‘Whence wisdom?’ It would seem to lie in the divine speech to the human (‫)האדם‬ contained in v. 28: ‘The fear of the Lord – that is wisdom.’ What has heretofore remained a mystery to humans, lions, serpents, birds, and personified Destruction, Death, Deep, and Sea is finally revealed to ‫ האדם‬by God who has probed wisdom itself. Many modern scholars are unimpressed by v. 28 within the structure of the poem. James Crenshaw (2001, 345) states representatively: ‘The conclusion of this majestic poem is something of a let-down. One expects a profound statement; instead, a cliché brings readers back to earth.’ But is this statement in Job 28:28 really as simplistic as such evaluations suggest? Noting the simplicity of the formulation in v. 28, Gerhard von Rad (1970, 93) makes a point of highlighting that the rather economic expression here can be deceiving:  ‘It sounds simpler than was intended in its rhetorical point of emphasis, because the two [i.e., the fear of the Lord and wisdom] cannot simply be identified with each other’ (my translation and clarification). And as Clines (2006, 906) again points out quite rightly:  ‘[T]here is something of the riddle even in the concluding sentence, which should be the answer to the riddle; for “wisdom is the fear of the Lord” is a statement by no means immediately intelligible, a statement that needs unpacking, almost like another riddle.’ One is left, then, with the metaphor WISDOM IS FEAR OF GOD. But interpreting that metaphor correctly itself requires the wisdom that one seeks. The closing statement in Job 28 also ties back to the slightly different expression of the principle in the folk tale in 1:1; 1:8; and 2:3, where Job is characterized by such ‘fear of God’ (‫)ירא אלהים‬. As Carol Newsom (2003, 304) has noted, the poem in Job 28 allegorizes the prose tale, using its language and concepts to underscore that ‘[t]ranscendent wisdom and human wisdom are in some sense continuous after all’. That is to say, the poem in Job 28 translates the prose tale’s more behaviourally oriented presentation of the fear of God into a more transcendent and reflective

80

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

one.4 One can take Newsom’s notion of re- casting and allegorizing still further, I think, by pointing out the ways that the Joban poem ‘allegorizes’ other texts, such as Prov 3:7: ‘Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear YHWH and shun evil’ (‫)ירא את־יהוה וסור מרע‬. Or perhaps such statements in Proverbs are allegorizing the Joban poem. In fact, both are true, for my analysis is not founded upon a genetic relationship between the two texts – which on e came first – but a synchronic l iterary relationship. The remainder of this c hapter will fo cus on reading the poem in Job 28 in the light of its closest intertext in Prov 3, and vice versa.

How fortunate is the one who finds wisdom! (Prov 3:13) Prov 3:13–20 forms a unit that Michael Fox treats as one of the ‘interludes’ laced a mong the ‘l ectures’ in Proverbs 1– 9. He ent itles this int erlude ‘In Praise of Wisdom’ (Fox 2000, 155; contrast Waltke 2004, 256). Magne Sæbø (2012, 65), however, regards Prov 3:13–18 as an original unit, while 3:19–20 are a theological expansion of that original piece. It is true that vv. 13–18 are enveloped by an inclusio of the root ‫אשׁר‬, which begins the macarism in v. 13 (‫‘ ;אשׁר י‬How fortunate!’), and which is the final word of v. 18 as well (‫‘ ;מאשׁר‬one who is fortunate’). Even if Sæbø is correct that 3:19– 20 are a secondary expansion of 3:13– 18, it is clear that the editors have made an effort to tie the two couplets in 3:19– 20 to the macarism in 3:13– 18 with the key words ‫‘( חכמה‬wisdom’, 3:13a, 19a) and ‫תבונה‬ (‘understanding’, 3:13b, 19b). ‘Wisdom’ and ‘understanding’ thus bind the larger ‫אשׁרי‬- c omposi tion of 3:13– 2 0 togethe r in its cur r ent form. As Sæbø himself notes, while 3:13– 18 may be regarded as a little hymn to wisdom, 3:19– 20 also participate in the praise of wisdom (65, 69). Whatever the original relationship between the two sections, there is widespread agreement that Prov 3:13–18 and Prov 3:19– 20 comprise two movements within the larger unit of Prov 3:13– 20. James Loader (2014, 168– 77; cf. Meinhold 1991, 78– 79) labels these ‘Wisdom’s Value for Humans’ (vv. 13–18) and ‘Wisdom’s Value for God’ (vv. 19–20). This section in Prov 3:13– 20 bears remarkable affinity to the poem in Job 28. First, Proverbs 3, like Job 28, contains both an extended section proclaiming wisdom’s value over precious metals and gems (Prov 3:14–15; Job 28:15–19) and a cosmological passage about the relation of God to wisdom during creation (Prov 3:19–20; Job 28:23–27). Second, both Prov 3:13–20 and Job 28:1–28 are dominated by the keywords ‫ חכמה‬and ‫תבונה‬, which are the objects of the search both in the Joban poem and in Proverbs 1–9. In addition to framing Prov 3:13, 19, each of these terms is repeated in the two refrains in Job 28:12, 20 (see also ‫ בין‬in v. 23). Third,

4.  Newsom (2003, 301)  states, ‘As a reply to what has gone before, chapter  28 recasts the issues of the prose tale and the wisdom dialogue in terms of the categories, vocabulary, and intellectual problems congenial to its own metalinguistic culture. This is the sort of interpretive transposition of keys that Gerald Bruns describes as the allegorical element in hermeneutics’ (emphasis original).

6. The Proverbial Rhetoric of Job 28

81

Prov 3:13 introduces the trope of ‘finding’ (‫ )מצא‬wisdom, which is also essential to the message of Job 28 (28:12– 13). And while the first line of the Joban poem introduces a ‘source’ ( ‫ )מוצא‬for silver, this word nonetheless plays a part in the theme of ‘finding’ (‫ )מצא‬in the Joban poem, by way of phonologic and graphic play. Similarly, the words for ‘finding’ in vv. 12, 13 contribute to the poem’s fundamental metaphor of a ‘source’ (see Jones 2009, 124). Fourth, both Prov 3:13–20 and Job 28 feature silver (‫ ;כסף‬Prov 3:14; Job 28:1, 15) and gold (Prov 3:14; Job 28:28:1, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19 [various terms]) as a prominent word pair to illustrate wisdom’s rarity, value, and incomparability. Finally, the metaphor of ‘path’ ( ‫ )דרך‬is central both to the proverbial unit (Prov 3:17) and to the Joban poem (Job 28:7–8, 23; cf. 28:26). There are significant differences between the two passages, however. Most notably, the unit in Proverbs does not feature any ‘search’ that is so critical to the meaning of the Joban poem. Its initial macarism only curtly refers to the fortune of the one who finds wisdom (3:13). Second, while wisdom is personified in Proverbs 3 and is symbolized as a tree of life, it is neither personified nor hypostasized in Job 28 (see Jones 2009, 173–75). The poem expressly departs from such traditions, instead personifying the forces of the Sea and Death. Third, while the Joban poem climaxes with divine revelation to humans through speech, this is expressly lacking in Prov 3:13–20. Given both these similarities and differences, I  would like to treat the three sections of the Joban poem as counterpoints to three different parts of Proverbs 3, finally juxtaposing Job 28:28 and Prov 3:7 as intertexts: Prov 3:13

Job 28:1–11

Prov 3:14–15

Job 28:12–22

Prov 3:19–20

Job 28:23–27

Prov 3:7

Job 28:28

The remainder of the chapter focuses on the last three pairs in the above list.

She is more precious than coral (Prov 3:14–15) Of all the verses in Prov 3:13–20, vv. 14–15 have the closest connection to Job 28: ‫כי טוב סחרה מסחר־כסף‬ ‫ומחרוץ תבואתה‬ 5

‫יקרה היא מפנינים‬

‫וכל־חפציך לא ישׁוו־בה‬

14

For her turn of profit is better than silver,

and what she yields is greater than gold. 15

She is more precious than coral,

and all your valuables are incomparable to her.

5. Reading Qere. Ketiv is ‫מפניים‬. On the meaning ‘corals’, see Jones 2009, 228–29.

82

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

To these lines one may compare the extended list in Job 28:15–19 which seemingly enumerates every ‘precious thing’ (cf. Job 28:10) to which wisdom may not be compared. ‫לא־יתן סגור תחתיה‬ ‫ולא ישׁקל כסף מחירה‬ ‫לא־תסלה בכתם אופיר‬ ‫בשׁהם יקר וספיר‬ ‫לא־יערכנה זהב וזכוכית‬ ‫ותמורתה כלי־פז‬ ‫ראמות וגבישׁ לא יזכר‬ ‫ומשׁך חכמה מפנינים‬ ‫לא־יערכנה פטדת־כושׁ‬ ‫בכתם טהור לא תסלה‬

15

Fine gold cannot be given in its place,

and silver cannot be weighed for its purchase price. 16

It cannot be paid for with the gold of Ophir,

with precious carnelian or lapis-lazuli. 17

Neither gold nor glass can be estimated against it,

and ornaments of pure gold are not its exchange. 18

Neither pearls nor rock crystal may be mentioned,

and a sack of wisdom is more (precious) than coral. 19

Topaz stones of Cush cannot be estimated against it.

It cannot be paid for with pure gold.

There are several clear intertextual connections between the two passages. First, both texts focus on gold (various terms), silver (‫)כסף‬, and corals (‫ )פנינים‬as the main objects of comparison to wisdom, which surpasses all of them. Second, both Prov 3:14–15 and Job 28:15–19 are oriented around business metaphors of profit and yield. The Proverbs passage expresses this as a ‘turn of profit’ (‫)סחר‬. Third, both texts use comparative constructions in order to communicate the superiority of wisdom. While Prov 3:15 reads ‘She is more precious than coral’, Job 28:18 expresses the notion in a similar manner: ‘A sack of wisdom is more (precious) than coral.’ Ther e a r e ob vious differences between the two texts, however. First is the personification of Wisdom in Prov 3:13–20, which, though it is ambiguous in vv. 14– 15, is obvious by v. 16; and by v. 18 ‫ חכמה‬is portrayed also as a ‘tree of life’ (‫)עץ־חיים‬. As I noted above, nowhere in Job 28 is wisdom personified, and vv. 15–19 play an important role in the objectification of wisdom even as they name objects to which wisdom cannot be compared. The second point is closely related. Though both texts speak of trade profit (‫ )סחר‬or payment (‫)סלה‬, Job 28:15–19 is dominated by a particular type of exchange of valuables entailing weighing (‫ )שׁקל‬and ‘lining up’ (‫ )ערך‬to assess values. Third, Job 28:15–19 is a much fuller list, dominated by Egyptian loan words and place names, especially by five different terms for gold. Finally, the Joban passage is much more negative in focus, as underscored by the use of ‫ לא‬as its key word (seven times). Clines (2006, 918) rightly notes in this connection, ‘[N]ever in Proverbs is the impossibility of buying wisdom with silver and gold a theme, as it is here.’ Despite their differences, Prov 3:14–16 is often seen as the motivation for the composition of Job 28:15–19, which seem to sit uneasily in the poem in Job 28. Indeed, I  myself have argued as much in a previous book:  ‘As with proverb

6. The Proverbial Rhetoric of Job 28

83

collections, Job 28:15–19 strike one as being “additive and aggregative” and its rhetoric seems to have been influenced by similar motifs on the high value of wisdom in proverbial texts such as Prov 3:14–15’ (Jones 2009, 214). On that basis, added to the fact of the lacuna of Job 28:14–19 in both the Old Greek and the Qumran targum of Job (11Q10), I argued that Job 28:15–19 should be thought of as an exegetical interpolation that comprised the earliest commentary on the original poem on wisdom that later became incorporated into the canonical edition. I  was by no means the first to suggest this. In 1896, for example, Karl Budde (1896, 160)  referred to these verses as an ‘Einschub’, and there may well have been others before him. One of the most instructive examples of this position may be found in Moses Buttenwieser’s (1922, 286) commentary, which deserves to be cited at length: Verses 15–19 betray themselves at a glance as an interpolation. They are a heterogeneous element in the chapter, both in thought and style. They deal with the incomparable value of wisdom, whereas the thought brought out in ch. 28 is that absolute wisdom rests with God, it is not within the power of man to attain. As to the style, the contrast between the diffuseness of vv. 15–19 and the conciseness of ch. 28 could not be more marked. External evidence of the later addition of these verses is found in v. 20, which is a meaningless repetition of v. 12. When the interpolator wrote vv. 15–19 in the margin, either at the bottom or the top of the page, he added v. 12 as a cue to indicate that they should be inserted after this verse. As usual in such cases, the later copyist paid no attention to the cue, but inserted the interpolated verses, cue and all, at random.

I now find such a view less cogent than I did previously, and I think it is worth reconsidering the role of vv. 15–19 in Job 28, especially in light of Prov 3:14–15. Even if these verses were originally an exegetical interpolation into the original poem, why should they not be read together with Job 28:1–28 in the canonical edition? My question here is posed in the spirit of Brevard Childs’s work in his Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (1992), in which he consistently acknowledges the work of later tradents in the biblical text. But rather than dismissing this work as unoriginal, he sees these passages as critical to understanding the canonical shaping of the text which, according to him, ‘offers a critical norm by which subsequent Christian response must be tested in terms of theological compatibility’ (336).6 To return to the example of Job 28:15–19, these verses emphasize the metaphor of cost, whereas the remainder of the poem is more concerned with wisdom’s place (Jones 2009, 235). Job 28:15–19 therefore shape the Joban poem more in the direction of Prov 3:13–20. Indeed, it may well be that these verses are evidence that either an author or an editor correctly perceived the poem’s essentially proverbial 6.  Here Childs is commenting particularly on the role of Gen 22:15–18 in relation to Gen 22:1–14, 19, though the same principle obtains throughout his work.

84

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

character. Considered in the light of Proverbs 3, it makes perfect sense that the poem in Job 28, like the passage in Prov 3:13–20, would move from a focus on humans finding wisdom (Job 28:1–11; Prov 3:13) to the value of wisdom (Job 28:12–22; Prov 3:14–18) to the role of wisdom in creation (Job 28:23–28; Prov 3:18–20). Rather than considering these lines outside of the primary metaphorical movement of the poem from journey (vv. 3–11) to construction (vv. 23–27), Job 28:15–19 may be seen as a part of a metaphorical chain of three different types of royal activities for finding or displaying wisdom: journey (vv. 1–11), trade (vv. 15–19), and construction (vv. 23–27) (on the two ancient metaphors of journey and construction in comparison with modern models for wisdom, see Jones 2013, 486–96).

YHWH founded the earth by wisdom (Prov 3:19) The passage in Prov 3:13–20 closes with four lines on the role that wisdom (‫)חכמה‬ a nd kn owledge (‫ )תבונה‬played in establishing the cosmos (3:19– 20). Arndt Meinhold (1991, 81) opines that 3:19– 20 are ‘a masterpiece of Hebrew didactic poetry with theological content’ (my translation). Even if Sæbø and others are correct that vv. 19–20 were a later addition to Prov 3:13–18, it is clear that these lines form an integral part of Prov 3:13–20 in its current shape and, more importantly, that the movement from finding wisdom (3:13) to lauding wisdom’s value (vv. 14– 15) to considering wisdom’s role in creation (vv. 19–20) has an exact parallel in the structure of other biblical texts like Job 28. Though Prov 3:19–20 and Job 28:23–27 are relatively short passages, they share a number of commonalities. First, both passages use the vocabular y of understanding (‫תבונה‬, Prov 3:19; ‫בין‬, Job 28:23) and knowledge (‫דעת‬, Prov 3:20; ‫ידע‬, Job 28:23). Unsurprisingly, they also include the merism ‘heaven and earth’, divided across a single couplet (Prov 3:19; Job 28:24). Third, both texts use typical language of ‘fixing’ (‫ )כון‬in their creation account (Prov 3:19; Job 28:27). Finally, wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬is primary in both texts (Prov 3:19), though it is represented in the Joban poem only by a third feminine singular object suffix (‫הּ‬-). The differences between the two texts are significant, however. First, Prov 3:19 speaks of YHWH founding the earth by wisdom (cf. Jer 10:12=51:15), whereas in Job 28:23 it is wisdom itself, as the foundation stone of the cosmos, that is fixed by God (see Jones 2009, 97–99; 2013, 494). As Meinhold (1991, 79) notes, the preposition in the proverbial passage underscores that wisdom is not an independent essence, as it is for humans. Rather, for YHWH it is a means or capability that separates God from humans. Remarkably, the Joban passage seems to suggest that wisdom is not a divine instrument of creation but something that God sees during an act of creation (28:27; see Jones 2009, 96–99, 199–204). As Davis Hankins (2013, 222) puts it, wisdom in this passage is neither a part of God nor creation, but exists in a space of disjunction between the two. Second, the creation text in Prov 3:19– 20 is symmetrically constructed, where ‘earth’ is matched by ‘heaven’ in 3:19, while ‘deeps’ is matched by ‘clouds’ in 3:20. These two lines ‘describe divine creation

6. The Proverbial Rhetoric of Job 28

85

of the cosmos and its provisioning through water’ (Van Leeuwen 2007, 77). By contrast, the creation account in Job 28:25–26 has very little to say about the fountains of the deep (but see Job 28:1, 11, 14); it is focused instead on the water produced by thunderstorms. Further, the waters in Job 28:25–26 are not so much a source of nourishment as they are the prerequisite conditions for a theophany. Third, the proverbial passage contains no divine speech, nor does it mention any. But in Job 28, the rain and wind (vv. 25–26) mark the occasion for revelation in v. 28, where God, like a storm deity, speaks to humans through a thunderstorm. However elusive it may seem, the creation account in Job 28 suggests that the same wisdom God discovered during the creation of the storm is available to humans in the form of the piety demonstrated by Job himself in ‘fearing God and turning from evil’ (cf. Job 1:1, 8; 2:3).

Fear YHWH and turn from evil (Prov 3:7) The lack of divine speech in the Proverbs passage – especially of speech exhorting humans to ‘fear God’ – may well be the most significant difference between Prov 3:13–20 and Job 28:1–28. The divine exhortation to human piety is the telos of the Joban poem, while the section in Proverbs 3 has no such goal or end. It is interesting that it is the Joban poem, not the proverbial one, that is often dismissed for its proverbial and didactic flavor. In How to Read a Poem, Terry Eagleton (2007, 89)  notes the modern tendency to dismiss didactic poems as ‘inferior modes of writing’. One can only wonder whether the enthusiasm about the aesthetics and theology of the little creation text in Prov 3:19–20 such as that expressed by Meinhold would have been greatly reduced had this text, too, been followed by an exhortation to human piety.7 And yet it is of course true that the whole of Proverbs is characterized by such an ethical focus by the statement in the book’s motto that ‘the fear of YHWH is the ‫ ראשׁית‬of knowledge’ (1:7).8 As Fox (2000, 69) notes, this verse ‘states an axiom

7. It is remarkable, I think, to note different reactions to didacticism in various wisdom texts. Perhaps such didacticism is tolerated more easily in Proverbs because readers expect little more. Then when presented with a beautiful poetic fragment (didactic though it is), interpreters comment on its poetic beauty, despite its didacticism. In Job, however, didacticism is largely dismissed as Philistine or as a sign of aesthetic failure. It seems to me that these judgements are fuelled, at least in part, by ideas such as those that informed the work of Hartmut Gese (1958) and Hans Heinrich Schmid (1966) on the development of the wisdom tradition from simpler, proverbial forms to more complex, reflective texts such as Ecclesiastes and Job. Though such a linear development is far too simplistic a model, it continues to inform theological and aesthetic judgements on the wisdom literature. 8. I leave the term ‫ ראשׁית‬untranslated here, as it connotes both the foundation and goal of knowledge, not simply one or the other. On the interpretation of ‫ ראשׁית‬in this verse, see especially Yoder 2009, 8.

86

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

o f the epistemology of Proverbs’. Given that this axiom is foundational for the whole book, perhaps the absence of such an overt ethical statement within Prov 3:13–20 is not so noteworthy after all. Interestingly enough, however, the two-part command to ‘fear God and turn from evil’ is found in an earlier section in Prov 3:7: ‘Do not be wise in your own eyes. Fear YHWH and turn from evil.’ Though it does not lie within the bounds of the unit in Prov 3:13–20, I would like to consider this line as an intertext to Job 28:28, stating near the beginning of Prov 3:13– 20 what Job 28:28 states at the end of the Joban poem. The wording of Prov 3:7b and that of Job 28:28 are quite close, with the exception of the rather odd use of ‫ אדני‬in the Joban poem (see Jones 2009, 208–209). But the first line of Prov 3:7 has no parallel in the Joban text. One could, however, see the admonition in Prov 3:7a ‘Do not be wise in your own eyes’ (‫)אל־תהי חכם בעיניך‬ as an exegesis of what it means to ‘fear YHWH and turn from evil’, both in Prov 3:7b and in Job 28, especially vv. 1–11. As Fox (2000, 151) rightly remarks, ‘[T]he notion of “intellectual self- determination” never characterized Wisdom literature at any stage.’ In a similar vein, Loader (2014, 156) says of Prov 3:7, ‘While wisdom begins with the Fear of God, it also ends there . . . Wisdom is limited by God as i ts outer boundary and therefo re prope r wisdom is embedded in faith.’ These comments apply equally well to the poem in Job 28, the purpose of which is to raise questions about how accessible wisdom is to humans, not least the humans that are engaged in a heated debate over Job’s fate. The point in the Joban poem is no less profound than that in Prov 3:7, so I think it unfair to dismiss it, as some do, as ‘a bold and bland . . . statement of traditional piety’ (Geller 1987, 174). The fear of ‫אדני‬ in Job 28 is hard-won revelation stated as the poem’s riddling answer to its riddling question: ‘Whence wisdom?’ It is the proverbial conclusion to a proverbial poem.

Conclusions This chapter has offered a ‘spatial’ intertextual reading of several passages from Proverbs 3 and Job 28 that underscores some basic similarities between the two texts as well as some notable differences. Most fundamentally, they share the threefold movement of finding wisdom, praising wisdom’s value, and considering wisdom’s role in the creation of the cosmos. Especially extensive are the connections around the value of wisdom (Prov 3:14–15; Job 28:15–19). Reading Job 28 with Prov 3:13–20 underscores just how ‘proverbial’ the poem in Job 28 is – a quality that has sometimes led to negative assessments of its aesthetic or theological value, especially with respect to Job 28:28. Yet not only is v. 28 an essential part of the poem’s proverbial frame (vv. 1a, 12a, and 28a); as a comparison with Prov 3:7 suggests, the exhortation to piety in these lines is to be expected in the larger context of the threefold movement noted above. While an intertextual reading of Job 28 with Prov 3:13–20 cannot prove the originality of every portion of the Joban poem, it nonetheless demonstrates that disputed sections such as Job 28:15–19 and Job 28:28 are at home within the rhetorical and metaphorical worlds of Proverbs; and at the same time, the rhetorical and metaphorical worlds of Proverbs have found a home in the heart of the book of Job.

6. The Proverbial Rhetoric of Job 28

87

Bibliography Barton, J. 2013. Déjà lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory? Pages 1–16 in Reading Job Intertextually. Edited by K. J. Dell and W. Kynes. LHBOTS 574. London: T&T Clark. Budde, K. 1896. Das Buch Hiob. HKAT 2/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Buttenwieser, M. 1922. The Book of Job. New York: Macmillan. Childs, B. S. 1992. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Clines, D. J. A. 2006. Job 21–37. WBC 18A. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Crenshaw, J. L. 2001. Job. Pages 331–55 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by J. Barton and J. Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University. Dell, K. J. 1991. The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature. BZAW 197. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Eagleton, T. 2007. How to Read a Poem. Oxford: Blackwell. Fiddes, P. M. 1996. ‘Where Shall Wisdom be Found?’ Job 28 as a Riddle for Ancient and Modern Readers. Pages 171–90 in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason. Edited by J. Barton and D. J. Reimer. Macon, GA: Mercer University. Fox, M. V. 2000. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB18A. New York: Yale University Press. Geller, S. A. 1987. ‘Where Is Wisdom?’: A Literary Study of Job 28 in its Settings. Pages 155–88 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by J. Neusner, B. Levine, and E. Frerichs. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress. Gese, H. 1958. Lehre und Wirklichkeit in der alten Weisheit. Studien zu den Sprüchen Salomos und zu dem Buche Hiob. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck). Hankins, D. 2013. Wisdom as an Immanent Event in Job 28, Not a Transcendent Ideal. VT 63:210–35. Hecke, P. van. 2003. Searching for and Exploring Wisdom. A Cognitive-Semantic Approach to the Hebrew Verb ḥāqar in Job 28. Pages 139–62 in Job 28: Cognition in Context. Edited by E. van Wolde. BibInt 64. Leiden: Brill. Hoffman, Y. 1996. A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context. Translated by J. Chipman. JSOTSup 213. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. (Hebrew original, 1995.) Jones, S. C. 2009. Rumors of Wisdom: Job 28 as Poetry. BZAW 398. Berlin: de Gruyter. Jones, S. C. 2013. Job 28 and Modern Theories of Knowledge. TT 69:486–96. Loader, J. A. 2014. Proverbs 1–9. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters. Meinhold, A. 1991. Die Sprüche. Teil 1: Kapitel 1–15. ZBK 16/1. Zurich: TVZ. Newsom, C. A. 2003. Dialogue and Allegorical Hermeneutics in Job 28:28. Pages 299–306 in Job 28: Cognition in Context. Edited by E. van Wolde. BibInt 64. Leiden: Brill. Rad, G. von. 1970. Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Sæbø, M. 2012. Sprüche. ATD 16/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schmid, H. H. 1966. Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit. Eine Untersuchung zur altorientalischen und israelitischen Weisheitsliteratur. Berlin: Töpelmann. Seow, C. L. 2013. Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary. Illuminations. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Van Leeuwen, R. C. 2007. Cosmos, Temple, House: Building and Wisdom in Mesopotamia and Israel. Pages 67–92 in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel. Edited by R. J. Clifford. SBLSymS 36. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Van Leeuwen, R. C. 2018. Agriculture and Wisdom: The Case of the ‘Gezer Calendar’. Pages 365–80 in ‘When the Morning Stars Sang’: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by S. C. Jones and C. R. Yoder. BZAW 500. Berlin: de Gruyter.

88

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Waltke, B. K. 2004. The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Westermann, C. 1977. Der Aufbau des Buches Hiob. Mit eine Einführung in die neuere Hiobforschung von Jürgen Kegler. Calwer Theologische Monographien, Reihe A: Bibelwissenschaft 6. 2nd, expanded ed. Stuttgart: Calwer. (1st ed., 1956). Yoder, C. R. 2009. Proverbs. AOTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Chapter 7 T W IC E - T O L D P R OV E R B S A S I N N E R- B I B L IC A L E X E G E SI S Mark Sneed

The phenomenon of twice-told proverbs in the book of Proverbs represents a unique form of intertextuality within Proverbs. As Daniel Snell (1993, 19–22) has analysed, repetition in Proverbs can range from verbatim to increasingly dissimilar synonymy: whole verses with one dissimilar word; whole verses with two dissimilar words; with three; with four or more dissimilar words; half-verses repeated with spelling variations; half-verses with one dissimilar word; with two; half-verses repeated in whole verse with each word in the half-verse appearing in the whole; half-verses repeated in whole verses with one and with two dissimilar words; syntactically related verses. Here is an almost verbatim form of repetition1: Prov 6:10–11

Prov 24:33–34

A little sleep, a little slumber,

A little sleep, a little slumber,

‫מעט שׁנות מעט תנומות‬

‫מעט שׁנות מעט תנומות‬

a little folding of hands to sleep.

a little folding of the hands to sleep.

‫מעט חבק ידים לשׁכב‬

‫מעט חבק ידים לשׁכב‬

And your poverty will come like a robber,

And your poverty will come like a robber,

‫ובא־כמהלך ראשׁך‬

‫ובא־מתהלך רישׁך‬

and your lack like an armed warrior.

and your lack like an armed warrior.

‫ומחסרך כאישׁ מגן‬

‫ומחסריך כאישׁ מגן‬

Note that the first bicola are identical. The variations are found in the last cola and are very slight: change from piel to hithpael for ‘robber’; change in the nouns for ‘poverty’; and change in number for ‘lack’. What is interesting is that this repetition occurs in two separate collections in Proverbs 1–9, which are considered one of the youngest sections in Proverbs and chapters 22:17–24:34, one of the oldest sections. These examples are in the form of a quarto-colon, but most repetitions occur in bicolon form, called sentences by biblical scholars, as in these variants: 1. Unless otherwise noted, all Hebrew translations are my own.

90

Reading Proverbs Intertextually ‫מאשׁת מדינים ובית חבר‬

‫טוב לשׁבת על־פנת־גג‬

Better to dwell on the roof corner than with a contentious woman and house in common. (21:9) ‫מאשׁת מדונים וכעס‬

‫טוב לשׁבת בארץ־מדבר‬

Better to dwell in a wild land, than with a contentious and angry woman. (21:19) ‫מאשׁת מדונים ובית חבר‬

‫טוב שׁבת על־פנת־גג‬

Better to dwell on the roof corner, than with a contentious woman and house in common. (25:24)

Again, these citations represent two distinct collections in Proverbs: 10:1–22:16 and chapters 25–29. Consider, then, the following variants (also from different collections): ‫ואשׁת מדונים נשׁתוה‬

‫דלף טורד ביום סגריר‬

A dripping roof on a rainy day, is like a contentious woman. (Prov 27:15) ‫ודלף טרד מדיני אשׁה‬

‫הות לאביו בן כסיל‬

A ruin to his father is a foolish son, and a dripping roof is a contentious woman. (Prov 19:13)

These also represent variants with the repetition of ‘dripping roof ’. All of these proverbs about the contentious woman are essentially saying the same thing  – a contentious wife is annoying  – but they do so in widely differing ways, both formally and substantially. And, might I add, they all reflect the typical chauvinism of the time. One does not find a corollary contentious husband, although Prov 26:21 condemns a quarrelsome person in general. The contentious wife may be contrasted with the ‘good’ wife, which draws the following related proverbs into this intertextual dialogue: A wealthy house is an inheritance from the ancestors,

But an insightful wife is from the Lord. (Prov 19:14) He who finds a wife finds fortune, And finds favor from the Lord. (Prov 18:22)

While these proverbs are not strictly twice-told proverbs, they communicate the same message. Note that the first proverb (19:14) is located next to the proverb about the contentious wife above (19:13), a natural connection. In turn again, this brings to mind Prov 31:10: A noble wife who can find? Her value is greater than pearls.

Of course, this verse is part of the famous ode to the noble woman that ends the book of Proverbs (31:10–31), which depicts the ideal Israelite wife, or, to be more

7. Twice-Told Proverbs as Inner-Biblical Exegesis

91

accurate, the ideal Israelite scribe’s wife. She is certainly not contentious but is industrious, wise, and brings only honour to her husband. So what are we to think of all these literary and mental interconnections? Though other proverb collections of the ancient Near East include repetition of proverbs, they never occur in the same collection to the degree they do in Proverbs (Snell 1993, 11). Knut Heim (2013, 3, 10–11) has pointed out a few instances in the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope, Ankhsheshonq, and Instructions of Papyrus Insinger, and in the Babylonian Counsel of Wisdom, but these are minor in comparison with Proverbs: 223 out of its 915 verses involves it, or 24 per cent! This degree of repetition begs for explanation!

The Significance of Twice-Told Proverbs Several scholars have attempted to extrapolate the significance of this phenomenon. Daniel Snell (1993, 74–82) believes that it provides evidence for the compositional history of Proverbs. By examining to what degree a proverb collection in Proverbs participates in this phenomenon and how far the number of repetitions in one collection occur in other collections, he proposes the following compositional history: chapters 25–29 are the oldest.2 Then were added 16:16–22:16, 10:1–14:25, and 23:12–24:22. To these were added 24:23–34, 6:1–19, 14:26–16:15. Then 1:1– 5:23, 6:20–9:18 was added as an introduction to 10:1–22:16 and 22:17–23:11 was added as an introduction to 23:12–24:22 and chapters 25–29. Finally, the appendix of 30:1–31:31 completed the book. Still, another perspective is represented by David Carr (2011), who believes this phenomenon helps us enter into the psychology of the scribes behind the book. Carr argues that twice-told proverbs are evidence that scribes relied on oral memory to produce proverbs. For example, he argues that the example provided earlier, Prov 6:10–11 and 24:33–34, represents what one would usually find in the transmission of memorized texts and not simply copying from a text because the degree of variations is so slight (26–27). After examining closely all the various kinds of repetition in Proverbs, Carr concludes: This range of instances of proverbs with parallels concentrated in one line may testify to how the tissue of proverbial sayings were not just transmitted as wholes, but that their parts almost served like lexemes3 in an internalized wisdom vocabulary, one composed of sayings, lines, and phrases  – along with words particularly attached to learning. Those who had memorized this vocabulary could recombine elements from it in the process of forming new sayings. (29)

2. Most scholars would not agree with this, for example, Clifford 1999, 6. 3. Ray mond Person also argues that Israelite scribes thought in terms of ‫ דברים‬or ‘words’, which is similar to Carr’s notion of lexeme (Person 1998, 604).

92

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Why did the scribes produce proverbs in this way? What made this endeavour worth it? Similar to Carr, Michael Fox (2009, 488)  prefers to call this phenomenon permutations (rather than repetitions) that involve the use of mental templates. He views the phenomenon as evidence of an easy and useful way for sages to produce new textual proverbs (489). He argues that these permutations are especially germane to wisdom literature because they enable an interesting dialectic between the old and new proverbs, whether oral or literary (489). But why is creating a dialectic between proverbs important for the reader? Finally, we come to Knut Heim (2013), who has made the most exhaustive and seminal study of this phenomenon. He has discerned both literary and hermeneutical significance in it (29–35). For one, it indicates that biblical poetry may go beyond the bicolon to wider and wider contexts. Second, it points to the sophisticated work of editors who created this phenomenon to develop the structure of the book of Proverbs aesthetically. In his work, Heim is attempting to counter scholars who view the sentences as hermeneutically independent and representing largely disorganized (e.g., Clifford 1999, 108)  or only loosely organized collections of proverbs (e.g., Fox 2009, 478–82). Heim argues for a larger macrostructure for the sentences, what one may call a Sitz im Literatur, that is, a literary context that Heim believes cannot be ignored when interpreting them. Heim’s thesis is brilliant and important, though, as we shall see, it largely ignores the nature of the proverbs as independent entities.

Oral Twice-Told Proverbs In order to understand better this phenomenon, we first need briefly to treat their occurrence as oral proverbs and the interface between these and literary proverbs.4 We have examples of oral, folk proverbs being cited within a social context in the Hebrew Bible (Judg 8:21; 1 Sam 24:13; 2 Sam 5:65; 1 Kgs 20:11). However, there are no examples of variants of these. There are also citations of popular proverbs in other books within a literary context (e.g., Jer 13:23; 1 Sam 10:12; cf. the repetition in 1 Sam 19:24), but, again, there are no variants. Susan Niditch supplies an extra-biblical example of an oral proverb cited in literature that finds its way into literature as literature. The oral form is found in the

4.  A few wisdom experts have argued that the sentences in Proverbs are folk sayings used originally only orally and thus reflecting the lower classes instead of the upper ones or the elite (e.g., Golka 1993; Kimilike 2008, 38–80; Whybray 1990, 60–1, 68, 92–3, 100, 103, 114–17). The consensus is that even if some of the cola are popular sayings, they have been reworked and are thus epigrams associated with famous people, like Solomon, and produced by elite courtiers or scribes (see Fox 1996, 237–8; Sneed 1996, 297). 5. Daniel Pioske (2016, 261–79) argues that 2 Sam 5:6–9, which contains a folk saying, is prose that reflects an oral mentality, unlike its more literary narrative context.

7. Twice-Told Proverbs as Inner-Biblical Exegesis

93

Babylonian Talmud and represents our notion of a ‘fifth column’ (Niditch 1976, 192). A Rabbi applies a proverb to demonstrate that Obadiah, viewed as an Edomite proselyte, turns against his own nation in his prophecies: Right from within the wood, the ax will go against it. (bSan. 39b)

The point is ironic in that an axe, made of wood, can cut down wood. The proverb is six words in Hebrew, rhymes, and is prosodic. Also, it is introduced with the phrase ‘thus people say’, indicating its oral provenance. Niditch (1976, 193) points out that a variant literary form is found in both the Syriac and Armenian versions of the story of Ahiqar. The following is the Syriac version: You have been to me, my son, like a tree who says to its cutters, ‘If something from me were not in your hands, you would not have fallen upon me.’ (8:24)

The proverb is applied to Nadan, Ahiqar’s treacherous nephew. Here is the Armenian version (Niditch 1976, 194):  ‘If you were not from me, you would not conquer me.’ Niditch argues that the Talmudic version is an oral proverb (cited in literature), while the two other versions have been prosaized, are longer, and, thus, represent literary variants. As for modern examples, paremiologists are famous for producing dictionaries on proverbs that basically document the derivation of proverbs along with their variants. We will look at a few examples. The first involves the English form of this biblical proverb: One who withholds his rod hates his son, One who chastises him loves him. (Prov 13:24)

It is transformed into English in the shorter and oral, ‘Spare the rod, spoil the child.’ This example, like Niditch’s, shows that a proverb can have both a literary and oral form that differ slightly.6

6.  The Hebrew generic designation mashal does not distinguish between these, similar to the English ‘proverb’. The meanings range from folk sayings, by-words, parables, poems, and aphorisms. The etymology of the term’s meaning as ‘comparison’ does not help either because many of the meshalim do not contain any comparison. Neither do the versions help in any way. The Vulgate’s Proverbia and the LXX’s paroimíai are both very broad categorizations that would include both folk proverbs and aphorisms or epigrams. Susan Niditch’s (2004, 86) definition demonstrates the ambiguity and broad scope that mashal can have, ‘[A] form of oblique and artful communication that sets up an analogy between the communication (a saying, an icon, a narrative, a symbolic action or another form) and the real life settings of the listeners.’

94

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

The saying ‘Good fences make good neighbours’ emerged in northern Ireland in the nineteenth century, originally with ‘mearings’ or stone walls rather than ‘fences’ – more appropriate to America with plenty of timber – and was brought to the United States by Irishmen, where this change was made (Williams and Mieder 2004, 332–33). There are several Gaelic versions like ‘Good boundaries make friendly neighbors’ and ‘A good hedge [wall] makes good neighbors’ (333). The Scots, Welsh, and English originally never had ‘good fences’ (334–35). Today, of course, the proverb has spread to all these regions via the American version (334). Benjamin Franklin plagiarized many of the proverbs included in his ‘Poor Richard’s Almanac’ (Green and Stallybrass 2006). He took most of them from English authors like Lord Halifax and Thomas Fuller’s ‘A Collection of English Proverbs’. Franklin cites this proverb about the difficult circumstances of the poor:  ‘An empty Sack cannot stand upright’, but modifies it to ‘An empty Bag cannot stand upright’, probably due to limited space on the page. In a later edition, he expands it to: ‘‘Tis hard (but glorious) to be poor and honest. An empty Sack can hardly stand upright; but if it does, ‘tis a stout one!’ And, again, later, he changes it to: ‘It is more difficult for a Man in Want to act always honestly, as it is hard for an empty Sack to stand upright.’ But these variations are minor and represent diachronic modification and/or localization. They do not represent the degree of reconfiguration of proverbs that those in Proverbs usually display. So, what is going on here?

Twice-Told Proverbs as Inner-Biblical Exegesis As was noted earlier, the repetition of proverbs in Proverbs is found both within the individual collections, marked by the superscriptions (Solomon [1:1; 10:1], Agur [30:1], king Lemuel’s mother [31:1], simply ‘the wise’ [22:17; 24:23], and others copied by Hezekiah’s officials [25:1]), and also between the collections. The repetition within and without the collections creates an interesting problem hermeneutically. For proverbs in normal usage, meaning is produced irrespective of the immediate context, whether oral or literary:  they literally stand on their own. For example, the English proverb ‘A stitch in time saves nine’ conveys the same advice about the benefits of not procrastinating whether it is on a blank sheet of paper or cited in a particular social context. Though potentially used in a number of differing contexts, the proverb itself is not directly dependent on them for the production of meaning. But a collection of proverbs is a different bird! And its inclusion of repetitions further disturbs this process. So, in a collection, do the proverbs remain independent or must the variants form part of the production of meaning? The twice-told proverbs that occur in different collections create an additional effect. Transcending the borders of the collections is a way to break down those boundaries and create a resonance between the collections, which tends to promote a synchronic rather than diachronic perspective for the reader of Proverbs. These two phenomena are exactly the kind of thing that intertextuality delights in. As Timothy Beal (2000, 128)  notes in connection with Julia Kristeva’s seminal

7. Twice-Told Proverbs as Inner-Biblical Exegesis

95

work in intertextual theory, intertextuality is ‘part of a larger critique of modern conceptions of texts as discrete, self-enclosed containers of meaning’. This means twice-told proverbs represent a kind of inner-biblical exegesis, much in the vein of Michael Fishbane (1988, 14), who states that ‘the Hebrew Bible has an exegetical dimension in its own right’ (emphasis original). But first, in order to understand better his version of inner-biblical exegesis, we need to describe the notion of proverb ‘clusters’ (Fox’s terminology [2009, 478]). No wisdom experts view the arrangement of the sentences in the collections of Proverbs as totally chaotic. Instead, they speak of ‘clusters’, groups of proverbs that are thematically connected or loosely cohering due to the repetition of catchwords and other literary devices. Here is an example of a cluster: Treasures will not profit the wicked,

But justice will deliver from death. The Lord will not let a just person starve, But the desire of the wicked he will thrust away. A slack hand creates poverty, But the diligent hand will make rich. He who gathers in the summer is an insightful son, One who sleeps during the harvest is a shameful son. (Prov 10:2–5)

Obviously these proverbs are thematically related to the issues of wealth and poverty and diligence versus laziness. The editor who placed these together apparently wants the reader to interpret them as group. But does that mean that the proverbs no longer function independently on their own? And if not, does not this vitiate their nature as proverbs? While scholars agree on the occurrence of clusters, they disagree on how tightly to employ them in interpretation. To one extreme are Heim and Bruce Waltke (2004, 45–50), who interpret the clusters tightly, with each proverb interacting with the rest simultaneously. To the other extreme is Stuart Weeks (1994, 37–38), who speaks of ‘thematic chains’ that were neither important for the editors, nor for interpreting the individual sentences. In the middle is Michael Fox (2009, 477–83), who interprets the sentences according to clusters but only in a rather loose way. But Heim goes one step further. As part of his strategy in seeing wider literary contexts for the sentences, Heim maintains that twice-told ‘proverbs’ can be used to aid in interpreting individual sentences. In other words, variants can be used to interpret each other, even outside the cluster. This is new and provocative and essentially expands the notion of cluster. For example, Heim (2013, 331) offers a novel interpretation of the intractable Prov 13:8 by comparing it with 13:1b, which while in close proximity is not in the same cluster (13:7–11): A wise son [listens to] the father’s instruction,

but the mocker does not listen to reproof. (13:1) A man’s wealth can ransom his life, but the poor has not listened to reproof. (13:8; Heim’s translation [329])

96

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

By comparing 13:1b and 13:8b – identical except for their subjects – along with 10:15b (‘the ruin of the poor is their poverty’ [235]), Heim suggests that ‘the poor’ in 13:8b must be a foolish person who has continually ignored parental advice and, thus, has become poor (331–32). Also, Heim believes the wealth of 13:8a comes through hard work, with an eye on 13:7b: ‘one who pretends to be poor but has great wealth’ (333). Thus, in a crisis, hardworking wealthy persons can bail themselves out with their surplus, while the foolish poor have no such options. Though an ingenious interpretation, the proverb (13:8: ‘The wealth of a man ransoms his life, but the poor need not heed a rebuke’ [my translation]) seems rather to be simply observing the advantages of wealth and poverty: the rich can buy their way out of trouble, while the poor can ignore rebuke because they have nothing to lose. Whether the poor listen to reprimand or not, their situation will not drastically alter. Here Heim is simply using one proverb to interpret another, which, as one can see clearly, becomes quite circular. Furthermore, he has turned a descriptive saying into a prescriptive one. Is this truly due to Heim’s version of inner-biblical exegesis or does it reflect his own interpretive presuppositions? It is inter esting that other scholars who interpret clusters more tightly do not engage in such a circularity. Bruce Waltke (2004, 558– 59) does not view the poor here as morally culpable. He believes the poor do not listen to rebuke that i nvolves the threat of loss due to the fact that they do not have the economic means of saving themselves. Similarly, I view the poor here as not listening to moral rebuke because they foresee that it cannot change their social standing, not because they do not have the means of delivering themselves from loss. Waltke connects vv. 8 and 1 but only for defining ‘rebuke’, not for connecting the ‘mocker’ a nd the ‘poo r’. Similarly, Raymond Van Leeuwen, who interpre ts clusters less tightly (see his general discussion in 1997, 23), also notes the connection between vv. 1 and 8, but like Waltke, does not see the ‘poor’ as identical with the ‘mocker’. Inst ead, he takes the common approach of extending the meani ng of ‘rebuke’ to t hreat of death, which aligns the situation of v. 8a mores closely with v. 8b, but perhaps distorts the meaning of ‘rebuke’ (‫)גערה‬. Fox (2009, 564) ultimately despairs of solving the conundrum of this proverb. He thinks perhaps a scribe has mistakenly copied v. 1b to form the second colon. However, he does not use this verse to interpret v. 8b! Let us examine a case that involves twice-told proverbs that are located further apart than the first example: Treasures from wickedness do not profit,

But righteousness will deliver from death. (10:2) Wealth will not profit on the day of wrath, But righteousness will deliver from death. (11:4)

Here Heim has more supporters in connecting both proverbs in their interpretation. Heim (2004, 214– 15), Fox (2009, 511), and Waltke (2004, 452– 53) all use the phrase ‫( אוצרות רשׁע‬treasures from wickedness) in 10:2a to interpret ‫( הון‬wealth) in

7. Twice-Told Proverbs as Inner-Biblical Exegesis

97

11:4a. Wealth, then, in 11:4a, which at first glance appears neutral, becomes tainted by the notion of ill-gotten gain. Heim adds 11:1 as further supporting evidence: Fraudulent scales are an abomination of the Lord, But a whole weight is his pleasure.

However, I would side with Van Leeuwen and Richard Clifford here. Van Leeuwen (19 97, 117 ) doe s not even cite 10:2 in commenting on 11:4. Cl ifford (1999, 122) does cite it but does not see it as relevant for interpreting the phrase. Both view ‫( ביום עברה‬day of wrath) as a crisis situation and not a day of judging the wicked. Basically, the proverb teaches wealth does not aid in time of trouble in their view, whereas Fox and Waltke view the wealth of 11:4a negatively and its owners sure to pay for their oppressive ways. So which way do we go with this? Are we bound to Heim’s circular approach where twice-told proverbs must be used to interpret each other or do we go to the other extreme and view them all as simply a nice aesthetic effect that can be ignored in interpretation? I would argue that a middle of the road approach seems best. One should certainly not ignore the variants, but, at the same time, the variants do not absolutely determine the meaning of any individual proverb. One should consider the parallels as aids or guides but not constraining or absolutely determinative. Rather they are suggestive. A final example is unique in that it involves a cluster of proverbs (26:1–12; see Heim 2013, 586) in which there are two twice-told proverbs: Do not answer a fool according to his folly,

lest you be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes (Prov 26:4–5). The legs of the lame hanging down, and a proverb in the mouth of fools. (26:7) ……………………………………………… A thorn in the hand of the drunk, and the proverb in the mouth of fools. (26:9)

Another variant that Heim cites for his interpretation here is in Sir 20:20: A proverb from a fool’s lips will be rejected, for he does not tell it at the proper time. (NRSV)

While other scholars do not connect vv. 7 and 9 with vv. 4–5 (Clifford 1999, 231; Fox 2009, 293–94; Waltke 2005, 349–50; Van Leeuwen 1997, 224), Heim does (2013, 583–88). He believes vv. 4–5 supply the situation wherein vv. 7 and 9 operate. Heim maintains that the fool in the latter verses is misapplying proverbs by citing them at the wrong time, which makes them futile and hurtful. He refers to this as faulty

98

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

‘proverb performance’, a paremiological term brought to the attention of biblical scholars by Carole Fontaine (1985). It refers to how proverbs are used in everyday conversation and situations.7 However, these proverbs do not seem to involve the adversarial context that vv. 4–5 assume. V. 7 does not demand confrontation. The futility of the proverb in the fool’s mouth is due to two possibilities. First, the fool orally cites the wrong proverb for a particular occasion, perhaps to cinch an argument or to make a statement about a situation, but it is a mismatch. Or, second, the fool orally cites the proverb but does not activate its moral, which would mean the proverb would be useless for himself. This possibility would not involve proverb performance per se because the mismatch is not oral but in its implementation (or lack thereof) and also points to its impropriety because, as Waltke (2005, 351) puts it, the ‘noble proverb’ does not belong in the fool’s mouth. Instead of futility, v. 9 suggests self-damage, such as when a drunk grabs a thornbush and is pricked, implied by the paralleling of fool and drunk. Here too the fool either cites a proverb inappropriately to his disadvantage or does not activate it personally and suffers the consequences. Nothing suggests an adversarial or hostile context where the fool needs reprimanding. Intertextually, what is fascinating is that we have an example of a fool, actually the epitome of folly, Woman Folly, who quotes a proverb that is anything but the dangling of lame legs: Stolen waters are sweet, Hidden bread is pleasant. (Prov 9:17)

It is in the context of the contest between Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly to seduce the young man. Here Woman Folly seductively notes with the citation that secret sin can have its own reward! Of course, Woman Folly has to have this proverb suitably in her mouth because she must represent a comparable threat to Woman Wisdom. Woman Folly fumbling with a proverb here would certainly not be very seductive.8 Many wisdom experts have pondered why a scribe placed 26:4–5 together. There have been numerous explanations, most leaving the conundrum unresolved (see Fox 2009, 793–94). Fox sees the second admonition qualifying the first. This is reasonable, but what is the reason for the qualification? As far as I can tell, no scholar has resorted to the cultural context to explain it. From an honour culture perspective, these verses involve the situation of challenge and riposte. In this type

7.  In Africa, proverbs have been used rhetorically in forensic settings to persuade a jurist to side for the plaintiff or defendant (Messenger 1959) or to teach young people morality (Arewa and Dundes 1954). Other usages are:  (1) ‘to support an argumentative claim concerning behavior’; (2)  ‘to teach or promote reflection by way of advice’; (3)  ‘to establish interpersonal rapport’; (4) to entertain via verbal creativity, which is viewed as a supplement to the above functions (Barajas 2010, 70). 8. On how this instance of dissonance serves to deconstruct Proverbs 1–9, see Sneed 2007.

7. Twice-Told Proverbs as Inner-Biblical Exegesis

99

of situation, the main concern is in how the one challenged gauges whether he can ignore the challenge and still maintain his honour. The option of ignoring a challenge always relates to the relative social status of the combatants (see Bourdieu 1974, 197–215). Thus, if the challenger is of a lower status than the one challenged, then he can probably ignore the challenge with impunity. Also, if the challenger is of a higher status than the one challenged, then not reciprocating would be the safest route and would probably incur no loss of face, since the one challenged is essentially under the authority of the challenger and can do nothing about it. However, if the combatants are of the same social status, then the challenged person must respond in some way to preserve his honour intact. Also, if the challenger is belligerent and keeps challenging the person, then the intensity of the attack demands some kind of response in order to preserve the honour of the one challenged. Thus, I would argue that the fool in v. 4 is technically of a lower status than the sage, and, so the normal approach would be for a sage to ignore him or respond to him in a calmer manner. As Roland Murphy (1998, 199) points out for Prov 26:4, ‘[D]eigning to an answer is to give honour to one who does not deserve it, 26:1.’ In 26:1, one finds, ‘Like snow during the summer or rain the harvest, thus honour is not befitting the fool.’ However, Prov 26:5 would apply in situations where the honour of the sage is challenged to such a degree that some kind of response is necessary. Thus, the fool must be put in his place! It could also be that wisdom is at stake and to ignore the fool would be to admit that folly prevails – something that could not be countenanced – which is still an honour concern. There are a couple of related and sequential proverbs about scoffers that reinforce this notion: One who admonishes a scoffer receives shame,

and the one who reproves the wicked becomes repulsive. Do not reprove a scoffer lest he hate you, Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. (Prov 9:7–8)

These show that how one responds to a scoffer or fool depends on gauging the effects of shame. As a general policy it is better to ignore the fool (or respond benignly) because to engage him further would be to elicit insult and challenge. However, as Prov 26:5 indicates, there are times when the appropriate response is to defend one’s honour and turn the table or else experience loss of face before the audience.

Conclusion While these examples represent variation within the same collection, the twice-told proverbs about the contentious woman represent variation between collections but create further intertextual effects. This phenomenon serves to bind the collections

100

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

together and blunt any diachronic features still present in the collection. It encourages the reader to focus on the final form of the text when attempting to interpret the proverbs. The superscriptions then become less boundary markers than attempts to buttress the authority of the collections with the names of famous persons who were known for their wisdom. But, again, that does not mean the individual proverbs are overdetermined by their repetitions. Perhaps the twice-told proverbs were intended to create a deeper, more reflective, type of interpretation rather than the simple circularity that Heim suggests. The cultural context needs serious consideration as well, as 26:4–5 demonstrates. That the twice-told proverbs were intended to be an aid in interpreting the individual proverbs is indicated in the proem (1:1–7) at the beginning of the long prologue (chapters 1–9): For giving the simple cleverness, and to the youth knowledge and discretion.

Let the wise hear and increase learning, and let the insightful attain wise counsel. For understanding a proverb and enigma, the words of the wise and their riddles. (1:4–6)

Many scholars have argued that the prologue in fact serves as a hermeneutical key or theological introduction to help in interpreting the less cohering sentences that begin in chapter 10 (e.g., Van Leeuwen 1997, 26–27, 31). This long section of instruction then primes the reader for the more loosely connected sentences within the collections that follow. However, the twice-told proverbs could have served in the same way, especially for ‘understanding a mashal’. Better than the prologue, the twice-told proverbs are a more direct way to model interpreting the individual sentences. They produce instant resonances, and a ‘creative dialectic’ (Fox 2009, 489). When no teacher was actually present to model how to interpret a proverb, the phenomenon of twice-told proverbs could serve as the next best thing.9 They would also serve to supplement the clustering of 9.  Archaeological evidence provides insight into how proverbs were used concretely for pedagogical purposes. Round Sumerian school tablets have been found with lexical lists on one side and matching proverbs on the other (Alster 1997, 1:xviii). The collections may also have functioned as a source for rhetorical phrases used in debates (1:xix). In the Old Babylonian period, young scribes at Nippur were trained in two phases (Veldhuis 2000, 383–87). In the first phase, students copied lexical texts; this activity imparted the writing system and introduced Sumerian vocabulary. At the end of the first phase, tablets with aphorisms were used, and their contents prepared students for studying Sumerian in the second phase, which was the actual reading of texts. There are many points of contact between the proverbial imagery and the literary texts. This latter stage involves what can be called enculturation of the scribes. Yoram Cohen (2009, 2013) has demonstrated that a similar curricular sequence of aphoristic usage was followed by scribal schools in the Western Periphery (Mitanni, Syria and Canaan) during the Late Bronze Age.

7. Twice-Told Proverbs as Inner-Biblical Exegesis

101

related proverbs, providing an added layering of inner-exegesis. But again all of these devices should be seen as aids and not absolutely determinative or constrictive.

Bibliography Alster, Bendt. 1997. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections. 2 vols. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Arewa, E. O., and Alan Dundes. 1954. Proverbs and the Ethnography of Speaking Folklore. American Anthropologist 66:70–85. Barajas, Elías Domínguez. 2010. The Function of Proverbs in Discourse: The Case of a Mexican Transnational Social Network. Edited by Joshua A. Fishman. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 98. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Beal, Timothy K. 2000. Intertextuality. Pages 128–30 in Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation. Edited by A. K. M. Adam. St. Louis: Chalice. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1974. The Sentiment of Honour in Kabyle Society. Pages 191–241 in Honor and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Edited by J. G. Peristiany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Repr. Midway. Carasik, Michael. 1994. Who Were the ‘Men of Hezekiah’ (Proverbs XXV 1)?. VT 64: 289–300. Carr, David M. 2011. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clifford, Richard J. 1999. Proverbs: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Cohen, Yoram. 2009. The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age. HSS 59. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cohen, Yoram. 2013. Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age. Writing from the Ancient World 29. Atlanta: SBL. Fishbane, Michael. 1988. Paperback ed. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon. Fontaine, Carole. 1985. Proverb Performance in the Hebrew Bible. JSOT 32:87–103. Fox, Michael. 1996. The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs. Pages 227–39 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Fox, Michael. 2009. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven, CT: Yale. Golka, Friedemann W. 1993. The Leopard’s Spots: Biblical and African Wisdom in Proverbs. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Green, James N. and Peter Stallybrass. 2006. Benjamin Franklin: Writer and Printer: Inventing Poor Richard. The Library Company of Philadelphia. Online at http://www. librarycompany.org/bfwriter/poor.htm (accessed 25 October 2013). Heim, Knut Martin. 2013. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry. BBRSup 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kimilike, Lechion Peter. 2008. Poverty in the Book of Proverbs: An African Transformational Hermeneutic of Proverbs on Poverty. Bible & Theology in Africa 7. New York: Lang. Messenger, John. 1959. The Role of Proverbs in a Nigerian Judicial System. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15:64–73.

102

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Murphy, Roland. 1998. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Nelson. Niditch, Susan. 1976. A Test Case for Formal Variants in Proverbs. JJS 27:192–94. Niditch, Susan. 2004. Folklore and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. Person, Raymond F. 1998. The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer. JBL 117: 601–609. Pioske, Daniel. 2016. Prose Writing in an Age of Orality: A Study of 2 Sam 5:6–9. VT 66:261–79. Sneed, Mark. 1996. The Class Culture of Proverbs: Eliminating Stereotypes. SJOT 10:296–308. Sneed, Mark. 2007. ‘White Trash’ Wisdom: Proverbs 1–9 Deconstructed. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7, article 5: 1–10. Online at http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/ Articles/article_66.pdf (accessed 24 April 2011). Sneed, Mark. 2015. The Social World of the Sages: An Introduction to the Israelite and Jewish Wisdom Literature. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Snell, Daniel C. 1993. Twice-Told Proverbs and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Van Leeuwen, Raymond. 1997. The Book of Proverbs: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. Pages 19–264 in Introduction to Wisdom Literature; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Book of Wisdom; Sirach. NIB 5. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Veldhuis, Niek. 2000. Sumerian Proverbs in their Curricular Context. JAOS 120:383–87. Waltke, Bruce K. 2004. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Waltke, Bruce K. 2005. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 16–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Weeks, Stuart. 1994. Early Israelite Wisdom. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon. Whybray, R. N. 1990. Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs. JSOTSup 99. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Williams, Fionnuala Carson and Wolfgang Mieder. 2004. The Proverb ‘Good Fences Make Good Neighbors’ in Ireland. Folklore 115:332–37.

Chapter 8 D I DAC T IC I N T E RT E X T UA L I T Y:   P R OV E R B IA L W I SD OM A S I L LU S T R AT E D I N   R U T H Katharine Dell

It is often noted that Ruth is a woman of exemplary character in her behaviour and relationships and a comparison with Proverbs 31 has commonly been made.1 The phrase ‫( אשת חיל‬a good/noble/worthy wife) is explicitly used by Boaz of Ruth in Ruth 3:11 (cf. Prov 31:10–29).2 That the woman of Prov 31:10–31 is an example of the ideal presented in Proverbs 7–9 and that these vignettes top and tail the book of Proverbs is well established.3 Ruth fits into this picture then as another example of the woman of worth4 and hence links up with the Wisdom ideal herself.5 The book of Ruth appears to answer the question posed by Prov 31:10  – ‘A capable wife, who can find?’ The answer is Ruth herself (Ruth 3:11). The main difference between the two women is that Ruth is of a more lowly status than the woman described in Proverbs 31, although no doubt after her marriage to Boaz that would not have been the case. Another difference is that of race, with Ruth being a Moabitess, although we are not explicitly told the race of the woman of worth. With Proverbs 31 representing an ideal, it can be said that Ruth fulfils that ideal after her marriage and after the birth of her son. As Sakenfeld (1999, 62) writes, ‘It is easy to imagine, based on what is known of Ruth so far, that as Boaz’s wife she would become the epitome of the wife described in Proverbs.’ The similarities are clear. As Goswell (2016, 122) writes in summarizing fashion:

1. As fully spelt out by Campbell (1975). See also McCreesh 1985, 25–46. 2. Prov 31:10 and 31:29 form an inclusion around the description of the model woman in their use of hayil. 3.  Camp (1985); Whybray (1994). One might also consider Prov 31:30 which links up with mention of ‘praise’ in v. 28 and with its reference to the fear of the Lord linking up with Prov 1:7; 9:10. It is interesting that this is a separate proverb, which would also be an indicator of a link with more general maxims. 4. See Goh 2014. 5. Ruth also acts as an anti-type to the foreign woman of Proverbs 1–9, in her foreignness, yet worthiness.

104

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Both are women of energy and action (e.g. Prov 31:15, 27; Ruth 2:2, 7, 17); both work to supply the needs of their family and provide food for their household (Prov 31:15, 21; Ruth 2:18); both show ‘kindness’ (hesed) (Prov 31:26; cf 31:20; Ruth 3:10); both are praised as superior by their husband and by others (Prov 31:28–9; Ruth 3:10–11; 4:15); both work hard (Prov 31:13, 27; Ruth 2:2, 17, 23); and both women are God-fearing (Prov 31:30; Ruth 1:16; 2:12.

I would add that both are women of moral worth. For Ruth ‫ חיל‬stands for the quality of Ruth’s person, notably in her devotion to her mother-in-law and loyalty to the family (Ruth 2:11–12; 3:10). There is also the suggestion of a deliberate canonical link up between Proverbs 3 1 and Rut h, gi ven t he pl a cing o f books in the Writings. For example, Stone (2013) places an emphasis on the ways books are placed within the canon (which he calls ‘compilation consciousness’), and notes that the canonical link ProverbsRuth encourages the reading of Ruth within a wisdom framework. Furthermore, Goswell ( 2016 ) notes that there is also an interesting point of comparison with another verse in Proverbs 31, outside the description of the ‫אשת חיל‬, notably where the mother of Lemuel advises him not to give his strength (‫( )חיל‬the basic meaning of the word) to women who destroy kings (31:3), whereas Ruth, the woman of worth, builds up the Israelite kingdom via her descendant David. It is possible that the canonical placement of Proverbs 31 and Ruth together in the Leningrad codex was in order for one to enrich the other, according to ancient readers.6 The placement of Ruth before the Song of Songs was also arguably to emphasize the love interest in both texts.7 However, in this chapter I want to take a slightly different approach that looks at intertextual resonances with proverbial wisdom more widely than simply Proverbs 31, notably from the sayings collections (in Proverbs 10–30). This is to show how the didactic method of proverbial maxims as found in Proverbs with its ethical emphasis is applied in the book of Ruth. The character of Ruth reveals that she is not simply a woman of worth, but she is also a profound exemplar of the values embodied in proverbial wisdom. Indeed she is both exemplar and recipient of such values as I  shall go on to show. My argument is that such intertextual resonance is another way in which Ruth herself links up with the wisdom ideal, not simply through her female figure/worthy womanliness or wife and mother roles. Other characters in the book too, notably Boaz and Naomi, are a part of this didacticism in that general maxims are also illustrated by their behaviour and

6.  Proverbs 31 can be seen canonically as a bridge both between the wisdom ideal of Proverbs 1–9 in the depiction of a real woman (Yoder 2001) and as a bridge to Ruth in which a man finds a ‘suitable wife’ (as Proverbs 31). 7. Goswell (2016, 120) makes this point. He also discusses the same romantic effect that is achieved through liturgical placement of the Song of Songs before Ruth in the Jewish order of festivals, that is, Song of Songs (Passover); Ruth (Weeks).

8. Didactic Intertextuality

105

by their character interrelationships, noticeably not directly with each other but through Ruth herself.8 It is of wider interest how a narrative text such as Ruth links up with more abstract moral qualities as found in Proverbs.9 This comparison works in two directions. One could produce a maxim and then find a story to illustrate it (and this is occasionally done within Proverbs itself, e.g., Prov 7:6–9) or one could apply the comparison the other way around – a story is illustrated by a wider paradigm. Such a technique is mutually referential and illuminating. This is a literary interplay rather than a question of direction of literary influence. This resonance with a general maxim gives the story didactic ‘thrust’ for the reader.10 Ruth is worthy of emulation. Whether these connections were in any way meant by an author is a separate question to the fact that these resonances can be found in the text in its present form. I shall treat them as synchronic intertextual resonances leaving the possibility open that diachronic resonances may also have been intended.11 I am coining the phrase ‘didactic intertextuality’ to explain this phenomenon. I am not entering into debate as to whether Ruth is a wisdom novella of some kind in that I am not seeking a genre definition for Ruth.12 Rather, I am simply pointing out how one can read the book in the light of general proverbial maxims. At the very least Ruth is a didactic story because it teaches through character and plot

8. Indeed Boaz is also described as ‫ חיל‬in Ruth 2:1 and one might cross-refer to 1 Kgs 1:42 where Abiathar the priest is described by Adonijah as a ‘worthy man’. This may also have overtones of Boaz being a man of substance in material wealth and social standing as well as personal qualities. 9.  One might look at this possibility with reference to many other narrative texts in the Hebrew Bible. This is not the question of whether narrative texts show explicit wisdom influence but rather that of whether general proverbial maxims are illustrated in character behaviour in certain narratives. 10.  Cheung (2015, 29)  notes that ‘a ruling wisdom thrust’ is a key aspect of any text seeking to impart wisdom and that such an intent may help with defining the wisdom genre, especially when it comes to texts with weaker links to the genre. I choose to use my own phrase ‘didactic thrust’ to indicate rhetorical intent over wisdom classification. 11.  The dating of Ruth  – early or late  – would influence this decision and there are arguments on both sides of this debate. However, the lack of precise dating of proverbial wisdom  – given its oral antecedents  – makes this question an academic one. General maxims may have circulated from earliest times before receiving literary placement and so illustration of such principles in the Ruth narrative could well be primary. In relation to ‘intertexts’, we can find literary and thematic connections in the material that we have in written form since these are our access to the oral precedents that are now lost to us. See Niditch 1997. 12. Campbell (1975) came close to this classification of Ruth as a wisdom novella in his emphasis on the similarities between Proverbs and Ruth, particularly in the areas of divine retribution and the system of retributive justice. For Ruth as an ideal wisdom figure, see Beyer 2010.

106

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

and in fact the phrase ‘didactic intertextuality’ avoids complex ‘wisdom’ definition issues.13 A didactic story suggests that Ruth is worthy of emulation and that her example teaches others. The proverbial intertexts strengthen that persuasiveness. Proverbs 21:21 states, ‘Whoever pursues righteousness and kindness will find life and honour.’ Würthwein (1969, 5–6) argued that the whole book of Ruth was written to illustrate this proverb! Following this lead, in what follows I shall demonstrate how the themes of general proverbial maxims are played out in Ruth in order to demonstrate this didactic intertextuality. I shall focus on the character of Ruth here, although the same observation applies to the other two main characters, Naomi and Boaz. For example, in reference to Naomi, the opening line of the book of Ruth tells us that it was because of famine that Elimelech took his wife and sons to Moab (Ruth 1:1). It is the reversal of this famine that leads Naomi to consider returning to Judah (1:6–7). Let us consider in this context Prov 30:8: ‘Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that I need.’ The idea here is of proper portion – not of excessive food, nor of less than enough. God is being petitioned to provide food sufficient to human survival.14 This author asks to be neither rich nor poor, but simply to be provided for by God with the necessities of life. In v.  9 he recognizes that either extreme leads to denial of God: excessive wealth would lead to an illusion of self-sufficiency that does not need God and excessive poverty would lead to stealing and lawless behaviour. The via media of v. 8 means that there is no danger of offending God or any incentive to evil behaviour. He asks for divine help to give him a balance in life and the accompanying moral character that will enable him to be true to God. In similar vein to Proverbs, and recalling this idea of proper portion, is the emphasis on God’s provision of sufficient food to reverse the famine: ‘Then she [Naomi] started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the LORD had considered his people and given them food’ (Ruth 1:6). A second example, this time in relation to Boaz, is in order. This concerns the theme of generosity of spirit. Boaz shows repeated generosity and kindness to Ruth and this becomes an important theme within the book. We read in Ruth 2:14: ‘At mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here, and eat some of this bread.” She ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over.’ In Ruth 2:16 Boaz encourages others to be generous to Ruth and to treat her gently and kindly when he says: ‘You must also pull out some handfuls for her from the bundles, and leave them for her to glean, and do not rebuke her.’ Generosity is also acclaimed by the proverbial material. It is presented as ironic in Prov 11:24 that ‘Some give freely, yet grow all the richer; others withhold what is due, and only suffer want’. This suggests that philanthropy is a good thing. It might also suggest that generosity leads to riches, perhaps not only monetary ones. A person whose generosity is a source of blessing

13. Sneed (2015) provides a recent discussion of this complexity. 14. See Harvey 2016. This is the idea behind ‘daily bread’ in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:11), that is, an adequate sufficiency.

8. Didactic Intertextuality

107

to others will in turn enjoy prosperity.15 The proverbs advocate kindness especially to the poor, as Boaz demonstrates. So we read in Prov 11:24: ‘Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and will be repaid in full’ (cf. Prov 19:17). A more summarizing proverb links kindness with righteousness in Prov 21:21: ‘Whoever pursues righteousness and kindness will find life and honour.’16 While scholars have found intertextual links of Ruth with Genesis and with legal material in the Pentateuch, I have not found this particular comparison of Ruth with the maxims of Proverbs made in the literature (see Schipper 2016, 13–16). I  shall hence explore the proverbial values that link up with themes from Ruth that centre mainly around the character of Ruth and her interactions with others. I  have found ten areas of concern that illustrate this link with the character of Ruth both as exemplar of values and recipient of the moral approbation of others.

Friendship and Family Loyalty Let us consider a few proverbs here. The first is Prov 17:17: ‘A friend loves at all times, and kinsfolk are born to share adversity.’ This illustrates the shared duties of friends and family and yet with the inference that it is family that share the bad times more than friends. It depends upon one’s interpretation of this verse: there are two lines of interpretation. Some scholars interpret it as saying that in a crisis a person can be more sure of family because kinship has its own obligations which means that such a person is more likely to be counted upon (so Van Leeuwen 1997). Other scholars take the proverb to mean that the spontaneity of friendship leads to a constancy that at least equals, if not outweighs, the bond of the relative and that, if the friendship survives adversity, it is indeed a true blessing (Toy 1899; Clifford 1999). The proverb is simply equating the two categories of people as equally reliable. This is nuanced further (and arguably contradicted) by another proverb, Prov 18:24: ‘Some friends play at friendship but a true friend sticks closer than one’s nearest kin.’ Here we have the friend/kin theme again but in the rather different context of the reliability of different types of friend. Some friendships do not prove their worth and are fleeting, but others endure and sometimes become as close as a family relationship. This proverb is contrasting social friends who are ultimately full of chatter with the friend who is a friend for life, a kindred soul, one on whom one can rely and who does not walk away in times of adversity: this friend is as close as a brother or sister.17

15. Fox (2009, 542) suggests that the couplet in fact conveys the paradox that ‘[a] man’s personal economy does not always receive the results it deserves’. 16. As I mentioned above, it was Würthwein (1969, 5–6) who famously argued that the book of Ruth was written as an illustration of this proverb. 17. Fox (2009, 647) notes that a ‘brother’ (cf. NRSV’s inclusive ‘nearest kin’) is the gold standard of steadfastness; cf. Prov 27:10.

108

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Yet another proverb, along similar lines, is more concerned with the duties of children, as we read in Prov 23:22, 25:  ‘Listen to your father who begot you and do not despise your mother when she is old . . . Let your father and mother be glad; let her who bore you rejoice.’ Children are clearly expected to care for a widowed mother, as a duty. But the aspect of giving pleasure to ageing parents is also mentioned. Even later in life we have much to learn from our parents. We should not despise them when they become old but should still aim to make them joyful and proud to call us their children. In the book of Ruth family duty is a clear theme. Naomi urges both daughtersin-law to leave her, for their own good. We read of their clear affection for each other in Ruth 1:14, ‘Then they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother in law, but Ruth clung to her.’ Orpah obeys Naomi’s urging to leave and goes on her way, with no guilt associated with that decision, but it is Ruth who exemplifies the family ties mentioned in Proverbs (and she is not even a daughter but a daughterin-law). We read in 1:16: ‘But Ruth said, “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; Where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” ’ This is a clear statement of loyalty, even extending to worshipping the same God as Naomi, even though this God is not her God. Choices have consequences, as is very clear from the whole bipartite structure of proverbial wisdom. The idea of kinship continues throughout the story, with the appearance of Boaz who is a near kinsman, and ultimately in the appearance of the unnamed next of kin in chapter 4. We read in Ruth 2:20 the words of Naomi when she hears of the kindness that Boaz has shown to Ruth: ‘Blessed be he by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead. Naomi also said to her, “This man is a relative of ours, one of our nearest kin.” ’ Of course it is a question whether the encounter between Ruth and Boaz occurred with or without Ruth being aware of this knowledge of Boaz’s family relationship to Naomi. The narrator introduces the reader to the connection at the beginning of the chapter, and Ruth talks of gleaning ‘behind someone in whose sight I may find favour’, which might indicate this mysterious relative, but could also be a more general statement that hopes to find support out in the fields. By 2:20 though the family kinship is revealed and, despite Boaz’s distant relationship to the women, he could be seen to be carrying out familial duties, along the lines of Prov 17:17. In Ruth 3:10 Boaz praises Ruth’s loyalty in two ways – the first is her loyalty to Naomi, about which he has heard, and the second is her loyalty to Boaz in her offering of herself to him on the threshing floor and not going after young men:  ‘He said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter, this last instance of your loyalty is better than the first: you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich.” ’ There may be more to this than simply family ties, but Ruth is certainly exemplifying them. Finally, in Ruth 4:15 the women of Bethlehem say to Naomi: ‘for your daughterin-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him’. Ruth’s loyalty is acknowledged by the wider community and Naomi is given Obed – here the proverb about caring for a widowed mother is recalled, as well as ultimately rectifying Elimelech’s ‘line’.

8. Didactic Intertextuality

109

Hard Work The proverbs are full of injunctions to hard work as the opposite to laziness.18 This may well mean developing a real skill or profession. Hard work brings fulfilment, success and also reward, both monetary and otherwise. Work gives a person responsibility over others and the context in which to develop the ability to manage them. It employs the mind and fosters skills. An example is Prov 22:29: ‘Do you not see those who are skilful in their work? They will serve kings; they will not serve common people.’ This proverb indicates that the skilful will reach the top of society.19 Work is a large part of a person’s identity and gives shape and meaning to life. A familiar contrast is supplied by Prov 13:4: ‘The appetite of the lazy craves and gets nothing while the appetite of the diligent is richly supplied.’ The ‘appetite’ here refers to desire (lit: ‫נפש‬, the soul). The lazy live frustrated lives because they desire many things but their appetites remain unsatisfied because they are not prepared to put in the hard work required to achieve their aims. This proverb provides the interesting insight that while lazy people are always wanting more without putting in the effort involved to get it, all successful people have had to work hard at some time in their lives, even if later on they can rest and enjoy the fruits of their toil. Laziness is a barren land that leads nowhere, while industriousness is an honest engagement with the real world. Ruth is no stranger to hard work and is keen to work in order to help both herself and the older Naomi. She is young and vigorous, straightaway requesting of Naomi, ‘Let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain’ (Ruth 2:2– 3). Upon permission being given, ‘[s]he came and gleaned in the field behind the reapers’ (Ruth 2:3). Ruth works tirelessly leading the servant in charge of the reapers to comment to Boaz: ‘So she came, and she has been on her feet from early this morning until now, without resting even for a moment’ (Ruth 2:7b). Later we are told that her hard work extends into the evening when she ‘beat out’ her gleanings of the day and it came to an ephah of barley (Ruth 2:17). She worked for the entire length of both barley and wheat harvests, working hard during the day and then seeing Naomi in the evenings (Ruth 2:23). We might well be reminded of Prov 6:6– 8, the vignette of the industrious ant who ‘gathers its sustenance in harvest’ (v 8b), the opposite of the sluggard described in the next verses (Prov 6:9–11).

Entreaty The proverbs touch on entreaty in a rather negative vein, as in Prov 18:23: ‘The poor use entreaties, but the rich answer roughly.’ This may be more of a statement 18.  As often noted, the woman of worth in Proverbs 31 is hard-working: Prov 31:13 – ‘She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands’; and Prov 31:27 – ‘She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness.’ 19.  This proverb is, of course, in the section (Prov 22:17–24:22) paralleled by the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope and is probably aimed at young men destined for roles in the royal court.

110

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

about the relative arrogance of rich and poor (cf. Sir 13:1–13), but it is a truism that those with less power in society may have to resort to entreaty on more occasions than those in charge. Ruth uses entreaty to gain access to the field where she wishes to glean. In Ruth 2:7 she says, ‘Please, let me glean and gather among the sheaves behind the reapers.’ It is usually thought that this tone of entreaty is because she is both newcomer and foreigner and so needs to take her place behind everybody else. However, this link with Prov 18:23 raises the question whether Ruth is also poor in this context rather than simply foreign.

Inappropriate Touching It is clear in Proverbs that adultery is a crime. This involves the touching of another, probably a euphemism for having full sexual relations although not necessarily so. So we read in Prov 6:29: ‘So is he who sleeps with his neighbour’s wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished.’ In Ruth there are hints that Ruth, as an attractive woman, is receiving unwanted attention. In Ruth 2:9 Boaz states, ‘I have ordered the young men not to bother you.’ One might compare this with Naomi’s words in Ruth 2:22, ‘It is better, my daughter, that you go out with his young women, otherwise you might be bothered in another field.’ Finally in Ruth 3:10, the fact that Ruth has ‘not gone after young men, whether poor or rich’ is noted by Boaz.

A True Reward The idea of a true reward is a common one in Proverbs with its strict retributive scheme. In Prov 11:18:  ‘The wicked earn no real gain, but those who sow righteousness get a true reward.’ Reward according to the Proverbs involves wealth, many friends, descendants, and a good life. The gain of the wicked is not real as it was procured through deceit. The righteous/wicked comparison is the most frequently drawn one in the Proverbs. Actions have consequences and the receiving of reward or punishment is integrally related to how people behave (cf. Prov 5:21–23; 23:10–11; 24:11–12; 29:26).20 In Ruth 2:12 Boaz makes this statement of hope for Ruth, a kind of entreaty to God: ‘May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge.’ The idea from Ruth and Naomi is that God might reward Ruth – and this comes from Boaz too. Ruth here is the recipient of the true reward hoped for, rather than

20.  This could be extended as a category to include intrinsic retribution – for example, care for the poor in Prov 21:13; 22:22; 28:27.

8. Didactic Intertextuality

111

exemplifying it in her character and yet, had she not been worthy she would not have been eligible for such a hope.

Humility In Proverbs, humility is recommended strongly, as in Prov 15:33b: ‘humility goes before honour’. This is juxtaposed with the ‘fear of the Lord’. The humility to accept reproof enables the attainment of honour and a growing in wisdom (cf. Prov 22:4: ‘The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honour and life’). Humility is often associated with the poor. Ruth herself adopts a demeanour of humility as she does not expect anything from Boaz and thanks him for all he has already done for her. We read of this in Ruth 2:13: ‘May I continue to find favour in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and spoken kindly to your servant, even though I am not one of your servants.’

Redemption The issue of redemption of property and persons is covered in Proverbs. In Prov 23:10–11 we read, ‘Do not remove an ancient landmark or encroach on the fields of orphans; for their redeemer is strong; he will plead their cause against you.’ In the case of the poor or the marginalized in particular, the stronger redeemer figure is often their saviour when adversity strikes. Buying back an inherited field of an indebted relative might be a suitable answer to an unasked-for encroachment. In Ruth much of the story, especially in chapter 4, revolves around the issue of redemption of not only a field but also Ruth herself. She is the recipient of redemption through the sale of the land. In Ruth, Naomi reveals in 2:20 that ‘[t]his man is a relative of ours, one of our nearest kin’. Here she refers to Boaz, but what is not revealed at this point is that there is a nearer kinsman who has a prior claim. Much of chapter 4 concerns the buying off of that kinsman by Boaz, Ruth’s redeemer who wishes to place his claim on the land but mainly on Ruth herself.

Obeying Instructions Obedience to instructions is a key part of the disciplinarian didactic role of the teacher in Proverbs. In Prov 1:8 we read, ‘Hear my child your father’s instruction, and do not reject your mother’s teaching.’ This section of Proverbs has the explicit context of teaching from father to son. However the idea appears also in the main sayings collection, notably in Prov 13:10: ‘By insolence the heedless make strife, but wisdom is with those who take advice.’ It is good to take instruction not only from teachers or elders but to listen to advice from others more generally and not to be ‘wise in one’s own eyes’.

112

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Ruth is good at taking advice, so much so that some feminist scholars have dubbed her too submissive to be a real female heroine.21 She follows the lead of both Boaz and Naomi, listening to her elders, acknowledging her mother-in-law’s teaching. So we read in Ruth 3:6:  ‘So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had instructed her’ (cf. my earlier comments about discipline). She both acts on instruction but also takes a certain initiative of her own.

A Worthy Woman/Wife Apart from obvious parallels in Prov 31:10 – ‘A capable wife who can find? She i s far more pre cious than jewels’ – which for ms the opening statement of the description of such a woman, there is also material in the main sayings collection describing the ideal wife in ways that resonate with Ruth. An example is Prov 12:4: ‘A good wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.’ The behaviour of each member of the family reflects on the others. A good/noble/ worthy wife (‫ )אשת חיל‬is recognized for her worth, but a bad one is the cause of much distress to the beleaguered husband. A good wife also attests to the husband’s shrewd judgement in choosing her and ‘crowns’ her husband in enabling him to attain the fullness of his stature and dignity in society, the crown being a symbol of the highest honour as worn by royalty. The opposite though – a bad wife – is like an inner canker to the bones of her husband, like a fatal disease causing physical and mental distress. There is a similar sentiment in Prov 18:22, without the contrasting opposite: ‘He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favour from the Lord.’ The human and the divine stand side by side in this proverb – the man finds a wife but the fact that she turns out to be a good one is a divine blessing. For Ruth it is important for her to have a good character reference from others and she receives this assurance from Boaz in Ruth 3:11: ‘And now, my daughter, do not be afraid, I will do for you all that you ask, for all the assembly of my people know that you are a worthy woman (‫)אשת חיל‬. Finally at the resolution of the piece in Ruth 4:10 Boaz lays claim to ‘Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, to be my wife’ as a final confirmation of her status.

Building up Your House In Proverbs 1–9 woman wisdom builds her house (e.g., Prov 9:1), but this motif also appears in the sayings collections, for example, Prov 14:1 in a contrast with the foolish woman: ‘The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands.’ Building up one’s ‘house’ however can have a broader meaning of having offspring and descendants to continue one’s ‘house’. In Prov 5:15–19 therefore the

21. As seen in the contributions to Brenner 2003.

8. Didactic Intertextuality

113

father gives advice regarding his son’s fecundity and hopes that the ‘spouse of his youth’ may be endowed with vitality and fruitfulness (cf. Prov 5:18). The house can refer to the parental home or to the new home that a woman makes with her husband or it can refer more broadly to the family or dynasty. So in Ruth 4:11 the women of Bethlehem pray for a similar fate for Ruth as for Israel’s famous matriarchs: ‘May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you produce children’ (cf. Prov 31:29). Less commonly the house is mentioned in relation to the mother rather than the father. We find an interesting mention of ‘your mother’s house’ in Ruth 1:8 (cf. Song 3:4; 8:2). Here Ruth is the recipient of a blessing, both local and national in its echoes of the great matriarchs of the past.

Conclusion I have drawn attention to a method of ‘didactic’ intertextuality at work between Proverbs and Ruth at a synchronic level. It appears from these examples that Ruth not only exemplifies the woman of worth in Proverbs 31, but rather she exemplifies general principles and maxims known in the sayings collections of the book of Proverbs. Whether, as Würthwein (1969) suggested, the book was deliberately composed to illustrate such maxims (and notably Prov 21:21) is unknown and probably unknowable. However, on a synchronic intertextual comparison between the texts interesting connections emerge indicating that the purpose of the book of Ruth as a didactic tale is a real one. The narrative is used to convey moral points through the progression of the story and through the lead character around which the other characters weave and plot. The fates of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz are powerfully interrelated and Ruth’s two elders each have a chance to influence the moral approbation that Ruth receives as well as commenting on the character traits that she seems to exemplify. The power of story is well known to be greater than abstract maxim-making. It is in the context of a powerful story that the full force of morality is experienced in a personal and emotional way by the reader.22 The reader is exhorted to good moral conduct, as exemplified by the characters, and especially Ruth, in this short tale. This is indeed an example of didactic intertextuality at its best.

Bibliography Beyer, Andrea. 2010. Hoffnung in Bethlehem: Innerbiblische Querbezüge als Deutungshorizonte im Ruthbuch. BZAW 463. Berlin: de Gruyter. 22.  Cf. 2 Samuel 12 when the story of the poor man and his lamb touches the heart of King David and then it is revealed by Nathan that the rich man who had deprived this poor man of his one possession is indeed David himself. The narrative turning point comes at verse 7: ‘You are the man.’

114

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Brenner, Athalya, ed. 2003. A Feminist Companion to Ruth. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Camp, Claudia. 1985. Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs. Bible and Literature Series 11. Sheffield: Almond Press. Campbell Jr., Edward F. 1975. Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 7. Garden City : Doubleday. Cheung, Simon. 2015. Wisdom Intoned: A Reappraisal of the Genre ‘Wisdom Psalms’. LHBOTS 613. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Clifford, Richard J. 1999. Proverbs. OTL, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press. Goh, Samuel T. S. 2014. Ruth as a Superior Woman of ‫ ?חיל‬A Comparison between Ruth and the ‘Capable’ Woman in Proverbs 31:10–31. JSOT 38:487–500. Goswell, Gregory. 2016. Is Ruth Also among the Wise? Pages 115–33 in Exploring Old Testament Wisdom: Literature and Themes. Edited by David G. Firth and Lindsay Wilson. London: Apollos. Harvey, Anthony. 2016. Daily Bread. Theology 119/6:403–406. McCreesh, Thomas P. 1985. Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31:10–31. RB 92:25–46. Niditch, Susan. 1997. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. London: SPCK. Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob. 1999. Ruth. Int. Louisville, KY: John Knox. Schipper, Jeremy. 2016. Ruth. AB 7D. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Sneed, Mark R. ed. 2015. Was There a Wisdom Tradition?: New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies. AIL 23. Atlanta: SBL Press. Stone, Timothy J. 2013. The Compositional History of the Megilloth: Canon, Contoured Intertextuality and Meaning in the Writings. FAT II/ 59. Tübingen: Mohr. Toy, Crawford H. 1899. The Book of Proverbs. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 1997. Proverbs. NIB V. Nashville, TN: Abington Press. Whybray, R. Norman. 1990. Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs. JSOTS 99. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Whybray, R. Norman. 1994. The Composition of the Book of Proverbs. JSOTS 168. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Würthwein, Ernst. 1969. Die fünf Megilloth. HAT 18. Tübingen: Mohr. Yoder, Christine Roy. 2001. Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31. BZAW 304. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Chapter 9 E R O T IC W I SD OM F O R A M O R E I N D E P E N D E N T Y OU T H :   I S T H E R E A D E BAT E B E T W E E N S O N G O F S O N G S A N D P R OV E R B S ? Anselm C. Hagedorn

The chapter revisits the scholarly proposal that Song of Songs (Cant) is debating with/arguing against issues regarding the relationship between the sexes in Proverbs. Since it has become increasingly popular to classify Song of Songs as a wisdom book, placing it in close theological vicinity to other ‘Solomonic literature’ such as Qoheleth and Proverbs and subsequently stripping it of human eroticism, it will be necessary to uncover the polyvalence of the portrait of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible (Dell 2005, 8–26; Melton 2014, 130–41; Häner 2017, 13–42). We will argue that there is indeed a certain engagement with topics in Proverbs, but such a ‘debate’ should not lead to the assumption that Song of Songs joins the wisdom traditions that created Proverbs (and Qoheleth). Rather we will show that Song of Songs provides an alternative approach to eroticism and sexuality by viewing the protagonists as independent from social norms and capable of making their own decisions within the context of human love.

Solomon’s Wisdom According to the Hebre w Bible Solomon’s wisdom was a gift from Yahweh.1 When God appears to him in a dream at Gibeah asking what he may give to him ( ‫[ שא ל מה א ת ן לך‬1 Kgs 3:5]), the king replies: ‘Grant, then, your servant a listening heart (‫ )לב שמע‬to judge (‫ )שפט‬your people, to distinguish between good and evil ( ‫ ;)להבין בין טוב לרע‬for who is able to judge this vast people of yours?’ (1 Kgs 3:9). The authors of 1 Kings make it clear that Solomon’s humility finds divine approval and 1 Kgs 3:6– 9 may be the first step towards an identification of wisdom and Torah (Knauf 2016, 170). Though Solomon himself never asks

1. On the role of wisdom in the Solomon narrative, see Lemaire 1995, 106–18.

116

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

directly for wisdom, Yahweh’s reply in 3:12 clarifies that this is meant when he states that Solomon was given a wise and understanding heart (‫)לב חכם ונבון‬ (Noth 1968, 52). As the Solomonic narrative unfolds, it becomes apparent that the wisdom of the king is twofold. First Kings 3:6–9 serves as an overture to the narrative of the two prostitutes in 3:16–28, linked by the particle ‫ אז‬followed by an imperfect verb (Sweeney 2007, 81). This narrative presents Solomon as judge, thus expanding what a wise and understanding heart implies as well as providing an example where the king judges his people. ‘The following story of Solomon’s judgement . . . and its coda . . . show that wisdom is the predominant theme of the Gibeon pericope’ (Cogan 2000, 191). The stress here is on judicial wisdom while 1 Kgs 5:9– 14 [ET 4:29– 34] introduces a further aspect.2 ‘Solomon is endowed with analytical and practical wisdom of the kind that could be found in many quarters of the Near East’ (221). Solomon is described as possessing wisdom that enables him to compose songs and to utter proverbs. It is quite clear that ‘wisdom and understanding in great measure’ (‫תבונה הרבה מאד‬. . . ‫ )חכמה‬is something different than what was given to the king in 1 Kgs 3:6– 9. ‘The passage claims Solomon’s g re at ness in relat ion to the great sages of the east and Egypt, apparently the two regions known for wisdom in antiquity’ (Sweeney 2007, 100). The passage t ra ns form s Solomon into the archety pical sage.3 His wisdom corresponds to his wealth (1 Kgs 5:1– 8 [ET 4:21– 28]) and is literally world famous as the narrative in 1 Kings 10 will later exemplify. In contrast to 1 Kings 3, the text does not emphasize the practical wisdom required to rule but rather his extensive knowledge of the ways of the world (Cogan 2000, 224). This wisdom is revealed and acknowledged by a foreign woman who will in turn carry the king’s wisdom in the world. First Kings 10:1– 10 illustrates the statement in 1 Kgs 5:14 [ET 4:34] that many people, sent by foreign kings, came to hear Solomon’s Wisdom.4 The visit of a queen from a mysterious and faraway country has stimulated the imagination of later authors who begin to read erotic overtones into the story.5 It seems that Solomon’s wisdom is connected to women as both instances that reveal his wisdom happen before women. Just as women are prevalent in his rise to the ideal figure of Israelite wisdom they are also instrumental in his decline. First Kings 11:1– 13 states that his love for many (foreign) women provokes Yahweh’s punishment. A similar topos will reappear in Proverbs’ warning against the temptation of the foreign woman.

2. Noth (1968, 81) argues that 1 Kgs 5:9–14 [ET 4:29–34] is an independent piece next to 3:4ff. 3. This aspect will be expanded later (Hengel 1988, 237–40), when, for example, Josephus transforms Solomon also into a philosopher; see Josephus, Ant. 8.44. 4. Knauf (2016, 292) draws attention to the similarities between 1 Kgs 10:1 and Summary Inscription 4 of Tiglath-Pileser III (text in CoS II, 287–89). 5. See Kunz-Lübcke 2004, 277–96 and the rich illustrations of the reception of the story in Kleinert 2015.

9. Erotic Wisdom for a More Independent Youth

117

Song of Songs and Proverbs as Solomonic Literature Every investigation into possible intertextual links between Song of Songs and Proverbs has to start with the attribution of both biblical books to Solomon. These two books are joined by Ecclesiastes, which does not mention Solomon in Qoh 1:1 but the phrasing of the superscription (‫ )דברי קהלת בן דוד מלך בירושלם‬leaves no doubt that this work should also be attributed to Solomon.6 The Rabbis place the three works in a chronological order linking them to the different stages of Solomon’s life.7 Solomon is mentioned three times in Proverbs (1:1; 10:1; 25:1). Every occurrence is part of a heading of an individual collection. Since there are other attributions of parts of Proverbs (22:17; 24:23; 30:1; 31:1) and the sayings ‘do not usually bespeak the concerns of the royal court and never speak from the perspective of the monarch’ (Fox 2000, 56), these headings point to the reception history of the figure of Solomon. As stated above, he is seen as author of wisdom and thus seems to serve as the patron for this genre of literature.8 C an t 1: 1 , too, as cribes the following eight chapters to Solomon (‫)ש יר ה ש ירי ם אשר לשלמה‬.9 The heading is most likely a secondary addition providing the collection of songs with an author. More than in Proverbs, the heading in Cant 1:1 is set apart from the corpus of the text as it uses ‫ אשר‬instead of ‫ ש‬as elsewhere in Song of Songs.10 Besides the superscription, the name Solomon appears five times in the Song of Songs (1:5; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11). These occurrences are supplemented by the use of ‫ מלך‬in Cant 1:4, 12; 3:9, 11; 7:6 and probably by ‫ השולמית‬in 7:1, which may be understood as an allusion to a female counterpart of Solomon.11 The references to Solomon are scattered throughout the text and generally refer more to his riches rather than his wisdom.12 In Cant itself, Solomon is only present in the things that belong to

6. See the discussion in Häner 2017, 13–42 as well as Melton 2014, 132–34. 7.  See Midr. Cant. Rab. I:vi (Neusner 1989). Origen, in turn, maintains the order Proverbs-Qoheleth-Song of Songs, concluding that Solomon first taught moral science in Proverbs (in Prouerbiis moralem docuit locum succinctis), then, the natural sciences in Qoheleth (in quo multa de rebus naturalibus disserens) and finally Song of Songs instils into the soul the love for and desire of divine things (in quo amorem caelestium diuinorumque desiderium incutit animae); Latin text according to Fürst and Strutwolf (2016, 92). 8. Fox (2000, 57) has noted that in the light of Prov 22:17 and 24:23 the attribution to Solomon in 1:1 ‘implies that Solomon is the author, but one who not only composed but also gathered and incorporated wisdom from his predecessors’. 9.  For a different understanding of lamed auctoris (GK §129c) in Cant 1:1, see Crüsemann 2004, 141–57. 10. On the relationship between ‫ אשר‬and ‫ש‬, see Holmstedt 2012, 113–19. 11. See the discussion in Rudolph 1962, 170–71; Pope 1977, 596–600; Müller 1992, 74. 12.  D. W.  de Villiers (1990, 317–24) has argued that Solomon ‘is the prototype of a powerful man who perverts sexual love’ (323) and – on the basis of Cant 8:7 – should be identified with a rich fool who tries to purchase love.

118

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

him and these objects are not connected to the king elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.13 Even if one argues on the basis of Cant 1:1 that Song of Songs should be connected to wisdom,14 the open eroticism of the following verses trigger different associations.15 It has, therefore, been suggested that references to Solomon are part of a later redaction of Song of Songs that wants to shift the focus away from a more common eroticism towards a chaste love-play between Solomon and his bride (Loretz 2004, 806). As a result, Solomon’s introduction into Cant contributes to the confusion of the reader because the existence of Solomon seems to double the actors as well as creating a literary entity that seems to suspend all rules of ancient Syro-Canaanite poetry (806). This confusion is enlarged by the lack of reference in Song of Songs to the positive aspects of Solomon in 1 Kings 1–11 (Crüsemann 2004, 150). As a result, the reference to Solomon in Cant 1:1 cannot be used as an obvious interpretative key, which allows a clear classification of the character of the following chapters. Though it is tempting to identify Solomon (and the fictitious Shulammite) as the two protagonists in Cant, we have to remember that the ‘song’s lovers are archetypal lovers – composite figures, types of lovers rather than any specific lovers’ (Exum 2005, 8). 16 Furthermore, to read Cant in light of the wisdom tradition so prominently assigned to Solomon in Proverbs (and Qoheleth) is only possible – if one wants to maintain a non-allegorical reading – when one assumes that Cant is about marriage. Such a view, however, is difficult to connect to the portrait of Solomon elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. He is simply not an icon of marital fidelity.

Debating Sexual Behaviour As stated above, much of the reconstruction of intertextual links between Song of Songs and Proverbs that should classify Cant as part of the sapiential tradition

13 . “Cur tains of Solomo n” (‫ ;יריעות שלמה‬1:5); “litter of Solomon” (‫;מטתו שלשלמה‬ 3 :7); “p alanqu in Ki ng Solomon made for h imself ” (‫ ;אפריון עשה לו המלך שלמה‬3:9); “look … at King Solomon, at the crown” (‫ במלך שלמה בעטרה‬...‫ ;ראינה‬3:11); “vineyard which belonged to Solmon” (‫ ;כרם היה לשלמה‬8:11). Frolov (2016, 43) observes, ‘Solomon in the Song of Songs is not much more than a name; and this name would seem to be the book’s only link to the rest of the biblical canon.’ 14. Boyarin (1990, 105–16) has investigated the rabbis’ portrait of Solomon in the Song as ‘the very prototype of the rabbinic reader’ (105), transforming the text into a hermeneutic key to unlock Torah. As a result, ‘[t]he rabbis of the midrash who understood that the Writings as a whole are a reading of the Torah did not perceive the Song of Songs as being at all like a lock to which the key has been lost’ (115). 15.  On Solomon’s sexual wisdom, see Leithart 2013, 443–60 and for a less postmodern interpretation of the links between Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, see Melton 2014, 130–41. 16.  Exum (2005, 90) continues to remark about the figure of Solomon: ‘He is not the lover in the poem, nor one of the speakers. The Song is not “about” him, and yet he casts his shadow over it’.

9. Erotic Wisdom for a More Independent Youth

119

hinges on the figure of Solomon. However, if we look at the remaining linguistic evidence, the result is quite sobering. None of the terms commonly associated with wisdom and sapiential instruction occur in Cant (Schellenberg 2016, 395–96). It seems that Cant is generally uninterested in the notion of acts and consequences.17 If linguistic links between Proverbs and Cant are proposed, they are limited to fairly general words.18 Nevertheless, it has often been observed that Song of Songs and Proverbs 7 utilize erotic language, imagery, and themes so it is apparent that both texts recognize the power of sexuality.19 Since the current trend of classifying Cant as sapiential generally looks at the text through the lenses of classic wisdom such as Proverbs, it is fruitful to turn this interpretative direction on its head.20 If the traditional direction of reading is maintained, Cant becomes a tractate of wisdom for young Jewish women that hopes to guard them against the disappointments of ‘adolescent pursuits of love’ and prepare them for the fulfilment that can only happen in marriage (Sparks 2008, 277–99). Such an approach reveals more about the modern author’s fear of sexuality than the intention of the text. Especially so as only women seem to be advised to strive towards marriage.21 Numerous textual links have been uncovered between Proverbs 7 and Song of Songs.22 These verbal parallels are supplemented by the similar setting of the chapter to Cant 3:1–5 (and 5:2–8), which may have served as a Vorlage for Proverbs 7 (Paul 2001, 45). It can indeed be debated whether Proverbs 7 as well as Prov 31:10–31 can be understood as a conservative response to the Song of Songs (Zakovitch 2011, 401–13).

17. Exum (2016, 67) observes: ‘Its one didactic statement, in 8:6–7, would not be out of place in Proverbs, but one aphorism does not a wisdom book make.’ 18. See the list in Kingsmill 2016, 315 and the more detailed study of Paul 2001, 40–46. 19.  See Murphy 1988, 600–603; Cottini 1990, 25–45; Grossberg 1994, 7–25; Clifford 1999, 86–87. 20.  See Hauge (2015, 158)  who argues, ‘Proverbs 2–7 represents the dramaturgic frame for Canticles as a whole.’ Dell (2005, 17–24) allows for the possibility that Cant has influenced the authors of Proverbs and Arbel (2015, 125–40) suggests ‘that the Song, remarkably, characterizes its female protagonist by employing and merging two sets of characteristics attributed to both “woman wisdom” and “the strange woman” in the wellknown bipolar paradigm of Proverbs’. 21. A different road is taken by Imray (2013, 649–65), who reads Cant through Proverbs 1–9, arguing that the woman of Cant is both safe and dangerous and thus the text ‘evidences a dual-aspect misogyny in its characterization of its female protagonist’ (665). 22 . ‫ צפן‬Prov 7:1/ Cant 7:14; ‫ חלון‬Prov 7:6/ Cant 2:9; ‫ שקף‬Prov 7:6/ Cant 6:10; ‫ שוק‬Prov 7:8/Cant 3:2; ‫ המה‬Prov 7:11/Cant 5:4; ‫ בחוץ‬Prov 7:12/Cant 8:1; ‫ ברחבות‬Prov 7:12/Cant 3:2; ‫בשו ים‬/‫ בשוק‬Prov 7:8/ Cant 3:2; ‫ נשק‬Prov 7:13/ Cant 1:2; 8:1; ‫ ערש‬Prov 7:16, 17/ Cant 1:16; ‫ משכב‬Prov 7:16, 17/ Cant 3:1; ‫ אהלות‬/‫מר אהלים‬, ‫ קנמון‬Prov 7:17/ Cant 4:14; ‫ הלך‬Prov 7:18/ Cant 7:12; ‫ דדים‬Prov 7:18/Cant 5:1; ‫ צרור‬Prov 7:20/Cant 1:13.

120

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Proverbs 7:6–20 is part of the last of four lectures addressing the issue of the Strange Woman (2:16–22; 5:1–23; 6:20–35; 7:1–27) (Fox 2000, 239). In contrast to other passages in Proverbs, the teacher does not speak in imperatives but rather ‘relies on his descriptive powers and his ability to reconstruct imaginatively the woman’s stratagems and seductive conversation’ (McKane 1970, 332). Proverbs 7:6 describes the acts of the ‫ אשה זרה‬from a male perspective, that of the teacher who addresses his pupil in 7:1.23 The passage is a clear warning against adultery. While sexual intercourse with a married woman is punished by the death of both participants in Deut 22:22, Proverbs 7 only stresses the dangers for the young man. Later (7:27) it will be highlighted that pursuing the desire for her ‘is to take the road to Sheol and to arrive at the point of no return’. The concluding verse emphasizes that a correction of the youth’s ways is no longer possible and that the entry into the house of the woman equals the entry into the underworld (Fox 2000, 251). The behaviour of the woman tends to puzzle (male) interpreters.24 Such puzzlement is probably intended by the authors, who want us to adhere to the strict separation of male from female space – a concept that simply expresses an ideal state that can never be achieved. We have to remember that ‘Prov 7:10 does not say that the Strange Woman is a harlot or even that she intends to look like one, but that her harlot-like garb gives her a harlotrous appearance’ (Fox 2000, 243; emphasis original). It seems that Proverbs 7 uses a common literary topos explaining the dangers for a man to be away from home. In Aristophanes’ comedy Peace, a slave describes female behaviour when left alone: νὴ Δία, καὶ μὴ ποίει γ᾽ ἅπερ αἱ

980

985

μοιχευόμεναι δρῶσι γυναῖκες. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖναι παρακλίνασαι τῆς αὐλείας παρακύπτουσιν κἄν τις προσέχῃ τὸν νοῦν αὐταῖς ἀναχωροῦσιν, κᾆτ᾽ ἢν ἀπίῃ παρακύπτουσ’ αὖ

. . . in Zeus name, and don’t act as

adulterous wives do.

23. The Septuagint changes the perspective here and switches from first-person singular to third-person feminine singular: (6) ἀπὸ γὰρ θυρίδος ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτῆς εἰς τὰς πλατείας παρακύπτουσα, (7)  ὃν ἂν ἴδῃ τῶν ἀφρόνων τέκνων νεανίαν ἐνδεῆ φρενῶ. Such a change puts some distance between the teacher and the scene as he now observes the woman who looks out for the one devoid of sense; see the discussion in McKane 1970, 334–36. 24.  See Fuhs (2001, 137):  ‘Sie hat ein Haus, aber kein Zuhause. Sie ist offenbar nicht verwurzelt und geborgen in ihrer Familie und in der Gesellschaft. Es hält sie nichts im Haus. Ihr Drang auf die Straße ist ein Hinweis auf fehlende Beheimatung in ihrem sozialen Umfeld.’

9. Erotic Wisdom for a More Independent Youth

121

They open the door a crack, and peep out, and if anyone heeds them, they draw back inside, and when he’s gone, they peep out again.25

What comedy expresses here is the danger that it was basically the married woman whose adulterous behaviour would endanger the marriage, that is, shaming the husband.26 Greek authors explain the imagined behaviour of women with the ‘fact’ that women enjoy sex more than men. Andromache, for example, can state in Euripides’ drama Trojan Women that one night will break the rejection a woman feels from her husband: καίτοι λέγουσιν ὡς μί᾽ εὐφρόνη χαλᾷ

τὸ δυσμενὲς γυναικὸς εἰς ἀνδρὸς λέχος. Yet they say that a single night dispels the hatred a woman feels for her bedmate.27

In Prov 7:14– 20 the woman herself ‘verbalizes the dangers she presents to the untutored young man’ (Yee 1989, 62). We have to note that such verbalization i s do n e throug h a m ale lens within a society that views ‘independent female eroticism and unrestrained sexuality . . . to endanger the family structure’ (Arbel 2015, 128). When reading the description of the ‫ אשה זרה‬in Proverbs, suddenly her physical attractiveness is mentioned, something that is never done when speaking a bout Wi sdom. That beauty is dangerous becomes apparent when the teacher warns his pupil of it in Prov 6:25. Despite these warnings, the author of Proverbs seems to transfer his hidden (and forbidden) desires onto the ‫ אשה זרה‬in much the same way as modern Europeans transferred their unbridled sexual desire to an orientalist setting (see Yeazell 2000). Perhaps we can argue that he is well aware of the possibilities of sexuality and love and struggles with the chosen disapproval. A s a r es ult, h e ar rives at a portrait of Wisdom as a woman who accepts and

25.  Aristophanes, Peace, 979–85 (English translation according to Henderson [1998, 551]). 26. See Homer, Od. 8.269–70, where it is stated that Ares shames the bed of Hephaistos (λέχος δ᾽ ᾔσχυνε καὶ εὐνὴν | Ἡφαίστοιο ἄνακτος), and the curse of adulterous women by Phaedra in Euripides’, Hippolytus 407–9 (ὡς ὄλοιτο παγκάκως | ἥτις πρὸς ἄνδρας ἤρξατ᾽ αἰσχύνειν λέχη | πρώτη θυραίους); Xenophon, Hiero 4.1 stresses that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only delightful in mutual trust (ποία δ᾽ ἀνδρὶ καὶ γυναικὶ τερπνὴ ἄνευ πίστεως ὁμιλία). 27.  Euripides, Trojan Women, 665–66 (English translation according to Kovacs [1999, 81]); see also Hesiod, fr. 275 [West] = fr. 211a [Most]: οἴην μὲν μοῖραν δέκα μοιρέων τέρπεται ἀνήρ, | τὰς δὲ δέκ᾽ ἐμπίπλησι γυνὴ τέρπουσα νόημα.

122

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

respects male honour and submits to the traditional male construction of society, while the ‫‘ אשה זרה‬is made to embrace aspects of femininity that are culturally adverse, including unbound sexuality, eroticism, seduction, and pleasure’ (Arbel 2015, 132). We have to note, however, that – despite the obvious allusions – Proverbs 7 introduces several different aspects that are alien to Song of Songs. First of a ll t h e (young ) man is regarded a s being in danger. He has to be p rotected f rom t he tempt ations provided by the ‫אשה זרה‬. He is easily distracted (‫[ הטתו ברב לקחה‬7:21]) and follows her on an impulse ( ‫[ הולך אחריה פתאם‬7:22]). His behaviour is likened to the ox that will be slaughtered and the bird that is trapped (7:22, 23). ‘The youth . . . is as ignorant of where he is heading as these dumb animals are’ (Fox 2000, 250). In contrast, the man in the Song of Songs is never in danger. ‘As he presents himself, he is not unlike other biblical male characters, especially when we take into account that our picture of him comes from a love poem’ (Exum 2015, 123). The vulnerability he displays is triggered by his response to the woman whom he desires. Such desire is a vastly different feeling than the surrender of the young man in Proverbs 7. Despite his desire as well as his response to the invitation of the woman, the man of Cant remains in c ontr o l.28 True, the woman i n Proverbs 7 exerts the same dom inance and presence that has been observed for the female protagonist in Song of Songs (Landy 2011, 60), but the free reciprocity that constitutes the encounter of the sexes in Cant is missing, adding to the man’s victim status. Furthermore, the e xclu s iv eness of the love descri bed in Cant is missing. Both lov ers describe themselves as unique (Cant 2:16; 3:1, 2, 3, 4; 6:8– 9), while in Proverbs 7 the woman uses the phrase ‫ לשחר פניך ואמצאך‬in verse 15b as part of her strategy to lure the man into disaster as 7:26 stresses.29 In contrast to Cant, the objects o f he r d esire are exchangeable a nd her goal seems to be sexual i ntercourse (Prov 7:18) – this is not excluded from Song of Songs albeit with a different connotation (Hagedorn 2015, 23–41). Second, Proverbs 7 changes the playing field by transforming the male-female encounter into an illegal meeting. There may have been some emotional distance between the woman and her husband, whom she simply calls ‘the man’ (Fox 2000, 248), but there can be no doubt that she is a legitimate wife. Her status is asserted by her husband, rendering any encounter with a male person outside her family illegal. Since marriage is not an issue in Cant,30 neither is adultery or marital infidelity. Though Cant 8:8–10 (as well as 2:15–16; 3:6–11) could be understood 28.  Landy (2011, 217) notes that the man is only shamed ‘if he surrenders to love … inverting male dominance’. 29. Clifford (1999, 87) has observed: ‘The ideal against which she is so judged is the ideal of the Song of Songs – mutuality.’ 30.  In Prov 5:19, however, the young man is advised to remain faithful to his wife and the sages employ language quite similar to Song of Songs. ‘In the love language of the poem, the wife is portrayed as unique, like no one else, to be treasured for herself alone, to be

9. Erotic Wisdom for a More Independent Youth

123

as an indirect allusion to marriage (Müller 1992, 86–87), Song of Songs makes it clear that ‘when desire burns like a raging flame (8:6), when it pleases love to be roused (2:7; 3:5; 8:4), social expectations and values are irrelevant’ (Exum 2005, 256). Thus, the advice Proverbs 7 wants to offer is irrelevant to the man of Cant. Instead, Song of Songs takes a different path. Neither love nor the sexual encounter between man and woman is seen as potentially dangerous. Rather, love is seen as a force per se; it ‘is personified as something that has a will of its own’ (118; Hagedorn 2015, 32–34). It might not be surprising, then, that two sentences that could be classified as sapiential in Cant address the nature of love (Cant 2:7 [cf. 3:5; 8:4] and 8:6–7). In Cant 2:7 the woman offers general advice about love to the daughters of Jerusalem, telling them that ‘its arousal drives one into unanticipated and even unknown experiences’ (Murphy 1990, 147). The ‘wisdom’ Cant wants to disperse reminds its readers that ‘love has its laws which society ought to respect because love is not a social invention’ (Barbiero 2011, 94). Since the love in Cant is mutual and neither devious nor adulterous, the man and the woman are never in danger of falling into the traps outlined by Proverbs 7. Both protagonists are more mature than the youth in Proverbs and the ‫אשה זרה‬. Therefore, love can be strong as death without leading to the gates of Sheol.

Conclusion When debating sexual behaviour, Song of Songs is simply not a wisdom book and also not redacted by wisdom circles. The aspect of adultery so prevalent in Proverbs (e.g., Prov 5:3–23; 6:20–35; 7:1–26) as a tool to warn against transgressions and against religious and communal boundaries is absent from the text.31 Instead Cant (2:16) propagates a view of love that is determined by exclusiveness and reciprocity. The text trusts its readers to be able to distinguish between love and sexual wantonness. Since the latter is never addressed and since there are hardly any intruders into the togetherness of the lovers, one gets the impression that Cant describes a more mature approach to human sexuality. When troublemakers appear as is the case in Cant 2:15, their threat is immediately countered by an affirmation that the beloved man is quite unlike them. In contrast to Proverbs, Song of Songs recognizes that ‘when a relationship becomes one-sided it can easily degenerate into one of dominance and ownership’ (Keel 1994, 114).

shared with no other’ (Clifford 1999, 71–72). Though Cant is primarily concerned with the ideal beloved, she can be envisaged as a future ideal wife in some passages (see Hagedorn 2010, 417–30, 593–609). On Prov 5:15–23, see Kaiser (2000, 106–16), who unfortunately transfers the concern of Proverbs 5 to Cant, arguing that ‘it is best to interpret it as a book celebrating that marriage, as intended by God’ (114). 31. On the issue, see Lipka 2006, 155–66.

124

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Though Proverbs praises the joy of the wife of one’s youth (5:18b), this is never a joy unthreatened, as one is immediately asked why another woman would be tempting (5:20a). For the teacher of wisdom, a love without the threat of adultery seems difficult to imagine. Part of Song of Songs’ maturity is the expression of independence from traditional social norms. This behaviour is justified because of the quasi-sapiential insight that love is a force of its own and thus beyond human control. Despite this almost numinous character of love, it never intrudes upon the relationship with the divine, which is simply ignored. If Cant really wants to ‘teach’ or convey any wisdom, it does so by telling the reader how thrilling and delightful love can be, and it might be possible that Song of Songs is more successful in doing so than Proverbs will ever be.

Bibliography Arbel, Daphna V. 2015. ‘The Most Beautiful Woman’, ‘Woman Wisdom’, and ‘The Strange Woman’: On Femininity in the Song of Songs. Pages 125–40 in Poets, Prophets, and Texts in Play. Study in Biblical Poetry and Prophecy in Honour of Francis Landy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Claudia V. Camp, David M. Gunn, and Aaron W. Hughes. LHBOTS 597. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Barbiero, Gianni. 2011. Song of Songs: A Close Reading. VTSup 144. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Boyarin, Daniel. 1990. The Song of Songs, Lock or Key: The Holy Song as a Mashal. Pages 105–16 in Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. ISBL. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Clifford, Richard J. 1999. Proverbs. A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox. Cogan, Mordechai. 2000. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday. Cottini, Valentino. 1990. Linguaggio erotico nel Cantico dei Cantici e in Proverbi. LASBF 40: 25–45. Crüsemann, Frank. 2004. ‘. . . für Salomo’? Salomo und die Interpretation des Hohenliedes. Pages 141–57 in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. Festschrift für Erich Zenger. Edited by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld und Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger. HBS 44. Freiburg: Herder. Dell, Katharine J. 2005. Does the Song of Songs Have any Connections to Wisdom? Pages 8–26 in Perspectives on the Song of Songs – Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn. BZAW 346. Berlin: de Gruyter. Exum, J. Cheryl. 2005. Song of Songs: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox. Exum, J. Cheryl. 2015. The Man in the Song of Songs. Pages 107–24 in Poets, Prophets, and Texts in Play: Studies in Biblical Poetry and Prophecy in Honour of Francis Landy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Claudia V. Camp, David M. Gunn, and Aaron W. Hughes. LHBOTS 597. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Exum, J. Cheryl. 2016. Unity, Date, Authorship and the ‘Wisdom’ of the Song of Songs. Pages 53–68 in Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam: Papers on Biblical and Related Wisdom Read at the Fifteenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament

9. Erotic Wisdom for a More Independent Youth

125

Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Amsterdam July 2012. Edited by George J. Brooke and Pierre Van Hecke. OtSt 68. Leiden: Brill. Fox, Michael V. 2000. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Frolov, Serge. 2016. The Comeback of Comebacks: David, Bathsheba and the Prophets in the Song of Songs. Pages 41–64 in On Prophets, Warriors, and Kings: Former Prophets through the Eyes of Their Interpreters. Edited by George J. Brooke and Ariel Feldman. BZAW 470. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fuhs, Hans F. 2001. Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar. FB 95. Würzburg: Echter. Fürst, Alfons and Holger Strutwolf. 2016. Origenes: Der Kommentar zum Hohenlied. Origenes Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung 9/1. Berlin: de Gruyter. Grossberg, Daniel. 1994. Two Kinds of Sexual Relationships in the Hebrew Bible. HS 35:7–25. Hagedorn, Anselm C. 2010. Die Frau Des Hohenlieds zwischen babylonisch-assyrischer Morphoskopie und Jacques Lacan (Teil I und II). ZAW 122:417–30; 593–609. Hagedorn, Anselm C. 2015. Erotische und theologische Aspekte der Liebe im Hohelied. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 29:23–41. Häner, Tobias. 2017. Salomo und das Lied der Lieder: Die Überschrift des Hoheliedes in kanonisch-intertextueller Perspektive. BN 172:13–42. Hauge, Martin Ravndal. 2015. Solomon the Lover and the Shape of the Song of Songs. Hebrew Bible Monographs 77. Sheffield: Phoenix Press. Henderson, Jeffrey. 1998. Aristophanes II: Clouds – Wasps – Peace. LCL 488. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hengel, Martin. 1988. Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu Ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr. WUNT 10. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck). Holmstedt, Robert D. 2012. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Pages 97–124 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Imray, Kathryn. 2013. Love Is (Strong as) Death: Reading Song of Songs through Proverbs 1–9. CBQ 75:649–65. Kaiser, Walter C. 2000. True Marital Love in Proverbs 5:15–23 and the Interpretation of Song of Songs. Pages 106–16 in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by James I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Keel, Othmar. 1994. The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Frederick J. Gaiser. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kingsmill, Edmée. 2016. The Song of Songs: A Wisdom Book. Pages 310–35 in Perspectives on Israelite Wisdom: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Jarick. LHBOTS 618. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Kleinert, Ulfrid. 2015. Das Rätsel der Königin von Saba: Geschichte und Mythos. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Knauf, Ernst Axel. 2016. 1 Könige 1–14. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder. Kovacs, David. 1999. Euripides IV: Trojan Women – Iphigenia among the Taurians – Ion. LCL 10. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kunz-Lübcke, Andreas. 2004. Salomo: Von der Weisheit eines Frauenliebhabers. Biblische Gestalten 8. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

126

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Landy, Francis. 2011. Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity and Difference in the Song of Songs. Classic Reprints. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Phoenix. Leithart, Peter J. 2013. Solomon’s Sexual Wisdom: Qohelet and the Song of Songs in the Postmodern Condition. Pages 443–60 in The Words of the Wise Are Like Goads: Engaging Qohelet in the 21st Century. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Tremper Longman III, and Cristian G. Rata. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Lemaire, André. 1995. Wisdom in Solomonic Historiography. Pages 106–18 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipka, Hilary. 2006. Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Bible Monographs 7. Sheffield: Phoenix. Loretz, Oswald. 2004. Enjambement, versus und ‘salomonische’ Königstravestie im Abschnitt Canticum canticorum 3,6–11. Pages 805–16 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag Vol. II. Edited by Markus Witte. BZAW 345/II. Berlin: de Gruyter. McKane, William. 1970. Proverbs. A New Approach. OTL. London: SCM. Melton, Brittany N. 2014. Solomon, Wisdom, and Love: Intertextual Resonance Between Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Pages 130–41 in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. LHBOTS 587. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Müller, Hans-Peter. 1992. Das Hohelied. Pages 3–90 in Das Hohelied – Klagelieder – Das Buch Ester. By Hans-Peter Müller, Otto Kaiser and James A. Loader. ATD 16/2. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Murphy, Roland E. 1988. Wisdom and Eros in Proverbs 1–9. CBQ 50:600–603. Murphy, Roland E. 1990. The Song of Songs. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Neusner, Jacob. 1989. Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation Volume One (Song of Songs Rabbah to Song Chapters One through Three). BJS 197. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Noth, Martin. 1968. Könige. 1. Teilband: I Könige 1–16. BKAT IX/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Paul, Martin. 2001. Die ‘fremde’ Frau in Sprichwörter 1–9 und die ‘Geliebte’ des Hohenliedes. Ein Beitrag zur Intertextualität. BN 106:40–46. Pope, Marvin H. 1977. Song of Songs. AB 7C. New York: Doubleday. Rudolph, Wilhelm. 1962. Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder. KAT XVII/1–3. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn. Schellenberg, Annette. 2016. Questioning the Trend of Classifying the Song of Songs as Sapiential. Pages 393–407 in Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht: Beiträge aus alttestamentlicher, semitistischer und altorientalischer Wissenschaft für Hans-Peter Mathys zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Hanna Jenni and Markus Saur. AOAT 439. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Sparks, Kenton L. 2008. The Song of Songs: Wisdom for Young Jewish Women. CBQ 70:277–99. Stoop-van Paridon, P. W. T. 2005. The Song of Songs: A Philological Analysis of the Hebrew Book ‫שיר השירים‬. ANESSup 17. Leuven: Peeters. Sweeney, Marvin A. 2007. I and II Kings. A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox. Villiers, D. W. de. 1990. Not for Sale! Solomon and Sexual Perversion in the Song of Songs. OTE 3:317–24. Yeazell, Ruth Bernard. 2000. Harems of the Mind: Passages of Western Art and Literature. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

9. Erotic Wisdom for a More Independent Youth

127

Yee, Gale A. 1989. ‘I have perfumed my bed with myrrh’: The Foreign Woman (’iššâ zārâ) in Proverbs 1–9. JSOT 43:53–68. Zakovitch, Yair. 2011. ‘A Woman of Valor, ’eshet ḥayil’ (Proverbs 31.10–31): A Conservative Response to the Song of Songs. Pages 401–13 in A Critical Engagement: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of J. Cheryl Exum. Edited by David J. A. Clines and Ellen van Wolde. Hebrew Bible Monographs 38. Sheffield: Phoenix.

Chapter 10 Q O H E L E T A S A R E A D E R O F P R OV E R B S * Markus Saur

Introduction Old Testament Wisdom Literature consists of an ensemble of texts. None of these texts can be adequately understood and classified when read independently. Wisdom Literature must rather be recognized as a context within which different supporting groups are related to one other, thus opening up a literary space which is to be understood as an interpretive horizon of Wisdom Literature. The book of Proverbs and the book of Qohelet, the book of Job and the sapiential psalms as well as the other sapientially influenced texts of the Old Testament must be interpreted within this horizon if one wishes to get a glimpse of the discussions behind the texts. The various threads of such discussions, taken together, form a sapiential discourse, which extended over several centuries and within which different positions and conceptions of sapiential thought have emerged (cf. Saur 2011). Whoever picks up the book of Qohelet after reading the book of Proverbs will get the impression that many of its verses are accordingly structured after the form or content of the sayings in the book of Proverbs (cf. Hatton 2008, 119– 20).1 Qohelet seems to be familiar with proverbial wisdom and its characteristics (cf. Seow 1997, 67–69), and yet goes beyond the form and content of proverbial wisdom to pose further questions and problems. Among those researching the book of Qohelet, it is controversial as to how the author or the group of authors of the book can be more accurately distinguished. One part of the problem in this regard relates to the question of the relationship of Qohelet to proverbial wisdom and to the book of Proverbs. This chapter is an attempt to determine

* I am very grateful to Gerlinde Baumann for the translation of this chapter. 1.  Cf. Fox (1999, 5): ‘To understand the source and significance of Qohelet’s ideas we must set them within the context of his intellectual background. For this we look primarily (but not exclusively) to didactic Wisdom Literature, because the book of Qohelet is closest to this genre in form, subject matter, and, to a large extent, ideology.’

130

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

more exactly the relationship between the book of Proverbs and Qohelet using some sample texts, and to show that Qohelet is a reader in the sapiential tradition that is represented by the book of Proverbs; that he, as a productive reader, not only receives this sapiential tradition, but also questions its sustainability and further develops it in the light of his own experience. In the following, the title of the book of Qohelet in Qoh 1:1 and a verse from the first epilogue of the book in Qoh 12:9 will be examined first, because the tangible text signals here allow a first definition of the relationship between the book of Proverbs and Qohelet. Then, using three exemplary texts, the sapiential traditions in which Qohelet moves and how the relationship of Qohelet to these traditions can be determined will be investigated (cf. Gordis 1939, 123–47; Fox 1980, 416–31; Whybray 1981, 435–51).

The Frame of the Book of Qohelet Qoh 1:1 The book of Qohelet opens in Qoh 1:1 with a superscription that precedes the reflections of Qohelet which follow. With this superscription, the book is placed i n t he horiz on of a sapiential t radition which, although it refers to Solomon, may have little to do with the historical figure (cf. Crenshaw 1988, 49–50, 55–57; S eow 199 7, 98– 99). Here, on t he contrary, a Solomonizing becomes tangible in the style of the Davidizing of the Psalter (cf. Kratz 1996), which is likewise only loosely connected with the historical David; it is likely to be described as a process of authorization and legitimization. The foundation of this Solomonizing of sapiential traditions is located in 1 Kgs 5:9–12. The book of Qohelet is placed in the context of this Solomon tradition, even if Solomon, David’s son, is not m en t io ned by name anywhere in th e book. This disti nguishes the book of Qohelet from the book of Proverbs, which refers explicitly to Solomon in Prov 1:1 (cf. Schwienhorst-Schönberger 2011, 139–40): Whereas in Prov 1:1 ‫ משׁלים‬is mentioned, which is consistent with the lexeme in 1 Kgs 5:12, and, in addition, Solomon is mentioned by name as the son of David and is introduced as the King of Israel, Qoh 1:1, with the phrase ‫ דברי קהלת‬and the talk of a kingship ‘in Jerusalem’, remains significantly more indeterminate. Despite the differences, the similarities are not to be overlooked: Those who read the book of Qohelet place themselves in the horizon of a sapiential tradition which is closely connected to Solomon and the proverbial Wisdom Literature authorized with his name, as it is present in the book of Proverbs, especially in Prov 10:1– 22:16; 25– 29. Even the superscription of the book of Qohelet should be understood as a hermeneutical key that ser ves as a guide in reading the book, and it considers the book of Proverbs, which is seen as part of the Solomon tradition, as a literary background for reading Qohelet. Readers of the book of Qohelet thus also become readers of the proverbial wisdom, which is fundamental for Qohelet.

10. Qohelet as a Reader of Proverbs

131

Qoh 12:9 The superscription of the book provides information not only about Qohelet’s tradition and profile, but also its conclusion. At the end of the book, the final sequence forms two parts, about which there is no consensus regarding their literary- historical connection to the corpus of the book (cf. Saur 2012, 131– 33). With regard to the question of Qohelet’s tradition, it is especially significant how his work is described in Qoh 12:9: With the signal word ‫משׁלים‬, there is now a clear reference to proverbial wisdom. When one dissociates the closing sequences of the book of Qohelet from Qohelet’s preceding reflections, one will see in this profiling of Qohelet a belated attempt by the editors of the book to transform Qohelet into a ‘classical’ sage, and thus to ensure the dissemination of the book of Qohelet, or, in the end, to place its thinking in a proper light.2 It can, however, also be argued that the profiling of Qohelet in Qoh 12:9 is consistent with the forms of sapiential gain of knowledge within the corpus of the book. In Qoh 12:9, not only is the signal word ‫ משׁלים‬of importance, but also the previous triad of activities3 which characterize the work of Qohelet in dealing with the ‫משׁלים‬: ‫– ואזן וחקר תקן‬ Qohelet hears and explores, and he corrects. What is it all about? According to 1 Kgs 3:9, Solomon asks for a ‫ לב שׁמע‬in order to judge the people righteously and to distinguish between good and evil. The process of listening, evidently basic for the sage, which is recorded in 1 Kgs 3:9 with the root ‫שׁמע‬, is expressed in Qoh 12:9 through the root ‫ אזן‬I.4 This corresponds to Qohelet’s empirical methodology, which is strongly oriented towards a cognitive process built on that which is perceivable by the senses, as evidenced by the passages which 2. Hertzberg (1963, 219–20), for example, also moves in this direction when he says that here should be ‘eine Apologie für Qoh . . . die Worte dieses Epilogisten . . . erwecken fast den Eindruck, als wolle er Qoh als “kanonisch” möglich und wertvoll hinstellen’. The verses are described even more pointedly by Preuss (1987, 133): ‘In 12,9–11 wird erst einmal der Verfasser in ein etwas besseres Licht zu rücken versucht, als er selbst das zu tun imstande oder wohl auch willens war.’ 3.  Cf. Zimmerli (1962, 249):  ‘Die Bemerkung von V.  9b dürfte drei technische Bezeichnungen für die Arbeit an den Sprüchen enthalten, die es sowohl mit dem Vorgang der formalen Verfeinerung und Auswägung des Wortes zu tun haben, wie auch mit der rechten inhaltlichen Ausrichtung ihrer Gehalte. Spruch-Wort ist abgewogenes, geprüftes und richtiggestelltes Wort.’ 4. Gesenius17 (1915/1962, 21) assumes a root ‫ אזן‬II, although it would only be documented in Qoh 12:9, and remarks: ‘technischer Ausdruck, der sich wahrsch. auf d. Versmaß od. d. Parallelismus bezieht’. Gesenius18 (2013, 30) proposes further in reference to the Arabic wazana for ‘weighing’ and the Ugaritic MZN for ‘weight’: ‘wägen i. d. Bdtg. v. entsprechend den Regeln i. Versen dichten’. Similarly, in HAL (Köhler and Baumgartner 2004, 27), ‘to weigh’ is given as the meaning. Such assumptions are typical for the translation history of Qoh 12:9. It is unnecessary, however, for Qoh 12:9 to assume a root ‫ אזן‬II which is only documented once, since the semantic field of ‫ אזן‬I meets the intention very accurately (cf. Fox 1999, 352).

132

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

link recognition with seeing (cf. Qoh 1:14; 4:15; 5:12, 17; 7:15; 9:11; 10:7). With the following root ‫ חקר‬the process of researching and exploring is described. It is noteworthy that the lexeme is used with a significant frequency especially in the book of Job (cf. ‫ חקר‬in Job 5:27; 13:9; 28:3, 27; 29:16; 32:11; ‫ ֵח ֶקר‬in Job 5:9; 8:8; 9:10; 11:7; 34:24; 36:26; 38:16), for example, in Job 5:27: The object of analysis is perceived here by Eliphaz as something that can be heard and understood – following the analysis at the end is the summons to hear and to recognize. In contrast to this, according to Qoh 12:9, hearing is at the beginning of a process that continues through the intensive exploration of what is heard. Qohelet goes even one step further: The third root ‫תקן‬, which is documented only in the books of Qohelet and of Sirach (cf. Qoh 1:15; 7:13; 12:9; Sir 47:9), is probably a variant of ‫תכן‬, whereby the roots ‫ קנה‬and ‫ כון‬are likely related; altogether, the semantic field of the straight and orderly is defined here (Köhler and Baumgartner 2004, 1642 [HAL]; Delcor 1995, 1043– 45), and with the piel the resultative aspect is highlighted: Qohelet is described as a sage who arranges, straightens, and corrects ‫משׁלים‬, after he has heard and explored these ‫משׁלים‬. At the end of Qoh 12:9 is the infinitive ‫ ַה ְר ֵבּה‬, which is usually based on ‫ משׁלים‬as an attribute. In fact, however, the usage here is not attributive, but rather adverbial (cf. GKB § 113 h-k): It is not the quantity of the sayings that is being emphasized, but the variety of Qohelet’s reworking techniques. It can be assumed that in Qoh 12:9 a process of knowledge formation and the securing of this knowledge is described that cannot be distinguished from the reflective mode of the corpus of the book: At the beginning is the perception, then the intensive research, and at the end is the attempt to classify and even correct.5 The fact that the entire process refers to ‫ משׁלים‬can best be explained by the fact that Qohelet is an educated sage in the tradition of proverbial wisdom that – at least in part – is handed down in the book of Proverbs: Qohelet is understood as a reader, expert and commentator of this proverbial wisdom. Even if Qoh 12:9 could be traced back to a later editor of the book of Qohelet, the profile of Qohelet’s sapiential efforts is described by this editor very appropriately and according to the corpus of the book, as will be shown below.

Continuity of Tradition and Reception Patterns in the Corpus of the Book Qoh 2:13–15 Qohelet 2:13– 15 forms a literary unit. It is introduced in v. 13 with ‫וראיתי אני‬, a typical phrase for Qohelet, and is concluded in v. 15 with the statement ‫שׁגם־זה הבל‬. 5.  Cf. Krüger (2000, 368): ‘Weisheit definiert sich demnach hier nicht mehr in erster Linie durch eine materiale Tradition, sondern durch die Fähigkeit zur kritischen Reflexion von Traditionen im Blick auf eigene Erfahrungen.’ For Schwienhorst-Schönberger (2004, 546), especially the aspect of correction lies ‘ganz auf der Linie dessen, was der Hörer in 1,2–12,8 vernommen hat, und es entspricht der Aussage von V 9abα, derzufolge Qohelet mehr war als ein gewöhnlicher Weiser. Qohelet hat also nicht in erster Linie – wie es in Sir 21,15 heißt – weise Worte gelobt und weitere hinzugefügt, sondern überliefertes Wissen geprüft und, wo es nötig erschien, richtig gestellt’.

10. Qohelet as a Reader of Proverbs

133

This passage is about the tension between wisdom and folly, and the common fate of the wise man and the fool. Verse 13 uses the comparison of light and darkness to connect by a keyword association the sapiential saying in v. 14a, which Qohelet likely adopted as ‫ משׁל‬from his sapiential tradition,6 as similar sapiential sayings in Prov 4:18–19; 13:9; 21:16 suggest. The evenly constructed bicolon in Qoh 2:14a has no equivalent in the book of Proverbs, but provides a constellation with its stereotypical juxtaposition of sage and fool which is frequently documented in proverbial wis dom, and corresponds to its conventional patterns. With v. 14b, this sapiential saying is, however, newly contextualized: If, in the opinion of the tradition in which Qohelet is situated, it is also valid that the sage has his eyes in his head and therefore moves in the light whereas the fool wanders in darkness, according to Qohelet’s insight, however, it is valid that both ultimately experience the same – ‫ מקרה‬is what every person inevitably encounters and which no one can escape. In v. 15, Qohelet formulates the consequence of the correlation of the sapiential saying with his own experience: Even he could meet the fate of the fool, so that the question arises as to why he undertakes his sapiential efforts at all. In this passage, Qohelet adopts a sapiential insight and accepts it at first thought, but then continues with this idea, although with an eye on ‫מקרה‬, where the sage and the fool are put into a larger frame of reference: With regard to future destiny, wisdom, which certainly has its value in everyday life, has no advantage, so that the question arises as to its purpose. Here Qohelet adopts a traditional, conventional insight, but places it in a wider horizon and continues with it independently (cf. Murphy 1992, lxiv). The emphasis on the subjective perspective of Qohelet is worth noting, which is clearly emphasized in v. 15 – Qohelet appears as a constructive and creative reader and recipient of his wisdom tradition. Qoh 4:4–6 The internal coherence of Qoh 4:4– 6 is not revealed directly. The passage is also introduced with the Qohelet- typical phrase ‫ וראיתי אני‬and concluded with the likewise typical phrase ‫ורעות רוח‬. First Qohelet turns to the strenuous work and the envy between people. That this envy is ‫ הבל‬is obvious, given the groundlessness and aimlessness of all envy: If the motivational basis of human action is only the craving for recognition of one from another, any work in the strict sense is useless (cf. Shields 2006 , 151). This insight is illustrated by Qohelet afterwards with two sayings that probably originate from wisdom tradition (cf. Whybray 1981, 439–41; Murphy 1992, 38–39). In v. 5 there is a bicolon, the second half of which outlines the consequences of what was presented in the first half: The fool puts his hands idly together and in this way consumes his own flesh – the textual connections to Prov 6:10– 11; 10:4–5; 12:24, 27; 13:4; 15:19; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 24:33–34 are clearly visible and show once again that Qohelet, with his sapiential saying, is in line with 6. Cf. Galling (1969, 90): ‘14a dürfte eine Aussage der Schultradition (d. h. ein Maschal) sein.’ Cf. Whybray 1981, 438–39; Seow 1997, 153; Krüger 2000, 143; SchwienhorstSchönberger 2004, 222–25; and Shields (2006, 133): ‘Qoh 2:13–14a presents statements that would be at home in the book of Proverbs.’

134

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

proverbial wisdom (cf. Fox 1999, 221). This is true to some extent for the ‘betterthan’ proverb in Qoh 4:6 which has formal counterparts in Prov 15:16– 17; 16:8, 19; 17:1; 28:6. The emphasis on quiet is present in the content of Qohelet’s saying, which in contrast to effort is supposedly better. By means of the final phrase ‫ורעות רוח‬, this emphasis is embedded into Qohelet’s linguistic world (cf. Crenshaw 1988, 109). After the statements about the work of people, which too often leads them into envy on the one side or craving for recognition on the other side, it would be expected that Qohelet would take this into account and call for maintaining a certain amount in all types of work, in no case allowing oneself through effort and action to be drawn into the circle of envy and resentment. It is all the more surprising that the saying from v. 5 initially assigns such behaviour to the ‫כסיל‬: It is the fool who puts his hands together, and in doing nothing consumes his substance. Verse 6 by contrast objectively suggests the opposite, that it is better to have a handful of quiet than both hands full of effort. One can best grasp the intent of this exciting compilation when one tries to understand the two perspectives within one context (cf. Galling 1969, 98): Work must be accomplished, but not in the form of a misappropriated action that is akin to grasping for the wind, but rather as work that ensures one’s own livelihood.7 Qohelet is probably mentioning two streams of sapiential thought here to illustrate the dual nature of a phenomenon.8 He directs his readers to an independent reception and calls on them to work out an independent position on the basis of their own reflection in view of the ambiguity of the tradition. Here as well, the reception of the tradition, which in itself is not questioned, but rather re- contextualized, goes a step beyond the traditional and thus develops sapiential thinking further. Qoh 10:8–10 In Qoh 10:8–14 there are seven sapiential sayings that all give the impression of having been taken over by Qohelet from his tradition.9 With phrases such as the one in v. 10b, these sayings are embedded into the thinking and language world of Qohelet. The basis of the sayings in vv. 8a and 8b is the orientation towards the deed-consequence-nexus,10 because they relate people’s actions with the

7. Cf. Krüger (2000, 189): ‘Arbeit hat negative Aspekte (V. 4), aber auch völlige Untätigkeit wäre ruinös (V. 5); deshalb empfiehlt es sich, im Leben eine sinnvolle Balance von Arbeit und Ruhe einzuhalten (V. 6).’ Cf. Shields (2006, 151): ‘The two proverbs in vv. 5 and 6, taken together, promote moderation.’ 8. Cf. Zimmerli (1962, 182): ‘Es geht Kohelet in einem tieferen Sinne um die Entheroisierung und Entmythisierung der Arbeit als eines in sich ruhenden Wertes, der das Leben sinnvoll machte. Auch hier steht in Kohelet der verletzte Mensch vor uns, der in einem weitherum hochgepriesenen Wert die verborgene Fragwürdigkeit des menschlichen Tuns entdeckt hat.’ 9. This larger literary unit is reduced here to the passage vv. 8–10. 10.  Krüger (2000, 327)  expects a ‘beabsichtigte[n] Parodierung des Konzepts eines “Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhangs” ’, and Schwienhorst-Schönberger (2004, 494)  states in

10. Qohelet as a Reader of Proverbs

135

consequences of these actions: The one who digs a pit will fall into it and the one who tears down a wall will be bitten by a snake. The content of Qoh 10:8a is the same as Prov 26:27a,11 but the different lexemes used show that Qohelet is not quoting verbatim. One can divide Qoh 10:8a-b into two single sayings, but v. 8 overall forms a parallel-designed unit that is interrelated. The same applies to v. 9, which in an entirely analogous manner divides into two sapiential sayings that, as with the sayings in v. 8, address the dangers in the area of work: ‘Whosoever quarries stones may be hurt by them; and he that splits wood shall be endangered by it.’12 Verses 8 and 9 are uniformly designed sayings; their relations with the proverbial wisdom of the book of Proverbs are clearly visible not only because of the substantive correspondence between v. 8a and Prov 26:27a, but also because of the structure and form of the sapiential sayings in Qoh 10:8–9. The very concrete life-world which appears behind vv. 8–9 contextually determines the individual formulations and indicates how much the sapiential sayings are anchored in everyday life and everyday experience. Qohelet appears here again as reader, expert, and deliverer of a sapiential tradition, which he, however, not only delivers, but also independently emphasizes. As opposed to vv. 8– 9, in v. 10 there is a conditional structure: If the iron is blunt, and one does not sharpen it, it consumes more power – however, wisdom is an advantage for the knowledgeable. The tripartite structure of v. 10a and the judgmental concluding sentence in v. 10b is set apart from the series of verses with a parallel structure. Verse 10a proceeds in three steps. First, the case in question is des crib e d in genera l, followed by a clar ification of the case, and finally the conclusion is formulated: Where the working equipment is unusable due to lack of maintenance, much manpower is wasted. Above all, the impersonal phrase, as well as the length and clarification of the case through an additional condition, which is unusual for a sapiential saying, suggest that here an older saying that is possibly present in v. 10aα.γ was extended with v. 10aβ.13 Verse 10b evaluates the description in the form of a brief commentary: An advantage is the correct or proper application or use of wisdom. ‫ חכמה‬is tangible in the entire section as

view of the fall in the pit: ‘An diesem Beispiel zeigt sich, dass Kohelet in einem subtilen, zum Teil ironisierenden und für verschiedene Deutungen offenen Gespräch mit traditioneller Spruchweisheit steht.’ 11. Cf. Backhaus (1993, 62): ‘Qoh. 10,8a stellt ein Sprichwortzitat dar (vgl. Spr. 26,27a). Ob es sich bei Qoh. 10,8b.9 um literarische Produkte Qohelets handelt oder ob Qohelet mit Qoh. 10,8b.9 weitere Zitate an Qoh. 10,8a anfügt, ist nicht zu entscheiden . . . Jedenfalls wird Qoh. 10,8a durch 10,8b.9 . . . neu gedeutet:  Der kleine Zufall (ein wenig Torheit/ Unachtsamkeit) kann alle Weisheit zunichtemachen.’ 12.  Krüger (2000, 314): ‘Wer Steine bricht, kann sich wehtun, wer Holz spaltet, bringt sich in Gefahr.’ 13.  Zimmerli (1962, 235), in view of V. 10aβ, says: ‘Der Satz dürfte eine nachträglich zugefügte prosaische Erläuterung enthalten.’ Similarly Lauha (1978, 188): ‘Dieser Satz ist offenbar eine – an sich sinnvolle, aber syntaktisch weniger passende – Glosse.’

136

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

a kind of τέ χνη or know how14 – with the signal word ‫ יתרון‬in v. 10b this form of wisdom is associated with Qohelet’s thinking. It is remarkable how closely Qohelet in this passage follows images from the arena of everyday work and is thus active in the field of a wisdom which is based on daily life and how to deal with it. As such, he walks in the same paths as the proverbial wisdom of the book of Proverbs. It is apparent from the outlined literary development of v. 10, however, that Qohelet not only receives his sapiential tradition, but also redesigns, newly emphasizes, and develops it. Qohelet is a reader and recipient of proverbial wisdom in the middle of a process of the construction of meaning, which can leave its literary traces in the texts.

Summary Qohelet’s sapiential thinking is strongly based in the forms and contents of sapiential thinking as it exists in the book of Proverbs. Qohelet connects to this sapiential tradition and receives it in a creative-perpetuating manner without distorting it (cf. Whybray 1981, 450–51). Readers of the book of Qohelet recognize the foundation on which Qohelet’s thinking is based: In its deep structure, it is located in the experience of what connects Qohelet closely with the book of Proverbs and proverbial wisdom, the basis of which is the experiences of everyday life, out of which the individual sapiential sayings take shape.15 From the proverbial wisdom of the book of Proverbs it can be seen how a striking single saying can arise from an everyday experience, and how this reflects back on everyday life in the form of a condensed experience and helps to cope with it (cf. von Rad 1970, 13–53; Krüger 2003, 53–66). In the same way, Qohelet proceeds from the experience and what is perceivable by the senses:  Due to his experience, he questions that which is reflected in proverbial wisdom as condensed experience. Qohelet conducts his sapiential thinking entirely with the methods of the wisdom he scrutinizes in light of his own experiences. The significant difference between proverbial wisdom and Qohelet’s thinking is that proverbial wisdom condenses those things into a sapiential saying that many have experienced in the same way – Qohelet by contrast examines this form of wisdom

14.  Cf. Krüger (2000, 328):  ‘Dabei bezieht sich “Weisheit” hier eindeutig auf die praktischen Kenntnisse und Fähigkeiten des Facharbeiters, nicht auf das “professionelle” Wissen eines “Standes” von “Weisen”.’ 15.  Cf. for this fundamentally Leuenberger (2012, 33–66). For the problem itself, cf. von Rad (1970, 384–85), who points out that in no case ‘die Erfahrung bei allen immer die gleiche und immer eindeutig gewesen sein mußte. Hier tat sich ein weites Feld für mannigfache Überlegungen auf ’. Müller (2000, 152) emphasizes correctly with an eye on the Pre-Socratics: ‘Der rationale Wille zu widerspruchsloser Wirklichkeitsaneignung findet an der Buntheit der Phänomene hier und dort eine Grenze.’ The limit may be not only in the ‘variety of the phenomena’, but also in the diversity and variegation of subjective experiences that bring Qohelet precisely within a certain distance of the traditional sapiential insight.

10. Qohelet as a Reader of Proverbs

137

in the light of his own experience. With Qohelet, the individual sage becomes the subject who deals with the wisdom tradition, which has to be heard, explored, and, if necessary, corrected by him. Despite this significant difference, Qohelet maintains his distance from speculation as he is entirely consistent with proverbial wisdom in the light of the relation to experience. Qohelet therefore walks more on the beaten path through the classic proverbial wisdom than displaying a sapiential thinking that moves away from experience as a source of knowledge with added theological speculations. Such a development of wisdom is tangible in Proverbs 1– 9, for example, where the requests of proverbial wisdom are answered with highly theologically enriched ideas, such as personified female wisdom. Qohelet, however, remains with an experience-based wisdom – only that the experience is no longer general, but rather his own. This is not a ‘crisis of wisdom’ (cf. Preuss 1987, 134), but a productive and independent development of sapiential, experience-based thinking. This development runs along the paths that are already paved and trodden by the proverbial wisdom of the book of Proverbs and its forms and contents. Qohelet can thus be understood as a reader of Proverbs, although a reader who not only reads, but also takes what has been read and develops and evolves it – hearing, exploring, and correcting it (cf. Fox 1999, 91–92).

Bibliography Backhaus, Franz Josef. 1993. ‘Denn Zeit und Zufall trifft sie alle’: Studien zur Komposition und zum Gottesbild im Buch Qohelet. BBB 83. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. Crenshaw, James L. 1988. Ecclesiastes: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM. Delcor, Marcel. 1995. ‫תכן‬. THAT II (5th ed.):1043–45. Fox, Michael V. 1980. The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature. ZAW 92:416–31. Fox, Michael V. 1999. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. Galling, Kurt. 1969. Der Prediger. HAT I/18. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1915/1962. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Edited by F. Buhl et al. 17th ed. Berlin: Springer (= Gesenius17). Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1962. Hebräische Grammatik, völlig umgearbeitet von Emil Kautzsch. 28th ed. Hildesheim: Olms (= GKB). Gesenius, Wilhelm. 2013. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Edited by H. Donner et al. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer (= Gesenius18). Gordis, Robert. 1939. Quotations in Wisdom Literature. JQR 30:123–47. Hatton, Peter T. H. 2008. Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs: The Deep Waters of Counsel. SOTSMS. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. 1963. Der Prediger. KAT XVII/4. 2nd ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher. Köhler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. 1967–95/2004. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Neu bearbeitet von W. Baumgartner, J. J. Stamm, und B. Hartmann. 3rd ed. Leiden/Boston: Brill (= HAL). Kratz, Reinhard Gregor. 1996. Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters. ZThK 93:1–34.

138

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Krüger, Thomas. 2000. Kohelet (Prediger). BKAT XIX Sonderband. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Krüger, Thomas. 2003. Erkenntnisbindung im Weisheitsspruch: Überlegungen im Anschluss an Gerhard von Rad. Pages 53–66 in Weisheit in Israel. Edited by D. J. A. Clines et al. ATM 12. Münster: LIT. Lauha, Aarre. 1978. Kohelet. BKAT XIX. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Leuenberger, Martin. 2012. Konsequente Erfahrungstheologien im Hiob- und Qoheletbuch. Pages 33–66 in Die theologische Bedeutung der alttestamentlichen Weisheitsliteratur. Edited by M. Saur. BThSt 125. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Müller, Hans-Peter. 2000. Das Ganze und seine Teile: Anschlußerörterungen zum Wirklichkeitsverständnis Kohelets. ZTK 97:147–63. Murphy, Roland Edmund. 1992. Ecclesiastes. WBC 23A. Dallas: Word Books. Preuss, Horst Dietrich. 1987. Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Rad, Gerhard von. 1970. Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Saur, Markus. 2011. Sapientia discursiva: Die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur als theologischer Diskurs. ZAW 123:236–49. Saur, Markus. 2012. Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. 2011. Kohelet. HThKAT. 2nd ed. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Seow, Choon-Leong. 1997. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday. Shields, Martin A. 2006. The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Whybray, Roger Norman. 1981. The Identification and Use of Quotations in Ecclesiastes. Pages 435–51 in Congress Volume Vienna 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill. Zimmerli, Walther. 1962. Das Buch des Predigers Salomo. ATD 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Part II P ROVERBS IN D IALOGUE WITH T EXTS THROUGHOUT H ISTORY

Chapter 11 I N T E RT E X T UA L I T Y B E T W E E N T H E B O O K O F B E N S I R A A N D T H E B O O K O F P R OV E R B S Pancratius C. Beentjes

Introduction In an essay of 1993, Wolfram von Soden contended that Old Testament scholarship had lately paid little attention to a comparison between the books of Ben Sira and Proverbs.1 In my view, this statement is too negative, since a number of publications provide evidence to the contrary. For, some thirty years earlier, Ernst Günther Bauckmann had already published an extensive essay relating to this subject (1960). Furthermore, in their well-known commentary on the book of Ben Sira, Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella are of the opinion that ‘Ben Sira’s dependence on Proverbs can be detected in almost every portion of his book’ (Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 43). Meanwhile, in John Collins’s (1997, 44) view, there is no room for discussion: ‘Sirach’s primary model was undoubtedly the book of Proverbs.’ As to the topic of this contribution, the most extensive intertextual study of Proverbs and Ben Sira undoubtedly is the essay by Jeremy Corley (2005).2

Intertextuality In his review of how the notion of intertextuality is and has been understood and implemented in Old Testament research over the past two decades, Geoffrey Miller (2011) brings up many points worth listening to. As a matter of fact, he admits, ‘consensus on the exact nature of intertextuality has proven elusive’ (283). Therefore it is necessary to state my own criteria for finding intertextual links and define what I mean by intertextual. My approach is rather traditional, that is, diachronic, seeking 1. ‘Die Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament hat den Beiden Spruchbüchern in der letzten Zeit nicht sehr viel Beachtung geschenkt’ (von Soden 1993, 425). 2. Already in 1899, Schechter wrote: ‘For B.S. [Ben Sira], though not entirely devoid of original ideas, was, as is well known, a conscious imitator both as to form and as to matter, his chief model being the Book of Proverbs’ (Schechter and Taylor 1899, 12).

142

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

to identify chronological relationships among texts. In my view, identical phrases or word pairs as such are not sufficient enough to establish an intertextual relationship. There has to be at least one more point that both texts have in common, of which identical contexts and/or identical genre are by far the most important. Because a text can only be understood by reading it in light of other texts, an essential condition in the search for parallels is establishing valid criteria, since ‘[a]n isolated verbal parallel does not demonstrate conscious literary mimesis’ (Skemp 2005, 45 n. 6). This approach can easily be detected in a number of publications following the discovery of Ben Sira manuscripts in Hebrew in 1896 and in later years. Quite extensive lists were published in which almost every Hebrew word, word pair or phrase from the book of Ben Sira was traced back to the Hebrew Bible. Schechter, as the author of the introduction to the text edition of the Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts discovered in 1896, added the following amplification at the end of his list which contains forty-five cross-references between the book of Ben Sira and the book of Proverbs: A few words of comment however as to the nature of these quotations are necessary. The greatest number of these are what we may perhaps term adaptive. By this I understand such Scriptural passages, phrases, and groups of words as could not have been embodied by B. S. in his ‘Wisdom’ without subjecting them first to the process of adaptation. This he managed mostly by slightly altering the Biblical text, by transposing words or giving them a different pointing, or by omitting or adding some words, or by combining various phrases, sometimes also by giving to the Biblical expression a meaning foreign to its original purport. (Schechter and Taylor 1899, 2)

Both Gasser and Eberharter, when compiling extensive lists of parallels in the first two decades of the twentieth century, realized that they had to do more than just offer a list of identical words, idioms, typical expressions, or phrases. Therefore they chose a couple of headings to typify the correspondences between the book of Ben Sira and the Hebrew Bible in a more detailed way. Relating to the similarities between the book of Ben Sira and the book of Proverbs, Gasser (1904, 241–53) in a substantial section distinguishes between (A)  strict imitations (‘deutliche Anlehnungen’), (B)  real allusions (‘sachliche Anklänge’), and (C) linguistic reminiscences (‘sprachliche Reminiszenzen’). With regard to the interrelationship between these two books, Eberharter (1914, 25–29) offers three categories too:  (A) allusions (‘Anspielungen’), (B)  imitations (‘Anlehnungen’), and (C) references to several biblical passages (‘Rückbeziehungen, bei denen mehrere Stellen zugleich in Betracht kommen’). As a consequence, these two compilers sometimes have listed the same Ben Sira phrase, word pair or expression under quite different headings, as can be seen in the following excerpt which takes its starting point in the list by Schechter and Taylor (1899, 13–25).3 3.  Gasser and Eberharter have also included the Greek text(s) of the book of Ben Sira, but since Schechter and Taylor only rely on the Hebrew text, in this chapter only the Hebrew Ben Sira texts and the Hebrew text of Proverbs are investigated.

11. The Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Proverbs

Ben Sira

Proverbs

Text

Gasser

Eberharter

3:29 4:12

2:2 8:35

‫ואזן מקשבת לחכמה‬ ’‫ יפיקו וג‬.. ‫אהבו חיים‬

strict imitation strict imitation

4:13

3:16, 18

’‫ותמכיה וג‬

real allusion

4:24

16:1

‫במענה לשון‬

5:12 6:1b

30:32 18:3

‫ידך על פיך‬ ‫וקלון ת’ חרפה‬

15:5 15:13

24:7 12:21

‫ובתוך קהל תפתח פיו‬ ’‫ולא יאננה ל‬

linguistic reminiscence – linguistic reminiscence real allusion –

allusion imitation + Prov 8:17 imitation + Prov 3:35 imitation

143

reference to several allusion – imitation

Compared with the list of Schechter-Taylor, Gasser omits eight of their parallels, whereas Eberharter omits seven. Moreover, it is notable that of those eight (by Gasser) and seven (by Eberharter) not a single one coincides. And finally, quite a few ‘quotations’ that have been listed by Schechter-Taylor were neither noted by Eberharter, nor by Gasser, as can be seen in the following chart: Ben Sira

Proverbs

Text(s)

6:5 7:17 16:23 32:22(1) 35:9 gl. 38:3 38:10 43:14 gl.

22:11 16:3 (etc) 6:32 (etc) 4:19 19:17 22:29 24:23 (etc) 16:14

‫ושפתי חן‬ ‫גל אל אל‬ ‫חסרי לב‬ ‫בדרך רשעים‬ ’‫מלוה ייי וג‬ ’‫ולפני וג‬ ‫ומהכר פנים‬ ‫למענו ברא‬

Having compared the lists of Schechter-Taylor, Gasser, and Eberharter with each other, it is obvious, therefore, that further and more precise and accurate criteria are required in order to establish intertextual relationships between the book of Ben Sira and the book of Proverbs.

New Horizons After the discovery of the Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts at the end of the nineteenth century, for many decades scholars were mainly interested in philological and text-critical questions. From the mid-1960s of the twentieth century onwards, however, a real upswing in Ben Sira studies was set in motion which was brought about by the discovery of fragments of a Hebrew Ben Sira Scroll at Masada in 1964 by Yigael Yadin, and by the publication of the great Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, containing parts of the Hebrew text of Sir 51:13–30 (Yadin 1965; Sanders 1965). The Ben Sira texts from Masada and Qumran were conclusive evidence that the Hebrew text of the medieval Ben Sira manuscripts discovered in 1896 and

144

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

later years was to a high degree authentic.4 Since 1965, therefore, Ben Sira scholars shifted their attention from textual criticism to other topics, such as Ben Sira’s hermeneutics, his setting in life, and the theological themes of his book. Part of this new movement was a re-evaluation of the extensive lists of parallels between the book of Ben Sira and the Hebrew Bible. The ‘parallelomania’  – a notion introduced by Samuel Sandmel – which so strongly dominated the first wave of Ben Sira research, was in fact disputed for the first time by John Snaith (1967, 11), who argued, ‘The amount of Ben Sira’s conscious literary quotation from the Hebrew Bible has been over-estimated through lack of detailed investigation into each alleged instance. Careful investigation into the contexts of both passages is necessary before conscious quotation can be acknowledged with any certainty . . . . What matters is what Ben Sira did with his quotations’ (emphasis in the original). Some years earlier Samuel Sandmel (1962, 2) made a similar observation:  ‘Detailed study is the criterion, and the detailed study ought to respect the context and not be limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages may sound the same in splendid isolation, but when seen in context reflect difference rather than similarity.’ Scholars nowadays are convinced that in all those cases where Ben Sira quotes Scripture, he not only adopted the biblical wording as such, but also added a contextual clue that supports his use of Scripture (e.g., introductory formula, identical genre, identical structure). This is a major methodological observation that is important for those who wish to discuss intertextuality in the book of Ben Sira. If such additional contextual clues are not explicitly defined as part of the search for parallels, one gets mixed up with a very unwanted situation, as was the case in Ben Sira research at the beginning of the twentieth century.5 In pursuit of a consistent methodology, it was Devorah Dimant (1988) who in my view made tremendous progress. Her stimulating essay is devoted to the use of biblical elements in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha that ‘are interwoven into the work without external formal markers’ (382). Identifying such ‘implicit use of Mikra . . . depends on the ability of the reader to recognize the biblical elements and to see their meaning in the new writing’. She adds, ‘It may be defined as a phrase of at least three words, which stems from a specific recognizable biblical context’ (400–1). This undoubtedly is a reader-oriented approach to intertextuality. The reader of a text, however, is not the sole agent of meaning. Investigating aspects of intertextuality between the book of Proverbs and the book of Ben Sira, the author-oriented approach should not be forgotten, however, since there are quite a few similarities of structure and form, such as alphabetic acrostics and numerical sayings (see Skehan 1979; Corley 2005, 180–82).

4. This finding matched the assessment of Di Lella (1966, 23–105). 5. My doctoral thesis makes an effort to classify different kinds of parallels, and alleged parallels as well, between the book of Ben Sira and the Hebrew Bible (Beentjes 1981, 21–199).

11. The Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Proverbs

145

A Closer Look at Corley’s Approach When discussing the parallels between the texts, Corley (2005, 158)  aims to ‘focus mainly on direct usage, involving both conceptual and verbal links’. The first paragraph (‘Theological similarities’) has the following headings:  ‘wisdom’, ‘fear of God’, ‘retribution’, and ‘life and death’, whereas in the second paragraph (‘Similarities in the area of social ethics’) they are: ‘honor and shame’, ‘respect for parents’, ‘view of women’, ‘friendship’, ‘careful etiquette at banquets’, ‘speech’, and ‘care of the poor’. Such a thematic search for parallels might be a good starting point, since, among other similarities, intertextual links should always have a thematic point of contact. But even when a thematic link seems at hand, one should nevertheless be cautious not to make a rash decision as to an intertextual connection. Two examples may suffice to exemplify this point. Corley (2005, 175)  refers to the following parallels: Do not devise evil against your neighbor. (Prov 3:29a)

Do not devise lawlessness against a brother, or likewise against any neighbor or comrade. (Sir 7:12)

A couple of things immediately attract attention. The collocation ‫( אל תחרש‬do not devise) is quite rare indeed.6 It might be adduced as an argument in favour of an intertextual link. As a counterargument, however, it should be emphasized, first, that the fine word-play of the colon in Proverbs (‫ )על־רעך רעה‬is absent in Sir 7:12 and, second, that in the book of Proverbs the verb ‫ חרש‬and the noun ‫ רע‬are a close-knit couple (Prov 3:29; 6:14; 12:20; 14:22) which in the Ben Sira passage has been broken up. Corley therefore needs the entire second bicolon of the Ben Sira passage (7:12b) just in order to include the noun ‫רע‬. The same pattern is found more than once: Do not desire her [= a foreign woman’s] beauty in your heart. (Prov 6:25a)

Do not fall through a woman’s beauty, and do not desire what is hers. (Sir 25:21)

Here too (Corley 2005, 172), the content of a single colon in Proverbs is spread over a bicolon in Ben Sira. Since the same pattern is found quite often in Corley’s essay, one might wonder whether this is one of Ben Sira’s techniques for alluding.7 As to the text under discussion, however, it is not the most obvious conclusion, since the text in Proverbs deals with a prostitute (6:26a), whereas Ben Sira refers

6. It is found in Sir 8:2 too. 7. See, for example, Prov 30:32 // Sir 5:12; Prov 24:12 // Sir 35:24; Prov 18:21 // Sir 37:17– 18; Prov 13:22 // Sir 44:11.

146

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

to a man’s spouse. One may even wonder whether both passages have the same context. Quite often Corley draws attention to a parallel or an allusion in which he relates the Hebrew text of the passage in Proverbs to the Greek text of the Ben Sira parallel or to the Syriac translation of the Ben Sira text.8 From a methodological point of view, this is not without its risks. In order to illustrate this point, I refer to Prov 26:3 which Corley (2005, 180) links to Sir 33:25: A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,

and a rod for the back of fools. (Prov 26:3) Fodder and a whip and a burden for the donkey, and the discipline of work for a slave. (Sir 33:25 Hebrew) Fodder and a rod and burdens for a donkey; bread and discipline and work for a household slave. (Sir 33:25 Greek)

From the three italicized items in the Proverbs text (whip, donkey, rod), only two (whip, donkey) are found in the Hebrew Ben Sira passage, whereas the third one (rod) is only found in the Greek Ben Sira passage in which, however, an equivalent of ‘whip’ is missing. From a methodological point of view it is not wise to mix the Hebrew Ben Sira text with its Greek rendering, since the Greek translation of the book of Ben Sira is far from a slavish rendering of the original Hebrew text, as has convincingly been proven by Wright (1989). A final example relates to Sir 47:12 and Prov 10:5: Sir 47:12

‫ובעבורו עמד אחריו בן משכיל שוכן לבטח‬

‘And for his sake there stood up after him / a wise son dwelling in safety.’ (Oesterley 1916, 135)9 Prov 10:5

‫אגר בקיץ בן משכיל נרדם בקציר בן מביש‬

‘A wise son gathers crops in summer / a son who sleeps at harvest is a source of disappointment.’ (REB)

Can we take it for granted that Ben Sira in his portrayal of King Solomon reaches back to Prov 10:5, as Corley (2005, 156) contends?: ‘Ben Sira introduces Solomon as a “prudent son” (Sir 47:12 HB), a phrase borrowed from Prov 10:5’. In my view, this ‘parallel’ is not so self-evident. Of course, since the collocation ‫( בן משכיל‬wise son) is found only once both in the Hebrew Bible and in the book of Ben Sira, the reader will be easily inclined to assume a direct intertextual relationship between

8. For Hebrew-Greek comparisons, see, for example, Prov 17:21 // Sir 22:3; Prov 11:3 // Sir 27:16; Prov 21:17 // Sir 19:1; Prov 17:20 // Sir 28:18; Prov 17:20 // Sir 20:18; Prov 25:15 // Sir 28:17; Prov 26:3 // Sir 33:25. For Hebrew-Syriac comparisons, see, for example, Prov 6:19 // Sir 28:9; Prov 17:28 // Sir 20:5; Prov 6:26 // Sir 26:22; Prov 26:27 // Sir 27:26. 9. Sir 47:12 links up the pericope on David (Sir 47:1–11) with the passage about his son Solomon (Sir 47:13–22); see Beentjes 1984.

11. The Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Proverbs

147

these two texts. However, since Prov 10:5 has nothing to do with King Solomon in the first place and the verse, moreover, does not contain any further resemblance with Sir 47:12, one can hardly maintain that Ben Sira had this particular verse from Proverbs in mind.10 In addition, the hiphil participle ‫ משכיל‬is quite common in the book of Ben Sira: ‫( עבד משכיל‬Sir 7:21; 10:25); ‫( דל משכיל‬Sir 10:23); ‫( דבר משכיל‬Sir 13:21d); ‫( אשה משכלת‬Sir 7:19; 25:8; 40:23). There is no need whatsoever to adopt it specifically from Prov 10:5.

On the Wrong Track Subsequent to some critical comments on Corley’s approach, two examples will suffice to demonstrate that the notion of intertextuality between the book of Ben Sira and the book of Proverbs is quite complicated indeed and is far from univocal as is often suggested. Reading the book of Ben Sira, from time to time one is convinced that a parallel to the Hebrew Bible is at hand. On a closer look, however, it appears that this might not to be the case. (1) ‘Slow to anger’ Sir 30:22b Prov 19:11a

‫( וגיל אדם האריך אפו‬happiness makes a man slow to anger) ‫( שכל אדם האריך אפו‬good sense makes a man slow to anger)

At fi rst si ght, the Be n Sira text appears to be adopted directly from Proverbs. Despite the close resemblance, however, the parallel can be questioned. For there are sound reasons to assume that ‫ אפו‬in Sir 30:22b is not authentic. First, ‫אפו‬ obviously breaks up the parallelism of v. 22, as ‘life’ in the first half is hardly to be considered the parallel of ‘his anger’. Second, the Greek noun μακροημερευσις (22b) which should be the rendering of the Hebrew ‫ אפו‬casts serious doubts on the authenticity of the latter.11 Finally, it appears that v. 22 in a chiastic way is the opposite of v. 24a – ‘Envy and anger shorten days’. Therefore, instead of reading ‫ אפו‬we follow the majority of commentators who bring to the fore that both from the structure and the dynamics of 30:22–24 a reading like ‫( ימים‬days) or ‫( ימיו‬his days) would be more likely.12

10. Smend (1906, 452) and Skehan and Di Lella (1987, 527) refer to 1 Kgs 5:21. 11 . ‘Gr. and Syr. ‫חיין‬, which gives indeed better sense. The mistake of the copyist may be due to his thinking of Prov. xix.11’ (Schechter and Taylor 1899, 54; see also Smend 1906, 271). 12. In 30:22b the Syriac has ‘his life’, just as in the first half of the verse, and not ‘his days’ as is contended by Schechter and Taylor (1899, 54) and some other commentators (e.g., Hamp, Lévi). I fully agree that ‘MS B has been contaminated from Prov 19:11 under the influence of v 23’ (Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 380).

148

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

(2) ‘A hot-tempered man’ Sir 8:16 ‫( עם בעל אף אל תעיז מצח‬Show no defiance to a hot-tempered man) Prov 22:24 ‫( אל־תתרע את־בעל אף‬Never make friends with a hot-tempered man)

Though ‫ בעל אף‬is a unique collocation, both in the book of Proverbs and in the book of Ben Sira, I challenge the view of commentators (e.g., Smend 1906, 80; Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 214) that Ben Sira has adopted this collocation from the book of Proverbs. For there are no further arguments to substantiate this view. The main argument for my rejection would be Dimant’s (1988, 400– 401) rule that there must be ‘a phrase of at least three words, which stems from a specific recognizable biblical context’. An additional argument might be that the book of Proverbs uses several synonyms, such as ‫( בעל חמה‬29:22b), ‫( איש חמות‬22:24b), ‫( איש־אף‬29:22a), and ‫( איש חמה‬15:18a). Instead of assuming a direct relationship between Sir 8:16 and Prov 22:24, it would be more appropriate, therefore, to speak of a widespread wisdom motif.13

Examples of Intertextual Relationship In this section, some passages from the book of Ben Sira are presented which might be considered parallels to, or at least close adoptions from, the book of Proverbs. (1) ‘Do not profit in the day of wrath’ Sir 5:8b Prov 11:4a

‫( כי לא יועילו ביום עברה‬for they do not profit in the day of wrath) ‫( לא־יועיל הון ביום עברה‬Riches do not profit in the day of wrath [NRSV]).

First, it should be noted that both texts have ‘a phrase of at least three words, which stems from a specific recognizable biblical context’ (Dimant 1988, 400–401). Second, both texts share an identical context, since the notion of wealth is at the centre. Third, in both contexts the antithesis between the sinner and the righteous one is at the forefront. Although this parallel has been noted by many commentators, for example, Smend (1906, 50), Lévi (1901, 27), and Skehan and Di Lella (1987, 184), I would like to underline a special detail. For, special attention must be paid furthermore to t h e in troductory ‫כי‬. It should not only be considered the particle which – subsequent to the warning ‘Do not trust in unrighteous gains’ (5:8a) – functions as the opening of the ground (as, e.g., in 3:23b; 4:24a; 5:14c; 7:8b; 7:35b), but it also

13.  ‘Such warnings are also characteristic of various Egyptian instructions including Amenemope, and are also found in Babylonian literature’ (Whybray 1994, 329).

11. The Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Proverbs

149

serves as the marker to a saying which has been adopted from tradition, namely, Prov 11:4. An analysis of Sir 5:1– 8 confirms this twofold function of ‫כי‬. In this passage, Ben Sira makes a stand against the way the rich ones, for whom the faith of the ancestors has lost its allure, speak about God. With the help of warnings (5:1, 2c, 3a, 4ab, 5a, 7ab, 8a), Ben Sira criticizes their views of and conceptions about God, whereas in the subsequent grounds (5:3b, 6cd, 7cd, 8b) he brings to the fore some views on retribution which are taken from tradition.14 This can hardly be a surprise, since Sir 5:1– 8 offers an exemplary outline of Israel’s classical theodicy.15 Verse 5 marks a distinct turning point. From here on, a series of changes and gradations is introduced into the remarks and thoughts of those addressed. While the sinner’s utterances are the centre of the first part of the passage (Sir 5:1b, 3b, 4b), in the second part (Sir 5:5–8) it is the author who reacts to them. Not only the inclusio of v. 5a and v. 8a (‫ – )אל תבטח‬which in fact takes up the entire rebuttal of the author, but also the emphasis of ‫ סליחה‬at the opening of v. 5 play a very functional role. The word ‫ סליחה‬is effective now as a kind of ‘theological lens’ which determines the focus of the second part. In the first ‫כי‬- clause which opens with ‫( רחמים‬v. 6c) – is also the first word of the sinner in his final remark (v. 6a) – the author demonstrates that the problem is much more complicated than the sinner apparently supposes. There is no question of God’s mercy being merely mechanical. For that reason, the author in vv. 6c- d and 7c- d is unfolding a theodicy, which even tends to a negative content, that must be considered here a rhetorically justified exaggeration. The two ‫כי‬-clauses, in which God’s punishing anger has been stressed, also therefore function as a framework to an almost prophetical summons (v. 7a) from the author towards the sinner to change his way of life immediately and drastically. It can hardly be accidental that precisely this summons has been provided with a double negation! (2) ‘A glutton and a drunkard’ Sir 18:32

‫אל תהי זולל וסובא ומאומה אין בכיס‬

(Be not a glutton and a drunkard / there will be nothing in thy purse) Prov 23:20–21a

‫אל־תהי בסבאי־יין בזללי בשר למו כי סבא וזולל יורש‬

(Be not among wine drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton come to poverty’ [RSV]) Deut 21:20b ‫בננו זה סורר ומרה איננו שמע בקלנו זולל וסבא‬ (This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard [NRSV])

14. As to the enduring and intriguing question whether Sir 5:3b has been adopted from Qoh 3:15, see Gregory 2014. For a full analysis of the entire passage, see Beentjes 1992. 15. Sir 5:4–8 ‘offre un compendio di teodicea’ (Prato 1975, 367–69).

150

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

As to the collocation ‫ זולל וסבא‬in Sir 18:32, Deut 21:20b and Prov 23:20– 21 are always bracketed together by commentators.16 Several arguments, however, are in favour of Prov 23:20– 21a being the parallel to the Ben Sira text. First, both texts have an identical opening. Second, they contain similar vocabulary and their contexts display close resemblance, for example, ‘nothing in thy purse’ // ‘poverty’. Third, the inversion of ‫ זולל‬and ‫ סבא‬is to be considered a deliberate change of the parent text by Ben Sira indicating that his verse is an adoption from an existing text, a salient stylistic characteristic which, nevertheless, is rather unknown, but is found more often.17 Moreover, it is hard to understand in what way Deut 21:20 might have influenced the Ben Sira passage. An intertextual relationship between Deut 21:20 and Sir 18:32 is further weakened by the strange position of the atnach in the former text.18 (3) ‘Preserve yourself ’ Sir 32:23

‫בכל מעשיך שמור נפשך כי עושה זה שומר מצוה‬

(In whatever you do preserve yourself, for he who does so keeps the commandment) Prov 19:16

‫שמר מצוה שמר נפשו‬

(He who keeps the commandment preserves himself) Deut 4:9 ‫רק השמר לך ושמר נפשך מאד‬ (Only take heed, and preserve yourself diligently)

Sir 32:23– 33:2 has a beautiful mixture of Deuteronomistic (‫שׁומר מצוה‬, ‫בוטח בייי‬ ‫שׁומר נפשׁך‬,) and non-deuteronomistic phrases (‫)נוצר תורה‬, 19 which, moreover, are interspersed with Ben Sira’s own vocabulary: ‫( לא פגע רע‬no evil will meet) and ‫שׂנא‬ ‫( תורה‬to hate the Law).20 The parallel use of these collocations within four lines offers a fine theological summary of how Ben Sira integrated important streams of Israel’s tradition with his own creativity. B en Sira 32:2 3 con ta ins two collocations that are quite rare. First, in the Hebrew Bible the imperative ‫ שמור נפשך‬is only found in Deut 4:9, in which – just as Sir 32:23 – the verb ‫ שמר‬is used twice. Second, notably, the noun ‫מ צוה‬ (commandment) in Sir 32:23 is indefinite. And although the combination of ‫שמר‬ and ‫ מצוה‬is fou nd twenty- eight times in the Hebrew Bible, an indefinite ‫מצוה‬ occurs only in Prov 19:16 and Qoh 8:5 (Liesen 2008, 204 n. 27). Ben Sira 32:23, therefore, might best be considered a composite intertextual passage.

16. For example, Smend 1906, 172; Lévi 1901, 122; Skehan-Di Lella 1987, 292. 17. As to the stylistic phenomenon of the ‘inverted quotation’, see Beentjes 1982. 18.  For intertextual relationships between the book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomy, see Beentjes 2008, 2011. 19. Ps 105:45; 119:34; Prov 28:7. 20. For an evaluation of this passage in three different MSS (B., E., F.), see Beentjes 1999.

11. The Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Proverbs

151

This is strongly reminiscent of Corley’s approach in which two passages from the Hebrew Bible are connected to each other, and subsequently that cluster is taken as a parallel or an allusion in a specific Ben Sira passage (e.g., Prov 22:9 and Ps 19:8 // Sir 31:23; Prov 31:3 and Prov 5:10 // Sir 26:19 [Greek]; Prov 11:7 and Isa 40:29 // Sir 41:2; Prov 23:6 and Ps 19:9 // Sir 31:24).21 Here the risk of subjectivity is quite substantial, unless an explicit contextual clue in the Ben Sira passage, such as those in this passage, guarantees that it relates to two different passages of the Hebrew Bible. (4) ‘One who is always reverent’ Sir 37:12a (MS D, Bm)22

‫אך אם איש מפחד תמיד‬

(But rather with a man who is always reverent23) Prov 28:14a ‫אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד‬ (Happy is the one who is always reverent)

Ben Sira 37:12 is the sequel to a series of ten admonitions (37:11) with the pertinent message not to consult specific categories of persons or seek advice from them. There are several arguments to opt for the reading ‫( איש‬MS D, Bm) as the more original text. First, in Ms. B. v. 10 is missing, whereas it is crucial to the passage, since the opening ‫‘( על תועץ‬Seek no advice’) not only is the introduction to a substantial catalogue of persons that should not be consulted, but also is indispensable for the continuation of 37:12a (But rather with a man). Moreover, together with the verb ‫( יעץ‬37:7a, 7b, 8a) and the noun ‫( עצה‬37:13a), ‫( על תועץ‬37:10a) as a Leitwort to a great extent lays the foundation for the entire structure of Sir 37:7–15. Second, the reading ‫( איש‬MS D, Bm) strengthens the structure of this passage, which in 37:11a h as ‫ אשה‬a s the opening of a negative series of specific persons, and in 37:12a switches to a positive counterpart with the help of the noun ‫איש‬. Third, as Georg Sauer has demonstrated, Sir 37:7– 15 in MS D has a more religious effect than in MS B.24 Having established the most likely original text, now the matter of intertextuality must be dealt with. The collocation ‫ מפחד תמיד‬is very rare, since it is only found in these two passages. It is quite remarkable, therefore, that such renowned scholars

21.  None of them, however, is found in Eberharter’s (1911, 28) list under the heading ‘references to several biblical passages’. 22. The reading of MS D. and Bm is confirmed by the Greek (ανδρος), the Syriac (’nš’), and the Old Latin (viro). 23. The reading of 37:12a according to MS B has ‫אך אם יש‬. 24.  ‘An Einzelheiten ist noch festzustellen, daß im Manuskript D der Ratgeber in einer engeren Verbindung mit dem religiösen Lehrer gesehen wird als im Manuskript B . . . Hingegen zeigt Manuskript B einen Wandel:  Der Ratgeber ist zu einem rein weltlichen Experten geworden (V 7a)’ (Sauer 1998, 83–84).

152

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

as Peters (1913, 305) and Skehan and Di Lella (1987, 429–33) did not list this text p air in their commentaries, as opposed to Smend (1906, 331) and Lévi (1901, 186) who did. In my view, it is more than plausible that Ben Sira has deliberately chosen t he collocation ‫ מפחד תמיד‬from Prov 28:14 and has integrated it into his own c omp osition in a special way. First, the overall structure of both compositions is describing virtues and vices in opposite couples. Whereas there is discussion among scholars whether the collocation in Prov 28:14a should be interpreted in a profane or in a religious way,25 in the Ben Sira context it is unambiguous, since it is in parallel position to ‫ שומר מצוה‬in the next colon. Of course, it is striking that Prov 28:14a has the collocation ‫אדם מפחד תמים‬, whereas Ben Sira has ‫איש‬. In my view, this change is required by the context. Ben Sira 37:12 is in antithesis with 37:11a, which opens with ‫אשה‬. For that reason, Ben Sira has replaced ‫( אדם‬human being) by ‫( איש‬man).

Conclusion Establishing intertextual relations between the book of Ben Sira and the book of Proverbs appears not to be such an easy task as is often suggested in scholarly literature. Although the book of Ben Sira and the book of Proverbs are in general to be characterized as belonging to the same literary genre, that is, proverbial sayings, this does not automatically imply that common vocabulary should immediately be listed as an intertextual relationship. Such a particular relationship must be established with the help of Devorah Dimant’s approach and after a meticulous analysis of both contexts. In those cases where an intertextual relationship is plausible, no doubt the reader will also gain admiration for Ben Sira’s reworking of Israel’s earlier tradition(s).

Bibliography Bauckmann, Ernst Günter. 1960. Die Proverbien und die Sprüche des Jesus Sirach. ZAW 72:33–63. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1981. Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6–26. Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1982. Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern. Bib 63:506–23. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1984. The Countries Marvelled at You: King Solomon in Ben Sira 47:12–22. Bijdr 45:6–14.

25. For example, Whybray (1994, 393), Plöger (1984, 336), and Fuhs (2001, 172) opt for a religious meaning.

11. The Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Proverbs

153

Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1992. Ben Sira 5:1–8 – A Rhetorical and Literary Analysis. Pages 45–59 in The Literary Analysis of Hebrew Texts. Edited by Niek A. van Uchelen and Irene E. Zwiep. Publications of the Juda Palache Institute VII. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1999. The Hebrew Texts of Ben Sira 32[35],16–33[36],2. Pages 53–67 in Sirach, Scrolls & Sages. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 2008. Ben Sira and the Book of Deuteronomy, or The Limits of Intertextuality. Pages 413–33 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by J. Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. PFES 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 2011. The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage: A Critical Approach. Pages 275–96 in Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in Second Temple Period. Edited by H. von Weissenberg et al. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter. Collins, John J. 1997. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Corley, Jeremy. 2005. An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira. Pages 155–82 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America. Di Lella, Alexander A. A. 1966. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. The Hague: Mouton. Dimant, Devorah. 1988. Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Pages 379–419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. CRINT 2: The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 1. Assen: Van Gorcum. Eberharter, Andreas. 1911. Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben Sira: Auf Grund der Beziehungen des Sirabuches zu den Schriften des Alten Testaments dargestellt. ATA III,3. Münster i. W.: Aschendorff. Fuhs, Hans F. 2001. Sprichwörter. NEB 35. Würzburg: Echter Verlag. Gasser, Johann Konrad. 1904. Die Bedeutung des Sprüche Jesu Ben Sira für die Datierung des althebräischen Sprüchbuches. BFChTh VIII, 2–3. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Gregory, Bradley C. 2014. A Reassessment of Sirach’s Relationship to Qoheleth: A Case Study of Qoheleth 3:15 and Sirach 5:3. Pages 189–200 in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. Edited by Katherine Dell and Will Kynes. LHBOTS 587. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Lévi, Israel. 1901. L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. BEHER 10,2. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Liesen, Jan. 2008. A Common Background of Ben Sira and the Psalter: The Concept of ‫ תורה‬in Sir 32:14–33:3 and the Torah Psalms. Pages 197–208 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. Miller, Geoffrey. 2011. Intertextuality in Old Testament Research. CBR 9:283–309. Oesterley, William O. E. 1916. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus). TED I 2. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Peters, Norbert. 1913. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster i. W.: Aschendorff.

154

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Plöger, Otto. 1984. Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia). BKAT XVII. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Prato, Gian L. 1975. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Sanders, James Alvin. 1965. Pages 79–85 in The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon. Sandmel, Samuel. 1962. Parallelomania. JBL 81:1–13. Sauer, Georg. 1998. Der Ratgeber (Sir 37,7–15): Textgeschichte als Auslegungsgeschichte und Bedeutungswandel. Pages 73–85 in Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer. BZAW 270. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. 1899. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus, from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors. Cambridge: University Press. Skehan, Patrick W. 1979. Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24. CBQ 41:365–79. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday. Skemp, Vincent. 2005. Avenues of Intertextuality between Tobit and the New Testament. Pages 43–70 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America. Smend, Rudolf. 1906. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Snaith, John G. 1967. Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus. JTS 19:1–12. Soden, Wolfram von. 1993. Einige Beobachtungen zur ungleichen Häufigkeit wichtiger Begriffe in den Büchern Sprüche und Jesus Sirach. Pages 419–25 in Mesopotamica, Ugaritica, Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof. Edited by Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. AOAT 232. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Whybray, R. N. 1994. Proverbs. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Wright, Benjamin G. 1989. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. SCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Yadin, Yigael. 1965. The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada with Introduction, Emendations and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book. Repr., 1999. Pages 152–225 in Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Chapter 12 A P HO R I SM S A N D A DM O N I T IO N S :   T H E R E U SE O F P R OV E R B S 7 I N 4 Q W I L E S OF T H E W I C K E D W OM A N ( 4 Q 1 8 4 ) William A. Tooman

The dependence of 4Q Wiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184) on scriptural texts, especially the book of Proverbs, is well established (Jones 2003; Goff 2008; Lesly 20 12). 4Q184, a shor t sapiential poem, describes a woman who ensnares the righteous and leads them into sin and death. She is described in terms that are r em iniscent of Proverb s’ ‘strange woman’ (2:16– 22; 5:1– 23; 6:20– 35; 7:1– 27), and especially of the ‫ אשׁה זרה‬of Proverbs 7. Her speech is slippery; her actions p re datory. She walks t he city streets seeking t hose to c orrupt. Sh e inhabit s darkness. Her bed is a gateway to the pit. On e feature of 4Q184 creates difficulties for understanding the poem in its own right and the nature of its relationship to Proverbs. The speaking voice is not identified nor is the ideal audience. The speaking voice in Proverbs 7 addresses ‘my son’ (‫ )בני‬or ‘sons’ (‫( )בנים‬vv. 1 and 24), continuing the persona of a father a dm inistering wisdom to his sons (e.g., Prov 1:8; 4:1). The indeterminacy of 4Q184, in this respect, opens a whole host of interpretive possibilities, particularly with respect to the connotation of the text. As it stands, it is difficult to determine i f the woman and her behaviours are metaphors for other realities. As a result, i nt erpreters have ide ntified the woman with Rome, another sectarian group, Simon Maccabee, demonic forces, and women generally. Comparing her to the strange woman in Proverbs some interpreters assume that sexual sin is the focus; others perceive her wicked behaviours as a cipher for any variety of sin.1

1. Allegro, Carmignac, and Gazov-Ginzberg identified the woman as a group. Comparing 4Q184 to Revelation 17, Allegro (1964, 53–55) saw the woman as the personification of Rome, whereas Camignac (1965), followed by Gazov-Ginzberg (1967), proposed that she represented a group rivalling the Yaḥad. Similarly, Maier (2000) proposed that the woman be identified with the ‘man of lies’, known from the Damascus Document. Burgmann (1974) suggested that she is Simon Maccabee. Moore (1981) regards 4Q184 as a reflection on ‘abstract’ evil. For Broshi (1983, 54–56), a fear of women and the feminine among the

156

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

This chapter focuses on the relationship between 4Q184 and Proverbs 7 specifically. Proverbs 7 is by no means the only scriptural text evoked by 4Q184. Nonetheless, it deserves special attention because it served as the principal source for 4Q184. Though utilized for different rhetorical purposes, nearly all of the themes and images in 4Q184 were derived from Proverbs 7, which provided the stock of aesthetic and argumentative building blocks from which 4Q184 was constructed. In this chapter, I  will compare and contrast the texts’ poetic and rhetorical attributes, including elements of Proverbs 7 that are absent in 4Q184. Analysis of the creative and adaptive reuse of Proverbs 7 is the main focus of the piece. The observations gleaned, I will argue, go further than mere comparison. They shed light on the indeterminacies just described, suggesting a particular resolution to questions about 4Q184’s rhetorical aim and the connotation of the woman.2

Proverbs 7 Pr overbs 7 is an ext ended exordium from an unidentified speaker to ‘my son’ ( ‫ )בני‬to acquire wisdom. Most of the lecture is a poetic narrative. The narrative recounts how a young man falls into the clutches of a strange woman, ‫אשׁה זרה‬ (who is also called the alien, ‫ נכריה‬v. 5).3 Peering out through his window’s lattice, the speaker observes a callow youth (‫נער‬. . .‫ )פתאים‬walking along the street of the str ange woman. The woman, who appears familiar with the youth, approaches him, grasps him, and kisses him in the twilight (vv. 7–13). With breathy urgency she describes elaborate preparations, arranged for him. Her sacrifices have been offered.4 Her boudoir has been appointed: ‘I have decked my couch with coverings / colored spreads of Egyptian linen // I have perfume d my bed with myrrh / aloes, and cinnamon’ (vv. 16– 17). The anticipated proposition follows. Her man is absent, away from home on a long business trip, and her heart is set on a long,

Essenes is evident in 4Q184 (cf. Aubin 2001; Wright 2004), but for Baumgarten (1991), the woman is a demon. Other proposals could be mentioned. 2.  As this paragraph indicates, the ‘intertextual’ relationship between 4Q184 and Proverbs 7 that is under consideration here is diachronic not synchronic. That is, I understand Proverbs 7 to be older than 4Q184 and one of the sources used to craft the sapiential poem. What constitutes valid evidence of an ‘intertextual’ relationship – proof that one text is reusing elements of another  – is debated in biblical and Second Temple studies. For a summary of my own views on the matter, see Tooman 2011, 23–34. 3. On the mea ning of ‫אשׁ ה זרה‬, see Fox 2000, 134– 41. Fox concludes, ‘Nothing whatsoever in any of the lectures indicates that the Strange Woman is a foreigner or even a social outsider. The antithesis of the zarah-nokriyyah is not an Israelite woman or a woman of proper social standing, but rather one’s own wife (5:15–20)’ (140). 4.  Implying, perhaps, that there is also meat on offer, satisfying yet another physical appetite (Lev 7:16; 17:15).

12. Aphorisms and Admonitions

157

languid, satisfying liaison (vv. 18– 20). It is not an opportunity to be missed. The youth, swept up by her sybaritic promises and the assurance of dalliance without c o nsequence, follo ws her impu lsively (‫)פתאם‬, like an uns uspecting animal falling into a snare. This cautionary tale is framed, front and back by a number of admonitions and exhortations to the son to take wisdom as his sister (‫ )אח‬and friend (‫ )מדע‬because she will guard him from the strange woman (vv. 2– 5). The strange woman is dangerous not because she is desirable or free with her love but because she is persuasive. He words are ‘smooth’ (‫)חל"ק‬, difficult to trust but also difficult to resist (vv. 5, 21).5 The son must, therefore, guard himself from encountering such a woman or entertaining any wish to do so (v. 25). Failure to guard and be guarded results in only one end: death (v. 27). Proverbs 7 has been crafted as a contest of voices: the voice of the speaker and voice of the woman. Both address young men.6 Both encourage the lads to follow their path. Both exemplify the substance of their words. There are three features of Proverbs 7 that, taken together, set up the contrast between the two voices: the evocative realism of the woman’s smooth words, the evaluative language of the speaker, and the pattern of covert contrasts set up by the poem’s elaborate imagery. The realism of Proverbs 7 is striking.7 The whole poem is spoken from the point of view of a third-party observer. Even the woman’s words in vv. 14–20 are reported by the observer. This perspectival choice heightens the reader’s sense of seeing the encounter herself or himself. It also enables the narrator to impart vividness to the tableau and verisimilitude to his advice. This heightened realism, though, is limited to certain portions of the exordium. There is no description of the street in which the playlet occurs. There is no physical description of the callow youth or the strange woman, and the initial encounter between the two on the street and their arm-in-arm departure are repeatedly interrupted by evaluative comments on the two characters (v. 7, 10b–12, 21–23). In fact, the most evocative, realistic scenes are those summoned up by the woman’s words. The realism is most sustained and expressive in her description of her boudoir and the activities she has planned. The vivid visualization exemplifies the winsomeness of smooth words. It is impossible to deny their appeal. In mind and in action, the youth slips willingly

5. The woman’s speech is described as both ‘seductive’ (7:21; ‫ )לק"ח‬and ‘smooth’ (7:5, 21; ‫)לח"ק‬. Smooth speech is flattering (Prov 28:23) or, as in this case, enticing (Prov 2:16; 5:3). It is not trustworthy, so it makes itself appealing. (The one exception is the usage in Cant 4:11). See Newsom 1989, 146–49; Fox 2000, 119. 6.  The speaking voice is privileged, of course. Not only is it allowed to mediate the woman’s words, but it is allowed the first and last word. Note, in this latter respect, the symmetry of vv. 1 and 24. 7.  ‘Realism’ (or, sometimes, ‘mimesis’) is a broad and slippery term. It encompasses a range of possibilities for how symbolically generated worlds relate to any given ‘real’ (material, ideal, ideational) world. I am using the term ‘realism’ in a rather non-technical way to refer to the life-like vividness of the narrative.

158

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

into the picture. In this way, Prov 7:14–20 manifests a double-realism: a realistic depiction of the woman’s preparations, and a realistic depiction of ‘smooth words’. Far from engendering empathy with the youth, the speaker’s assessment of him as an unknowing, easy, possibly despicable victim (a sucker) and his strong words of exhortation to his sons strengthens them to divorce themselves from any sympathy or empathy, but to violently shun any such situation, to resist smooth words. Overtly, the speaker seeds his speech with evaluative descriptors. She is a ‘strange woman’ and a ‘harlot’. Her actions are ‘hidden’, ‘rowdy’, ‘defiant’, and ‘brazen’. She ‘strays’, ‘ambushes’, ‘entices’, and ‘slays’. The youth is ‘callow’ and ‘devoid of sense’. He is like an ‘ox’, ‘stag’, or ‘bird’. He hurries to his own destruction ‘striding’, ‘bounding’, ‘rushing’. This direct mode contrasts with the seductive speech of the strange woman. She entices; he labels. She paints; he names.8 Not all of the speaker’s tactics are as obvious or overt. The exordium is also filled with a medley of shifting images and themes, all serving to create contrasts. The opening words are well provided with body parts, not those of the woman as we might expect, but those of the son. The son should keep his father’s teachings as the apple of his eye, binding them on his fingers, and writing them on his heart. The poem’s many locations, explicit and implicit – corners, streets, squares, homes, bedrooms, temple – make of the woman’s public and private life a contradiction. She is temple-pious but dissolute. She offers the youth a private, intimate liaison, but she is well known in the public places of the city (v. 12). They also create a contrast between the speaker and the woman, contrasting his domestic activity with hers. He reflects on what he has seen, garnering wisdom and life. She cuckolds her husband, wilfully flirting with death. Wisdom is typified in relational terms as familiar and familial, as ‘friend’ and ‘sister’ (v. 4), whereas the woman is ‘strange’ and ‘alien’ (v. 5). The promise and the reality of the seduction are contrasted with terms for light and dark. The youth is wooed by the promise of a sexual encounter lasting ‘until dawn’, free from consequence because the husband is absent till the ‘new moon’ (‘mid month’, v. 20). For the speaker, though, night is perilous and the danger of dark deeds is richly evoked by a constellation of synonyms for it: ‘twilight’, ‘evening’, ‘night’, and ‘darkness’ (v. 9). The themes of pursuing and hunting create yet another set of contrasts between the strange woman and wisdom and between the fate of the youth and that of the son. Wisdom must be sought diligently. The son must ‘store [her] up’ or ‘bind’ her lest she be misplaced (vv. 1–2). The strange woman, in contrast, pursues the young man, hunting him like prey. She seeks him and finds him (v. 15). She ambushes him (v. 12) and seizes him (v. 13). Wisdom must be caught by the son, but it is the youth who is caught by the strange woman (v. 22), snared like an animal of the chase (v. 23). The contrast is concretized by the results of the two pursuits. Seeking wisdom leads to life (v. 2). Being sought and

8. Note also, the exordium contains no terms or descriptors for the son(s), the addressee. That character’s nature is indeterminate. It will be shaped by how he responds to the words of the father. He might be callow and stupidly self-destructive, or he might heed the father’s instruction and be on a safe path, securing life and safety for himself (7:25).

12. Aphorisms and Admonitions

159

caught by the strange woman leads to death (vv. 22–23, 26–27). Closely related to the theme of pursuit is the threefold contrast between the wandering woman, travelling man, and straying son (vv. 11, 19, 25 [cf. 22–23]). One wanders, selfishly and destructively; another travels for the welfare of himself and others (one assumes); the last is exhorted to shun the impulse to stray. Other, more obvious contrasts inhabit the poem, like the heart of the son contrasted with the heart of the woman (vv. 3, 10 [‘intent’], 25) or the instruction of the speaker contrasted with the instruction of the woman (v. 21). All these motifs create a shifting pattern of contrastive relationships: the woman’s public and private lives are contrasted, the speaker is contrasted with the woman, wisdom with the woman, the son with the youth, the woman with her husband, and the woman with the sons. Thus, the seductive realism of the woman’s words is set against the overt evaluative terms that punctuate the speaker’s words and the rich tapestry of interwoven, covert, contrastive images. All three are pressed into service to highlight the contrast between two worlds-of-words: the words of the speaker – lady wisdom’s self-appointed proxy  – and the words of the strange woman. At stake are two young men:  the callow youth, to whom the woman directs her smooth words, and the son, to whom the speaker directs his earnest exhortation.

4QWiles of the Wicked Woman 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184) 9 is a short – seventeen line – fragmentary poetic text, usually classified as a sapiential poem (Goff 1998, 286–306; 2007, 4–6). Judging from the empty lines before and after the first and seventeenth lines, the poem appears to be largely complete (though it has been suggested that 4Q184 was part of a larger work10). The speaking voice is unidentified, as is the recipient. The poem describes a woman who leads men into sin, alluring them with her smooth words. Its most distinctive features are its unabated pedagogic mode, every line apprising the reader of the danger posed by the unidentified woman, and the elaborate array of shifting images used to describe her many aspects: her speech, her clothing, her dwelling, her fate, her behaviour and her influence. A sprinkling of specific locutions appear in 4Q184 that are only found as a group in Proverbs 7, such as: ‫פח‬, ‘trap’ (l. 2 ǁ 7:23); ‫ערשׂ‬, ‘couch’ (l. 5 ǁ 7:16); ‫אישׁן לילה‬, ‘dark of night’ (l. 6 ǁ 7:9); ‫אפלה‬, ‘gloom’ (1. 7 ǁ 7:9); ‫אר"ב‬, ‘ambush’ (l. 11 ǁ 7:12) and ‫רחובות‬, ‘plazas’ (l. 12 ǁ 7:12).11 Two shared locutions are distinctive: the aggregation ‫ מות‬+ ‫ שׁאול‬+ ‫בית‬, ‘house’ + ‘Sheol’ + ‘death’ (l. 10 ǁ 7:27) and the term ‫חל"ק‬, ‘smooth

9. Allegro 1964, 53–55; 1968, 82–85. Allegro’s reconstruction was extensively corrected by Strugnell (1970, 263–68). 10. Tigchelaar (2008, 371–81; 2010, 26–47) has argued that 4Q184, 5Q16, and 4Q525 are three manuscripts of the same composition, which would have profound implications for the analysis of all three. The blank lines are apparent in PAM 43.432. 11. This list excludes the most common words and phrases.

160

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

(words)’ (ll. 1, 17 ǁ 7:5, 21). These latter two express the principal themes of the poem, the seductiveness of sin and the association of sin with death. They also signal the poem’s underlying structure. 4Q184 is framed front and back by the repetition of ‫חל"ק‬: ‘She entices (‫ )תחליק‬with mockery and derision’ (ll. 1– 2); ‘to seduce all the sons of men with smooth words (‫( ’)חלקות‬l. 17). This is the speaker’s principal caution and perfectly mirrors the warning sounded in Proverbs 7: the woman will seduce and trap men with her words. (We return to ‫ בית‬+ ‫ שׁאול‬+ ‫ מות‬below.) 4Q184 frag.112

Proverbs 713

(1)

(1)

[. . .14] produces empty words,

My son, keep my words

and with [her mouth she utters futili]ty.

store my precepts within you;

She constantly seeks errors,

(2)

[and sh]arpens the words [of her tongue].

my teachings as the pupil of your eye;

She en[ti]ces (‫ )תחליק‬with [mockery] (2)and

(3)

derision, and with unjust li[ps] (she) derides completely15

inscribe them on the tablet of your heart.

Her heart prepares traps (‫)פחין‬,

and call understanding ‘friend’ –

and her inner most parts sn[ares of death]. [. . .] are defiled (3)with iniquity, her hands grasp the pit. Her legs desce[nd] to act wickedly, and walk in [sinful] t[ra]nsgressions. (4)

[Her clothes] are foundations of darkness, and in her skirt are a multitude of transgressions. [. . .] are the height of night, and (in) her raiment are [a multitude of sins]. (5)

Her veils are the darkness of twilight,

and (in) her adornments are diseases of the grave.

(4)

keep my precepts and live – bind them on your fingers, Say to wisdom, ‘You are my sister’,

(5)

that they may guard you from a strange woman, an alien who speaks smooth words (‫)אמריה החליקה‬.

(6)

For once, through the window of my house

through my lattice, I was gazing down (7)

and I saw among the callow,

spied among the youngsters, a lad devoid of sense, (8)

passing down the street, by her corner,

toward her house he strode, (9)

at dusk, when evening was falling,

in the dark of night (‫ )באישׁון לילה‬and gloom (‫)אפלה‬.

12.  The translation of 4Q184 was adapted from Miller (2012, 268–69). Regarding the poetic structure of 4Q184, see Carmignac 1965, 74–361; Strugnell 1970, 163–276, esp. 263– 68; Moore 1981, 505–19; Miller 2012, 255–329. 13. The translation of Proverbs 7 is adapted from Fox (2000, 237–39). Both translations have been emended to expose select corresponding Hebrew words. 14. Allegro (1964, 53) reconstructs the damaged first word as ‫הזונה‬, which occurs nowhere else in the poem. 15. ‫ יחד‬can be understood in at least three ways: as a reference to the sectarian community of the scrolls; as a reference to some other community, whether general or specific; or as an adverb, ‘completely’. Miller (2012, 274) suggests that it be understood as an adverb, but that it also may serve as a double entendre for the community.

12. Aphorisms and Admonitions Her couches (‫ )ערשׂיה‬are beds of the pit, (6)

(10)

161

And now, a woman comes towards him,

and [her beds] are the depths of the grave.

In harlot’s garb, her intent hidden (‫)נצרת לב‬.

Her night-dwellings are beds of darkness,

(11)

her [r]esting places in the dark of nig[ht]

her feet stay not at home;

(‫)נשׁיאבי לילה‬.

(12) (7)

She sets up her abode in the foundations of glo[om] (‫)אפלות‬, and dw]el[ls in tents (‫ )אהלי‬of silence amid eternal flames.16 She has no inheritance (8)among all who shine brightly,17 and she is the first of all the ways of iniquity. Alas! she is destruction to all (9)who inherit her, and calamity to a[ll] who grasp her.

For her paths are the paths of death (‫)דרכיה דרכי מות‬, and her roads are the tracks of sin Her ways mislead to (10)iniquity,

Rowdy and defiant is she;

now in the street, now in the plazas (‫)רחובות‬, in ambush (‫ )תארב‬at every corner.

(13)

She seized him and kissed him,

and with brazen face she said: (14)

‘I had to make well-being offerings,

today I paid my vows. (15)

That’s why I have come out to you,

to seek (‫ )לשׁחר‬you eagerly – and I found you! (16)

I have decked my couch (‫ )ערשׂ‬with covers,

dyed drapes of Egyptian linen. (17) I’ve sprinkled my bed with myrrh, with aloes (‫ אהלים‬19) and cinnamon (18)

Come, let’s slake our thirst on love till dawn;

and her tr[ai]ls to the guilt of transgression.

take our delight in lovemaking!

Her [g]ates are the ga[t]es of death (‫)מות‬,

(19)

In the entrance of her house She[ol] treads (‫ ביתה‬. . . ‫)שׁאול‬. (11)

A[l]l [who enter her] will [not] return,

and all who inherit her will go down into the pit18

For the man’s not at home;

he’s gone on a journey afar. (20)

A purse of money he took in his hand;

he’ll not return till mid-month.’ (21)

She enticed him with her soft instruction,

misled him with her smooth speech (‫)חלק שׂפתיה‬.

16. The expression ‫( מוקדי עולם‬eternal flames) is derived from Isa 33:14 where it refers to judgement for sin, without explicit reference to the underworld. By the time of 1 Enoch 18:6, 1QS 4:13, and CD 2:4, to cite just three examples, belief in a place of fire reserved for the wicked dead is commonplace (see Moore 1981, 514). 17. Those who ‘shine brightly’ (‫ )מאירי נוגה‬are the righteous. Some regard this as a r eference to the resurrected righteous (see Dan 12:3) which contrasts well with the last b icolon of the preceding strophe. (See Harrington 2002, 33; Kampen 2011, 243; Goff 2007, 115.) 18.  The sequence of the argument in strophes 5–7 makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is the eternal, rather than merely temporal, fate of the righteous that is in view. The locutions described in notes 16 and 17 above, in addition to the stress on ‘inheritance’ (i.e., something received after a death) in lines 7, 8, and 11 strongly encourage this conclusion. 19. LXX reads ‫ אהלים‬as οἶκόν (dwelling), which corresponds with 4Q184 1. 7

162

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

And s[h]e lies in ambush (‫ )תארוב‬in secret places, [and at]

(12)

eve[ry corner awaits].

(22)

Impulsively he followed her–

like an ox going to slaughter,

In the city’s plazas (‫ )רחובות‬she veils herself,

like a stag bounding to bonds,

And at the city gates she stations herself.

(23)

(13)

he wasn’t aware that he’ll pay with his life –

from w[horin]g continually.

till an arrow split his liver.

She does not re[st from fornication],

like a bird rushing into a trap (‫)פח‬:

Her eyes scan here and there, and she lewdly lifts up her eyelids. To sp[ot] (14)the righteous [m]an to overtake him,

(24)

So now, my sons, listen to me,

and the [s]trong man to trip him up;

give heed to the words of my mouth.

the straight so that she can turn (him from) the path,

(25)

and the chosen righteous (15)from keeping the [co] mmandment the u[prigh]t to delude with wantonness; and those who walk uprightly to alter the st[atu]te,20 to cause (16)the meek to sin against God,

Do not let your heart veer to her ways;

stray not upon her paths. (26)

for many a victim she’s laid low,

numerous are those she has slain! (27)

Her house is the way to Sheol (‫)דרכי שׁאול ביתה‬,

descending to the chambers of death (‫)מות‬.

And turn their steps aside from the paths of righteousness; to bring arrog[anc]e to the[ir hearts], so they do not [tr]ead on (17)straig[ht] paths to lead mankind astray in the ways of the pit, and to seduce all the sons of men with smooth words (‫)חלקות‬.

The parallels to Proverbs 7 are not limited to the occasional locution. 4Q184 falls into eleven strophes. Each strophe possesses a main topic and a set of distinctive descriptors or images, which flow one into the other to generate a comprehensive description of the woman (Miller 2012, 255–329). The topic of each strophe and its images reflect the influence of Proverbs 7. This conspicuous coordination is the most clarion declaration of the close relationship between the two texts. Main Topic Strophe 1 (ll. 1–2) Strophe 2 (ll. 2–3) Strophe 3 (ll. 3–5)

Descriptor(s)/Image(s)

the woman’s speech

Prov 7:5, 21

falsehood

Prov 7:5, 21

the woman’s body parts the woman’s clothing

Prov 7:2–3, 25

trap, snare

Prov 7:22–23

Prov 7:10

darkness, death

Prov 7:9, 23, 26–27

20. I understand the combination ‫ מצוה‬+ ‫ חוק‬in l. 15 as a reference to the laws of the Torah.

12. Aphorisms and Admonitions

Main Topic Strophe 4 (ll. 5–7) Strophe 5 (ll. 7–9) Strophe 6 (ll. 9–10) Strophe 7 (ll. 10–11) Strophe 8 (ll. 11–12) Strophe 9 (ll. 12–13) Strophe 10 (ll. 13–15) Strophe 11 (ll. 15–17)

163

Descriptor(s)/Image(s)

the woman’s abode

Prov 7:16, 27

grave, darkness

the woman’s perilousness the woman’s path

Prov 7:23, 27

inheritance

Prov 7:8, 25

mislead, death

Prov 7:27

death ambush

the woman’s debauchery the woman’s goals

Prov 7:8, 12, 25 Prov 7:11, 13, 18 Prov 7:21, 26

Prov 7:21, 22– 23, 27 Prov 7:22–23, 27 Prov 7:8, 12

unrelenting

Prov 7:11, 13

mislead, paths

the woman’s goals

Prov 7:21, 26

mislead, paths

Prov 7:8, 12, 19, 21, 25 Prov 7:8, 12, 19, 21, 25

the woman’s entrance/ abode the woman in public

Prov 7:9, 23, 26–27 Prov 7:1, 3

The red thread running through the argument is the idea that sin results in death. As such, themes of darkness and death are omnipresent.21 The woman lays traps to kill (l. 2). She reaches out to seize the pit (l. 3). Her clothes are darkness (ll. 3–4). In her accessories are diseases of the grave (l. 5). Her bed is a grave (ll. 5–6). She dwells in eternal flames (l. 7). She destroys all who grasp her (l. 9). Her path leads to death (l. 9). The door of her house likewise (l. 10). Those who enter her go down to the pit (l. 11). She lies in ambush (ll. 11–12). She leads the righteous down to the pit (l. 17). All this corresponds with Proverbs 7, in which the argument culminates with the association of the callow young man with a prey animal (vv. 22–23) and the woman’s house with Sheol (v. 27). This argument is presented as a series of assertions about the woman and her g oals. Every bicola has the woman as its subject,22 until the tenth and eleventh s trophes, which are a lengthy sequence of purpose clauses headed by infinitives (all subordinate to the ‘she’ of the eighth and ninth strophes). The only exception to this pattern is the second bicola in the seventh strophe: ‘All who enter her will not return / and all who inherit her will go down into the pit.’ The seventh strophe is, in fact, the crescendo of the poem, expressing the consequence for all who surrender to the woman’s smooth words. In keeping with its prominence, the second distinctive locution from Proverbs 7 makes its appearance at this point: ‘Her gates are the gates of death (‫ )מות‬/ In the entrance of her house Sheol treads (‫ שׁאול‬... ‫)ביתה‬.’ Despite the dependence of 4Q184 on Proverbs 7, they betray profound differences in poetics and in argument. The most significant poetic difference

21. Darkness is equated with sin in ll. 3– 4, where ‫ הושך‬and ‫ פשעים‬are in parallel, and with eternal judgement in ll. 6–7, where ‫ ממוסדי אפלות‬and ‫ מוקדי עלום‬are in parallel. 22.  The subject of many lines is an inflected ‘she’ or ‘her’. In ll. 2–3, the subjects are the woman’s body parts; in ll. 3–7, it is her clothing and domicile; and in ll. 9–10, it is her paths and gates. All of these are representative of the woman and her actions, of course.

164

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

is the choice to present 4Q184 as a single voice. This choice renders the realism of Proverbs 7 and its contrastive images unnecessary. Like the speaking voice in Proverbs 7, the voice of 4Q184 describes the woman, but the description has no preamble, no explicit exordium (vv. 1, 24), no representation of her speech. Because the poem is mono-focal, it can be presented as a series of staccato assertions (e.g., ‘she produces . . .’; ‘she seeks . . .’; ‘she has . . .’; ‘her clothes are . . .’; ‘her gates are . . .’). Though the woman’s defining character trait in both poems is her slippery speech, 4Q184 gives her no voice. The woman’s realistic, enticing description of her boudoir and the night she has planned have no parallel in 4Q184. Likewise, because 4Q184 introduces no alternative perspective, contrasts are irrelevant. The poetics of Proverbs 7 and 4Q184 differ because their arguments differ. To be sure, 4Q184 replicates the general argument of Proverbs 7: the strange woman leads men into death. In essential matters of detail though, 4Q184 offers a fundamentally different expostulation. The strange woman of Proverbs 7 seeks out the callow youth. In exhorting the son to avoid her path, the speaker enjoins him to become shrewder and less susceptible, which has the benefit of dodging fatality. The woman of 4Q184 is more ambitious. She seeks out the righteous man, the mature, Torahpious individual. If her ambush fails (ll. 11–12), she chases him down, tripping him from behind, turning his feet onto the wrong path (ll. 13–17). In this sense, the woman of 4Q184 set herself a more challenging task. The strange woman pursues her own desires, wilfully risking the destruction of herself and her paramour, but the woman of 4Q184 deliberately seeks the destruction of the upright and pious, preferring these targets to the easy prey of the strange woman.23 Likewise, the mortal risk in 4Q184 is more explicitly grievous. In Proverbs 7, the strange woman seeks out the death of the youth, but it is unclear if this is literal or metaphorical. Does she lead him into corruption and social destruction or does the speaker suggest that true death lies beyond her door? It is difficult to say with absolute certainty, though the expression ‘depths of Sheol’ presents his peril in the most extreme terms.24 The risks presented by the woman of 4Q184 are more dire, if that is possible. She too threatens her prey with death, but as she inhabits the ‘eternal flames’, the place of fiery judgement that is reserved for the worst sinners, the risk to the pious man is made plain.25 He can anticipate the worst kind of afterlife in Sheol if he allows his feet to be turned from the path of righteousness to the path of sin (ll. 8–10). Inasmuch as 4Q18 4 both mirrors m any of the theme s and arguments of Proverbs 7 and deviates from them, how are we to understand the woman? Does she embody fornication and adultery in concord with Proverbs 7? Or might she

23.  Lesly (2012, 117–18) has suggested that this dimension of 4Q184’s argument was inspired by Isa 59:9–15. 24. Considering the risks presented by the rage of a cuckolded husband (v. 19) and the capital charge that accompanies adultery (e.g., Lev 20:11; Num 5:11–31), I suspect that the speaker anticipates the youth’s literal death. Though the geography of Sheol is obscure, the depths of Sheol are the worst part (see Prov 9:18). 25. See notes 20–22 above.

12. Aphorisms and Admonitions

165

s ymbolize a heigh tened or more ca pacious category of error? One line might seem to promote the former interpretation. The line ‘she is first of all the ways of iniquity’ (l. 8) might suggest that the woman represents a particular sin, a first sin or gateway sin, which, having passed through it, a person quickly graduates to all kinds of wickedness. The expression ‫ראשׁית כל‬, however, typically denotes the first part of something, a part that represents the whole, as it does in the expressions ‘first of all the produce of the land’ (Deut 26:2), ‘first of all the house of Joseph’ (2 Sam 19:21 [ET v. 20]), and in the question ‘which commandment is first of all (πρώτη πάντων)?’ (Mark 12:28). Given this sense, the woman represents all sin, or perhaps any sin that, once committed, encourages one to attempt additional sins.26 Compared with Proverbs 7, 4Q184 offers a more explicit, more detailed portrait of the nature of predatory sin and the consequences entailed in any surrender to it. Though the woman is still characterized by her ‘smooth words’ (ll. 2, 17), the poet mutes her, preferring to represent her true nature without its beautiful garb. There is nothing winsome in the poet’s depiction of her. She is vain, false, grasping, diseased and calamitous. She offers only darkness, death, Sheol and the grave. From first to last, the poet of 4Q184 strives to spell out the full consequence of sin, and the threat it represents to all people, even the most righteous. In this, it both echoes and responds to Proverbs 7.27

Bibliography Allegro, John M. 1964. The Wiles of the Wicked Woman: A Sapiential Work from Qumran’s Fourth Cave. PEQ 96:53–55. Allegro, John M. 1968. Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon. Aubin, Melissa. 2001. She Is the Beginning of all the Ways of Perversity: Femininity and Metaphor in 4Q184. Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 2:1–23. Baumgarten, Joseph M. 1991. On the Nature of the Seductress in 4Q184. RevQ 57/ 58:133–43.

26. The one named sin that she produces is ‘arrogance’, ‫( זדון‬l. 16). Otherwise, l. 15 uses the generics ‫ מצו ה‬and ‫ח וק‬. These observations also suggest that the woman represents the threat posed by any deviation from Torah piety. 27. It has been suggested that there is a trajectory within the pericopae about the ‘strange woman’ in Proverbs 1–9, a trajectory that can be correlated with the argument of 4Q184. In this view, the cumulative rhetoric regarding the ‘strange woman’ (Prov 2:16–22; 5:1–23; 6:20–35; 7.1–27) makes her more and more abstract. Eventually, by 9:13–18 she has come to embody any kind of sin (see discussion in McKane 1970, 367; Clifford 1999, 27, 48; Fox 2000, 262). The LXX represents a reading of Proverbs like this (Fox 1996, 43; Goff 2008, 22–25), and I suspect that 4Q184 may as well. Unfortunately, this remains a speculation. Although 4Q184 may allude to Prov 2:20, 5:5, and 6:25 (ll. 9–10, 3, 13), it does not reuse elements from those other pericopae densely or explicitly enough to conclusively verify that 4Q184 represents a reading of all the ‘strange woman’ pericopae in Proverbs 1–9.

166

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Broshi, Magen. 1983. Beware the Wiles of the Wanton Woman: Dead Sea Scroll Fragment Reflects Essene Fear of, and Contempt for Women. BAR 9:54–56. Burgmann, Hans. 1974. The Wicked Woman: Der Makkabäer Simon? RevQ 31:323–59. Carmignac, Jean. 1965. Poème allégorique sur la secte rivale. RevQ 19:74–361. Clifford, Robert J. 1999. Proverbs. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Fox, Michael V. 1996. The Strange Woman in Septuagint Proverbs. JNSL 22:31–44. Fox, Michael V. 2000. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday. Gazov-Ginzberg, Anatole M. 1967. Double-Meaning in a Qumran Work: The Wiles of the Wicked Woman. RevQ 22:279–85. Goff, Matthew. 1998. Qumran Wisdom Literature and the Problem of Genre. DSD 17:286–306. Goff, Matthew. 2007. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VTSup 116. Leiden: Brill. Goff, Matthew. 2008. Hellish Females: The Strange Woman of Septuagint Proverbs and 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman (4Q184). JSJ 39:20–45. Harrington, Daniel. 2002. Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London: Routledge. Jones, Scott C. 2003. Wisdom’s Pedagogy: A Comparison of Proverbs VII and 4Q184. VT 53/1:65–80. Kampen, John. 2011. Wisdom Literature. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Lesly, Michael. 2012. Exegetical Wiles: 4Q184 as Scriptural Interpretation. Pages 107–42 in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki. Edited by G. Brooke, D. Falk, E. Tigchelaar and M. Zahn. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Maier, Johann. 2000. Wiles of the Wicked Woman. Encyclopaedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 2:976. McKane, William. 1970. Proverbs: A New Approach. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press. Miller, Shem Thomas. 2012. Innovation and Convention: An Analysis of Parallelism in Stichographic, Hymnic and Sapiential Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls. PhD diss., The Florida State University. Moore, Rick D. 1981. Personification of the Seduction of Evil: ‘The Wiles of the Wicked Woman’. RevQ 40:505–19. Newsom, Carol. 1989. Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1–9. Pages 142–60 in Gender and Difference. Edited by Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress. Strugnell, John, 1970. Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’. RevQ 7:163–276. Tigchelaar, Eibert. 2008. Lady Folly and Her House in Three Qumran Manuscripts: On the Relation between 4Q525 15, 5Q16, and 4Q184 1. RevQ 91:371–81. Tigchelaar, Eibert. 2010. Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a Study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman). Pages 26–47 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Max Grossman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Tigchelaar, Eibert. 2012. The Poetry of The Wiles of The Wicked Woman (4Q184)’. RevQ 25/1:621–33. Tooman, William A. 2011. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. FAT II/52. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Wright, Benjamin. 2004. Wisdom and Women at Qumran. DSD 11:240–61.

Chapter 13 P R OV E R B S I N D IA L O G U E W I T H T H E N EW T E STA M E N T Knut M. Heim

Introduction With only five instances, direct quotations of the book of Proverbs in the New Testament are sparse for a book of its size. This initially suggests that the dialogue between Proverbs and the New Testament was a brief and superficial one. However, when the forty-four allusions listed in the Greek New Testament are included, aspects of a much wider and deeper conversation come into view, one which readers of the New Testament may profitably extend into broader and even unintended thematic parallels. Our exploration of this literary dialogue unfolds in three steps. First comes a brief analysis of direct quotations. Second, moving from quotation to allusion, we will explore the dialogue over the identity of the two main characters in Proverbs and the New Testament, personified wisdom and Jesus of Nazareth. Third, moving from allusion to thematic comparison, we will explore a thematic connection regarding the duty of care for the vulnerable in Proverbs and compare this with the reception history of Rom 13:1–7 in the Lutheran Church in Germany during the Holocaust years and beyond.

Direct Quotations Five expressions from the book of Proverbs appear in the New Testament, all but the last from the Septuagint. A quick review reveals that in all of these, the New Testament authors used Proverbs as a convenient resource to illustrate and reinforce practical points that the authors of these letters aimed to make in the wider theological contexts of their works.1 Hebrews 12:5–6 quotes Prov 3:11–12:  ‘My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him; for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves, and chastises every child whom he accepts.’ James 1. Unless indicated otherwise, biblical quotations are from the NRSV.

168

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

4:6 and 1 Pet 5:5 quote Prov 3:34: ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’ (in line with the Greek, NRSV translates Jas 4:6 and 1 Pet 5:5 identically). 1 Pet 4:18 quotes Prov 11:31: ‘If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinners?’ Rom 12:20 quotes Prov 25:21–22: ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ The final example is an intriguing case. Second Peter 2:22 quotes only a part of Prov 26:11:  ‘The dog turns back to its own vomit’2 and combines it with the intriguing phrase ‘the sow is washed only to wallow in the mud’, which seems to have been taken from an unknown source. Similar statements can be found in Heraclitus and Aḥiqar. Alternatively, it may have belonged to an unknown Hellenistic Jewish collection of proverbs (cf. the detailed discussion in Bauckham 1983, 278–80), been common in the oral culture, or even been an original coinage by the author of the letter. The combined statement is introduced as ‘the true proverb’, and the usage here suggests that the author of 2 Peter did not mean to argue from biblical authority, but aimed to shore up his polemic via the anticipated consent of his audience to the authority of accepted proverbial wisdom, irrespective of its source(s). Although direct quotations from Proverbs in the New Testament are rare, especially given the relative length of the book of Proverbs, it is clear that materials from Proverbs were used imaginatively to make significant practical and/or theological points.

Allusion: Personified Wisdom and Jesus of Nazareth The key theological point emerging from this textual conversation is the parallel drawn between Jesus and personified wisdom in Proverbs. There are a number of New Testament texts which seem to equate the two. According to James Dunn (1989, 163–268),3 these include 1 Cor 1:24, 30; 8:6; 10:1–4; Rom 10:6; Col 1:15– 20; Matt 11:19 = Luke 7:35; Matt 11:25–30 // Luke 10:21–22; Luke 11:49 = Matt 23:34–36; Matt 23:37–39 = Luke 13:34; John 1:1–18; Heb 1:1–4; and Rev 3:14. The relevant texts from the book of Proverbs are Prov 1:20–33; 2:1–3; 3:13–20; 4:5–9, 11, 13; 7:4–5; 8:22–31; and 9:1–6, 11–12. After a detailed discussion of the arguments that suggest that Jesus was indeed equated with personified wisdom, Dunn (1989, 210)  concluded that ‘there was a development in the course of which Wisdom categories were applied to Christ himself as a new step in Christian thinking about Christ’ (italics original). ‘Within

2. The longer Proverbs text reads: ‘Like a dog, when he returns to his vomit, also becomes the more hated, so is a fool, when by his own wickedness, he returns to his own sin.’ 3.  Dunn’s (1998, 266–81) views on ‘Wisdom christology’ have also been expounded more recently in his comprehensive study of Pauline theology, but that study is restricted to the Pauline texts.

13. Proverbs in Dialogue with the New Testament

169

Judaism’, he observed, ‘including Hellenistic Judaism . . ., there is no evidence that such talk of God’s (pre-existent) wisdom ever transgressed Jewish monotheism’. William Horbury (2003, 402–33, here 433) has shown that in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pdeudepigrapha ‘superhuman traits can be detected throughout those Pseudepigrapha which are known for their messianic traditions, and also in material in which messianic expectation is less widely recognized’ (cf. Horbury 1998). Joachim Schaper (1995) has convincingly argued from eschatological emphases in the Greek Psalter that there existed a belief in a pre-existent messianic figure in early Judaism before Paul. He shares Hengel’s verdict that – given such a belief in a pre-existent Messiah within Judaism – concepts formerly attributed to personified wisdom ‘simply had to be subsumed under the over-arching idea of Christ’s central role in both protology and eschatology’ (171 with n. 636): Once the idea of pre-existence had been introduced, it was obvious that the exalted Son of God would also attract to himself the functions of Jewish Wisdom as a mediator of creation and salvation. Even personified wisdom, which was associated with God in a unique way from before time, could no longer be regarded as an independent entity over against the risen and exalted Jesus and superior to him. Rather, all the functions of Wisdom were transferred to Jesus, for ‘in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Col. 2.3). (Hengel 1986, 70, qtd from Schaper [1995, 171–72 n. 636])

One of the driving forces behind such new theological speculations would have been the creative tension between the belief in one God, which Christianity and Judaism held in common, and the new thinking that ascribed divinity to Jesus. This, in fact, would be true even if it were possible to demonstrate that there were no such beliefs in Judaism. Once a belief in the pre-existence of Jesus had become part of the Christian belief system, it would have been difficult for early Christians, including the authors of NT writings, to resist the conclusion that passages in Scripture that seemed to suggest pre-existent or otherwise superhuman beings were not talking at least in some loose sense of Jesus. And the same is true for contemporary Jewish sources known to early Christians. Passages which seemed to ascribe pre-existence to personified wisdom were most naturally assumed to actually do so. If wisdom and Jesus were pre-existent and thus God-like in some sense, they had to be one and the same. This conclusion would have been the most natural way of reconciling claims to Jesus’s deity with the monotheistic belief system that the two faith communities shared. However, beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth’s pre-existence may in reality not be derived from early Christian reflections about the relationship between personified wisdom and the risen Christ, but from Jesus’s own statements, such as the one in John 8:58: ‘Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.’ The saying is usually considered a Johannine coinage reflecting early Christian beliefs rather than Jesus’s own words, but at the very least a passage like this is evidence that

170

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

early Christians believed that Jesus made claims that could be interpreted to refer to his pre-existence. Early Christian ascriptions of wisdom’s attributes to Jesus were thus not a matter of exegesis or a matter of historical, cultural, and religious assumptions about the belief system of their Jewish contemporaries, they were a logical necessity. Thus the tradition history did not develop in the direction: personified wisdom is preexistent, Jesus equals personified wisdom, therefore Jesus is pre-existent; rather, it went like this: Jesus is pre-existent, personified wisdom is pre-existent, therefore personified wisdom equals Jesus. At the beginning, then, Proverbs 8 was not so much a christological ‘proof-text’ (although it quickly acquired that role), but rather a text that strengthened a belief that had developed independently, and thereby adding a number of interesting insights to the perception of Jesus among early Christians.4 Some objections have been raised against the notion of a New Testament identification of Jesus with personified wisdom. Gordon Fee (2001, 351–78) mounted a sustained challenge to the idea of a wisdom Christology in the New Testament. First, Fee (2001) claimed that the argument for equating personified wisdom and Jesus is weak because the two key building blocks on which it is based are weak. One of these is the issue of pre-existence, especially with regard to tracing the origins of that idea. This led him to conclude that ‘the only place these two literary traditions [about personified wisdom in the OT and about Christ in Paul] intersect is on the matter of Christ’s pre-existence’ (353). The other key building block, according to Fee’s assessment, is that this presumed intersection only happens with regard to personified wisdom’s role in creation. To illustrate the argument for a wisdom christology in Paul, he quoted A. M. Hunter, whom he considered representative:  ‘the ultimate source of this doctrine [Christ as Wisdom] is Prov. 8 where Wisdom is conceived as pre-existent and as God’s agent in creation’ (Fee 2001, 353 n. 6, citing Hunter [1966, 68]). In other words, it is only because both Jesus and personified wisdom are seen as pre-existent and agents of creation that the identification has been made. Other correspondences between the two do not exist, according to Fee, and these two are not sufficient to sustain the identification. Second, Fee also claimed that the methodology used for demonstrating Wisdom’s influence on Christology was flawed on two accounts. First, Fee claimed that there is no significant linguistic or even indirect conceptual correspondence between the Wisdom texts and Pauline literature. Second, he argued that the logic of the argument that leads to the conclusion that ‘when Paul speaks of Christ as

4. Cf. Hurtado’s (2003, 367) point regarding John’s prologue, but applicable more widely to all the New Testament texts treated here: ‘Healthy religious movements use and redefine terms and categories they inherit from their “parent” traditions . . . But this appropriation is for the purpose of expressing and commending the convictions of the new movement’ (emphasis original).

13. Proverbs in Dialogue with the New Testament

171

the agent of creation, he is both relying on this tradition and putting Christ in the role of Wisdom’ is flawed because the two premises that lead to this conclusion are false. The two premises, one major and one minor, are as follows. ‘In the Jewish Wisdom tradition, personified Wisdom is pictured as the divine agent of creation’ (major premise). ‘The Jewish Paul specifically calls Christ the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24) and sees him as the agent of creation ([1 Cor.] 8:6)’ (minor premise). There is not sufficient space to fully address all of Fee’s arguments. However, I would like to highlight a number of points which, in my view at least, suggest that the conversation regarding the identity of personified wisdom and Jesus of Nazareth between Proverbs and the New Testament did in fact take place. First, it is indeed clear that both the ideas of pre-existence and of being an agent in creation are prominent in texts associated with personified wisdom (Prov 8:22–31) and in texts about Jesus (Col 1:15–20). In light of the above discussion, it seems counterintuitive for Fee to claim that this is insufficient reason for drawing a connection between the two, for they are the only beings mentioned in the relevant texts that combine these two features, which are key characteristics of God. Personified wisdom and Jesus may only share these two features, but they are extremely prominent ones, and they are exclusive to wisdom and Jesus. Second, as John Thompson suggests in the subtitle of his recent monograph, Reading the Bible with the Dead: What You Can Learn from the History of Exegesis That You Can’t Learn from Exegesis Alone (2007), exegesis alone cannot show the full meaning-potential of texts. Rather, the history of a text’s interpretation shows what texts can mean by demonstrating what they have meant to different readers at different times. This is not only true for early Christian texts beyond the New Testament, which incontrovertibly draw the connection between personified wisdom and Jesus. It is also true for early Jewish texts from the intertestamental period and from the time of the New Testament. In conclusion, the conversation over the identity of personified wisdom and Jesus is not as blunt and obvious as Dunn’s work might suggest. It is nonetheless, however, a real conversation which proceeds along more subtle suggestions and indirect connections. It also includes a far wider range of interlocutors than the book of Proverbs alone, such as early Jewish literature. This means, then, that the ability to hear the conversation as a whole depends on one’s openness to hear a much larger chorus of voices. The methodologies of intertextuality and reception history are crucial devices for understanding the deeper meaning of the ongoing dialogue between Proverbs and the New Testament.

Thematic Comparison: A Conversation between Proverbs and Rom 13:1–7 In terms of thematic comparison, I  aim to demonstrate how the relationship between Christians and the state in Rom 13:1–7 is enriched in a dialogue with texts in Proverbs, particularly Prov 24:10–12 and Prov 25:26. We will begin with listening to Proverbs 24. Then we will hear the voice of Romans 13. The final contribution to our conversation will come from Proverbs 25.

172

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Proverbs 24:10–12 is about genocide (cf. Heim 2013, 556–64): 10. You remained inactive5 during the time of distress,

your strength being limited. 11. If you fail to rescue those who are being dragged off to death, those staggering to the slaughter, 12. if you say, ‘Look, we did not know this!’ – Is it not true?6 – ‘The one who weighs the heart – he understands,’ and ‘The one who guards your life – he knows,’ and ‘He repays a man according to his deed.’

The demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ in v. 12a refers to the crisis described in v. 11. An unspecified number of people are being dragged off to be slaughtered, mistreated all along to the point that they are swaying with exhaustion and injury because of sustained maltreatment they have been enduring over time. This reflects not merely a situation where those destined for death in v. 11, though innocent, have been convicted of a capital crime and are now on death row, but a sustained campaign of persecution, torture, and murder. The question in v.  12  – reflecting the unusual expression ‘is not?’ (‫)אלה‬  – introduces a combination of three well-known truisms, to which the speaker appeals as authorities. Here is a paraphrase in more expansive prose that captures the pragmatic force of the passage: So you did not get involved to help the innocent victims because you knew that you were not strong enough to make a difference? If you make an excuse or if you pretend you did not know the full extent of the crisis, then remember the

5. The expression ‘you remained inactive’, from a hithpael form of the rare verb ‫רפה‬, carries the meaning ‘to show oneself lax’ (Josh 18:3; Prov 18:9) or ‘to show oneself without courage’ (Prov 24:10; HALOT , 1277). In the wider context of vv. 10– 12, however, it is not easy to express the right nuance. It entails connotations such as ‘cowardice, fear, insolence, a nd/ or carele ssness, a lack of resolute str ength’ (so Waltke 2005, 275). My translation highlights the ultimate outcome of such cowardly inertia – fearful inactivity in the face of imminent crisis. The expression here translated ‘your strength being limited’ (‫)צר כהכה‬ is sometimes thought to be corrupt because of its brevity, but more likely the awkward, compressed syntax attempts to mimic the embarrassed excuse for the guilty onlooker’s l ack of courag e through a cl ever and sarcas tic wordplay. In the Hebre w, the words for distress (‫ )צרה‬and ‘limited’ (‫ )צר‬are placed right next to each other at the centre of the line, suggesting the respondent’s trivialization of what had occurred. 6.  My translation, including the choice of words, the arrangement of the lines and the punctuation marks, signals a number of exegetical decisions. Most importantly, I  have translated the question marker combined with the negative particle somewhat freely to capture its pragmatic force. The wording ‘Is it not true?’ signals that what follows are three quotations from traditional proverbial material in the remainder of the verse.

13. Proverbs in Dialogue with the New Testament

173

well-known proverbs and truths, ‘The one who weighs hearts – he understands; the one who guards your life – he knows’, and beware: ‘God repays all people for what they do!’ Just as God looks after you, so he will look after those whom you disown. He will indeed render to everyone according to their deeds, to the victims according to their innocence and to you according to the guilt you have incurred by allowing such injustice.

The evaluation of human hearts in v. 12 refers to the divine capacity to discern the true motives of human beings (cf. Prov 16:1–2, 4; 21:2). By implication, God can discern the reasons that have led to culpable ignorance and inaction. The addressee of the proverbial sequence is held responsible for helping the victims of genocide mentioned in the preceding verse. It is striking that the arguments presented in defence mirror those of many incidents of genocide throughout history. People, individuals as well as whole communities, claim ignorance. In reality, however, they do not know because they did not want to know. Consequently, whatever motivated the culpable bystander to close his eyes to the crime, the one who claims innocence on the basis of ignorance could have known and should have known. He had a responsibility to know, and he had a responsibility to act. The other excuse, given earlier in v.  10, that the guilty bystander refrained from getting involved because his or her strength was ‘small’, also mirrors a standard excuse: ‘What can I, on my own, do about something of this magnitude?’ I now want to bring Rom 13:1–7 into the conversation. The most relevant statements in this passage on the relationship between Christians and the state are vv. 1–2: ‘Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.’ Taken in isolation, and this is how these verses were applied consistently by German Christians during the Hitler years, these verses make several statements that guided Germans in their deliberations about whether or not to resist Adolf Hitler’s government policies, particularly as they related to the maltreatment of Jews from 1933 to 1945. 1. Verse 1 commands a willing and complete subordination of all humans, and especially Christians, to the government of whatever nation state they happen to live in. 2. This command is based on the assumption that all governments derive their authority from God and, conversely, that every government in existence through history has, by definition, been instituted by God. 3. As a consequence of the divine institution of all governments, v. 2 declares that any resistance to any government on any grounds amounts to rebellion against God. 4. Such rebellion is said to deserve judgement. The statement in itself is ambiguous as to whether such judgement comes from the government, from God, or both. In reality, it has been understood most commonly to come from both.

174

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

This summary interpretation is, by and large, uncontroversial. It is reflected in the mainstream German commentaries of Otto Michel (1966, 393–404) and Ulrich Wilckens (1989, 29–34), written during the second half of the twentieth century. I  have chosen these two commentaries as reference points because both authors lived through the Hitler years. Otto Michel (1903–93) served as a minister of the Lutheran Church in Germany and as an associate professor of New Testament in various capacities during the time. In 1933 Michel had joined Hitler’s political party, the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). In 1935, however, he joined the Confessing Church. At the end of the Second World War, he was 42 years old. Ulrich Wilckens, born in 1928, was 17 years old when the war ended. He worked as a minister in the Lutheran Church from 1953 to 1955 and subsequently as a professor of New Testament in various German universities. He also served as a bishop in the Lutheran Church from 1981 to 1991. What follows is not an exhaustive interpretation of the Romans passage. Rather, I will trace some themes that are relevant to the conversation between Prov 24:10– 12 and Rom 13:1–7 through the commentaries of Michel and Wilckens, with particular attention to how the experience of the Holocaust and its aftermath feature in their discussions. Strikingly, the exegetical analysis in both commentaries affirms or at least does not contradict the four points made about 13:1–2 above. Both commentaries contain lengthy discussion of the reception history of Rom 13:1–7. As I read through the materials, I am struck with how little reflection there is about the possibility of Christians resisting government authority. In Michel’s (1966, 395, 403) volume, all I have found are two very brief references to Acts 5:29 (‘But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” ’). Even the excursus on the exegetical relevance of Rom 13:1–7 for the present day (404–407) remains an abstract analysis of other scholars’ opinions that fails to provide any criteria to help Christians make informed judgements and choices in a given concrete situation where obedience to human government clashes with obedience to God. The brief review of Patristic sources on the subject notes very briefly that some of the Church Fathers were aware of the problematic of human government persecuting Christians, but again there is no hint of how Christians should respond practically to the dilemma. The commentary by Wilckens (1989) is similar. After a careful exegetical analysis of 13:1–7 (29–38), his summary (Zusammenfassung) contains the following relevant statements which, in my opinion, correctly summarize the Pauline text:  ‘Therefore all humans  – Christians and Non-Christians  – shall be obedient to government authorities. Any rebellion against them is rebellion against God’ (39).7 A few lines further, Wilckens clarifies: ‘Paul urges obedience in general and without limitation or exception’ (40). Wilckens and Michel are aware that Paul’s comments in Rom 13:1–7 very likely may have arisen over a specific occasion. The most likely occasion would have been an attempt of Christians in

7. All English translations from Wilckens are my own.

13. Proverbs in Dialogue with the New Testament

175

Rome to refuse paying taxes, comparable to the similar sentiments underlying the episode recorded in Matt 22:15–22//Mark 12:13–17 (Michel 1966, 404; Wilckens 1989, 41). However, Wilckens (1989, 41)  correctly notes that this time-bound aspect of the text had no impact on the generally binding formulation of Paul’s insistence that government authorities are owed absolute obedience: As general and absolute as the demand for obedience in Romans 13 is, the perspective from which Paul has written these sentences is nonetheless also time-bound and limited. Paul does not and cannot, from his own historical perspective, address the manifold and varied later experiences of martyrdom at the hands of state authorities, who in that capacity, became persecutors of the Gospel and of Christians. Neither [can he address] the manifold and varied problems which this Pauline text has caused or experienced in the history of Christianity.

Similarly, Wilckens notes that ‘[w]ithout doubt, Paul would have been certain that the “governing authorities” were themselves subordinate to the lordship of Christ; but in reality, not even the possibility of a tension between the conflicting demands of such authorities and those of Christ as the ultimate Lord come into view’ (41). On this basis, Wilckens (1989, 41)  concludes:  ‘It is therefore not sensible (however frequently the attempt may have been made) to apply this text directly to our present relationship to the state.’ Nonetheless, Wilckens then proceeds to make six recommendations that indirectly arise from his interpretation of Rom 13:1–7 in the context of modern democratic states. The last and longest of these is directly relevant for our inquiry, and I quote it almost in full (1989, 43): Not only in the time of the martyrs, but also in the present time, the situation arose and arises where Christians are confronted with governments which act against the tasks they have been given according to Rom 13:3–4. When this happens, disagreement frequently arises as to whether or not Christians, in conflict with Rom 13:2, are obliged to resist them, and if so, how. There have been many Christians who have objected on such occasions, but who have also understood Rom 13:2 to forbid them to resist. There have been many other Christians who considered it their duty to participate in resistance, even in arms . . . Armed resistance exercised by Christians can only be justified, if nonparticipation in such resistance would result in an expansion of demonstrably greater evil than the evil which would result from the violent resistance itself. Nonetheless, it remains questionable whether or not even in such a case the genuinely Christian way should be the way of following the example of the suffering Christ, when he refuses to call on the legions of angels (Matt 26:53). In any case – whether the one option is taken or the other – it is a matter of deciding on the basis of one’s conscience; and it is very important, even crucial, that the conscience of Christians in all their personal actions is measured against and trained in their daily praxis by the ultimate measure: the measure of love.

176

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

I have quoted Wilckens at length because his commentary is one of the most influential to come out of Germany since the Second World War. His treatment is careful, based on thorough exegesis, and highly nuanced. Nonetheless, I believe his treatment also highlights that, if Christians rely only or mainly on Rom 13:1– 7 when they contemplate how they should respond to severe and grievous evil exercised by their governing authorities, the outcome would be a repeat of what happened among Christians in the German-speaking world during the Hitler years. There were Christians who resisted the Holocaust. But all their effort combined was too little, too late. By contrast, I want to recall the stark challenge from Prov 24:10–12 as another conversation partner to guide Christian conscience. And I  want to introduce another contribution from Proverbs, the highly evocative proverb in 25:26: Like a muddied well or a polluted spring: the righteous who gives way before the wicked.8

This unassuming proverb has been understood in a variety of ways. According to T. T. Perowne (1916, 161), ‘To see a righteous man moved from his steadfastness through fear or favour in the presence of the wicked is as disheartening as to find the stream turbid and defiled at which you were longing to quench your thirst.’ For Michael Fox (2009, 790), ‘The downfall of a righteous person is a scandal that fouls a society’s purity.’ One of the most comprehensive treatments is Bruce Waltke’s (2005). He writes, ‘The swaying to and fro of a compromised righteous person is compared to trampling feet that muddy a spring, and his imminent fall as he yields before the wicked to the ruined fountain’ (335). He also notes that the righteous person’s behaviour affects themselves and others: ‘The two figures depict the deadly effects of an equivocating righteous person . . . on others and himself; he takes away the life of both’ (335). He also makes another important observation: ‘When the righteous person behaves according to his proper character, namely, faith in God . . . and a commitment to serve the community, he is “a wellspring of life” (10:11)’ (336). Several of Waltke’s insights deserve mention before I  present my own, independently developed interpretation: (1) the righteous person’s behaviour also affects others; (2)  the righteous person’s commitment to serve the community makes them a ‘wellspring of life’. It is worth noting that in the majority of interpretations, the focus is on the righteous person’s personal integrity rather than their contribution to society. By contrast, my interpretation takes seriously its immediate literary context and the impact of the metaphors used in this proverb. Verses 25–26 form a proverbial pair, with the first proverb illuminating the meaning of the second. In v. 25, ‘good news’ (probably referring to practical help rather than just information about it) from a remote source is likened to the effect of cool, refreshing water on a desperately

8. Translation mine.

13. Proverbs in Dialogue with the New Testament

177

thirsty body. Verse 26 then develops this with the idea that the actions of righteous people should have the same effect on vulnerable members of their communities as clean, cool water has on human beings or thirsty animals. In particular, the proverb implies, the righteous have the responsibility to stop criminals and those who bend the laws to harm others (= the wicked) from harming vulnerable members of their communities. This is what makes them springs of water. Yet, when the ‘righteous’ do not live up to their responsibilities – when they ‘give way’ before the wicked with their evil intentions because the righteous do not have the diligence, courage, or will power to confront and oppose injustice, they fall short of their destiny: They may still produce ‘water’, but it is no more fit for consumption; the source of the water – that is, the ‘righteous’ themselves – have become ‘muddied’ and ‘polluted’. They may still talk about what should be done, but they are not doing it. Their lack of action is not neutral, but harmful. They are righteous no more. By contrast, the proverb attempts to challenge its readers to be proactive in seeking out opportunities to take a stand against injustice in order to live up to their status as righteous people, who act like life-giving water to their communities by actively opposing the wicked. Having listened to the conversation between Rom 13:1–7 and two texts from Proverbs, I want to make the following observations. First, Prov 24:10–12 relates to the killing of humans on a grand scale, while Prov 25:26 addresses harmful wicked behaviour in general. When the mandate to intervene on behalf of the vulnerable from the book of Proverbs is brought into dialogue with Rom 13:1–7, the latter text with its command that all should subject themselves to governing authorities needs to be heard alongside the divine prerogative to hold those who do not help the victims of injustice responsible for their inaction. Giving way before evil turns the righteous from being part of the solution into becoming part of the problem. Doing nothing in the face of grievous evil is not an option for Christians who read their whole Bible. Second, the laborious work of detailed exegesis in the commentaries by Michel and Wilckens, and in particular the laboured attempts of Wilckens to accommodate the Romans text to the political reality of wicked government, demonstrate that the New Testament text alone is an unreliable guide in the face of complex ethical challenges. This is not a trivial matter, for human lives and human well-being are at stake. Third, this demonstrates that here, at least, we have an example of how a New Testament text can be read with great benefit in the light of Old Testament texts, even when intertextual connections were not in the mind of the New Testament author. Fourth, these observations together call into question the dominant Christian model for reading the Old and New Testaments. Overwhelmingly, the hermeneutical strategy is to read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament and to relativize or nuance the Old Testament in light of the New. By contrast, in the context of complex ethical problems, a reading of New Testament texts in light of the Old Testament, whether connected through this sort of thematic comparison, or through allusions or direct quotations, and a concomitant relativizing and

178

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

nuancing of the New Testament in light of the Old, may prove beneficial and make a serious contribution to human flourishing that the traditional method cannot achieve on its own.

Bibliography Bauckham, Richard J. 1983. Jude, Second Peter. WBC 50. Waco, TX: Word. Dunn, James D. G. 1989. Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press. Dunn, James D. G. 1998. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Fee, Gordon D. 2001. Wisdom Christology in Paul: A Dissenting View. Pages 351–78 in To What End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological. Edited by Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Orig. pub. in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by James I. Packer and Sven Soderlund. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB, 18B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Heim, Knut M. 2013. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry. BBRSup 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hengel, M. 1986. The Son of God: The Christian Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. Pages 1–90 in The Cross of the Son of God. London: SCM. Horbury, William. 1998. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM. Horbury, William. 2003. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T&T Clark. Hunter, A. M. 1966. The Gospel according to St. Paul. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster. Hurtado, Larry W. 2003. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans. Michel, Otto. 1966. Der Brief and die Römer. 5th ed. KKNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Perowne, Thomas Thomason. 1916. The Proverbs, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schaper, Joachim. 1995. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT II 76. Tübingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Thompson, John Lee. 2007. Reading the Bible with the Dead: What You Can Learn from the History of Exegesis That You Can’t Learn from Exegesis Alone. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Waltke, Bruce K. 2005. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Wilckens, Ulrich. 1989. Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 12–16). 2nd ed. EKK 6/3. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.

Chapter 14 P R OV E R B S 8 : 2 2 A N D T H E A R IA N C O N T R OV E R SY Susannah Ticciati

Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. (Prov 8:22 LXX)1 The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works. (NETS) The use of Prov 8:22 within the Arian Controversy is notorious.2 There are prima facie good reasons, moreover, for dismissing it as an example of bad exegetical practice. The verse is apparently ripped from its context as a proof-text for a claim about the status of the divine Son, ‘anti-Nicenes’ arguing that the divine Son must be created, and ‘pro-Nicenes’ having to do exegetical acrobatics to show that ‘created’ cannot be taken at face value.3 Lewis Ayres (2004, 384–414) has argued, however, that the fault lies rather with the culture of modern systematic theology (with its counterpart in modern biblical studies)  – which, because of its own presuppositions, cannot appreciate the distinctive culture of pro-Nicene Trinitarian theology, particularly with respect to its engagement with Scripture. Alert to Ayres’s concerns, this chapter will focus on Gregory of Nyssa’s reading of Prov 8:22 in Contra Eunomium III (written between 381 and 383),4 with a view to drawing some wider conclusions about the character of fourth-century proNicene biblical exegesis. After summarizing Gregory’s exegesis, the chapter will draw out the logic of his enterprise in three respects. First, it will explore the logic of his appeal to the incarnation, defending him against a crude anachronism. Second, it will show how his incarnational logic makes space for an account of human wisdom consonant with the book of Proverbs as a whole. Third, it will 1. Old Testament references are to the LXX unless otherwise stated or indicated by the context. 2.  For a helpful reception history of Prov 8:22 within the Patristic period (up to and including the Arian controversy), see Dowling 2010. 3. The terminology comes from Ayres 2004. On ‘pro-Nicene’, see esp. 6 and 236–40. For an expression of such a view, see Dowling 2010, 65. 4. The Greek text can be found in GNO II. The translation used throughout the chapter is Leemans and Cassin (2014), which follows the text and numbering of GNO II (Jaeger 1960). For dating, see Leemans and Cassin 2014, 3–5.

180

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

draw a link between his incarnational logic and his wider vision of creation, which again enables diverse notes of Proverbs to be heard.

Gregory’s Exegesis Gregory’s extensive treatment of Prov 8:22 comes in Book III, but he has already prepared the way in Book I.5 There he discusses Prov 8:22 in the context of an argument to establish the distinction between the uncreated, as that which admits of no degrees, being good in itself and not by acquisition, and the created, whose goodness comes from its participation in God, which it has by degree. He goes on to locate the Trinitarian distinctions on the side of the uncreated, again ruling out (intra-creaturely) difference of degree (CE I.22). Addressing the anti-Nicene argument from Prov 8:22a, ‘The Lord created me’, he notes both that its utterance by the Only-begotten Son is assumed rather than argued for, and that other translations than the LXX ‘ἔκτισέ’ are attested (naming ‘ἐκτήσατο’ [‘possessed’ or ‘acquired’] and ‘κατέστησεν’ [‘constituted’]6). But granting the anti-Nicene premise, he questions a literal interpretation on the basis of the parabolic genre of Proverbs, and of the manifest absurdity of taking, for example, Prov 8:27 literally:  what kind of throne could an immaterial Deity have (CE I.22)? From John 1:3 and Col 1:16 he argues rather that the Son, by whom all things were made, cannot be one of the things made (CE I.23). Gregory begins his interpretation of Prov 8:22 in Book III by citing the whole verse: ‘τὸ Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ’ (CE III.1.21b). He notes that the anti-Nicene reference of the phrase (spoken by Wisdom) to the Only-begotten God is established by way of 1 Cor 1:24, which names Christ the wisdom of God (θεοῦ σοφία). He elaborates on the indirect character of the discourse of Proverbs with reference to Prov 1:3 and 6, and suggests that meaning must be ascertained by looking at the context (III.1.28). He reasons that 8:15–16 taken literally would imply that Wisdom is a tyrant-maker, arguing (by appeal to Matt 5:3) that the rulers promoted by Wisdom are in fact the poor in spirit, and offering a further interpretation which ascribes tyranny (positively understood) to reason, which ‘reign[s] over the passions’ (III.1.30). Turning to 8:22–26, he argues that if the passage is taken literally, indicating that the same Lord makes both ‘lands and deserts’ (8:26) and Wisdom, then it contradicts John 1:3, which says that all things were made by the Son (who is Wisdom) (III.1.35–36). And he continues to undermine a literal reading with reference to the verses that follow by way of a reductio ad absurdum (III.1.37–40). How can airy clouds be strong (8:28)? How can unstable winds support the divine

5.  For Book I  the chapter follows the translation and numbering in Schaff and Wace (1893). The Greek text can be found in GNO I  (Jaeger 1960). For Book III, the chapter follows the numbering in GNO II, followed by Leemans and Cassin 2014. 6. GNO I.299.

14. Proverbs 8:22 and the Arian Controversy

181

throne (8:27)? And how can Wisdom be created, then founded, then finally born (8:22–25)? In light of this, having suggested that right interpretation can only come by way of the aid of the Holy Spirit, he links Solomon’s gift of wisdom with the gift of prophecy, and refers Wisdom’s house (οἶκος) in Prov 9:1 to ‘the Lord’s flesh’ (III.1.44). From the union of the divine and the human in the incarnate one he derives a hermeneutical rule: that sayings may be understood with reference either to the divine or to the human, depending on what is fitting. Thus Prov 3:19 (by way of John 1:3) is referred to Wisdom as divine (III.1.47). But because there is nothing created in God, Prov 8:22 is fittingly understood with reference rather to ‘the one combined in the Economy [οἰκονομίαν] with our created nature’ (III.1.50). In short, Gregory refers the disputed phrase to the humanity of Christ at the incarnation.7 Gregory arrives at this conclusion not only by way of John 1:14, but also by unpacking and securing the absolute distinction between God and creation, denying that God obtains wisdom by acquisition, and that the Son, as ‘the fullness of all goodness’, is external to the Father, waiting to be generated (III.1.48–49). Referring Prov 8:22 to ‘the Economy’, he understands ‘the beginning’ as that of our salvation, reading ‘his ways [ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ]’ through John 14:6 (‘I am the Way [ἡ ὁδός]’), and identifying ‘his works’ with human beings (III.1.51). The application of ‘created me’ to the humanity of Christ is supported by a further web of intertexts. Rom 13:14, ‘Put on [Ἐνδύσασθε] the Lord Jesus Christ’, is combined with Eph 4:24, ‘Put on [Ἐνδύσασθε] the new man which is created [κτισθέντα] according to God’ (III.1.52), making way for the proto-Chalcedonian conclusion that one must ‘[keep] intact what is due to the understanding of the divine and the human’, Christ being both created as the new man and creator as the true Wisdom (III.1.54). An incarnational interpretation enables Gregory to make sense of the ordering of verbs in Prov 8:22–25: ‘created’ (ἔκτισέ) is referred to the incarnation, ‘founded’ (ἐθεμελίωσέ) to Christ as the foundation (θεμέλιος) of faith (1 Cor 3:11), and ‘begets’ (γεννᾷ) to Christ’s being born among believers (III.1.55–56). Gregory offers a figurative interpretation of Prov 8:24–25 in terms of the spiritual fruits that follow upon Christ’s birth in believers, ‘mountains’ signifying righteousness and ‘deeps’ God’s judgements (as in Ps 35:7), and ‘earth’ that which is sown by

7.  This tactic has precedents in Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria, although the three interpreters diverge in how they apply the insight to the following verses (see Dowling 2010, 58–64; and 54 on Marcellus as innovator of this approach). An appeal to the incarnation is not the only pro-Nicene reading strategy, however. Basil of Caesarea follows Eusebius of Caesarea in preferring the alternative translation to be found in the three post-Septuagint translations by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (ἐκτήσατό, ‘possessed’ or ‘acquired’), arguing for its implication of affinity between Father and Son, understood in terms of ‘begetting’, with reference to the occurrence of the same verb in Gen 4:1 (Del Cogliano 2008; cf. Dowling 2010, 57–58).

182

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

the Word (as in Mark 4:8 par.). He extends his figurative exegesis in terms of spiritual growth up to 8:31, and in doing so makes sense of those verses he earlier showed to be literally absurd. Thus the clouds stand for doctrine (cf. Ps 35:6), made strong by being put into practice, and the winds supporting the throne are spiritual conduct, setting apart the way of life of the believer (III.1.57–61). The exegesis is rounded off with reference to Prov 8:34, ‘my ways [ἐμὰς ὁδούς]’ being understood as the Way initiated by the creation of Wisdom at the incarnation (III.1.63). In sum, Prov 8:22 in context signifies God incarnate as the beginning of salvation, born in believers as the seed of their spiritual growth.

Gregory’s Logic of Explication Having summarized Gregory’s exegesis, I  am now in a position to draw out its logic. In the present section I will treat the logic of his appeal to the incarnation. This will involve a distinction between ‘finding’ the divine Son in Prov 8:22 – a factual claim about the referent of ‘Wisdom’ – and ‘explicating’ the relationship between the Son and creation by way of a reading of Prov 8:22 that assumes that reference. Gregory spends little time questioning or establishing reference to the Son, working with it instead as a premise  – one which would have been generally accepted by fourth-century readers (Dowling 2010, 55). What is at issue between him and his opponents is, rather, the status of the Son, and thus the logic of the incarnation. On the one hand, Gregory argues that a christological reading of Prov 8:22 must abide by the logic of certain New Testament texts, as he reads them (including 1 Cor 1:24); and on the other hand, he uses Prov 8:22 precisely to develop that logic. The interpretive trajectory goes in both directions. Because the New Testament texts, disputed by Gregory and his opponents, do not yield a stable christo-logic, there is room for Prov 8:22 to contribute to a logic in the making. Indeed, I will show that in the case of Gregory (at least), it is only by way of Prov 8:22 that a fully formed christo-logic is reached. First, Gregory reads Proverbs so as to sharpen the distinction between creator and creation. We see this in the connection he draws with John 1:3: What sort of Lord does it call the maker of desert and inhabited land [Prov 8:26]? Surely the one who also made Wisdom . . . If the same Lord both creates Wisdom, which we are advised to see as standing for the Son, and also every one of the things which creation includes, then how can sublime John be right to say that all things were made by him? (III.1.35–36)

On the basis of Prov 8:26 Gregory draws the conclusion that Proverbs attributes all creative activity directly to God. John 1:3, however, refers creation to the Son (who is Wisdom). If these texts are not to contradict one another, then the Son (in John 1:3) cannot be a creature to whom God delegates the activity of creation. But it follows that Wisdom (the Son) cannot be created, contra Prov 8:22.

14. Proverbs 8:22 and the Arian Controversy

183

The contradiction emerges only from the three texts together (Prov 8:26, John 1:3 and Prov 8:22). Gregory later makes a contracted version of this argument, locating a contradiction within Proverbs itself: ‘How is it then that the same person both lays the foundation of the earth, prepares the heavens, and breaks open the deeps, being called Wisdom and Prudence and Divine Sense [Prov 3:19–20], and is then created for the beginning of works [Prov 8:22]?’ (III.1.50). The language Proverbs uses about Wisdom ranges it with God’s creative activity on the one hand and God’s creatures on the other hand. But from Prov 8:26 we know that creative activity is God’s alone; thus there is no room for something which falls in between the creator God on the one side and God’s creation on the other side, as does Eunomius’s divine but created Wisdom. Rejection of Eunomius’s (anti-Nicene) solution to Prov 8:22 makes way, in turn, for Gregory’s. If it cannot be understood with respect to the Son as divine, then it must be understood with respect to his humanity. Again, it might look here as if Gregory has smuggled in the incarnation in order to explain a verse which presents problems for his theology. But, as we have seen, it is on Proverbs’ own terms (at least on Gregory’s reading) that 8:22 presents a problem. Proverbs speaks in two irreconcilable registers about one Wisdom. Rather than wheeling in a sown-up doctrine of the incarnation (which does not yet exist) to explain Prov 8:22, Gregory uses Prov 8:22 to explicate the incarnation. The way in which Proverbs speaks about Wisdom in two sharply distinguished registers (creative and created) pushes Gregory towards a protoChalcedonian understanding of the incarnation. In Christ the divine and the human are united but remain distinct and ‘intact’: there can be no blurring of the two (cf. III.1.53–54). If Proverbs informs Gregory’s incarnational logic, it might also be argued, albeit more tentatively, to inform his trinitarian logic. At numerous points in Book III, Gregory distinguishes between God as one who does not acquire, get or come by anything, ‘not power, not wisdom, not light, not word, not life, not truth’ (III.1.48), and human beings whose modus vivendi is one of acquisition and becoming (e.g., III.1.123–25 and III.6.16–17). More specifically, God does not acquire a Son. Gregory thereby rules out a quasi-historical process in God by which God becomes a Father (III.6.16). Father and Son must belong to each other eternally, in unity of will and nature, to be distinguished from all acquisition and creation. In this way, acquisition language is used not only to flesh out the creator/ creature distinction, but also to specify the divine simplicity. Gregory has accused Eunomius of introducing compositeness into God by admitting of degrees in the trinity, and attributing supreme simpleness to the Father alone; while he, by contrast, locates the simplicity of God not in the ingenerate Father alone, but in the whole trinity (I.19).8 Rather than being acquired goods, the Son (and Spirit) belong to the Father’s simple goodness, sharing in the divine nature which is goodness itself (cf. III.1.125 and III.6.17).

8. Cf. Ayres 2004, 297–98.

184

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

While it cannot be claimed that Gregory derived his acquisition conceptuality from Proverbs, the latter might at least have contributed to it. Acquisition is characteristic of the process Gregory discovers in his figurative reading of Prov 8:23–31, in which the birth of Christ in believers (8:25) unfolds in their spiritual growth  – an organic, temporal process, which he captures by various verbs of becoming (III.1.56–60). While Gregory’s reading might seem far-fetched in the abstract, it is in keeping with the emphasis in Proverbs as a whole on the human acquisition of wisdom: it is characteristic of human beings that they must become wise, being instructed in wisdom (e.g., Prov 1:2–6; 2:6). By contrast, there is no becoming in God:  God simply is wise, indeed is Wisdom. As Gregory reads it, Proverbs sets the human process of learning wisdom (with its ‘beginning’ in the incarnate Christ; Prov 8:22) in the context of the eternal divine Wisdom, which precedes and frames the whole cosmos (Prov 3:19, cited in III.1.47). The link between Prov 8:22 and human wisdom acquisition in Proverbs more w ide ly corres ponds to a lin guistic link in the Hebrew whi ch is absent in the LXX. The pivotal verb in Prov 8:22, translated by κτίζω in the LXX, is ‫ קנה‬in the Hebrew, which is used in numerous other verses to speak of the human acquisition of wisdom: ‘‫‘( ’חכמה קנה‬get wisdom’) (Prov 4:5, 7).9 ‫ קנה‬can mean ‘create’, but it can also mean ‘acquire’10 (and as Gregory himself notes, other Greek translations have ‘ἐκτήσατό’, from κτάομαι, ‘to acquire’11). Thus, on an incarnational reading of Prov 8:22 , Gregory’s parsing of the creator/ creation distinction in terms of acquisition is most fitting, making wisdom- acquisition, inscribed at the heart of creation in Christ, fundamental to being human (and arguably to creaturehood more generally), and setting God apart as one who does not acquire wisdom, but is Wisdom itself. In sum, Proverbs informs Gregory’s doctrine on three, interrelated scores:  it pushes him to an absolute distinction between creator and creation; it aids him in the articulation of a distinction between the divine and human in Christ, in protoChalcedonian fashion; and it helps him parse the creator/creation distinction in terms of acquisition, locating the trinitarian relations on the far side of acquisition.

9.  Alan Lenzi (2006, n.  38)  notes this connection and concludes (contra Gregory) that YHWH ‘is the prototype of what a human is supposed to do:  acquire wisdom’. The connection is arguably open to either interpretation, and had Gregory known the Hebrew, he might convincingly have enlisted it in support of his reading. 10. Victor Hurowitz (1999, 394), reading 8:22–31 as the narration of Wisdom’s maturation process from conception to early childhood, translates ‘created me’, but understands it in the sense of ‘bore me’. Lenzi (2006, 699 cf. n. 49) sees the primary meaning as ‘acquired me’, given the connection to its wider use in Prov 1–9, but he acknowledges both ‘its association with birth, as in Gen 4:1 [“acquire via birth”], and the process of creaturely creation, as in Ps 139:13’. 11. See n. 6 above. Having used ‘acquisition’ to distinguish between creator and creation, Gregory would not be served in his case against the Eunomians by the argument put forward by Eusebius and then Basil on the basis of this alternative translation.

14. Proverbs 8:22 and the Arian Controversy

185

Is Gregory’s incarnational reading of Prov 8:22 anachronistic? Such a claim would be a category mistake. For neither Gregory nor his opponents is it a matter (anachronistically) of ‘finding’ the Son in the Old Testament, as if to prove the fact of the incarnation. Rather, it is a matter of ‘explicating’ the logic of the incarnation (assumed by both parties) by attention to the logic of Prov 8:22 in context. And the logic can hold even in the absence of the fact of the incarnation, which is simply a concentrated expression of the relation between God and creation more widely.

The Logic of the Incarnation and Human Wisdom The previous section gave an account of Gregory’s incarnational logic, as developed through a reading of Prov 8:22 in context. My task in the present section is to show how this logic goes hand in hand with an account of human wisdom that arguably captures something of the dynamic of Proverbs’ own account. There is deep ambiguity in Proverbs about the identity and status of personified Wisdom. With what kind of voice does she speak? How is that voice to be compared with and distinguished from (other) creaturely voices? How is it to be discerned? I will attempt to demonstrate that Gregory’s preoccupation (in keeping with almost all fourth-century interpreters) with the question of whether Wisdom speaks with divine or creaturely voice is not an anachronistic red herring,12 but enables significant concerns of Proverbs to be probed. As we have seen, Gregory makes wisdom-acquisition definitional of being human, and distinguishes God from wisdom-acquisition as Wisdom itself. Wisdom is both divine and creaturely. But the two are not blurred in her:  the divine does not become creaturely, nor the creaturely divine. Thus, on the one hand, no creature can be univocally identified with the divine voice, as if there were any absolute answers in situations of human discernment, foreclosing the need for further deliberation. If divine wisdom were creaturely (as in Eunomius’s understanding), then we could define it, master it, and have done with it (as in some claims to ecstatic insight, which identify the divine and the creaturely). Gregory’s incarnational logic maintains unity but not identity. There is no such shortcut to the process of human deliberation. As Gregory says (with reference to Prov 8:22), ‘to grasp correctly the meaning of the passage is for those alone, who by the Holy Spirit search the depths’ (III.1.42). He does not say ‘who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit’, which might have been interpreted in such a way as to render the interpreter a passive receptacle of divinely infused insight. Rather, his emphasis is on the human activity enabled by the Spirit: that of searching the depths. This is pertinent in at least two respects: first, the Spirit incites a process of discernment; second, even the voice of Scripture (in this case Prov 8:22) cannot be univocally identified with the divine voice, but must be searched for its wisdom (arguably afresh in each new context).

12. Pace David Kelsey (2009, 225).

186

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

On the other hand, Wisdom is incarnate. The divine voice is heard through creatures. Moreover, there is no creature that might not mediate divine wisdom, because the union of divine and creaturely in the incarnate Christ is not such as to restrict divine wisdom to this one creaturely form, as if God were enclosed in the incarnation. This would be to identify the divine with the creaturely form, rather than maintaining the distinction (and preserving each intact). An identity-logic locates divine wisdom ‘here and not there’, while a union-logic puts no restriction on where wisdom might be found. Gregory’s discussion of Prov 8:15–16 gains new perspicuity in this connection. To recall, he understands the ‘tyrants [who] through [wisdom] rule the earth’ figuratively to refer to the monarchy of reason over the passions (III.1.31). Wisdom, we can now say, does not operate tyrannically by exalting one creature to divine status at the expense of another. It does not make arbitrary tyrants but unites all in a common practice of reasoned discernment. Or on the other interpretation offered by Gregory, it rules through the poor in spirit, and thus incites the learners of wisdom to attend not to the powerful but to the excluded, thus listening in unlikely places for the divine voice. In sum, all creatures are at once ambiguous (because not unequivocally identifiable with the divine) and potential mediators of divine wisdom (because divine wisdom is not restricted to any one creaturely form). Thus there is no end to the need for human discernment: no creatures are definitive of the divine wisdom to the exclusion of others, and no creatures can be written off as devoid of divine wisdom. How might such an account of human wisdom resonate with Proverbs? First, and most pervasively, Proverbs offers no hard and fast rules that simply need to be applied in any given situation. Recall Gregory’s claim that only those can interpret aright ‘who by the Holy Spirit search the depths’ (III.1.42). Instead, one rule of thumb is balanced by its opposite,13 leaving the learner of wisdom in the position of having to discern what is right for a particular situation. Rather than an instruction manual, Proverbs is better understood as intended to inculcate wise habits. Moreover, Proverbs teaches the very habits that are needed for its wise interpretation; only the one already on the way to wisdom can read wisely. The more Proverbs is searched, the more it incites to searching. Second, and relatedly, as Kelsey (2009, 231–34) emphasizes (commenting on the Hebrew), the voice of Wisdom is ambiguous, and notoriously difficult to disentangle from the competing voices of the ‘strange woman’ (2:16; 5:3; 7:5) and the ‘foolish woman’ (9:13). She, too, raises her voice, crying aloud (1:20 and 8:1–3, cf. 7:11 and 9:13); she utters the same call to the simple (9:4, cf. 9:16); her invitation is also to a banquet (9:1–6, cf. 9:17), and she, too, speaks seductively (9:1–6, cf.

13.  For example, Prov 26:4–5; Prov 10:10 and 12 (cf. Davis 2000, 75–77); 29:11 and 15 (cf. Davis 2000, 126); references to the Hebrew.

14. Proverbs 8:22 and the Arian Controversy

187

7:21 and 9:17). Finally, as Kelsey highlights, the difficulty of rightly identifying her voice is revealed by both 14:12 and 16:2. Third, the danger of the adulterous woman, as Kelsey (2009, 234) reads it, lies in her use of a ‘private language’ to create an ‘alternative world, in space and time absolutely disjoined from the public and ordinary’. ‘Woman Wisdom’, by contrast, is characterized by her ‘truthful use of a common language’ (235), undergirding social practices that sustain truthful communities. Such a contrast resonates strongly with that between the logic of a created divine wisdom on the one hand, and the logic of an incarnate wisdom. The former, as we have seen, involves the arbitrary identification of divine wisdom with a particular creaturely form, divisively locating the divine here and not there, and tyrannically foreclosing the possibility of further interrogation. Pronounced by fiat, such wisdom is irrefutable because it is not open to reason. In other words, such wisdom is privatized, closed off from public scrutiny. Incarnate wisdom, by contrast, because it does not exclusively identify wisdom with one creaturely form, but recognizes the ambiguity of all creatures, invites communal discernment and open-ended mutual interrogation. It is a shared wisdom.

The Overcoming of Creaturely Opposites The purpose of the present section is to show how Gregory’s incarnational logic of the relation between the divine and the creaturely (which eschews identification or opposition) yields in turn a non-oppositional relation between different aspects of creation – which might otherwise be opposed (as some have suggested). There are (at least) three particular pairs that can be discovered within Gregory’s exegesis.14 First, Gregory’s ‘spiritual’ exegesis of Prov 8:22–31 pairs the cosmic and the human. This is a counterintuitive claim, since Gregory justifies his embrace of a figurative reading (pertaining to human spiritual progress) on the basis of an argument that the literal (cosmic) sense is absurd. Thus, Gregory sets aside the cosmic meaning of ‘mountains, hills, deeps, earth’ in favour of their spiritual signification of ‘righteousness, judgment, peace’ (III.1.56). But if we probe a little further, such an opposition begins to break down. As we have seen, Gregory draws on the cosmic sense not only of Prov 3:19–20 (see III.1.50), but also of Prov 8:26a (‘The Lord made land and deserts’; see III.1.34–36), to argue that Wisdom as creative must be divine and not created (contra Prov 8:22 taken literally). Thus, the premise of his figurative reading of Prov 8:22–31 relies on a cosmic sense he discovers within those same verses. In other words, Gregory’s spiritual exegesis, which focuses on the human, does not displace the cosmic, but is inclusively 14.  For the (semi-technical) use of the term ‘pair’ in the following, cf. Adams (2013, 8–10 and passim).

188

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

paired with it. By the same token, we can say that the spiritual or figurative does not displace the literal, but is inclusively ‘paired’ with it, even if at points one yields to the other. The second pairing is between ‘inner’ spiritual growth and ‘outer’ political life. This emerges in Gregory’s exegesis of Prov 8:15–16, in which (to recall) he understands the ‘tyrants’ who rule through Wisdom first as the poor in spirit, by contrast with ‘those who exercise sovereignty wickedly’ (III.1.29); and second as the reason which reigns over the passions (III.1.30–31). While Gregory rejects a ‘literal’ sense according to which wisdom exalts tyrants (III.1.29), he does not do so by contrasting the political with the spiritual, or the ‘outer’ with the ‘inner’, but holds outer and inner together in his twofold ‘spiritual’ or figurative reading. Again, one does not displace the other, but they are inclusively paired. The third pairing is located at the level of Gregory’s hermeneutic. ‘Spiritual’ or ‘allegorizing’ readings are often caricatured as taking leave of materiality, seeking meaning on another plane from that of an embodied literal or historical sense.15 But Gregory’s spiritual exegesis is no less material for being figurative, and in two particular ways. First, its momentum comes from its attention to the ‘letter’  – to verbal connections between Proverbs 8 and other biblical texts, as amply exemplified in the exposition and analysis above. The materiality of the text is taken with utmost seriousness. In addition to its attention to the materiality of the letter, Gregory’s spiritual exegesis is referred to the human way of life rooted in and made way for by Wisdom’s incarnation; and as we have seen, that life is not a withdrawal from the natural or the political, but involves the pairing of ‘inner’ spiritual growth both with the political (the second pairing above) and with the cosmic (the first pairing above). I suggest that Gregory’s non-oppositional logic of creaturely relations is derivative of his non-oppositional incarnational logic. How? We have seen that, according to the latter, divine wisdom is non-divisive, being found potentially in any creature (rather than in some to the exclusion of others). In addition, there is no foreclosure to the process of discernment: thus no creature is in principle and ultimately opaque to any other, but open to communal interpretive scrutiny. In other words, creation is interconnected in its interpretability: the human is not cut off from the cosmic, nor the inner psychological life from the outer political; and matter is not opaque to mind. By contrast, a logic of identity and opposition creates arbitrary or brute facts by its non-negotiable identification of the divine with a particularly creaturely form. These are ultimately opaque to reasoned interpretation, cutting the divine off from creatures (except by fiat), and some creaturely forms from others. By contrast with Gregory’s model, there is no logic of interconnectivity by which creation can be considered a united whole.

15.  See the nuanced discussion of Dawson (2002), which distinguishes between ‘allegorical’ and ‘typological’ modes of reading.

14. Proverbs 8:22 and the Arian Controversy

189

Fourth-Century, Pro-Nicene Biblical Exegesis In conclusion, taking Gregory as indicative, I  will draw out some distinctive features of fourth-century, pro-Nicene biblical exegesis. First, and as has often been noted, fourth-century exegetes treat Scripture as an interconnected whole, allowing words, phrases and passages from one location to illumine those of another, often via specific verbal or phrasal links. But second, as is not so often noted, emphasis on the interconnectivity of the whole is not intended to draw significance away from local contexts and genres. As we have seen, Gregory is highly alert both to the immediate context of Prov 8:22 in chapter 8, and to its wider context in Proverbs as a whole, whose parabolic genre he ascertains from Prov 1:3 and 6. However, some will still need persuasion that the local interpretation of Proverbs 8 is not just fanciful or forced ‘eisegesis’ in the light of various New Testament intertexts.16 I have endeavoured to show that the way such intertexts are used – in terms of a logic of explication – has the purpose of yielding a further hermeneutical logic – in Gregory’s case an incarnational logic – that allows local texts to speak most fully. The reader must judge whether Gregory succeeds in this with respect to Proverbs. I have made a case that his incarnational logic makes way for recognition of the open-ended wisdom of discernment displayed in Proverbs. To recall, that logic unites the divine and the human while maintaining their distinction, inviting the question to be asked in the case of particular phrases whether reference is to the divine or to the human. Gregory answers in the case of Prov 8:22 that ‘created’ is spoken fittingly of the human and not the divine. The result, as I have shown, is to highlight both the intricate, ambiguous and indefinite creaturely process by which humans become wise, and the rootedness of this process in the God who is Wisdom itself. And this, in turn, enables the human to be appreciated in the context of the cosmic, the inner psychological in connection with the political, and the spiritual to be manifest in and through the material. Finally, Gregory’s incarnational logic is perhaps best described as a hermeneutic of open-ended discernment. Searching the scriptures does not reach closure but invites further searching. In Gregory’s words, ‘[T]o grasp correctly the meaning of the passage is for those alone, who by the Holy Spirit search the depths’ (III.1.42). The role of the Holy Spirit is not, as a deus ex machina, to provide arbitrary and final inspiration, but to incite to a searching of the depths – depths which know no limit.

Bibliography Adams, Nicholas. 2013. Eclipse of Grace: Divine and Human Action in Hegel. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

16. Hall calls it ‘strained’ (Leemans and Cassin 2014, 54 n. 19).

190

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Ayres, Lewis. 2004. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, Ellen F. 2000. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Dawson, John David. 2002. Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity. Berkeley, CA; London: University of California Press. Dowling, Maurice. 2010. Proverbs 8:22–31 in the Christology of the Early Fathers. Perichoresis 8:47–65. Del Cogliano, Mark. 2008. Basil of Caesarea on Proverbs 8:22 and the Sources of ProNicene Theology. Journal of Theological Studies 59:183–90. Hurowitz, Victor. 1999. Nursling, Advisor, Architect? ‫ אמון‬and the Role of Wisdom in Proverbs 8,22–31. Bib 80:391–400. Jaeger, Werner, ed. 1960. Contra Eunomium Libri: Pars Prior, Liber I and II; Pars Altera, Liber III. GNO I and II. Leiden: Brill. Kelsey, David H. 2009. Eccentric Existence: A Theological Anthropology. Vol. 2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Leemans, Johan, and Matthieu Cassin, eds. 2014. Gregory of Nyssa: CE III: An English Translation with Supporting Studies. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Lenzi, Alan. 2006. Proverbs 8:22–31: Three Perspectives on Its Composition. JBL 125:687–714. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. 1893. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 5. Translated by W. Moore, H. A. Wilson, and H. C. Ogle. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Williams, Rowan. 2001. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. London: SCM.

Chapter 15 ‘ B E T T E R X T HA N Y ’ :   C O N T E X T A N D M E A N I N G I N P R OV E R B S , Q O H E L E T, A N D M I D R A SH IC C O L L E C T IO N S Susan Niditch

The framework ‘better x than y’ characterizes sayings traditions throughout the world (Dundes 1975, 104–5) and is also commonly found among sayings preserved in the biblical book of Proverbs. This chapter explores the use of this syntactic pattern in the book of Proverbs and considers the range of meanings of some proverbs that employ the pattern in the context of that preserved literary collection. The chapter moves from the literary to the performative to examine the range of meanings and messages that might be conveyed by the deployment of particular ‘better x’ sayings preserved in Proverbs in possible oral-performance settings. The attention to context and re-context includes a study of the ‘better x’ form in Qohelet 7 and its author’s ironic or parodying evocation of the sort of sayings in Proverbs that are built upon the pattern. Finally we trace the treatment of ‘better x’ sayings from Qohelet and Proverbs in midrashic traditions and explore the deconstruction, reformulation, and recontextualization of the biblical sayings in post-biblical settings. The present study relates to concepts of intertextuality in various ways. The rabbis quote set biblical sayings texts, juxtapose them with other biblical texts, and offer their own commentary to create new but related texts. Contemporary scholars caution against equating quotation, allusion, and direct influence of one specific text upon another with intertextuality (Carr 2012, 510–11, 516), and so one might hesitate to identify Rabbinic midrash as an intertextual process. However, Daniel Boyarin (1990, 16) has thoughtfully defined midrash as ‘a rich intertextual reading of the canon, in which potentially every part refers to and is interpretable by every other part’. In other words, the midrashic process is no mere matter of allusion or citation. The rabbis’ work with the sayings texts in Proverbs and Qohelet explored below is deeply intertextual in this broad sense. Benjamin D. Sommer (1996, 488) also notes that intertextual linkages have to do with ‘a larger system of signification’ in which texts resemble one another and can be seen by a reader (or listener) to reflect and play upon one another. Similarly, Matthew Goff (2014, 216), who is influenced by the work of Carr and Boyarin,

192

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

writes that ‘texts are dialogical and contingent upon prior discourses, and a text’s engagement with those discourses necessarily goes beyond phenomena such as allusion or explicit citation of one text by another’. Intertextuality, thus understood, partakes of ‘immanent art’, the phrase used by the seminal scholar of oral and oral-derived literatures, John Miles Foley (1991), to describe the referential relationships between recurring formulaic language and content shared by traditional works (see also Carr 2012, 520–23). Some of these nuances also relate to the way in which the author of Qohelet employs familiar and culturally shared terms, content, and syntax found in Proverbs to create his own distinctive message. The notion that one option is better than another captured in a telegraphic saying form points to basic, but consequential, psychoanalytical and social processes, namely, the way we make choices in life, small and large, or the way we express preferences for one situation rather than another. As is typical of sayings in any wisdom tradition, the advice offered is sometimes contradictory. For example, within a contemporary English-speaking sayings tradition, ‘Haste makes waste’, and yet ‘He who hesitates is lost’. Both are true depending upon the circumstances or the particular orientation of the speaker and the receiver of the saying. Such contrasts in proverbial advice reflect tensions and ambivalences, matters of import that are a source of anxiety for individuals and for groups. Such ambivalence is found, for example, by the ‘better x than y’ or the related ‘preferable is x than y’ sayings in Prov 12:9 and Prov 22:1. Better to be held in contempt and have a servant

than to have self-esteem and a lack of bread. (Prov 12:9) Preferable is a reputation than great wealth, than silver and gold, is acceptance better. (Prov 22:1)

These sayings could be read to express different attitudes: Prov 12:9 might suggest that material well-being is of paramount importance for a person, worth even more than reputation, whereas Prov 22:1 suggests that reputation and acceptance trump wealth. The meaning of sayings of course depends upon context, literary or oral-performative. In the bookish context of Proverbs, these sayings find their place among comments on the wise and the foolish, characteristics synonymous with righteousness and unrighteousness as, for example, in Prov 12:2, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20, 21, 28 and Prov 22:3, 5. As Prov 12:21 asserts, ‘No trouble befalls the righteous but evil-doers have their fill of unpleasantness.’ In other words, bad things happen to bad people! Job and Qohelet, as well as the rest of us, might contest the veracity of sayings that view wisdom and righteousness as a sure path to well-being; nevertheless, these sayings present the conventional views of Proverbs and other biblical material such as Deuteronomy 28 that link righteousness to blessing. Wisdom literature, however, is also characterized by an intense pragmatism,

15. ‘Better X than Y’

193

recognition of the need for physical survival and well-being. And so, Prov 12:9 might be understood as advice concerning wise choices. The goal of wise action is physical comfort, offered by material wealth. A similar message is found in Prov 22:7: ‘The rich over the poor rules.’ Proverbs 12:9 could thus be understood to mean that even though someone may be considered worthless by those around him, if he enjoys economic status surpassing mere survival – as reflected in having a servant – his situation is preferable to being considered worthy of esteem while not having a scrap of bread to eat. Sayings such as Prov 15:16, 16:8, and 22:1 employing the ‘better x (or preferable x) than y’ framework reinforce a model for staying poor (the better being ‘little with fear of the Lord’ rather than ‘a vast treasury with trouble in it’ or ‘little with righteousness’, rather than ‘lots of revenue without justice’ or ‘a good reputation’ rather than ‘great wealth’). Proverbs 12:9, however, suggests that the better situation is to possess material wealth, no matter the degree of esteem one assumes, commands, or deserves. In contrast to the righteous/unjust sayings above, no ethical consideration is given to how the holder of wealth achieved this state of material ease. Being poor is simply not to be recommended. Context is critical to the proverb’s message, and there are multiple possibilities for the actual use of the proverb found at Prov 12:9 in oral-performance settings. Employing the imaginative model offered by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1981), we can picture various scenarios. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett notes in her study of the saying ‘money talks’ that the meaning of a proverb may differ depending on the reason for its deployment, who speaks to whom about whom and why, the status of the speaker and his or her audience, the speaker’s tone and body language, and so on (115–18). In this case, a number of possibilities come to mind. The person who is ‘held in contempt’ in Prov 12:9 may be a good person who is not appreciated by others because of his looks, or origins, or line of work whereas the person who considers himself worthy of esteem may be self-deluded or puffed up. Perhaps his father is estimable but he himself has done nothing with his life. He is deluded about his worth. A  person might deploy the proverb to make a friend feel better after he or she has been rejected for membership by a group. The message could be paraphrased:  ‘See what you have accomplished. Even though they consider themselves your betters, you have built considerable financial worth; they think they are so estimable and yet have nothing.’ Or perhaps a woman or man has chosen a suitor other than the person addressed. The speaker of the proverb might offer comfort implying that the one to whom he directs the proverb is actually of greater worth than his competitor. The tone again would be one of encouragement. However, what if the context involves a less fortunate person’s complaint about another person’s undeserved material status or that person’s capacity to outdo him or even to oppress him? The Hebrew verb ‫ קלה‬in the niphal, translated ‘to be held in contempt’, is rooted in the meaning ‘light’ (the person is a ‘lightweight’ in our terms) and does not by itself say why someone is held in contempt. He is lightly esteemed, a nobody. Maybe someone deserves contempt because of the way he treats others or has achieved material well-being. The person who loses out to him

194

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

has quoted the proverb to say, ‘That fellow is just a lightweight, but is better off than I,’ implying ‘Of what use is my self-esteem?’ Alternatively, a friend may use the proverb to respond to his companion’s situation. He quotes the proverb ironically to imply, ‘Yes, everyone hates him but he has a servant and you have nothing!’ Maybe the message is, ‘No need to be so fussy and careful about what others think of you. Go for it.’ Or, ‘Who cares what the neighbours think? Do not be afraid to do something you think is beneath you in order to gain material well-being.’ As Alan Dundes (1975) notes, the syntax of the proverb, its ‘formula’, does not constitute genre or meaning. For example, the saying, ‘ “Better late than never” does not mean the same as the Italian proverb “Better a mouse in the mouth of a cat than a man in the hands of a lawyer” ’ (105). It is how the recurring structure is filled with content that counts and the possibilities for ‘better x than y’ are too many to list, as the numerous examples from Proverbs indicate. I  have traced examples of the pattern that address matters of relative wealth, but as I noted, two ‘better than/preferable than’ sayings about wealth can offer opposite advice, even within the same wisdom work or the same wisdom speech. The same syntactic pattern can house messages of opposite meaning about a similar topic. Removed from the written context and imagined in a live performance setting, the very same proverb can have multiple meanings depending upon the situation that provides the context for its deployment, the relationship between speaker and receiver, their relative status, accompanying gestures, and the tone which the speaker of the proverb employs. Qoheleth 7:1 offers another and different sort of literary contextualization for a ‘better x than y’ pattern as it applies to the worth of a good name or reputation. The couplet begins with a saying that parallels the message of Prov 22:1: ‘Better is a good name than good oil’, but the second line, the accompanying saying, continues ‘and the day of death than his day of birth’. This enigmatic portion of the linked sayings may be interpreted from a theologically informed direction to suggest that once one dies one no longer commits sins or has to deal with temptation. Alternatively, the saying may reflect a rather depressive orientation that regards the challenges of daily life as almost unbearable. Like some of the speeches placed in the mouth of Job (e.g., Job 3:13–19), the voice behind this saying longs on some level for the peace of death, the escape it offers from suffering or responsibility or unfairness. In any event, the second saying affects the reading of the first. What good is a fine reputation if death is preferable to living? An emphasis on the desirability of death is reinforced by subsequent ‘better x than y’ sayings: ‘It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting’ (Qoh 7:2) and ‘Better is grief than laughter, for in sadness of demeanor the heart is gladdened’ (Qoh 7:3). Whose heart is gladdened? Is the writer immersed in some version of Schadenfreude? It is difficult to deduce the meaning of a saying from a static literary context, but the very least one can say is that the ‘better x than y’ saying at Qoh 7:1a concerning the high value of a good name pales in contrast to the heavy considerations concerning life and death in the ‘better x than y’ sayings which directly follow. The latter tinge the more typical wisdom offered by 7:1a with irony, doubt, a quality of parody,

15. ‘Better X than Y’

195

and a tone of negation that encourages reconsideration of the more conventional wisdom that comparable sayings offer in their contexts in Proverbs. It is, however, awareness of the more typical intent of the saying in the wisdom tradition about the worth of a good name represented by the compilation in Proverbs that gives Qoh 7:1 its punch, leading the reader to reconsider conventional wisdom itself. This awareness of more typical usages of ‘better x than y’ sayings concerning reputation involves the text in an intertextual discourse. The content of the saying and its syntactic format are so common that it would be inaccurate to suggest that the author bases the saying at Qoh 7:1 on a specific saying in Proverbs such as Prov 22:1 or that he consciously parodies this particular iteration of the saying via recontextualization. Context is crucial, however, and this brief comparison points to the way in which pieces of shared inherited tradition can be literarily framed to contest values rather than to reinforce them. Such a literary context may provide the kind of irony that could be accomplished by a sarcastic or questioning tone in an oral performative context. Rabbinic treatments of ‘better x than y’ proverbs present a new set of possibilities and considerations in approaching issues of context. The genre midrash is by its very nature ‘imminently referential’, as Foley (1991) puts it. The midrashist brings to bear on one small piece of Scripture, whether a verse, a phrase, an image, or a word, the whole biblical tradition, ‘incised on the tablet of the heart’ (Prov 3:3; see Carr 2005, 127). The tradition is known by heart but in a way that allows for creative wiggle room in application or implicit citation. Also brought to bear in the Rabbis’ ‘creative philology’ and ‘creative historiography’ (phrases coined by Isaac Heinemann [1970]) are assumptions about ways of treating the tradition. The cultural meanings and messages perceived to be implicit in the tradition are at play in the kind of imminently referential improvisation that is midrash, and this quality of the imminently referential might well be called intertextual in the sense to which Sommer and Goff point. The interpretative process makes more ancient texts newly relevant. It grapples with perceived linguistic challenges offered by the received tradition, addresses anxiety-producing content, and ultimately reflects and shapes worldview. Context includes both the literary context of the commentary and the social-historical context that informs and animates it. Rabbinic midrash is thus both derivative and highly original but always begins with a specific biblical text, in this case sayings from Proverbs or Qohelet. The saying, moreover, is not merely recontextualized but also deconstructed and reformulated, the motivation for a literature or medium that has its own form, perhaps several forms combined in the commentarial process. This complex and multivalent process of contextualization is nicely illustrated by a Rabbinic treatment of one of the ‘better x than y’ proverbs discussed above, Qoh 7:1a, ‘Better is a good name than good oil’ (Qohelet Rabbah 7.1). The midrash as compiled offers a series of real-life applications of the proverbs that emphasize the desirability and benefits of a good name over those of oil. For example, oil lasts only for a time whereas a good name lasts forever. Oil is obtained for payment, whereas a good name is free. The goodness of oil is relevant only to the living, whereas the good name rests upon the living and the dead, the rich and

196

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

the poor. Oil can become rancid when it falls upon a corpse (quoting Qoh 10:1), whereas a good name implicitly enlivens, as shown by the capacity of Elisha, who is a man of good name, to revivify the dead (2 Kgs 4:34). Additional proof-texts from Scripture emphasize these and other contrasts in which the good name is better than oil, and is associated, in particular, with life. The physical properties of precious oil thus are seen to be of lesser worth than the ineffable qualities associated with the good name. A  series of midrashim draws contrasts, for example, between the Levites anointed by oil, who have less status than the tribes as a whole whose names are engraved on the priestly breastplate, and between the priesthood of Aaron, anointed by oil, versus the names of the tribes which must be engraved on Aaron’s two shoulders for his service to be legitimate. The collection of midrashim, characterized by exemplary stories, imagined dialogues, and observations illustrated by biblical quotations transitions to Qoh 7:1b by means of a narrative employing a metaphor about departing and returning ships. The conclusion drawn is that when a person is born, no one knows what sort of life he will lead or which choices he will make. People should rejoice, however, when someone dies, if the person leaves with a good name and in peace. Significantly, in this context, the rabbis do not employ the saying as an occasion to contemplate upon the world-to-come or to discuss the future rewards that accrue to the person who has chosen the good and is thereby held in esteem. The eternal good name and the peace of death reflect a down-to-earth worldview with emphases on the sort of collective memory that preserves the essence of the person who has passed. The saying in Qoh 7:1b, ‘and (better is) the day of death than the day of one’s birth’ does not shock in the light of Qoh 7:1a. Rather, the second saying (7:1b) is taken quite literally, and the couplet in v. 7 is viewed as holding eternal truths about worth and memory, explaining how we can cope in the present with the loss of the dearly departed. The midrashist explores how a good name actually is to be equated with the positive value of one’s day of death. The midrashist rejects the ironic tone of Qohelet and is perhaps challenged by its boldness, by the suggestion that it is better to die than to live. Contemplating the anxiety-producing occasion of death, the rabbis ask what surpasses the grave, what has life been worth, and what thoughts sustain those left behind? In this particular instance, the rabbis do not offer the far off comfort of the world to come, but the immediate experience of positive remembrance of a person who has died. The worthy dead thus live on in the minds of his community and family. Such is the nature of lived religion described, for example, by Robert Orsi (2003) and Meredith McGuire (2008): the religion of everyday things, religion in relationships, and the expected ritual actions shared by cultural groups and experienced personally by each individual. The rabbis’ midrashic composition further links Qoh 7:1 with the ‘better than’ saying found in 7:2: ‘Better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house if feasting.’ The commentary linked to 7:2 is composed of many threads, but a recurring message implies that if you mourn others, people will offer you and your family similar support when the time comes. Attending to the dead serves the living and the dead. Genesis 25:11 is read to mean that God himself pronounced the

15. ‘Better X than Y’

197

blessing for mourners over Isaac after his father Abraham’s death (Qohelet Rabbah 7:2.6). It is thus more important to offer consolation than to join in festive joy, for participation in activities at the house of mourning is even said to protect various biblical characters from Gehinnom (Qohelet Rabbah 7:2.8). The midrash on Qoh 7:1–2 underscores the deeply human experience of losing loved ones to death and emphasizes the importance of acknowledging that loss with one’s supportive presence. Offering consolation is an essential component of lived religion, an expression of shared community and personal empathy. All of these concerns recontextualize the ‘better x than y’ sayings about death versus birth and mourning versus rejoicing without reference to sin, punishment, or the worldto-come, except for the brief mention of escape from Gehinnom for those who comfort mourners. Nor does the passage emphasize, as do many other Rabbinic texts, the positive benefits of dying as understood within a Jewish theological framework, for example, as a means of atonement or as a warning to the living. In this way, the midrash contextualizes sayings in Qoh 7:1–2 in directions that are particularly timeless, humanistic, and universal. A second case study in rabbinic recontextualization is offered by the treatment in Midrash Mishle of the ‘better x than y’ saying found in Prov 17:1. We begin with the biblical context, explore possibilities for oral-traditional contexts, and then move on to Rabbinic interpretation. Prov 17:1 deals once again with a message about the relative worth of material well-being: Better is a dry piece of bread and quiet with it than a house full of feasting meat with strife.

A contrast is drawn between modest means, exemplified by having only a dry morsel to eat, but being able to consume it in peace versus having a sumptuous feast accompanied by strife or controversy. The feast term is rooted in the word for sacrificial offerings that make animal flesh available for consumption. This saying is preserved in the book of Proverbs among sayings that include ‘professional’ advice (e.g., about succeeding in the role of servant:  17:2), ethical advice (e.g., about not mocking the poor:  17:5), and pragmatic advice that eschews ethics (e.g., about the positive benefits of bribes:  17:8). These sayings are only loosely connected, if at all, as is common in international sayings collections (cf. Niditch 2014, 133). Removed from its context, the literary set-piece in Proverbs, however, the saying in Prov 17:1 presents a host of possible applications and contexts. The relative wealth and status of the speaker and the receiver of the saying, their attitudes and tone, as well as the situation being addressed deeply affect the meaning and message that is conveyed by the contrast between the morsel and the feast. One poor person may address the saying to another poor person in a sarcastic tone as the two observe the conspicuous consumption of a wealthy neighbour. They are actually jealous of the rich person’s lifestyle and really would like to enjoy his advantages. A  rich person may address this saying to a poor person in all seriousness, implying that his neighbour is lucky not to have all the worries that come with riches. Implicit is the message: My children want me to die

198

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

to inherit my wealth and all my family members are constantly fighting for status and a bigger piece of the pie, whereas your children have no such pretensions and just enjoy the day with peace. The rich man may mean it or think he means it or may be trying to keep the poor person in his place. Alternatively a person might perform this proverb when he declines a promotion or a higher paying job, meaning that the extra money is just not worth the trouble and responsibility that comes with it. He might say the proverb to his wife to explain his decision (and she might be supportive or critical of his decision) or he might employ the saying in discussing the promotion with his supervisor, declining in an oblique way to take the job, or in sharing the news with his colleagues. In the latter case, he gains status by revealing he had been offered a promotion but refused. Perhaps he was not offered the promotion he desired and he employs the saying to convey, ‘I did not want the job anyway’, covering his actual disappointment and self-perceived loss of face. This sentiment could be conveyed to co-workers or friends or rivals. The spontaneous and various contexts that can be imagined for this saying in performance contrasts with the extended composition of the midrash in Midrash Mishle. This midrash on Prov 17:1 with its thematic cohesion also differs from the more disparate set of reflections on Qoh 7:1–2 in Qohelet Rabbah that grapple with the shared experience of death and loss from universalistic and humanistic perspectives, emphasizing empathy and community. In Midrash Mishle the phrase ‘Better a dry crust with peace’ (trans. Burton L. Visotsky 1992) is interpreted: ‘this refers to the land of Israel, for even if one eats but bread and salt therein each day, he is assured of gaining life in the world to come; than a house full of feasting with strife – this refers to other lands, which are full of violence and robbery.’ This passage thus immediately sets up an us/them contrast between Jews and non-Jews and those Jews who live in Israel and the vast Diaspora. In Israel, even if one is extremely poor, one is assured a place the world to come. It is interesting that living outside the land does not necessarily mean loss of the world to come but life in an environment of strife. A second midrashic improvisation plays on the association between being in Israel and a guarantee of a future life: just walking four cubits there assures the person membership in the world to come (R. Johanan). Just living there for a year (or even an hour according to some manuscript traditions) and then dying there assures a future life (R. Levi). The proof-text Deut 32:43 asserts that the land makes expiation so that cleansed of sin, one gains a place in the world to come. R. Nehemiah reads this verse to suggest the land expiates the sin of those buried there. R. Zebida worries about the future of all the righteous who die outside the land but is assured that somehow angels will bring them back to the holy land via tunnels in order that expiation can be made for them there. The material importance of the land itself is strongly emphasized. Contact with the land, the physical space, is of paramount importance. R. Abbahu asks whether the land is such an atoning place that even the wicked there will be atoned for, but the answer is negative. The series of midrashim on Prov 17:1 ends with a question about how to avoid the torments of Gehenna, and

15. ‘Better X than Y’

199

the questioner is told that the performance of good deeds allows one to avoid this bad fate, but again the avoidance of this fate in the view of the commentators is not offered to the Gentiles, however many good deeds they perform. It applies only to the ‘living’, that is, Jews. The passage as a whole thus employs a saying that contrasts peace or quiet with strife or conflict to draw a clear distinction between the quality of existence inside the land versus outside and between the benefits of being Jewish versus Gentile. What might be the context for this sort of understanding and application of Prov 17:1? The composer’s apparent preoccupation with the dispersion of the Jews is a common trope in classical Judaism, for authors aware that indeed most Jews live outside the land and are continuing to make exile, the better to seek financial opportunity and fortune in the Diaspora. Second, the composer makes clear the distinction between the righteous Jew and the righteous Gentile, however upright may be the latter’s comportment. Salvation is not for the Gentile. This orientation of this passage contrasts sharply with that of some early Rabbinic texts such as Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Nezikin 18) that speak sympathetically about god-fearers or righteous Gentiles. The composer thus deals in a different way with threat and persecution, or perceptions of Jewish vulnerability and inferiority. Burton Visotsky (1992, 9–11) suggests a ninth-century date for Midrash Mishle based upon matters of style, references to certain customs, and the works it quotes, but he points to the difficulty of ascertaining provenance (12). Central to his conclusion about date is the work’s anti-Karaite polemic. He notes in reference to midrashim on Prov 17:1: It particularly seems to be in debate/dialogue with the Karaite leader Daniel alQumisi . . . Daniel led his followers to live in the Land of Israel, leaving behind Jewish-Babylonia. Those Karaites virtually starved (‘a dry crust’) in the land and were dependent on Rabbinic charity. The rabbis (i.e. author of Midrash Mishle), in turn, even those potentially in the Diaspora would not be outdone in their devotion to the Land of Israel (at least in writing and lip-service). This is what I think accounts for the trope of ‘Israel better than anywhere else’.1

Thus while the praise and love of the land is a common motif in Rabbinic literature across periods and provenances, the emphasis here may be an effort to co-opt and outdo the praises of Karaites for those who dwell in the land. And the insistence on God’s preference for the Jews is a long-standing means of asserting positive group identity and insisting upon divine love in the face of exile and marginality. In this way, Rabbinic recontextualizations of biblical sayings relate them to particular Scriptural texts while at the same time creatively liberating the sayings and their

1. I thank Professor Visotsky for allowing me to quote his helpful email communication, dated 16 April 2015.

200

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

constitutive pieces to create new compositions with meanings and messages relevant in post-biblical contexts. The study of biblical sayings framed by the syntax ‘better x than y’ reveals a rich array of connotative possibilities, a range of options that imply differing worldviews and multiple settings for contextualization, literary and performative. While the very syntax suggests basic questions about confronting choices in life and about the controllable and uncontrollable situations in which such choices must be made, the sayings as contextualized reveal deep ambiguities and fluidity in some cases and an effort to nail down and specify exactly what they mean in others. The most fluid variety of contextualization is the performance setting. The very shift of tone or expression by the speaker can make the same saying have entirely different meanings. The literary contexts that inform the meaning of sayings in Proverbs and Qohelet speak to each work’s orientation as upholding conventional wisdom in the case of Proverbs and challenging it in Qohelet. Even in the case of Proverbs, sayings about reputation and worth presented in the frame ‘better x (or preferable x) than y’ may offer diametrically different advice, as is the nature of wisdom traditions worldwide. The Rabbinic recontextualization and application of biblical proverbs are the most specific by the very nature of the commentarial process. Explicit sayings texts are quoted from the Hebrew Bible and interpreted to have relevance for the way one acts, the choices one makes. And yet it is that interpretative process that most opens up the proverb to meanings beyond both those suggested by the literary contexts in Proverbs or Qohelet and the imagined possibilities for performance contexts. In the particular midrashim explored, a difference of worldview emerges concerning proverbs that address matters of relative wealth and worth, one more humanistic and universal and the other more concerned with the drawing of differences among Jews and between Jews and Gentiles. Thinking in terms of intertextuality as a broad ‘system of signification’ informs an appreciation of the relationships between certain ‘better x than y’ sayings in the biblical books of Proverbs and Qohelet. The deeply creative and deconstructive form of engagement with biblical sayings texts of the ‘better x than y’ form found in Rabbinic literature also suggests intertextuality on various levels. The meanings, messages, and functions of these sayings are contextual, and require consideration of oral-performative versus literary-bookish settings and evaluation of sociological and historical contexts. Culturally contoured verbal compositions and forms that suggest or play upon a shared tradition offer intertextual possibilities for understanding and approaching the authors’ work and the responses of receiving audiences.

Bibliography Boyarin, Daniel. 1990. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

15. ‘Better X than Y’

201

Carr, David M. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carr, David M. 2012. The Many Uses of Intertextuality in Biblical Studies: Actual and Potential. Pages 505–35 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Edited by M. Nissinen. VTSup. 148. Leiden: Brill. Dundes, Alan. 1975. Analytic Essays in Folklore. Studies in Folklore 2. The Hague: Mouton. Foley, John Miles. 1991. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington: Indiana University. Goff, Matthew. 2014. Wisdom, Apocalypticism and Intertextuality: The Book of Ecclesiastes and the Sociolect of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pages 226–39 in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. LHBOTS 587. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Heinemann, Isaac. 1970. Darkhê ha-Aggadah. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1981. Toward a Theory of Proverb Meaning. Proverbium 22 (1973): 821–27. Repr. in The Wisdom of Many: Essays on the Proverb. Pages 111–21. Edited by Wolfgang Mieder and Alan Dundes. New York: Garland. McGuire, Meredith B. 2008. Lived Religion: Faith and Practice in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University. Niditch, Susan. 2014. Twisting Proverbs: Oral Traditional Performance and Written Contexts. Pages 125–35 in Discourse, Dialogue and Debate in the Bible: Essays in Honor of Frank H. Polak. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Orsi, Robert. 2003. Is the Study of Lived Religion Irrelevant to the World We Live In? JSSR 42:169–74. Sommer, Benjamin D. 1996. Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger. VT 46:479–89. Visotsky, Burton L. 1990. Midrash Mishle. A Critical Edition based on Vatican MS. Ebr. 44 with variant readings from all known Manuscripts and Early Editions, and with an Introduction, References and a Short Commentary. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Visotsky, Burton L. 1992. The Midrash on Proverbs. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Chapter 16 P R OV E R B S A N D T H E C O N F U C IA N C L A S SIC S Christopher D. Hancock

Intertextual readings of Proverbs and classical Chinese literature face serious challenges:  linguistic comparisons risk reliance on variant textual readings, exegetical or hermeneutical clarity encounters alpine commentarial options, thematic similarities tempt the careless to easy philosophical conflation, and two seemingly unconnected cultures and their texts are implausibly compared. In short, why bother? Can anything significant be achieved by this? The benefits of intertextuality and cross-cultural study are clear:  semantic refinement (using another language to clarify meaning and authorial intent), mutual illumination (refining understanding through comparison), cultural exposition (using texts to exegete identity), and interpretative enrichment (allowing symbols, images, ideas and imagination to cross-fertilize) all assist textual interpretation. To this end, my argument is that, though problematic, intertextual readings of Proverbs and the Confucian Classics1 afford important, mutually illuminating points of comparison. This chapter introduces some general similarities and dissimilarities between Proverbs and the Confucian Classics, and then considers through four key texts the problems and potential of intertextuality in this relatively new field of comparative literature.2 1.  Gathered and written before 300 BCE, the ‘Four Books’, Sìshu 四書 (The Great Learning 大學, Doctrine of the Mean 中庸, Analects 論語 and Mencius 孟子) and ‘Five Classics’ wujing 五经 (The Classic of Poetry 詩經, Book of Documents 尚書, Book of Rites 禮記, I  Ching/Book of Changes 易經/周易, Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋) constitute the philosophical, moral, historical and cultural heart of the Confucian textual canon on which Chinese culture and the imperial civil service were built. The texts were formally adopted by the Han Dynasty 漢朝 (206–220 BCE) as its cultural orthodoxy:  this led to Confucianism’s flourishing during the Song Dynasty 宋朝 (960–1279 CE). Confucius’s role in the ‘Five Classics’ is much disputed. The rationalist Neo-Confucian scholar Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200 CE) compiled the ‘Four Books’ and synthesized Confucian learning. Despite Confucius’s cultural profile, Confucianism has consistently balanced tradition with commentarial creativity. 2. On other Confucian-biblical themes, cf. Hancock (2006, 2013, 2014).

204

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Proverbs and the Confucian Classics Proverbs and the Confucian Classics are read against the backcloth of centuries-old cultural interaction between Judaism and Confucianism. Elizabeth Hewat’s 1933 Edinburgh PhD, ‘A Comparison of Hebrew and Chinese Wisdom as Exemplified in the Book of Proverbs and the Analects of Confucius’, cites the 1489 CE stele in Kaifeng, in Henan province, at one stage capital of the Song Dynasty Ὁ⫛ (960– 1279 CE), which records the presence of Jews there from 1163 CE3; according to Hewat (1935, 506), the inscription ‘winds up with a statement that Judaism differs almost imperceptibly from the religion of the Literati’. Loyalty to the ruler, respect for ancestors, obedience to parents and ‘other accepted virtues’ are urged ‘in the interests of Chinese Jews living in a land that was proud of its own religious heritage’ and especially in light of ‘points of resemblance between the faith of their adoption and the faith of their country’s rulers’. Hewat concludes, ‘[A] comparison of the Book of Proverbs and the Analects of Confucius provides not a little confirmation of the point of view adumbrated on the Kaifeng tablet.’ Talk of the cultural and religious otherness of Judaism and Confucianism is misleading. Recent work on China’s Jewish community and comparative Confucian-Hebrew Bible literary studies increase the plausibility and potential of intertextual comparison. Jews probably arrived in China from India during the ‘golden age’ of the Tang Dynasty ᣎ⫛ (618–907 CE). The pioneer missionary-scholar Matteo Ricci (1552– 1610) records, in De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas (ed. Trigault, Augsburg, 1615), his 1605 meeting with Ai Tian4 䘼㣮, a Jew from Kaifeng 奉᾿, who was in Peking to sit the jinshi 厙Ჩ examination.5 Ai Tian worshipped one God, Ricci reports, and mistook an image of the Madonna and child for Isaac (or Jacob) and Rebecca. Ricci learned more about the Jews in Kaifeng from the community’s archsynagogus. They were few in number, largely illiterate, and culturally and theologically ‘well on the way to becoming Saracens (viz. heathens or Muslims)’.6 In fact, Ricci was invited to succeed the archsynagogus, if he would renounce pork. Intermarriage, assimilation, opposition and geographic displacement further eviscerated the community. Late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century visitors describe a Jewish burial ground, and a few rituals and artefacts of Kaifeng’s ancient Jewish residents.7 Twenty-five thousand Jewish refugees in Shanghai in the Second 3.  The historical reliability of the three Kaifeng stelae is disputed. See, for example, Irwin M.  Berg’s critical review:  http://www.kulanu.org/links/KaifengStoneInscriptions. php (accessed 22 June 2016). For bibliographical information on the Kaifeng Jews, see Raiskin 2006. 4.  During the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644 CE) China’s Jews were assigned eight family names, namely, Ai, Shi, Gao, Gan, Jin, Li, Zhang, and Zhao. 5.  By the Ming Dynasty, the jinshi 进士 was the highest level imperial, keju 科舉, civil service examination. 6. See Trigault 1953, 107–11. 7.  S. M. Perlmann, a Shanghai businessman, wrote in 1912: ‘They bury their dead in coffins, but of a different shape than those of the Chinese are made, and do not attire the

16. Proverbs and the Confucian Classics

205

World War increased awareness of China’s indigenous Jews, but decline continued. Since the 1980s, 400 or so Chinese ‘Jews’ (possibly 100 families8) have courted a relationship with Israel; some migrating, others ‘converting’,9 their history and life safeguarded by the Sino-Judaic Institute. Extant Hebrew texts from Kaifeng illustrate well how reading, writing, transcription, and interpretation do not occur in a cultural or communal vacuum.10 Proverbs and the Confucian Classics both reflect (for good and ill) communal influence and interpretative interference. Chinese-Jewish texts counter any assumption that intertextuality implies hermetic textual isolation. Furthermore, the fragmented, evolutionary nature of both Judaism and Confucianism make comparative intertextual analysis inherently complex. Moving objects are notoriously elusive subjects, texts and meaning famously fluid. Insofar as intertextuality involves semantics and hermeneutics, it helps focus comparisons and ‘fix’ meanings: that is part of its particular value here. Though in its infancy, a body of scholarship on China’s Jews and studies of comparative Confucian-Hebrew Bible literary analysis exist. Both sets of material address the complex anthropological-hermeneutical issue of ‘contextualization’:  that is, the problem and possibility of an ‘idea’, or ‘faithtradition’, being framed in local signs or cultural symbols.11 We read Proverbs and the Confucian Classics in light of prolonged discussion of the degree to which biblical, theological motifs are legitimately understood as merely Western forms of universal ideas that Chinese philosophy and religion/s (like all world religions) also reflect. Our topic is part of a larger philosophical and practical debate about inter-culturalism within which rhetoric and language play a central role.

dead in secular clothes as the Chinese do, but in linen’ (Heinz 2000, 117). On Kaifeng’s Jews as a hoax built on James Finn’s The Jews in China (1840), and The Orphan Colony of Jews in China (1874), see Zhuo 2005. 8.  See Daniel J. Elazar, ‘Are There Really Jews in China? An Update’, http://www.jcpa. org/dje/articles2/china.htm (accessed 22 June 2016). 9. Proof of Jewish identity is required for Israeli citizenship. Chinese Jews have become ‘proselytes’ to gain a Jewish identity. 10.  The ‘Dalsheimer Rare Book Exhibit’ at Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, OH, contains Chinese-Jewish materials from Kaifeng, including a siddur and a Hebrew codex of the Bible (with randomly placed vowels!). The British Library has a Torah scroll from the Kaifeng Synagogue. The Pentateuch used in the Kaifeng synagogue 寺 (NB. si also translates ‘mosque’) lacks later diacritics. 11. See Gumperz 1982a and b; Coe 1973, 1974; Van Engen 2005. Cf. Schloesser 2014, 347, who describes Ricci’s own True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (1603) aptly as ‘hybridizing cultural accommodation’. For a recent account of Jesuit ‘accommodationism’, see Laven 2011. The Catholic China mission is famous for pioneering ‘accommodation’ to culture and the associated ‘Rites controversy’ and ‘Term question’ (which both involved theology, ritual and terminological enculturation). On the continuing impact of debates about the right Chinese ‘term’ for God, see Eber 1999, 199ff.

206

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

For more than 400 years scholars and missionaries have engaged in various forms of Confucian-Christian dialogue. As we have seen, Hewat focused on Hebrew and Chinese wisdom in Proverbs and the Analects. In 1969, Benedict Sung-Hae Kim wrote on the related theme of wisdom in the apocryphal/deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom and the fourth to fifth century BCE, Tao Te Ching 向⍵䊍 (also known by its reputed author, Laozi 䎿Ἆ). More recently Professor Yao Xinzhong (2006) has published Wisdom in Early Confucian and Israelite Traditions.12 Yao’s work begins with a review of recent work on ‘wisdom’. It then turns to the Hebrew Bible and early Confucianism. Chapter 1 examines wisdom comparatively. Chapter 2 introduces Confucian and Israelite sources. Chapters 3–7 track thematic similarities, looking at wisdom as knowledge, as a way of life, and in relation to virtue, family, society, sages, secularity, and sacredness, to see if ‘a common framework of wisdom thinking can be established’ (ix). Ironically, Yao wants to ‘draw attention to the tranquil and moderate characteristics of the old Confucian and Israelite wisdom’, in contrast to ‘the disturbing and extreme ways of living that have been adopted in some quarters of the world today’. This generous, ‘religious studies’ approach to Sino-Christian thought provides useful contextual resources for our study of key texts. Yao also shows how Confucianism and Israelite religion were enriched by commentarial practice. In both traditions, texts inhabit a socio-literary space at once respected and contested; hence, a sharp diachronic (author-centred) or synchronic (reader-centred) distinction is inappropriate. Commentarial tradition nurtures a conscious or unconscious sense of reading texts with others to discover what they mean for us. Comparative study of wisdom in Proverbs and the Confucian Classics endorses the principle that intertextuality is rightly embedded in communal understanding. Yao’s work illustrates the possibility of thematic paralleling of Proverbs and the Confucian Classics, particularly here the Analects.13 The temptation to draw simplistic conclusions is strong. Formal similarities are interpretatively seductive. For, here are:  (i) two classic, textual expressions of the philosophical, social, and ethical mind of two of the great ‘Axial ages’ (Jaspers 1949); (ii) proverbial formulae and moral teaching in stylized narrative and homely pedagogy; (iii) fine literary resources linked to particular individuals and traceable communities; and

12. See also Yao 1997, 2000. 13.  Our primary focus here is the Analects, Lunyu 论语 (lit. ‘collected sayings’) of Confucius (a Latinized name early Jesuit missionaries gave to ‘Grand Master Kong’, Kong Fuzi 孔夫子). The Analects contain twenty books of ‘edited conversations’ between the ‘Master’ and his disciples. Traditionally compiled by Confucius’s followers during the ‘Warring States period’ (475–221 CE), the present form derives from the mid-Han Dynasty 漢朝 (206–220 BCE). The Analects’ standing has risen over time. Most scholars agree it provides access to Confucius’s mind and life. It remains a major inspiration for Chinese and East Asian culture and morality. The fortunes of Confucianism per se have fluctuated, with the twentieth century witnessing new heights and depths. Quotations from the Analects are from Slingerland 2003.

16. Proverbs and the Confucian Classics

207

(iv) finite texts with evolving commentary and prolonged sociopolitical application. Much could be said of such formal similarities. The textual and thematic content of Proverbs and the Confucian Classics offer other important parallels. Shared topics are treated in similar ways. Compare, for example, what is said of parent-child relations (Analects 2:5; Prov 23:22), respect for elders (Analects 18:7; Prov 27:18), the ‘good’ and ‘righteous’ life (Analects 5:16; Prov 1:2–5), self-discipline (Analects 15:18; Prov 3:11), moral failure (Analects 16:7; Prov 5:7–10), the nature of success (Analects 15:32; Prov 3:13–18), memory (Analects 7:28; Prov 4:13), priorities (Analects 20:3; Prov 4:1–9), single-mindedness (Analects 4:1–6; Prov 11:30; 21:21), a balanced perspective (Analects 6:29; Prov 6:16–19), humility (Analects 15:18; Prov 11:2; 18:12), and the power of words (Analects 14:27; Prov 18:21). With an eye on cross-cultural courtesies, we might engage in useful thematic and textual dialogue, while avoiding projection of conformity on ancient, independent traditions and/or the naïve conviction that likeness is necessarily substantial. However, as modern literary studies and hermeneutics urge, the mechanics of language and the subtleties of semantics only take us so far: meaning must match authorial intent, texts reflect communal understanding, and ‘contextualization’ should not compromise a text’s inherent integrity. An intertextual approach heightens sensitivity to these issues. Seen thus, awareness of the dissimilarities between Proverbs and the Confucian Classics becomes more pressing; indeed, differences run deep. As we will see, Proverbs claims a theocentric source for life-determining wisdom14: in its honouring of divine wisdom, an authorial, diachronic approach is natural. In contrast, the Confucian Classics reflect an inductive, anthropocentric, sociopolitical morality in which the reader is empowered and a synchronic approach more attractive. Again, the Analects honour the likeable but luckless ‘Master Confucius’, while Proverbs promotes Sophia (lit. wisdom), female co-architect of Creation and secret source of life’s meaning and power.15 Further, the practical, social ethic of the Confucian Classics targets a professional and moral elite formed by ancient wisdom for contemporary public service. Their aim is formation of the junzi ៙Ἆ, an exemplary, moral bureaucrat, or ‘perfect gentleman’,16 who lives the ‘Way of Heaven’, like the neo-mythic figures Wen ᠦ⥅㝉 and Wu ᠦ⼤㝉, Kings of the ancient Zhou Dynasty ᠦ⫛ (eleventh century to 221 BCE). Through intentional service, the junzi  – in contrast to the petty-minded, indisciplined and selfinterested ‘small person’, xiaoren ῍ቸ – attracts ‘Heaven’s blessing’ and conforms ‘earth’ to ‘heaven’ by the strength of his moral character and disciplined, ritual life.17 Contrariwise Proverbs is seen by most scholars to be for all, male and female, 14. See, for example, Prov 1:7; 2:6; 4:1–13; 15:33–16:3. 15. See, for example, Prov 7:4; 8:22–31; 9:1–6. 16. On the junzi (trans. ‘The Noble Man’) in Analects, see de Bary 1991, 24–45. 17. See, for example, Analects 2:1, ‘The Master said, “One who rules through the power of Virtue is analogous to the Pole Star:  it simply remains in its place and receives the homage of the myriad lesser stars” ’ (Slingerland 2003, 8: cf. also Analects 2:3, 21; 12:17, 19, and esp. 15:5).

208

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

young and old, rich and poor, ruler and ruled. And, if at heart the Confucian Classics and the Analects esteem li 㳺 (‘ritual propriety’, viz., doing and saying the right thing at the right time in the right way to the right person18) and de ⍵ (attractive virtue, dynamic morality19), Proverbs’ aim is to instruct the reader in a wise, prudent, disciplined, peaceable, ‘righteous’ and ultimately ‘blessed’ life in the sight of God, family, and neighbour.20 General thematic contrasts between these two ancient texts might be so presented. But a careful, intertextual analysis of Proverbs and the Analects must go deeper to probe the power, potential, and pedagogical purpose of the wisdom they envision. That is our aim in Part II.

Intertextual Comparison Four texts from Proverbs and the Analects help to illuminate what Israelite religion and Confucianism think and do with wisdom. We examine the problems and possibilities of intertextual reading through these representative texts. a. Prov 1:7: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.’21 In this famous motto (see also Prov 9:10; Job 28:28; Ps 111:10; Eccl 12:13), honoured uniquely by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the theocentricity of wisdom is unequivocally enunciated; as W.  J. Dumbrell (1997, 462) writes, ‘[T]he fear of Yahweh is the first principle, that upon which wisdom is based.’ In contrast to the proverbial, proud ‘fool’, the humble, ‘righteous’ god-fearer (2:5) sees Yahweh as the origin, source, fount, principal part (1:7), prerequisite (9:10),22 and guardian of ‘wisdom’; that is, of rational or factual knowledge and of practical, moral teaching. As often noted, the motto in Prov 1:7 is of ‘programmatic’ (Aitken 1997, 1097) significance for the book as a whole. Here in nuce is the disciplined, spiritual heart of a Hebrew view of God’s relation to wisdom and wisdom’s relation to God. In the language of Karl Barth, Proverbs presents wisdom as always ‘beginning at the beginning’,23 which is God,

18.  See, for example, Analects 12:1, ‘Yan Hui asked about Goodness. The Master said, “Restraining yourself and returning to the rites (keji fuli 克己復禮) constitutes Goodness. If for one day you managed to restrain yourself and return to the rites, in this way you could lead the entire world back to Goodness. The key to achieving Goodness lies within yourself—how could it come from others?” ’ See also 3:11; 8:2, 8; 12:11; 14:41; 16:13; 20:3. On the Confucian concept keji fuli (lit. to discipline oneself and return to ritual), see Yao 2003, I.325; Wen 2010, 157; Olberding 2014, 87. 19.  See, for example, Analects 2:1; 4:25; 7:23; 12:19; 14:42; 15:5. On the transformative (almost magical) power of de 德 in the life and work of a ruler, see Slingerland 2003, 242. 20. See, for example, Prov 1:2–4; 2:20–22; 3:1–18; 8:1–21. 21. Biblical references are from the New International Version. 22. NB: the different words in Hebrew for ‘beginning’ in 1:7 and 9:10. Their contrasting meanings (on which too much emphasis can be placed) are reflected in the list here. 23. Quoted in Hunsinger (2004, 21).

16. Proverbs and the Confucian Classics

209

and as seeking to live into and out of a dynamic relationship with God’s true, revealed word for life, through to life’s ultimate end24; as Moffatt translates Prov 9:10b, ‘To know the Deity is what knowledge means.’25 Or, as Dumbrell (1997, 462)  summarizes wisdom and religion in Proverbs, ‘[W]isdom has a religious foundation, a positive devotion to God, which means the renunciation of pride and the expression of humility. It means the renunciation of autonomy and trusting Yahweh at every step of life’s progress, again an accurate description of what is involved in humility (Prov 3:5–7).’ Wisdom in Proverbs is antithetical to self-reliance and moral compromise. It is manifest in perfect dependence on the sovereign will and purpose of God, from which blessing and flourishing derive (see Prov 10:27; 14:26–27; 16:20; 19:23; 29:25). There is nothing like this in the Analects or Confucian Classics. For, the character most often translated ‘wisdom’ in the Confucian Classics, zhi ⨸, is knowledge or intellect to construe reality accurately, to solve problems quickly, and to handle the relation between self and the environment well. As Lisa Raphals (1992, 16) points out, zhi is ‘a moral virtue’ praised in those with ‘the ability to transform and regulate the social order’. It is taught, learned, refined, and, crucially, situationally determined and applied.26 As a practical virtue zhi serves the higher Confucian goods of ren ቿ (lit. benevolence, humaneness) and li 㳺 (ritual propriety). It is part of a nexus of Confucian virtues, as a social ideal and relational, moral obligation.27 Further, it is widely accepted that early Confucianism has little, if any, sense of spiritual transcendence, as in the Judeo-Christian God. The term used for God by early Jesuit missionaries was the Confucian tian ᳧, used of the Zhou’s ᠦ⫛ tribal God and the Shang’s ᤄ⫛ (? ca. 1600–1046 BCE) ‘Lord on High’. In time, tian acquired anthropomorphic connotations and was linked to a cosmic, determinative, moral, and sociopolitical power. Jesuit missionaries (and others28) believed tian connoted a sufficiently dynamic, determinative, moral potency and trans-historical vitality, to be applied

24. On teleological ‘fear of the Lord’ here, see Aitken 1997, 1097. 25. Cf. quoted in Kidner (1974, 83). 26. See, for example, Analects 2:17; 5:7; 6:22–3; 14:14, 28; 15:8, 33. 27.  On ren 仁 and the Confucian inversion of the ‘Golden Rule’, see Analects 15:24, ‘Zigong asked, “Is there one word that can serve as a guide for one’s entire life?” The Master answered, “Is it not ‘understanding’ (shu)? Do not impose upon others what you yourself do not desire.” ’ (Cf. also Analects 12:2: ‘Do not impose upon others what you yourself do not desire.’) On the ‘single thread’ of ‘dutifulness’ that binds morality (Analects 4:15), and the right style of speech and manner of life commended by the Analects, see, for example, 1:3; 6:30; 13:27. Ren 仁 is one of five cardinal Confucian virtues, along with yi 義 (honesty, uprightness), zhi 知 (knowledge), xin 信 (faithfulness), and li 礼 (correct behaviour); see Yao 2000, 34. 28.  For a spiritualized, New Confucian interpretation of tian, see, for example, Tu and Tucker 2004, and Miller 2006. On Confucianism and Chinese religion, see Chan 1953; Ching 1993; Chen 2013; Taylor 1998. For a contrary (de-politicized) view of (New) Confucian spirituality, see Sun 2005.

210

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

to the Christian ‘God’. And there is ‘fear’ in tian,29 a dread of adverse, whimsical, cosmic forces, not Proverbs’ personalized ‘fear of the Lord’, borne of awed devotion and creaturely praise. Basic theological and epistemological differences exist, then, between the (essential) theocentricity of wisdom in Proverbs and the (contested) anthropocentricity of zhi and its higher source or rationale, tian. We will return to this distinction later. b. Analects 2:4:  ‘The Master said, “At fifteen, I set my mind upon learning; at thirty, I  took my place in society; at forty, I  became free of doubts; at fifty, I  understood Heaven’s Mandate; at sixty, my ear was attuned; and at seventy, I  could follow my heart’s desires without overstepping the bounds of propriety.”’30 The profile of Analects 2:4 parallels that of Prov 1:7. Confucius describes his path through life, providing the junzi with his own motto to memorize and emulate.31 Wisdom finds expression here in a personal, narrative form, as a lifelong quest demanding will, action, enlightenment, and sensitivity. This leads finally to a spontaneous fulfilment of the ‘Way’ (‘without overstepping the bounds of propriety’), wu-wei ⦞ᇸ, an unselfconscious ‘non-doing’ and/or purposeful ‘inactivity’.32 The pedagogical, evolutionary, political, intellectual, psychological, and ultimately corporate character of morality in Analects 2:4 expresses well the spirit and character of wisdom, zhi, in early Confucianism. This wisdom is pursued, learned, practised, nurtured, honoured, and finally consummated in the purposeful junzi. Central to growth in wisdom is, as Confucius tells the young Zhong You ኰ㣯 (courtesy title, Zilu Ἆ弭), ‘to recognize what you know as what you know, and recognize what you do not know as what you do not know’ (Analects 2:17). Analects 2:4 is important for us in two respects: first, commentarial debate about its meaning and translation (e.g., on ‘took my place’, ‘was attuned’ and ‘doubt’ in relation to ‘understanding Heaven’s Mandate’) underline the difficulty of text-based comparison with other philosophical or religious sources. Analects 2:4 might reflect a mystical process or pre-empt the fuller Confucian ‘ladder of (moral and spiritual) ascent’.33 It might also be simply autobiographical. We must read the Analects aright intra-textually before we interpret it intertextually: neither is, as illustrated here, straightforward. Second, Analects 2:4 presents wisdom in early Confucianism as a personal, practical, human undertaking. Wisdom is not found in an idealization of thought, love of learning (cf. philo-sophia, lit. love of wisdom), or developed ‘system’. The Analects’ twenty books present Confucius teaching,

29. See Analects 3:13; 6:28 and Yao 2000, 146. 30. Slingerland 2003, 9. 31.  Cf. Slingerland’s (2003, idem) ‘three pairs of stages’ in Confucius’s evolutionary development and evidence from commentarial debate. 32. NB: wu-wei 无为 is central in later Taoism (see Laozi 2:38, 48). In Analects, see 2:1, 21; 8:18, 19; 12:19; 13:6; 15:5; 17:19; also Ames 1981; Loy 1985; Olberding 2014, 166–67. 33.  See Yao 2006, 110–12; Hsu and Wu 2014, 190–91; also Dawson 2005 and Hall and Ames 1987.

16. Proverbs and the Confucian Classics

211

cautioning, and training in wisdom from experience. He is an honest, flawed, irritable, and inspiring mentor, who prods, encourages, chides, and, when needed, studiedly ignores his disciples. Confucian wisdom draws on human experience, on memory, success, ritual, respect, folly, and failure. We might contrast this with the divine, heavenly gift of wisdom in Proverbs – or even, pace nineteenth-century critics (in China and the West), with ‘higher forms’ of Western philosophy34 – but that is simplistic. Intertextual readings of Proverbs and the Analects highlight the public, communal, evolutionary, personal pedagogy also found in Hebrew wisdom literature. We cannot imagine reading Analects 2:4 in Proverbs, but we almost can. The wise, learned, compassionate father in Proverbs (cf. 1:8; 2:1; 3:1, 21; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1, 20; 7:1, etc.) is redolent of Confucius’s relation to his disciples.35 Both figures seek protégés who are disciplined, prudent, discrete, faithful, good, and true, who progress from naivety, immaturity, and folly to emotional balance, sound judgement, artistic refinement, and a chiselled personality. As in Proverbs, wisdom in the Analects is taught and caught, it is thought and done; its parabolic style and pithy formulae rendering it both practical and memorable.36 Contrast might dominate our conclusions, but commonality is more evident than biblicist exclusivism and Confucian chauvinism would suggest. If wisdom is always (to a degree) an expression of human morality and intention, intertextual analysis helps to identify thematic contrasts and important points of direct comparison between Proverbs and the Analects. c. Prov 3:19:  ‘By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew.’ This text presents the ‘crowning truth’ (Kidner 1974, 65) of the cosmic, co-creating character, presence, and primacy of wisdom in Proverbs, of which 8:22–31 is the famous peon of praise. Robin Wakely (1997, 368) rightly points out: ‘Wisdom’s role as the witness of God is unparalleled: she is the first of his acts of creation (8:22) and witnessed the primeval events: she enjoys a unique relationship with the Creator (8:30), and, among the things created by God, her authority and power are unequalled.’ Alongside this creative action is an exuberant, joyful reaction (like God) to all that is created ‘good’ (8:30–31; Gen 1:31).37 Whether wisdom is a differentiated hypostatic entity or a vivid, poetic personification, these related texts illuminate the simple, doxological, ethical core of the Hebrew Bible’s theology of creation. The one, indivisible, God creates providential order and predictable goodness. This divine determination is the predicate of moral action. As such, Prov 3:9 and 8:22–31 reflect Hebrew Bible ethical consequentialism. Despite human vulnerability, actions have consequences because God and his creation are trustworthy. As C. J. H. Wright (1997, 588) has

34. See, for example, on Kant’s criticism of Confucius, Palmquist 2010, 775–77. 35. See Rosemont and Ames 2009, 10–12. 36. Cf. on the style, structure, and purpose of the Analects, see Van Norden 2002, 13–23; Olberding 2014, 226–28. 37. On joy here in Proverbs, see, for example, IDOTTE 4: 207.

212

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

written (with Prov 1:8 in mind): ‘Whatever results follow from our actions are not mechanical cause and effect, but the outworking of God’s own order in his world. The consequentialism of Wisdom is thus based on what we would theologically call God’s sovereign providence and justice.’ As Kidner (1974, 79) writes, ‘The wisdom by which the world is rightly used is none other than the wisdom by which it exists.’ The New Testament sees in the personification of wisdom prophetic types of the antitypical Son, the wisdom and word of God, Jesus Christ (Col 1:15–17; 2:3; Rev 3:14). As a basis for intertextual dialogue with the Confucian Classics Prov 3:19 and 8:22–31 are invaluable. Like wisdom in Proverbs, the Confucian terms yi Ⓧ (intention), qi ⿡ (energy), and li ᙙ (physical strength) incorporate a cosmic, moral sense of power at work in nature and in individuals. Likewise, the Confucian ‘Way’, dao 向, and ‘Heavenly Mandate’, tianming ᳧ᠻ, are not dry ideals:  like God and wisdom in Proverbs, they are dynamic, determinative instruments that actively induct humanity in what is good, beautiful, beneficial, appropriate, and true. As such, intertextuality also highlights the shared sense here of the joyful, beneficial power of wisdom: a wise life is qualitatively superior. d. Analects 15:33:  ‘The Master said, “If your wisdom reaches it, but your Goodness cannot protect it, then even though you may have attained it, you are sure eventually to lose it. If your wisdom reaches it, and your Goodness is able to protect it, but you cannot manifest it with dignity, then the common people will not be respectful. If your wisdom reaches it, your Goodness is able to protect it, and you can manifest it with dignity, but you do not use ritual to put it into motion, it will never be truly excellent.” ’38 Though ambiguous, ‘it’ (understood generally as the ‘Way’ or an official position) does not reduce the value of this passage as an exposition of the complex, conditional nature of wisdom in classical Confucianism. The Analects do not see wisdom in absolute, moral or spiritual, terms. To Confucius wisdom is a provisional, conditional, relational response that is situationally applied and constantly relearned.39 It can be thwarted by moral failure, loss of ‘dignity’ or ritual laxity. It involves perceiving the ‘Way’, reading people or situations aright, and speaking the right words at the right time.40 The wise thing to do may be to keep silent, massage the truth or protect one’s family (at whatever cost) from shame or threat. We see something of this fluid, inductive, situational view of wisdom in Proverbs: but, like the rest of the Hebrew Bible, Proverbs’ emphasis falls on wisdom as human imitation of unchanging divine truth, purity, faithfulness, law, and love. A failure to honour God or to seek his wisdom – more than any want of goodness, dignity or ritual propriety – wrecks a person’s life (see, e.g., Prov 1:10–19, 24–32; 5:7–14; 9:13–18). Unlike the Analects, wisdom is in Proverbs ultimately accountable not to a human

38. See Slingerland 2003, 187. 39.  The situational nature of wisdom is seen especially in relation to the virtue of ‘dutifulness’, zhong 忠 (see Analects 4:15); but, duty to a ruler is not boundless nor loyalty to a family limited (see Analects 5:19; 8:14; 13:15, 23; 14:7, 21, 26). 40. See, for example, Analects 14:12, 14; 15:8, 34; also on wisdom, see 2:17; 5:7; 6:22–23.

16. Proverbs and the Confucian Classics

213

ruler, ancient tradition, or complex nexus of social and familial obligations, but to the eternal God, before whom ‘fear’ is entirely legitimate. Intertextual comparison highlights this deep teleological difference between Proverbs and the Analects.

Conclusion Three principles emerge, I  suggest, from intertextual study of these four texts. First, as we have seen, a clear, comprehensive, cross-cultural view of ‘wisdom’ per se does not exist. The idea of ‘wisdom’ is inextricably entwined in complex philosophical, moral, religious, and linguistic cultural systems. Second, parallel uses of ‘wisdom’ as a behavioural or religious ideal can, as here, be established between different cultural communities. Cultural embedding does not prevent conceptual comparison: the Analects and Proverbs both use the idea of ‘wisdom’ to promote moral integrity and behavioural consistency. Third, the degree to which useful intertextual comparisons can be drawn depends on a careful reading of primary sources. Meaning and agreement are not found apart from a community that concurs and a relationship that aspires. For, as the Analects and Proverbs show, wisdom is thought, said, intended, and, finally, done.

Bibliography Aitken, K. T. 1997. Proverbs: Sayings and Themes. Pages 1094–1100 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. 4. Gen. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. Ames, Roger T. 1981. Wu-wei in ‘The Art of Rulership’ Chapter of Huai Nan Tzu: Its Sources and Philosophical Orientation. Philosophy East and West 31.2:193–213. Chan, Wing-tsit. 1953. Religious Trends in Modern China. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Chen, Yong. 2013. Confucianism as Religion: Controversies and Consequences. Leiden: Brill. Ching, Julia. 1993. Chinese Religions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Coe, Shoki. 1973. In Search of Renewal in Theological Education. Theological Education 9.4:233–243. Coe, Shoki. 1974. Theological Education – a Worldwide Perspective. Theological Education 11.1:5–12. Dawson, Miles Menander. 2005. The Ethics of Confucius. New York: Cosimo Classics. De Bary, William M. 1991. The Trouble with Confucianism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dumbrell, J. 1997. #6705 ‫ ָﬠנָ ו‬. Pages 454–64 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. 3. Gen. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. Eber, Irene. 1999. The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible: S.I.J. Schereschewsky (1831– 1906). Leiden: Brill. Ehrlich, Avrum M., ed. 2008. The Jewish-Chinese Nexus: A Meeting of Civilisations. Abingdon: Routledge.

214

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Epstein, Maram. 2000. Review of The Jews of China, Volume 1: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, by Jonathan Goldstein. China Review International 7:453–45. Goldstein, Jonathan, ed. 1999. The Jews of China, Volume 1: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Granet, Marcel. 1975. The Religion of the Chinese People. Translation and introduction by Maurice Freedman. New York: Harper and Row. Gumperz, J. J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J., ed. 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1987. Thinking through Confucius. Albany, NJ: SUNY Press. Hancock, Christopher. 2006. Wisdom as Folly: Comparative Reflections on a Pauline Paradox. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 33.3:421–38. Hancock, Christopher. 2013. Memory, Rite and Tradition: A Comparative ConfucianChristian Literary Analysis. Frontiers of Chinese Philosophy 9.2:301–17. Hancock, Christopher. 2014. The Seven-fold Wisdom of Love: A Comparative ConfucianChristian Reading of 1 Corinthians 13. International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 6:109–20. Heinz, Dawid. 2000. From Berlin to Tianjin. Pages 110–22 in The Jews of China, Volume 2: A Sourcebook and Research Guide. Edited and with an introduction by Jonathan Goldstein. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Hewat, Elizabeth G. K. 1935. Hebrew and Chinese Wisdom: A Comparative Study of the Book of Proverbs and the Analects of Confucius. International Review of Mission 24:506–14. Hsu, Shihkuan and Yuh-Yin Wu, eds. 2014. Education as Cultivation in Chinese Culture. Singapore: Springer. Hunsinger, George, ed. 2004. For the Sake of the World: Karl Barth and the Future of Ecclesial Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Jaspers, Karl. 1949. Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte [The Origin and Goal of History]. München: Artemis-Verlag. Kidner, Derek. 1974. Proverbs. TOTC. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: IVP. Laven, Mary. 2011. Mission to China: Matteo Ricci and the Jesuit Encounter with the East. London: Faber and Faber. Littlejohn, Ronnie L. 2011. Confucianism: An Introduction. New York: Tauris. Loy, David. 1985. Wei-wu-wei: Nondual Action. Philosophy East and West 35.1:73–87. Miller, James, ed. 2006. Chinese Religions in Contemporary Societies. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Olberding, Amy, ed. 2014. Dao Companion to the Analects. Dordrecht: Springer. Palmquist, Stephen R., ed. 2010. Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy. Berlin: de Gruyter. Raiskin, Shlomy. 2006. A Bibliography on Chinese Jewry. Moreshet Israel (Journal of Judaism, Zionism and Eretz-Israel) 3:60–85. Raphals, Lisa Ann. 1992. Knowing Words: Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Rosemont, Henry, and Roger T. Ames. 2009. The Chinese Classic of Family Reverence: A Philosophical Translation of the Xiaojing. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Schloesser, Stephen. 2014. Accommodation as a Rhetorical Principle: Twenty Years after John O’Malley’s The First Jesuits (1993). Journal of Jesuit Studies 1:347–72.

16. Proverbs and the Confucian Classics

215

Schwartz, Benjamin. 1985. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Slingerland, Edward, ed. 2003. Confucius Analects: with Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianapolis: Hackett. Sun, Anna Xiao Dong. 2005. The Fate of Confucianism as a Religion in Socialist China: Controversies and Paradoxes. Pages 229–51 in State, Market and Religions in Chinese Societies. Edited by Yang Fenggang and Joseph B. Tawney. Leiden: Brill. Tate, M. E. 1972. Proverbs. Pages 1–99 in Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol. 5. Edited by William A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. Taylor, Rodney L. 1998. The Religious Character of Confucianism. Philosophy East and West 48:80–107. Trigault, Nicolas. 1953. Pages 107–11 in China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Mathew Ricci: 1583–1610. Translated by L. J. Gallagher. New York: Random House. Tu, Weiming and Mary Evelyn Tucker, eds. 2004. Confucian Spirituality. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Crossroad. Van Engen, Charles E. 2005. Toward a Contextually Appropriate Methodology in Mission Theology. Pages 203–26 in Appropriate Christianity. Edited by Charles Kraft. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library. Van Norden, Brian W., ed. 2002. Confucius and the Analects: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wakely, Robin. 1997. #6451 ‫עזז‬. Pages 365–77 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. 3. Gen. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. Wen, Haiming. 2010. Chinese Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, Christopher J. H. 1997. Ethics. Pages 585–94 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. 4. Gen. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. Yao, Xinzhong. 1997. Confucianism and Christianity – A Comparative Study of Jen and Agape. Sussex: Sussex Academic Press. Yao, Xinzhong. 2000. Introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yao, Xinzhong. 2003. The Encyclopedia of Confucianism. 2 Vols. London: Routledge. Yao, Xinzhong. 2006. Wisdom in Early Confucian and Israelite Traditions: A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Ashgate. Zhuo, Xun. 2005. The Kaifeng Jew Hoax: Constructing the ‘Chinese Jews’. Pages 68–80 in Orientalism and the Jews. Edited by Ivan Davidson Kalmar and Derek Jonathan Penslar. Hanover: UPNE.

Chapter 17 S E X A N D P OW E R ( L E S SN E S S ) I N S E L E C T E D N O RT H E R N S O T HO A N D Y O R Ù B Á P R OV E R B S :   A N I N T E RT E X T UA L R E A D I N G O F P R OV E R B S   5 – 7 Madipoane Masenya (Ngwan’a Mphahlele) and Funlola Olojede

Do not lend three things: power, a wife, a gun. – Fulani, Senegal1 The intertextual reading in the present chapter occurs within two different wisdom traditions, the ancient Israelite, as revealed in selected texts from the book of Proverbs, and proverbs from two African contexts, the Yorùbá Nigerian and the Northern Sotho South African contexts. While it is acknowledged that there are differences between the two sapiential traditions in terms of time, culture, language, and geographical location, among others, research has also recognized points of resemblance between the worldview embedded in some of the proverbs in the Hebrew Bible and the one underlying many African proverbs including Yorùbá and Northern Sotho proverbs (Burden and Bosman 1982; Masenya 1989; Kimilike 2008). Besides, African proverbs like their Hebrew counterparts also have their locus in wisdom, as illustrated in a Yorùbá proverb which says, ‘It is through a series of proverbs that the agidigbo drum is beaten, only the wise can dance to it and only the knowledgeable can understand it.’ The resemblances between the proverbs of these two different cultures could be accounted for based on the assumption that both the Israelite and African peoples (the Yorùbá and Northern Sotho in the present text) share a common optimistic outlook on reality. We have chosen to touch on an important subject within African (biblical) scholarship, the subject of sex, power, and gender as reflected in selected African and biblical proverbs on adultery. Being also cognizant of the gaps between the two African contexts, we wish to focus on the following questions with regard to this theme: How do power and sex intersect in the depictions of women and men in the biblical and African proverbial materials under investigation? Is there equal treatment of men and women in the celebration and/or condemnation of sexual 1.  Tenor:  One does not lend these items, as one will encounter difficulty in getting them back.

218

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

desire in the texts? What were/are the societal views (if these could be traced) about women whose sexual powers appear to be untamed (cf. Yorùbá women and the Strange Woman in Proverbs 5–7)? Could male sexuality be tamed (cf. the young man and warnings against seduction by the Strange Woman in Proverbs 5–7) or could it be celebrated even when it has no boundaries (cf. Northern Sotho proverbs)? Are there specific tensions between the Yorùbá and Northern Sotho proverbs on the theme of sex, power, and gender? Are there any visible tensions between the depictions of women in the African proverbs and those in Proverbs 5–7? Regarding the book of Proverbs, Brenner (2004, 167)  argues, ‘That the producers as well as the consumers of this seemingly oral  – but for us readers literary – training were males seems to be borne out by the texts themselves, as well as by preoccupation with female figures, personifications, and metaphors.’ While we recognize the original oral nature of the materials in both traditions (Brenner 2004; Nkesiga 2005), we also note that the genres in which the materials under investigation occur are different (the short pithy sayings in the case of the African proverbs and longer texts on the Strange Woman selected from the Instructions in the book of Proverbs). Texts from the two different genres are compared based on the simplistic (optimistic) worldviews underlying the two wisdom traditions, on some similarities with (and thus relevance to) the present theme, and on interesting tensions discernible across the various proverbs. One significant difference between the two sets of materials is that the oral origins of the African proverbs2 (even those proverbs which do not appear in print) can still be discerned as the proverbs continue to enjoy overt usage/circulation in various African contexts. However, the biblical proverbs which have long been put in writing appear in a book which historically and even at present is considered an important and authoritative religious document among African people particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Proverbs 5–7 The theme of sex, power, and gender in selected Hebrew Bible and African proverbs on adultery is a broad one. In order to delimit the scope of our investigation, we shall focus on the theme as it affects primarily men and women in the two contexts. We are thus keen to consider the activities of the Strange Woman, depicted mainly as an adulteress3 in Proverbs 5–7, even though in the selected African texts, the focus is on men and women in the marital context. 2. The oral nature of African proverbs as well as their use mainly by African (male and female) elders is captured succinctly by Nkesiga (2005, 255) who shows that ‘elders were the “wisdom texts” of proverbs in the African oral tradition’. 3. Many (feminist) scholars have rightly argued that the Strange Woman is one woman with many faces  – among others, a woman from outside the ‘pure’ lineage (Washington 1994), one who transgresses arranged sexual boundaries (Camp 1985), one who draws a young man away from wisdom (Yee 1995,126), and a needy woman (cf. her trade in

17. Sex and Power(lessness)

219

There are two occurrences of the root ‫( נאף‬to commit adultery) in the book of Proverbs (Prov 6:32; 30:20), and Abasili (2016, 19) rightly argues that the b oo k of Prov erbs stresses adultery’s social consequences without neglecting its s piritua l/religious detrimental outcomes for the individual. Proverbs 5– 7 contains three large sets of instructions on the dangers of adultery or extramarital s ex ( 5:1– 23 ; 6:20– 35; 7:1– 27). In the instructions, the youth is enjoined to listen to the directives of the elders (the sage/father/mother), embrace wisdom, knowledge, and insight (5:1–2) in order to avoid the real potential threat of the Strange Woman (an adulteress), and abstain from indulging in sexual pleasure outside of marriage. The simplistic worldview connected with the notion of reward and punishment that leaves no room for exceptions is notable within the instruction literature. Fontaine (1992, 146) argues, Unlike the contents of the Prophets, which is often critical of abuses in society, most of the wisdom traditions of Proverbs are associated with the preservation of the status quo of the male elite. One of the ways this may be observed is through the sages’ belief in the act consequence relationship that undergirds much of the thinking in the book.

Thus, the young man would do well to heed the words of the elders in order to escape the snares of the Strange Woman. Otherwise, he would unavoidably end up in trouble (5:22–23). Prov 5:1–23 In 5:1–23, the youth is warned to exercise sexual restraint and to avoid ‘sexual liaisons with other women’ (Horne 2003, 93), specifically, with strange women. Verses 3–6 show that the goal of the immoral woman is to seduce young men. The woman in 5:1–23 is depicted as a seductress whose end is bitter. The outcome for the youth who philanders with her is also death. He is therefore encouraged to drink waters from his ‘own cistern’ and ‘running waters’ from his own well (5:15–16), which means he should find sexual pleasure within the confines of his marriage. In a sense, the chapter pitches the Strange Woman against the wife of one’s youth and extramarital sex against marital sex. Whereas it denounces the Strange Woman and her activities, it exalts the wife of one’s youth and her physical qualities.

prostitution) (Heijerman 1995, 105). Claudia Camp (1985, 31) has particularly advanced the discussion on the Strange Woman by examining among others, its origins and significance in Yehud and the sociopolitical, religious, and economic context in which the Strange Woman operated. In this chapter, we consider the Strange Woman primarily as a woman who operates her sexual powers outside legitimate sexual boundaries, hence the warnings to the son against the adulteress.

220

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

Prov 6:20–35 In 6:20–35, both father and mother warn the youth against sexual relationships with a prostitute as well as with a married woman. The prostitute operates through flattery and seduction (6:24–26) and the married woman is depicted as a hunter or predator (6:26); it is sheer foolishness to engage in a sexual relationship with either. Further, there is a price to pay for adultery, which is an act considered analogous to stealing (6:27–33). However, ‘[t]he price of adultery, far from stealing, is physical pain, public shame, and the unquenchable wrath of the woman’s husband’ (Horne 2003, 113). Prov 7:1–27 Proverbs 7 is classified as the last of the four instructions on adultery (the first one being 2:16–19), which ends with concluding reflections in 9:13–18 (Horne 2003, 115). The narrator of the piece relates a scene in which a youth is being lured by a seductress at the corner of the street. The account provides a vivid description of the physical appearance of the woman, who happens to be married but claims her husband has gone on a business trip. In the scene, the woman is the only one doing the talking – the young man’s voice is not heard. ‘With her fair speech’, she propositions the youth, promising him a night of erotic love. The woman here is portrayed as brash, brazen, and forceful. She is the seducer, flatterer, aggressor, and female predator who transgresses ‘legal and social boundaries to pursue an illicit relationship with the youth’, and her action is fraught with deception (Clifford 1999, 87; cf. Longman 2006, 189, 185). The unwary youth who appears to be unmarried falls into her snare like an ox that goes to the slaughter. The instructor therefore warns the listeners not to follow such a path of destruction. The brief outline above shows that besides the positive image of woman as the wife of the youth in 5:15–18, the image that permeates chapters 5–7 is that of woman as a dangerous seductress and predator who dresses ‘to kill’ and who cheats on her husband. When read in the light of some selected Northern Sotho and Yorùbá proverbs, the instructions against adultery in Proverbs 5–7 reveal some interesting dynamics of power and gender not only in the biblical world but also in some African contexts.

African Proverbs With regard to gender in proverbs (but in fact with regard to all kinds of texts), the following questions are relevant: Who is quoting? Whose views are presented? Who is subject and who is object? Who profits from the impact such quotations have? Whose is the general consensus referred to? Whose power is perpetuated, at the expense of whom? (Schipper 1991, 4–5)

17. Sex and Power(lessness)

221

The questions posed by Schipper above resonate with the concerns of the present discussion. Although many African linguists have attempted to posit the origins of African proverbs (including Northern Sotho and Yorùbá proverbs), such efforts remain purely speculative. Proverbs are popular sayings that were orally transmitted from one generation to the next. They display the wit and wisdom of the community whose heritage they form. Given the androcentric language and idioms in which the Northern Sotho and Yorùbá proverbs are cast and the male agenda that the proverbs, especially those dealing with the theme of adultery, seem to serve, it is reasonable to conclude that they were devised by men. However, once they were accepted by a community, they became communal property that is not credited to a specific individual author or group of people. Unlike in biblical Israel,4 there is no particular school linked to the production of these sayings in the African contexts. In the following sections, we offer a brief sketch of selected proverbs from two different African contexts in dialogue with the biblical text. Selected Northern Sotho Proverbs on Adultery and Proverbs 5–7 The description of the Strange Woman as one whose lips drip honey and whose speech is smoother than oil, but who in the end brings bitterness and wounds (Prov 5:4–5) calls to mind the gendered Northern Sotho proverb, Se bone thola boreledi, teng ga yona go a baba: ‘Do not be misled by the smoothness of a thola (a certain beautiful fruit); it is bitter inside.’ The father in Prov 5:4–5 warns the son to keep away from such a woman so that his male honour would remain intact, and the fruit of his (sexual?) labour would remain in his family (5:8–10). Another Northern Sotho proverb also problematizes female beauty, though not necessarily in the context of the potential threat of adultery, but possibly in the context of the choice of a marriage partner: Botse re llela boswana, bošwanyana bo a lahletša – ‘Beauty we cry for the darker skinned one, the lighter skinned (one) leads astray.’ Thanks to the deceitfulness linked with outer appearances, inner beauty is therefore preferred to outer beauty. An observation of certain trends in South Africa today would reveal tensions between the biblical text and the Northern Sotho context. Young men known as ‘Ben 10s’ are drawn (not necessarily with the approval of their parents!) to wealthy older women from whom they benefit materially and financially. The women (including married ones) share their resources (wealth) with the younger men in exchange for sexual favours. The fact that some of the Ben 10s have control over the resources of the older women seems to flatter the men’s ego. As a trend, being a Ben 10 does not necessarily attract shame especially among the male youth. In 4. At present, the debate on whether a ‘Wisdom school’ existed in ancient Israel has been resumed by wisdom scholars. In fact, the smooth comparison of the Israelite and African proverbs may indicate that such a school was not necessary (cf. also arguments by scholars who posit a popular setting for the origins of the wisdom materials of ancient Israel).

222

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

such a scenario, female power (buoyed by sex and wealth) is celebrated, but this is in contrast to many Northern Sotho proverbs, as shown below. When Prov 5:15–19 is brought into dialogue with some Northern Sotho proverbs, a serious tension is observable. In Proverbs, the young man is urged to have sex with only one woman, the wife of his youth (v. 15) and be satisfied with her breasts (v. 19). The wife should be the source of his joy and he should take pleasure in her physical features. Here, the Northern Sotho proverb that compares a woman’s buttocks to a sheep’s tail comes to mind, Kgomo go rekwa serope nku e rekwa mosela: ‘A cow, we buy a thigh, a sheep, we buy a tail.’ The tenor implies that men prefer buxom women to slender ones. The preceding exhortation from Proverbs may also give readers the impression that the wife of one’s youth would show fidelity to her husband (i.e. the young man being addressed by the text). Such a faithful wife would fit the image communicated by the proverb, Mosadi ke tšhwene o lewa mabogo:  ‘A woman is a baboon; her hands are eaten.’ The proverb exhorts a married woman to work hard by taking care of her husband’s needs, including his sexual desires. In Proverbs however, the image of the young man’s uncontained ‘streams’ (vv. 16–17) is ambiguous and presents the reader with the possibility that the young man who does not satisfy his partner sexually is at risk of sharing her with strangers. As the depiction of the adultress in Proverbs 7 indicates, the possibility that the young woman also would commit adultery is not far-fetched (cf. Abasili 2016, 313). The exhortation to the young man to show fidelity to his wife in a monogamous arrangement contrasts with a few Northern Sotho proverbs that seem to link desirable manhood to a man’s capacity to engage in sex outside of marriage. Real masculinity is identified with male sexual virility,5 while a woman who shows interest in other men could be referred to derogatorily as nonyana (a bird). Thus, Schipper (1991, 15)  has rightfully noted that in the African context, ‘The polygamous inclination of men is presented as quite natural.’ In the Northern Sotho language, all the proverbs about men start with ‘Monna ke’: ‘A man is.’ The man is likened to a pumpkin plant, an axe, fog, and a baboon in different proverbs. Monna ke thaka o a naba: ‘A man is a pumpkin plant, he spreads.’ Monna ke selepe o lala a louditšwe: ‘A man is an axe, sharpened in the night.’ Monna ke phoka o wa bošego: ‘A man is fog, he falls in the night’, meaning, a man may return home any time, even late at night; he must not be questioned. Monna ke tšhwene o ja ka matsogo a mabedi: ‘A man is a baboon, he eats with two hands.’ The proverbs all imply that a married man’s body can be shared sexually with other women outside of marriage. Interestingly, the female version of the last proverb, ‘A woman is a baboon; her hands are eaten’,6 places the responsibility 5.  The following Rundi proverb would thus make perfect sense within the Sotho setting: ‘Virility gone, one might as well be woman’ (cited by someone aware of his decay, downfall, uselessness, impotence; Schipper 1991, 90). 6. Although the same metaphor of the baboon is used to refer to both man and woman, the proverbs confirm that male interests are usually prioritized in patriarchal societies such as the Sotho.

17. Sex and Power(lessness)

223

of satisfying the man’s sexual needs on the married woman. The tenor of these proverbs persuades us to agree that in the Northern Sotho culture a married man can engage in sex outside marriage without ‘polluting’ anyone or without being deemed a pollutant. It is normal. It is moreover sacred (cf. the fact that it is endorsed by the words of the ancestor). On the other hand, a woman who complains about such a man will be reminded that ga se more, ga a fehlwe, literally, she is not a tree, she cannot be eaten up by moth. (Masenya [ngwana’ Mphahlele] 2001, 199)

In a nutshell, a woman must not question her husband’s extramarital activities. Furthermore, in Prov 6:20–35, the young man is warned to stay away from ‘the wife of another’ (v. 24). He should resist her smooth tongue and her beauty, which is revealed in her eyelashes (vv. 24–25). Although female beauty is acknowledged here (see the discussion of Prov 5:4–5 above), the young man is warned against the serious repercussions of choosing to sleep with a neighbour’s wife, which is a form of self-destruction (v. 32). If, as the African proverbs propose, the (young) man is a pumpkin plant, Proverbs 6 warns that he can only spread in his own field, and tampering with another man’s property could cause him both social and religious death (cf. also Prov 5:33–34). Again, the tension between the warnings against extramarital sex in 6:20–35 and the Northern Sotho proverbs that give men licence to engage in extramarital sex is discernible here. It needs to be mentioned nonetheless that the possibility was small that married women served as consorts to these highly sexed men in the Northern Sotho context in the past. Single women who never married or who were divorced/widowed would have been the more likely potential ‘prey’ for such men. The situation may be different today, as the emerging category of the Ben 10s noted above suggests. The gender-neutral term ‘blesser’ is used nowadays to capture the familiar term ‘Sugar Daddy’, which refers to an elderly man who ‘preys’ on younger women (girls) as ‘lovers’ as well as his female counterpart known as ‘female blesser’. The female ‘blesser’ could be single or married. She is like the unrestrained, sexually passionate woman who lures a young man or numerous young men to have sex with her (cf. Prov 7:26). Female blessers lure younger men who, unlike the youth in Proverbs 7, are not hungry for sex. Rather, they are hungry for material things – designer clothes, exotic cars, and sophisticated cellular phones, among other things. A female blesser, like the Strange Woman, could be affirmed by the Sotho proverb, Monna ke lepai, re a gogelana: ‘A man is a blanket; we (women) share him.’ Its tenor reveals that a man, like a blanket, can be shared by others (women). As far as we know, this is the only Northern Sotho proverb which could be read to encourage women to engage in extramarital sex, and which conspicuously goes against the androcentric grain of many Northern Sotho proverbs on male and female sexuality. Perhaps the proverb aims at deconstructing the problematic masculinities revealed by the proverbs discussed previously as it invites readers to view the other side of the coin. That is, the fact that men can loosely engage in

224

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

extramarital relations may also contribute to male weakness since they can easily become victims and/or prey of the Strange Woman. Selected Yorùbá Proverbs on Adultery and Proverbs 5–7 Having considered some Northern Sotho proverbs on adultery in the light of Proverbs 5–7, we now turn to selected proverbs from the Yorùbá context.7 The different warnings against adultery in the Hebrew Bible text suggest that the image of the immoral and loose woman was a familiar feature in the ancient Israelite world. Although several Yorùbá proverbs encourage marital fidelity especially on the part of women (cf. Ojú kan l’ àdà à ńni: ‘A cutlass has only one sharp edge’),8 in contrast to the Sotho proverbs, numerous Yorùbá proverbs also depict women, particularly married women, as promiscuous. Such proverbs include Gbogbo obìnrin ló ngbésẹ; èyí t’ó bá ṣe tirẹ l’áṣejù l’aráyé ń pè l’áṣẹwó: ‘All women engage in infidelity; but it is the one that does so in excess that is labelled a prostitute.’ Ẹni t’ó fẹ arẹwà fẹ ìyọnu; gbogbo ayé ní mbá wọn tan: ‘Whoever marries a beautiful woman marries trouble; the whole world of men claims kinship with her.’ In other words, the husband of a beautiful woman will have the whole world of scheming men to fend off or contend with; she is potentially promiscuous because many men are attracted to her. Unlike the preceding proverb, this saying narrows adultery down to what beautiful women unavoidably commit. The proverb A kìí fi okó ńlá d’ẹrù ba arúgbó: ‘No one can frighten an old woman with a large penis’, implies that the old woman has had sexual experiences with different lovers in her younger days. The overgeneralization of female adultery in the proverbs mentioned above contrasts with the image of the Strange Woman in Proverbs 5–7, which does not pronounce all women as adulteresses as these Yorùbá proverbs do (even though in varying degrees). As the actions of the Strange Woman in Proverbs 7 indicate, many of the Yorùbá proverbs on female adultery also reveal in a different way that sexual activities outside marriage sometimes have commercial value. Some married women engage in concubinage as a commercial enterprise. They sell sex for cash, not in the same way as prostitutes (or sex workers) do, but as mistresses who are paid for services rendered. For instance, a proverb says, Ẹni tí yó ṣòwò àlè, yóó l’ẹní:  ‘Whoever chooses concubinage as a practice/trade must provide herself with a sleeping mat (bed).’ The tenor suggests that some women actually engage in concubinage as a vocation. Obìnrin ki ì gba owó àlè tán k’ó ní ginisa nṣe òun: ‘A woman does not accept a lover’s money and then complain that she is experiencing menorrhagia.’ This proverb shows that men pay for the services of a concubine/mistress and that the woman could defraud her lover by pretending to be sick to deter him from having sexual intercourse with her. The image of the adulterous woman as a client

7. Most of the Yorùbá proverbs cited in this section and their translations are adaptations from Owomoyela (1988, 2004) and Olojede (2012). 8. Consider, Obìnrin bẹẹrẹ òsì bẹẹrẹ: ‘Innumerable wives, innumerable problems.’

17. Sex and Power(lessness)

225

in these proverbs contrasts with that of the Strange Woman in Proverbs 7.  The latter is depicted as a patronizing Sugar Mummy who lures the youth into her luxurious home. Additionally, a woman could have multiple sex partners outside marriage as shown by the proverb, Awo burúkú l’obìnrin lè ṣe, obìnrin abi àlè mẹfà, àlè mẹfẹẹfa kò mọ ara wọn:  ‘Women are capable of only vicious secrecy; a woman has six lovers, none of the six lovers is aware of the existence of the others.’ The proverb not only claims that women have affairs with multiple partners, it portrays them as experts in deceit and manipulation. The element of deception that is alluded to in Prov 7:1–27 is clearly illustrated in this Yorùbá proverb and in several other sayings such as Obìnrin ń re ilé àlè, ó fi ilé ìyá ẹ tan ọkọ jẹ: ‘A woman goes to her lover’s house but tells her husband she is in her mother’s home.’ Like the preceding proverb, this one states that married women use deception and lies to veil their promiscuous activities. However, it is reasonable to assume that a woman would not have as many as six lovers at a time solely because she is seeking sexual satisfaction. A stronger factor would be the financial or material benefits that she gets from such relationships. These proverbs suggest that like their counterparts in Proverbs 5–7, the women involved have control of their own sexuality. Whereas the Strange Woman, who seems to be the wife of a wealthy merchant living in luxury (Prov 7:16–20), could be construed as a Sugar Mummy (cf. the section on the Northern Sotho proverbs), the women in the Yorùbá proverbs above make profit from concubinage. Further, Prov 7:10 describes the Strange Woman as wearing the attire of a harlot. She has also gone the extra mile to prepare her bed with the finest of linens and fragrance (7:16–17). Her goal is seduction and sexual provocation. The scenario recalls some Yorùbá proverbs on sexual infidelity by women that also refer to the physical appearance of the women as a means of seduction, for example, Ọkọ ò sí n’ile, ìyàwó kun àtíkè: pẹlẹpẹlẹ di ọwọ àbúrò ọkọ: ‘The husband is not at home, (yet) the wife powders her face: the husband’s younger brother needs to be careful.’ The woman is depicted here as unconscionably seductive. She is supposed to look attractive only for her husband but puts on make up even in his absence, thereby tempting other men, including his relatives, to stumble. Although Prov 6:26–34 suggests that some married men in the biblical context commit adultery with married women, it is remarkable that despite the existence of many proverbs that focus on women and infidelity in Yorùbá, very few proverbs explicitly refer to infidelity in men. A few of the indirect proverbs sound like complaints from men whose wives have been appropriated by other men. For example, Afẹnilobìnrin ò ro ire sí’ni: ‘He-who-has-an-affair-with-one’swife harbors no good will towards one.’ Ẹjọ́ a-fẹ́ni-lóbìnrin là ńwí, a kì í wíjọ́ a-fẹ́nilọ́mọ: ‘One may complain about a person who courts one’s wife, but one does not complain about a person who courts one’s daughter.’ Both proverbs show that one’s wife may be seduced or taken by another man, but the existence of a concubine or mistress actually denotes that the husband also is engaging in sexual infidelity. As Prov 6:26–35 reveals, taking another man’s wife causes nothing but pain to the woman’s husband. But the converse is also true. The wife is deeply hurt when the

226

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

man philanders, as we see in the proverb, Afatarẹnilójú, àlè-e báále:  ‘One-whosmears-one’s-eyes-with-pepper, the concubine of one’s husband.’ The illicit lover of a woman’s husband is no friend of hers. This proverb indicates that married men also engage in marital infidelity. What is remarkable about the proverb is that it seems to pitch women against other women – the concubine inflicts pain on the man’s wife. However, the dynamics of what we may regard as marital infidelity are even more complex in some African contexts, because in certain situations, a woman may actually acquire a mistress for her husband as implied by the proverb, Afíńjú ò d’óko, òjòwú ò di’gbèsè; òmímúra níí bá ọkọ rẹ d’álè: ‘The preener does not go to the farm, the jealous woman does not get into debt; it is a tolerant woman who finds a concubine for her husband.’ This proverb shows the possibility of a woman finding a mistress for her husband (cf. parallels in the stories of Hagar and Sarah or Rachel, Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah, and in some traditional Northern Sotho settings). Further, the Yorùbá proverbs agree with Prov 5:4–11; 6:26–35; 7:22–27 that the dangers of adultery are real. Consider, A kìí sin àlè k’ọjá odò, ohun ti nṣe ọṣẹ ko tó nkan: ‘One does not escort a concubine across the river, the causes of huge disasters are often insignificant in themselves.’ B’ọkùnrin t’àtọrìn, b’óbìnrin t’àtọrìn, ẹnìkan ní láti l’ómi lẹhin ẹsẹ ju ara wọn lọ: ‘If a man urinates as he walks and a woman urinates as she walks, one of them will be wetter behind the legs than the other.’ This second proverb, however, implies that in situations of marital unfaithfulness, the women receive the short end of the stick and receive worse repercussions than men.

Summary and Conclusion Ours was a daunting task of trying to bring into dialogue proverbs from three different cultural contexts. In light of their shared underlying simplistic and optimistic worldview with its acts-consequence schema, this comparison of Proverbs 5–7 and Northern Sotho-Yorùbá proverbs reveals some interesting dynamics on the theme of sex, power(lessness), and gender in both the world of biblical proverbs and the African contexts. First, it is assumed that the given texts are authored (authorized) by men. Accordingly, Hebrew Bible scholars have pointed out the double standard that was meted out to women and men in the ancient world ‘due mainly to the different social status held by males and females’, such that a man who visited a prostitute would not be committing adultery but a married woman who had extramarital sex would (Horne 2003, 111). It is argued that the reason for trying to restrict women’s sexuality in this way could be to prevent them from bearing children that do not belong to their husbands (Longman 2006, 192; cf. also Camp 1985, 114; Washington 1994, 232–33). The double standard is equally evident in the African context of polygamy, where the woman is encouraged to stick to one man (cf. the Yorùbá ‘A cutlass has only one sharp edge’), but the men justify polygamy and having multiple partners with sayings such as ‘A man is a pumpkin plant, he spreads’ and ‘If a woman is not

17. Sex and Power(lessness)

227

jealous [i.e., does not have a rival], her soup cannot be tasty.’ The African proverbs try to underplay the role of men in marital infidelity and paint women as corrupt, loose, and sexually insatiable, but the fact that the woman does not act alone makes the men equally culpable, even though the proverbs refrain from saying so. The double standard plays out differently in the Northern Sotho proverbs, which appear to go against the grain of the warnings of the wisdom teachers to the young man, that is, to guard against the real temptation of having sex with the wife of another man. Monogamous sexuality is recommended as the option for women while power and sexual prowess are associated with real masculinities. While women in both the biblical and Yorùbá contexts are portrayed largely as having some control over their own sexuality in the texts examined, the situation of the Northern Sotho women is not so clearly defined. The instructor(s) in Proverbs 5–7 seem(s) to acknowledge that men have no control over the ‘loose’ woman who is seen as a sexual predator; therefore, the best thing to do is to warn the young man to avoid her by choosing wisdom. The motif of woman as predator is also visible in the idea of ‘blessers’ or Sugar Mummies in the Northern Sotho cultural context as well as in the broader African context in South Africa, which includes the Zulus, Xhosas, Ndebeles, Vendas, and Tsongas, among others. The Yorùbá proverbs however mostly describe the activities of the adulterous woman, who in many instances is a beneficiary of men’s gifts without explicitly issuing a warning to avoid her. The men need her to satiate their sexual desire even if they do not exactly approve of her sexual independence and infidelity. Thus, by condemning female infidelity in such proverbs, the proverbs (indirectly) denounce the women’s satisfaction of the needs of straying men. But perhaps the situation is deeper than meets the eye in each of the contexts. Perhaps some invisible ‘Others’ are at the root of the constructions of and anxieties over masculinities, because that which a man claims to be capable of doing or not doing in regard to the fulfilment or control of his sexual lusts cannot be done without a woman! It is ironic therefore that only what the irresistible female body offers helps to affirm his professed masculinity. In the case of the Hebrew Bible, the amount of ink the sages spilled on the warnings of the dangers caused by the adulterous Strange Woman and the anxieties about what she could do to men reveals that in that male world, she was a force to be reckoned with. The reality that both women and men share their sexuality, whether secretly or openly, outside marriage highlights on the one hand the untamed (or untamable) power of the adulteress vis-à-vis the powerlessness of the male targets (Hebrew Bible and Yorùbá). On the other hand, it draws attention not only to the power of the adulterer vis-à-vis the powerlessness of their wives (Northern Sotho), but also the mutual power of the ‘blessers’ and their beneficiaries (Hebrew Bible, Northern Sotho, and Yorùbá). Last, given that ‘most people’s experience today would suggest that males are more often predatory than females’ (Longman 2006, 163), it is disturbing that none of the texts examined from the different contexts offers any warnings or words of wisdom to the young girl against the dangers or consequences of succumbing to the adulterous man and the Sugar Daddies. Should we not then call for the creation of new proverbs that would take into account the realities in the contemporary

228

Reading Proverbs Intertextually

contexts and the power play that is brought to bear in the construction of gender roles and identities? Perhaps that would be true wisdom!

Bibliography Abasili, Alexander I. 2016. The Understanding of Adultery in the Hebrew Bible: A Critical Survey. Dartford, UK: Xlibris. Brenner, Athalya. 2004. Proverbs. Pages 163–74 in Global Bible Commentary. Edited by Daniel Patte. Nashville: Abingdon. Burden, Jasper J., and Hendrik L. Bosman. 1982. Only Guide for OTB302–3. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Camp, Claudia. 1985. Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs. Sheffield: Almond. Clifford, Richard J. 1999. Proverbs: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Fontaine, Carole R. 1998. Proverbs. Pages 145–52 in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Heijerman, M. 1995. Who Would Blame Her? The ‘Strange’ Woman of Proverbs 7. Pages 100–109 in A Feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Horne, Milton P. 2003. Proverbs-Ecclesiastes. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys. Kimilike, Lechion Peter. 2008. Poverty in the Book of Proverbs: An African Transformational Hermeneutic of Proverbs on Poverty. Bible and Theology in Africa, Vol. 7. New York: Peter Lang. Longman, Tremper, III. 2002. How to Read Proverbs. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Longman, Tremper, III. 2006. Proverbs. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Masenya, M. J. 1989. In the School of Wisdom: An Interpretation of Some Old Testament Proverbs in a Northern Sotho Context. MA dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. Masenya (ngwana’ Mphahlele), Madipoane. 2001. Polluting Your Ground? Woman as Pollutant in Yehud: A Reading from a Globalised Africa. Pages 185–202 in Towards an Agenda for Contextual Theology: Essays in Honour of Albert Nolan. Edited by McGlory T. Speckman and Larry T. Kaufmann. Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publications. Nkesiga, S. B. 2005. Virtuous Living: Toward an African Theology of Wisdom in the Context of the African Renaissance. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa. Olojede, Funlola. 2012. (Un)Popular Images of Women in Yorùbá Popular Culture: A Quest for Human Dignity. Pages 187–205 in Sacred Selves: Essays in Gender, Religion and Popular Culture. Edited by Julianah Claassens and S. Viljoen. Cape Town: Griffel. Owomoyela, Oyekan. 1988. A Kì í: Yorùbá Proscriptive and Prescriptive Proverbs. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Owomoyela, Oyekan. 2004. The Good Person: Excerpts from the Yorùbá Proverb Treasury. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

17. Sex and Power(lessness)

229

Schipper, Mineke. 1991. Source of All Evil: African Proverbs and Sayings on Women. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. Washington, Harold C. 1994. The Strange Woman (‫נכריה‬/‫ )אשה זרה‬of Proverbs 1–9 and Post-Exilic Judaean Society. Pages 217–42 in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Yee, Gale A. 1995. ‘I Have Perfumed My Bed with Myrrh’: The Foreign Woman (’ššâ zārâ) in Proverbs 1–9. Pages 110–30 in Proverbs. A Feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

AUTHOR INDEX Abadie, P. 40, 44 Abasili, A. I. 219, 222, 228 Adams, N. 187, 189 Aitken, K. T. 208–9, 213 Allegro, J. M. 155, 159–60, 165 Alster, B. 100, 101 Ames, R. T. 210–11, 213, 214 Ansberry, C. B. 38, 44 Anthonioz, S. 37, 39, 44 Arbel, D. V. 119, 121–2, 124 Arewa, E. O. 98, 101 Aubin, M. 156, 165 Ayres, L. 179, 183, 190 Backhaus, F. J. 135, 137 Barajas, E. D. 98, 101 Barbiero, G. 123, 124 Barton, J. 6–7, 40, 43–4, 78, 87 Bauckham, R. J. 168, 178 Bauckmann, E. G. 141, 152 Bauer, G. L. 35, 45 Baumann, G. 43, 45, 129 Baumgarten, J. M. 156, 165 Baumgartner, W. 131–2, 137 Beal, T. K. 94, 101 Beentjes, P. C. 5, 141, 144, 146, 149–50, 152, 153 Ben Zvi, E. 6, 42, 45, 47, 124 Berlejung, A. 27–8, 32, 33 Beyer, A. 105, 113 Blenkinsopp, J. 32, 39–40, 42–3, 45, 64 Blum, E. 1, 6 Bosman, H. L. 217, 228 Boström, L. 42, 43, 45 Bourdieu, P. 99, 101 Boyarin, D. 118, 124, 191, 200 Braulik, G. 26–8, 32 Brenner, A. 112, 114, 201, 218, 228, 229 Broshi, M. 155, 166 Brown, W. P. 4, 17–18, 21, 24, 32, 39, 41, 45, 65, 73, 75–6

Brueggemann, W. 19, 45, 70, 75 Buchanan, G. W. 26, 32 Budde, K. 83, 87 Bührer, W. 11, 18 Burden, J. J. 217, 228 Burgmann, H. 155, 166 Buttenwieser, M. 83, 87 Camp, C. 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, 103, 114, 124, 218, 219, 226, 228 Campbell, E. F. 103, 105, 114 Carasik, M. 101 Carmichael, C. M. 22, 24, 32 Carmignac, J. 155, 160, 166 Carr, D. M. 11, 18, 91–2, 101, 191–2, 195, 201 Cassin, M. 179–80, 189, 190 Chan, W. 209, 213 Chen, Y. 209, 213 Cheung, S. 105, 114 Childs, B. S. 35–6, 45, 83, 87 Ching, J. 203, 206, 209, 213 Clifford, R. J. 21, 32, 87, 91, 92, 97, 101, 107, 114, 119, 122–3, 124, 165, 166, 220, 228 Clines, D. J. A. 45, 78, 79, 82, 87, 138 Coe, S. 205, 213 Cogan, M. 116, 124 Cohen, Y. 100, 101 Collins, J. J. 141, 153 Corley, J. 141, 144–7, 151, 153, 154 Cottini, V. 119, 124 Crenshaw, J. L. 21–2, 24, 29, 32, 37–8, 42, 45, 66, 72, 75, 79, 87, 130, 134, 137 Crüsemann, F. 117, 118, 124 Davies, R. 35, 45 Davis, E. F. 186, 190 Dawson, M. M. 188, 190, 210, 213 De Bary, W. M. 207, 213 Del Cogliano, M. 181, 190

232

Author Index

Delcor, M. 132, 137 Delitzsch, F. 21, 25, 33, 39, 45 Delkurt, H. 43, 45 Dell, K. J. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 43, 45, 76, 77, 87, 103, 115, 119, 124, 126, 153, 201 Di Lella, A. A. A. 141, 144, 147–8, 150, 152–3, 154 Dimant, D. 144, 148, 152, 153 Dowling, M. 179, 181–2, 190 Dozeman, T. B. 11, 18 Dumbrell, J. 208–9, 213 Dundes, A. 98, 101, 191, 194, 201 Dunn, J. D. G. 168, 171, 178 Eagleton, T. 85, 87 Eber, I. 205, 213 Eberharter, A. 142–3, 151, 153 Ehrlich, A. M. 213 Epstein, M. 214 Ernst, A. B. 43, 45 Estes, D. J. 74, 75 Exum, J. C. 118–19, 122–3, 124 Fee, G. D. 170–1, 178 Fichtner, J. 21, 33 Fiddes, P. M. 78, 87 Fishbane, M. 27, 33, 95, 101 Foley, J. M. 192, 195, 201 Fontaine, C. R. 98, 101, 219, 228 Fox, M. V. 6, 12–13, 17–18, 21–2, 24, 26, 30, 33, 39, 42, 45–6, 49, 51, 60, 64, 72, 75, 80, 85–7, 92, 95–8, 100–1, 107, 114, 117, 120, 122, 125, 129–31, 134, 137, 156–7, 160, 165–6, 176, 178 Frankenberg, W. 21, 33 Frolov, S. 118, 125 Fuhs, H. F. 120, 125, 152, 153 Fürst, A. 117, 125 Galling, K. 133–4, 137 Gammie, J. G. 40, 45, 47 Gasser, J. K. 142–3, 153 Gazov-Ginzberg, A. M. 155, 166 Geller, S. A. 86, 87 Gerstenberger, E. 22–3, 33, 40, 45 Gese, H. 85, 87 Gesenius, W. 131, 137 Gilbert, M. 38–9, 42, 45

Gillingham, S. E. 66, 75 Goff, M. 155, 159, 161, 165–6, 191, 195, 201 Goh, S. T. S. 103, 114 Goldingay, J. 4, 49, 62, 64 Goldstein, J. 214 Golka, F. W. 92, 101 Gordis, R. 130, 137 Gordon, R. P. 38, 40, 45 Goswell, G. 103–4, 114 Granet, M. 214 Green, J. N. 94, 101 Gregory, B. C. 149, 153 Gregory of Nyssa 5, 179–90 Grossberg, D. 119, 125 Gumperz, J. J. 205, 214 Hagedorn, A. C. 4, 122–3, 124, 125 Hall, D. L. 210, 214 Hancock, C. D. 5, 214 Häner, T. 115, 117, 125 Hankins, D. 84, 87 Harrington, D. 161, 166 Harris, S. L. 42, 45 Harvey, A. 106, 114 Hatton, P. T. H. 129, 137 Hauge, M. R. 119, 125 Hays, C. B. 58, 64 Heaton, E. W. 1, 6 Hecke, P. van 79, 87 Heijerman, M. 219, 228 Heim, K. M. 4, 91–2, 95–7, 100–1, 167, 172, 178 Heinemann, I. 195, 201 Heinz, D. 205, 214 Hendel, R. S. 12, 18 Henderson, J. 121, 125 Hengel, M. 116, 125, 169, 178 Hertzberg, H. W. 131, 137 Hewat, E. G. K. 204, 206, 214 Hitzig, F. 21, 33 Hoffman, Y. 78, 87 Holmstedt, R. D. 117, 125 Horbury, W. 169, 178 Horne, M. P. 219–20, 226, 228 Hsu, S. 210, 214 Hunsinger, G. 208, 214 Hunter, A. M. 170, 178

Author Index

233

Hurowitz, V. 12, 14, 17–18, 184, 190 Hurtado, L. W. 170, 178

Loy, D. 210, 214 Lyu, S. M. 43, 46

Imray, K. 119, 125

Maier, C. 26–7, 33 Maier, J. 155, 166 Malchow, B. V. 38, 46 Malfroy, J. 22, 33 Marcus, R. 12, 19 Masenya, M. J. 5, 217, 223, 228 McCreesh, T. P. 103, 114 McGuire, M. B. 196, 201 McKane, W. 38, 43, 46, 49, 50, 64, 120, 126, 165, 166 Meinhold, A. 29, 33, 80, 84–5, 87 Melton, B. N. 115, 117–18, 126 Messenger, J. 98, 101 Michel, O. 174–5, 177, 178 Mieder, W. 94, 102, 201 Miller, G. 141, 153 Miller, J. 209, 214 Miller, S. T. 160, 162, 166 Moore, R. D. 155, 160–1, 166 Muilenburg, J. 2, 6 Müller, H.-P. 117, 123, 136, 138 Müller, R. 24, 31, 33 Murphy, R. E. 1–2, 6, 12, 18–19, 43, 46, 99, 102, 119, 123, 126, 133, 138

Jacobson, D. 65, 76 Jaeger, W. 179–80, 190 Jaspers, K. 206, 214 Jauss, H. R. 1, 6 Jones, S. C. 4, 78, 81, 83–4, 86, 87, 155, 166 Kaiser, O. 63, 64 Kaiser, W. C. 123, 125 Kampen, J. 161, 166 Keel, O. 16, 19, 123, 125 Kelsey, D. H. 185–7, 190 Kidner, D. 209, 211–12, 214 Kimilike, L. P. 92, 101, 217, 228 Kingsmill, E. 119, 125 Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, B. 193, 201 Kleinert, U. 116, 125 Knauf, E. A. 115–16, 125 Köhler, L. 131, 132, 137 Kovacs, D. 121, 125 Kratz, R. G. 130, 137 Krüger, T. 31, 33, 65, 76, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138 Kugel, J. L. 37, 45 Kunz-Lübcke, A. 116, 125 Kynes, W. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 37, 45, 76, 87, 126, 153, 201 Landy, F. 122, 124, 126 Lauha, A. 135, 138 Laven, M. 205, 214 Leemans, J. 179–80, 189, 190 Leithart, P. J. 118, 126 Lemaire, A. 36, 46, 115, 126 Lenzi, A. 184, 190 Lesly, M. 155, 164, 166 Leuenberger, M. 136, 138 Lévi, I. 147, 148, 150, 152, 153 Lichtheim, M. 25, 33 Liesen, J. 150, 153 Lipka, H. 123, 126 Littlejohn, R. L. 214 Loader, J. A. 26, 33, 80, 86–7, 126 Longman, T. 6, 126, 220, 226–8 Loretz, O. 118, 126, 154

Neusner, J. 87, 117, 126 Newsom, C. A. 1, 6, 15, 18–19, 44, 46, 66, 76, 79–80, 87, 157, 166, 228 Niditch, S. 5, 92–3, 102, 105, 114, 197, 201 Nkesiga, S. B. 218, 228 Nogalski, J. D. 65, 76 Noth, M. 46, 116, 126 Oesterley, W. O. E. 146, 153 Olberding, A. 208, 210–11, 214 Olojede, F. 5, 217, 224, 228 Orsi, R. 196, 201 Osborne, W. R. 12, 19 Otto, E. 11, 19 Overland, P. 39, 46 Owomoyela, O. 224, 228 Palmquist, S. R. 211, 214 Parker, K. I. 39, 46 Paul, M. 119, 126 Perdue, L. G. 21, 33, 41, 43, 46, 47

234

Author Index

Perowne, T. T. 176, 178 Person, R. F. 45, 91, 102 Peters, N. 152, 153 Pioske, D. 92, 102 Plöger, 152, 154 Pope, M. H. 117, 126 Porten, B. 25, 33 Porteous, N. W. 38, 46 Prato, G. L. 149, 154 Preuss, H. D. 1, 7, 131, 137, 138 Rad, G. von 27, 33, 36, 38, 42, 46, 79, 87, 136, 138 Raiskin, S. 204, 214 Raphals, L. A. 209, 214 Richter, W. 22–3, 33 Robert, A. 26, 33 Rosemont, H. 211, 214 Rudolph, W. 117, 126 Rüterswörden, U. 23, 33 Rylaarsdam, J. C. 42–3, 46 Sæbø, M. 46, 80, 84, 87 Sakenfeld, K. D. 103, 114 Sanders, J. A. 143, 154 Sandmel, S. 144, 154 Sauer, G. 151, 154 Saur, M. 4, 39, 43, 46, 126, 129, 131, 138 Schaff, P. 180, 190 Schaper, J. 169, 178 Schechter, S. 141–3, 147, 154 Schellenberg, A. 119, 126 Schipper, B. U. 3, 22, 25, 27–30, 33, 34, 39, 46 Schipper, J. 107, 114 Schipper, M. 220–2, 229 Schloesser, S. 205, 214 Schmid, H. H. 85, 87 Schmid, K. 11, 18 Schultz, R. L. 65, 76 Schwáb, Z. 35, 41, 43, 46 Schwartz, B. 215 Schweinhorst-Schönberger, L. 124, 130, 132, 133, 134, 138 Scott, R. B. Y. 36–9, 46 Seow, C. L. 77, 87, 129–30, 133, 138 Sheppard, G. T. 42, 46 Shields, M. A. 133–4, 138 Ska, J. L. 36, 46

Skehan, P. W. 141, 144, 147–8, 150, 152, 154 Skemp, V. 142, 153–4 Slingerland, E. 206–8, 210, 212, 215 Smend, R. 147–8, 150, 152, 154 Snaith, J. G. 144, 154 Sneed, M. R. 1, 4, 6–7, 36–7, 42, 46–7, 49, 64, 89, 92, 98, 102, 106, 114 Snell, D. C. 89, 91, 102 Soden, W. von 141, 154 Sommer, B. D. 191, 201 Sparks, K. L. 119, 126 Stallybrass, P. 94, 101 Steiert, F.-J. 43, 47 Stewart, A. W. 67, 76 Stone, T. J. 104, 114 Stoop-van Paridon, P. W. T. 126 Stordalen, T. 14, 19 Strugnell, J. 159–60, 166 Strutwolf, H. 117, 125 Sun, A. X. D. 209, 215 Sweeney, M. A. 6, 47, 60, 64, 116, 126 Tate, M. E. 215 Tavares, R. 38, 47 Taylor, C. 141–3, 147, 154 Taylor, R. L. 209, 215 Thompson, J. L. 171, 178 Tigchelaar, E. 44, 159, 166 Tooman, W. A. 5, 156, 166 Toy, C. H. 107, 114 Trigault, N. 204, 215 Tu, W. 209, 215 Tucker, M. E. 209, 215 Van Engen, C. E. 205, 215 Van Leeuwen, R. C. 40, 42, 44, 47, 77, 85, 87, 96–7, 100, 102, 107, 114 Van Norden, B. W. 211, 215 Vawter, B. 51, 64 Veijola, T. 34 Veldhuis, N. 100, 102 Villiers, D. W. de 117, 126 Visotsky, B. L. 198–9, 201 Wace, H. 180, 190 Wagner, V. 24, 34 Wakely, R. 211, 215

Author Index Waltke, B. K. 24, 26, 30, 34, 80, 88, 95–8, 102, 125, 172, 176, 178 Washington, H. C. 218, 226, 229 Weeks, S. 1, 7, 39–40, 42–4, 47, 50, 64, 95, 102 Weinfeld, M. 18, 22, 24, 34, 39, 42, 47 Wen, H. 207–8, 215 Westermann, C. 78, 88 Whedbee, J. W. 42, 47, 50, 64 Whybray, R. N. 36, 38, 43, 47, 92, 102–3, 114, 130, 133, 136, 138, 148, 152, 154 Wilckens, U. 174–7, 178 Wildberger, H. 53, 62, 64 Wildeboer, G. 29, 34 Williams, F. C. 94, 102 Wolff, H. W. 36, 47 Wright, B. G. 146, 154, 156, 166

235

Wright, C. J. H. 211, 215 Wu, Y.-Y. 210, 214 Würthwein, E. 106, 107, 113, 114 Yadin, Y. 143, 154 Yao, X. 206, 208–10, 215 Yardeni, A. 25, 33 Yeazell, R. B. 121, 126 Yee, G. A. 121, 127, 218, 229 Yoder, C. R. 3, 11, 18–19, 72–3, 76, 85, 87–8, 104, 114 Yona, S. 23, 25, 34 Zabán, B. K. 41, 47 Zakovitch, Y. 119, 127 Zhuo, X. 205, 215 Zimmerli, W. 35, 41, 47, 131, 134–5, 138

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX HEBREW BIBLE Genesis 1 1:31 2 2–3

2:5 2:6 2:9 2:11–12 2:11–13 2:12 3 3:3 3:6 3:14–21 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:22 3:24 4 4:1 7:11 13:10 22:1–14 22:15–18 22:19 25:11 25:18

41 211 14 3, 11–12, 14–15, 17–18, 38 14 14, 18 15 14 14 15 16–17 15–16 15 15 17 17 17 15 16 27 181, 184 14 14 83 83 83 196 14

Exodus 20:7 21:12 21:15 21:16 21:17 21:19 21:28

23 23 23 23 23 23 23

21:29 21:30 21:37 22:6 22:8 22:18 23:8 28:17–20 30:12 31:1–3

23 24 27 27 27 23 24, 31 15 24 40

Leviticus 7:16 17:15 20:11 24:19–20

156 156 164 23

Numbers 5:11–31 35:31 35:32

164 24 24

Deuteronomy 1–11 1:17 4 4:1 4:2 4:5 4:5–8 4:6 4:9 4:10 4:40 5 5:11 5:16 5:18 5:19 5:21 6

3, 22 39 30–2 30 30, 39 30, 33 31 31, 39, 44 150 30 39 25–6, 30, 32 23, 29 29, 39 26 26, 29, 31 26 25, 27–8, 32

238

Ancient Sources Index

6:1 6:4 6:4–9 6:7 6:8a 8:5 11 11:9 11:18–21 11:18a 11:18b 11:19 11:21 12–26 13:1 13:16 14:22–29 14:23 16:18–20 16:19 16:20 17:6 19:14 19:15–20 19:19 21:20 21:20b 22:22 23 23:16 23:25–26 23:26 24:7 25:13–16 26:1–2 26:2 27–34 27:15 27:25 28 31:12–13 31:24–30 32:43

30 39 21, 25, 27, 39 27–8 27 39 25, 27–8 39 21, 25, 27 27 27 27–8, 30 39 3, 22 39 23 39 30 31 24, 31, 33 39 23 24, 39 24 23, 31 150 149–50 120 27 39 27, 31 27 23, 31 24, 39 39 165 3, 22 25 24, 31 192 66 42 198

Joshua 18:3

172

Judges 8:21

92

1 Samuel 10:12 15:7 19:24 24:13

92 14 92 92

2 Samuel 5:6 9–20 12 12:7 19:21

92, 102 36 113 113 165

1 Kings 1–2 1–11 1:42 2 2:1–2 5–9 2:6 2:9 3 3–11 3:4–15 3:5 3:6–9 3:7 3:9 3:12 3:14 3:14–15 3:16–28 5:1–8 5:7 5:9–12 5:9–14 5:12 5:14 5:15–26 5:21 7:13–14 7:14 8:22–53 8:63 9–11 10 10:1

36 3, 35–9, 41–2, 44, 118 105 36 36 36 38 38 38, 116 38 36, 38 115 115–16 42 38–9, 115, 131 42, 116 39 35 36, 116 116 40 130 36, 116 130 116 36 147 40 40 41–2 41 39 116 116

Ancient Sources Index 10:1–10 10:13 10:23–24 10:36 11:1–8 11:1–13 11:11 20:11

116 116 116 116 36, 43 116 41 92

2 Kings 4:34

196

Isaiah 1–39 1:2–3 1:10–17 1:23 3:1–2 5:8–10 5:11 5:19 5:20 5:21 6:1 6:9 9:5–6 10:2 11:1–3 11:1–9 11:2 11:2–4 14:9–10 14:24–27 19:11–15 22:8–11 22:12–14 22:15–19 24 28:9–12a 28:14–15 28:16 28:23–29 28:24–29 29:13–16 29:15–16 30:1–3 30:10–11 31:1–3 33:5–6

4, 49–50 66 43 63 43 43 43 63 43 43 60 53 62 43 62 17 44 42 61 55 58 54 55 62 43 53 63 63 66 52 57 43 57 53 57 42

239

33:6 33:14 35:6–7 40:29 43:22–28 59:9–15

44 161 14 151 2 164

Jeremiah 1:1 1:5–6 5:28 7 8:8–9 9:20 10:12 13:23 20 31:29–30 31:33–34 51:15

43 42 43 42–3 42 66 44, 84 92 42 43 43 44, 84

Ezekiel 11:19–20 17:22–24 18 28 28:1–19 28:4–5 28:11–13 28:17–19 31 31:2–9 36:26–27 37:12 47:1–12

43 11 43 14 38 15 14–15 15 14 11 43 16 14

Hosea 6:6

43

Joel 1:2–3 4:18

66 14

Amos 1:1 3:3–8 4:4–5 5:2 5:4–7

43 66 43 2 43

240

Ancient Sources Index

5:10 5:11–12 5:21–27

43 43 43

Nahum 1:1

43

Habakkuk 1:1

43

Zechariah 9:1 12:1 14:8–11

43 43 14

Malachi 1:1

43

Psalms 1:1 2:7–9 2:12 2:12b 4 4:2 4:3–6 6:5 8:5 10:1–2 13:2–3 15 15:2 15:5 18:16 19:8 19:9 22 22:2 22:7 25:6–7 31:17 34:9b 35 35:6 35:7 35:17–18 35:22–23 41:2 42

75 66 75 75 68 68 68 71 2 70 69 41 41 41 14 151 151 72 70 72 71 71 75 69 182 181 69 69 75 69

42:2–3 43:2 44:24–26 50:5–6 50:7–15 50:16–23 51:3 62 62:4 63:2 69:17 73:22 74:10 75:3–6 79:5 80:5–6 81:7–15 82:2–4 82:6–7 82:7 82:8 85:8 88 88:15 89:20–38 90:13–14 104:24 105:45 106:3 110:1b 110:4 111:10 119:1–2 119:34 119:105 132:14–18 139:13 146–150 146:5 149:1b 150 Proverbs 1–9

74 70 70 66 66 66 71 69 68 74 71 73 69 66 69 69 66 66, 68 66 68–9 69 71 71 70 66 69 13 150 75 66 66 208 75 150 30 66 184 74 75 74 74

3, 11–13, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 39, 41, 43–4, 74, 80, 89, 98, 100, 103–4, 112, 119, 137, 165

Ancient Sources Index 1:1 1:1–5:23 1:1–7 1:2–3 1:2–4 1:2–5 1:2–6 1:2–7 1:3 1:4–6 1:6 1:7

1:7–11:18 1:7a 1:8 1:8a 1:10–19 1:20 1:20–33 1:22–23 1:24–32 1:24–33 2 2–7 2:1 2:1–3 2:2 2:5 2:6 2:10 2:16 2:16–19 2:16–22 2:20 2:20–22 3

3:1 3:1–5 3:1–18 3:3 3:5 3:5–6 3:5–7

35, 51, 94, 117, 130 91 100 62 43, 208 207 184 73 180, 189 100 180, 189 13, 56, 85, 103, 207–8, 210 21 74 12, 111, 155, 211–12 74 212 186 12, 41–2, 168 67 212 68 119 119 74, 211 168 74, 143 12, 208 42, 184, 207 43 157, 165, 186 220 12, 120, 155 165 208 4, 18, 28, 39, 77–8, 80–1, 84–6 211 28 208 39, 195 28–9, 39, 42 56 42, 209

3:5–12 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:9–10 3:11 3:11–12 3:12 3:13 3:13–18 3:13–20 3:13–21 3:14 3:14–15 3:14–16 3:14–18 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:18–20 3:18b 3:19

3:19–20 3:20 3:21 3:27–32 3:29 3:34 4:1 4:1–9 4:1–13 4:1a 4:5 4:5–9 4:6–8 4:7 4:7–9 4:11 4:13 4:18–19 4:19 5

241 18 39, 43, 77, 80–1, 85–6 39 211 41 207 167 39 75, 80–1, 84 80, 84, 207 12–18, 77, 80–6, 168 3 81 15, 80–4, 86 82 84 82 15, 82, 143 16, 81 82, 143 84 75 40, 80–1, 84, 181, 184, 211–12 78, 80–1, 84–5, 183, 187 84 211 18 41, 145 168 155, 211 207 207 74 184 12, 168 74 184 38 16, 168 168, 207 133 143 5, 123, 218– 21, 224–7

242 5–7 5:1 5:1–2 5:1–23 5:3 5:3–23 5:4–5 5:4–11 5:7–10 5:7–14 5:8–10 5:10 5:12–14 5:13 5:15 5:15–16 5:15–18 5:15–19 5:15–20 5:15–23 5:16–17 5:18 5:18b 5:19 5:20 5:20a 5:21–23 5:22–23 5:33–34 6 6:1 6:1–19 6:6–8 6:9–11 6:10–11 6:14 6:16–19 6:19 6:20 6:20–23 6:20–24 6:20–35

6:20–9:18 6:21a

Ancient Sources Index 5, 218–20, 224–7 74, 211, 219 219 12, 120, 155, 219 157, 186 123 221, 223 226 207 212 221 151 72 30 222 219 220 74, 112, 222 156 123 222 113 124 122, 222 70 124 110 219 223 3, 22, 25–6, 28–32, 223 211 91 109 109 89, 91, 133 145 207 146 12, 39, 211 27–9, 31 27, 39 12, 25–31, 120, 123, 155, 219–20, 223 91 27

6:22 6:22a 6:22b 6:23 6:24 6:24–25 6:24–26 6:25 6:25–32 6:25a 6:26 6:26–34 6:26–35 6:26a 6:27–33 6:29 6:30 6:30–31 6:31 6:32 6:33–35 6:35 7

7–9 7:1 7:1–2 7:1–5 7:1–26 7:1–27 7:2 7:2–3 7:2–5 7:3 7:4 7:4–5 7:5 7:6 7:6–9 7:6–20 7:7 7:7–13 7:8 7:9

28 27 27 30 26, 223 223 220 29, 121 31 145 146, 220 225 226 145 220 23, 110 26–7 26–7, 32 27 26, 143, 219, 223 25, 27 25 5, 28, 119–20, 122–3, 155– 65, 220, 222–5 103 74, 119, 155, 163–4, 211 158 39 123 12, 120, 155, 219–20, 225 74, 158 162 157 159, 163 158, 207 12, 168 156–60, 162, 186 119–20 105 120 157 156 119, 163 158–9, 162–3

Ancient Sources Index 7:10 7:10b–12 7:11 7:12 7:13 7:14–20 7:15 7:15b 7:16 7:16–17 7:16–20 7:17 7:18 7:18–20 7:19 7:20 7:21 7:21–23 7:22 7:22–23 7:22–27 7:23 7:24 7:25 7:26 7:26–27 7:27 8 8:1–3 8:1–21 8:1–36 8:1–9:6 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14–16 8:15–16 8:19 8:20 8:22

120, 159, 162, 225 157 119, 159, 163, 186 119, 158–9, 163 119, 158, 163 121, 157–8 158 122 119, 159, 163, 225 156, 225 225 119 119, 122, 163 157 159, 163–4 119, 158 122, 157, 159– 60, 162–3, 186 157 122, 158 159, 162–3 226 122, 158–9, 162–3 74, 155, 163 157–9, 162–3 122, 163, 223 159, 162–3 120, 157, 159, 163 42, 51, 154, 170, 188–90 186 208 41 12 13 13, 16 51 13 38, 51 186, 188 16 17 5, 64, 171,

8:22–23 8:22–25 8:22–26 8:22–31

8:23 8:24 8:24–25 8:25 8:26 8:27 8:28 8:29 8:30 8:30–31 8:31 8:32 8:32–33 8:34 8:34–36 8:35 9:1 9:1–6 9:2 9:4 9:4–6 9:5 9:7 9:7–8 9:8–9 9:8b 9:10 9:10b 9:11 9:11–12 9:13 9:13–18 9:16 9:17 9:18 10 10–22 10–29 10–30

243 179–85, 187, 189, 211 51 181 180 13, 168, 184, 187, 207, 211–12 38 181 181 184 17, 180, 182–3 180–1 180 14 211 211 182 16 74 75, 182 74 143 112, 181 41, 168, 186, 207 16 186 74 16 67 99 67 67 13, 42, 103, 208 209 12 168 186 12, 212, 220 186 98, 186 164 100 22 3, 22, 31 104

244 10:1 10:1–14:25 10:1–22:16 10:2 10:2–5 10:2a 10:4–5 10:5 10:10 10:11 10:12 10:15b 10:27 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:4 11:4a 11:7 11:14 11:18 11:20 11:21 11:24 11:30 11:31 12:2 12:4 12:5 12:7 12:9 12:10 12:12 12:15 12:18 12:20 12:21 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:28 13:1 13:1b 13:4 13:7–11 13:7b 13:8

Ancient Sources Index 35, 94, 117, 130 91 90, 130 96–7 95 96 133 52, 146–7 186 176 186 96 13, 209 24, 39, 41, 97 54, 207 146 23, 43, 96–7, 149 97, 148 151 59 110 41 23 106–7 12, 16, 207 168 192 112 62 192 192–3 192 192 59, 192 59 145, 192 143, 192 41 133 133 192 54, 95–6 95–6 109, 133 95 96 24–5, 31, 95–6

13:8a 13:8b 13:9 13:10 13:12 13:22 13:24 14:1 14:2 14:12 14:16 14:21 14:22 14:25 14:26–27 14:26–16:15 14:31 15:1 15:4 15:8 15:10b 15:12 15:16 15:16–17 15:18a 15:19 15:26 15:27 15:29 15:31–33 15:33 15:33–16:3 15:33b 16:1 16:1–2 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:5 16:6 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:11 16:12 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:16–22:16

96 96 77, 133 111 12, 16 145 93 112 13 79, 187 77 43 145 24 13, 209 91 43 59 12, 16 41, 43, 56 23, 31 67 13, 193 134 148 133 41 24–5, 31 41, 43 54 13, 42 207 111 143 173 54, 187 56, 143 173 23, 54 13, 77 134, 193 56 59 24 61 61 59, 143 59 91

Ancient Sources Index 16:17 16:18 16:19 16:20 16:25 16:33 17:1 17:2 17:5 17:7 17:8 17:10 17:15 17:16 17:17 17:20 17:21 17:23 17:28 18:3 18:9 18:12 18:13 18:16 18:21 18:22 18:23 18:24 19:5 19:9 19:11 19:11a 19:12 19:13 19:14 19:15 19:16 19:16b 19:17 19:18 19:23 19:24 19:25b 19:27 19:28 20:4 20:8 20:10

77 54 134 209 79 41 41, 43, 134, 197–9 197 23, 197 23 24–5, 31, 197 67 41 70 107–8 146 146 24–5, 31 146 143 172 207 54 24–5, 31 145, 207 90, 112 109–10 107 23 23 147 147 59 90 90 133 150 23 107, 143 23, 31 209 133 67 12 24 133 61 41

20:13 20:15 20:22 20:23 20:25 20:26 21:1 21:2 21:3 21:9 21:13 21:15 21:16 21:17 21:19 21:21 21:27 21:30 21:31 22:1 22:3 22:4 22:5 22:7 22:9 22:11 22:17 22:17–24:34 22:22 22:24 22:24b 22:26 22:27 22:28 22:29 23:6 23:10 23:10–11 23:12–24:22 23:15 23:19 23:20–21 23:20–21a 23:22 23:25 23:26 23:29 24

245 23 13, 79 23 24, 39 41 36, 61 61 173 41, 43, 56 90 110 60 133 146 90 39, 106–7, 113, 207 41, 43 42 56 192–5 192 111 192 193 151 61, 143 94, 117 89 23, 110 23, 148 148 23 70 23–4, 39 109, 143 151 24, 39 110–11 91 12 12 150 149–50 108, 207 108 12 43 171

246 24:3–4 24:7 24:10 24:10–12 24:11 24:11–12 24:12 24:13 24:20 24:21 24:23 24:23–34 24:23b–33 24:25 24:33–34 25 25–29 25:1 25:1–29:27 25:2 25:4 25:5 25:6 25:7 25:12 25:15 25:21–22 25:24 25:25 25:25–26 25:26 26:1 26:1–12 26:3 26:4 26:4–5 26:5 26:7 26:9 26:11 26:21 26:27 26:27a 27:5 27:10 27:11 27:15

Ancient Sources Index 40 143 172, 174 171–2, 174, 176–7 172 58, 110 172–3 12 77 12 39, 94, 117, 143 91 73 67 89, 91, 133 171 22, 90–1, 130 35, 51, 94, 117 39 59 61 61 59 59 67 146 168 90 176 176 171, 176–7 99 97 146 99 97–8, 100, 186 67, 99 97–8 97–8 168 90 146 135 67 107 12 90

27:18 28–29 28:4–9 28:6 28:7 28:9 28:14 28:14a 28:15–16 28:18 28:20 28:23 28:27 29:4 29:7 29:11 29:14 29:15 29:18 29:22a 29:22b 29:25 29:26 30 30–31 30:1 30:1–4 30:1–9 30:1–14 30:1–31:31 30:2 30:2–3 30:3 30:4 30:5–6 30:6 30:7–9 30:8 30:9 30:10 30:10–14 30:11 30:15 30:15–16 30:15–33 30:18–19 30:20 30:21–23

207 38 39 134 150 41, 43 152 151–2 60 41 23 67, 157 110 60 43 186 60 186 43 148 148 209 110 29–32, 39, 73, 76 3 94, 117 72 2, 29, 43 29, 73 91 72–3 30, 73 30 72 73 30, 39 29 106 29, 72, 106 39 29 29 73 73 73 73 219 43, 73

Ancient Sources Index 30:24–28 30:25–26 30:29–30 30:29–31 30:30 30:32 31

31:10–29 31:10–31 31:13 31:15 31:20 31:21 31:26 31:27 31:28 31:28–29 31:28–31 31:29 31:30 31:31

73 73 73 73 73 143, 145 103–4, 109, 113, 127 94, 117 41 104, 151 60 13–14, 90, 103, 112 103 90, 103, 119 104, 109 104 104 104 104 104, 109 75, 103 104 74 103, 113 13, 103–4 74

Job 1:1 1:8 2:3 3:13–19 5:9 5:27 7:17–18 7:20–21 8:8 9:10 11:7 13:9 13:24 18:3 19:22 21:17 26:11 27:12

77, 79, 85 77, 79, 85 77, 79, 85 194 132 132 2 70 132 132 132 132 70 70 70 77 14 70

31:1 31:2 31:3 31:4–9 31:10

28 28:1 28:1–11 28:1–12 28:1–28 28:1a 28:1a 28:3 28:3–11 28:6 28:7–8 28:10 28:11 28:12 28:12–13 28:12–22 28:12a 28:14 28:14–19 28:15 28:15–19 28:16 28:17 28:18 28:19 28:20 28:23 28:23–27 28:23–28 28:24 28:25–26 28:26 28:27 28:28 28:28a 29:16 32:11 33:13 34:24 36:26 38:1–41:34 38:2–4 38:8–11 38:16 42:3a 42:4

247 4, 77–86 79, 81 78, 81, 84 79 80, 83, 85 77, 86 78 79, 132 78, 84 81 81 82 85 78–80, 83 81 78, 81, 84 77–8, 86 85 83 81 78–80, 82–4, 86 81 81 82 81 78–80, 83 78, 80–1, 84 80–1, 84 78, 84 84 85 81 78, 84, 132 77–9, 81, 85–7, 208 78 132 132 70 132 132 66 72 14 132 72 72

248

Ancient Sources Index

Song of Songs (Canticles) 1:1 1:2 1:4 1:5 1:12 1:13 1:16 2:7 2:9 2:15 2:15–16 2:16 3:1 3:1–5 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6–11 3:7 3:9 3:11 4:11 4:14 5:1 5:2–8 5:4 6:8–9 6:10 7:1 7:6 7:12 7:14 8:1 8:2 8:4 8:6 8:6–7 8:7 8:8–10 8:11

117–18 119 117 117–18 117 119 119 123 119 123 122 122–3 122 119 119, 122 122 113, 122 123 122 117–18 117–18 117–18 157 119 119 119 119 122 119 117 117 119 119 119 113 123 123 119, 123 117 122 117–18

Ruth 1:1 1:6 1:6–7 1:8 1:14

106 106 106 113 108

1:16 2:1 2:2 2:2–3 2:3 2:7 2:7b 2:9 2:11–12 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:20 2:22 2:23 3:6 3:10 3:10–11 3:11 4 4:10 4:11 4:15

104, 108 105 104 109 109 104, 110 109 110 104 104, 110 111 106 106 104, 109 104 108, 111 110 104, 109 112 104, 108, 110 104 103, 112 108, 111 112 113 104, 108

Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) 1:1 1:2–12:8 1:12 1:14 1:15 2:13 2:13–14a 2:13–15 2:14a 2:14b 2:15 3:15 4:4 4:4–6 4:5 4:6 4:15 5:12 5:17 7 7:1

35, 117, 130 132 35 132 132 132–3 133 4, 132 133 133 132–3 149 134 4, 133 133–4 134 132 132 132 5, 191 194–6

Ancient Sources Index 7:1–2 7:2 7:3 7:7 7:13 7:15 8:5 9:11 10:1 10:7 10:8 10:8–9 10:8–10 10:9 10:10 10:10b 12:9 12:9–11 12:12 12:13

197–8 194, 196 194 196 132 132 150 132 196 132 134–5 135 4, 134 135 135–6 134 130–2 131 12 208

Daniel 4:7b–9 12:3

11 161

2 Chronicles 2:12

40

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TEXTS Ahiqar 8:24 93 Papyrus Insinger 10,8

25

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS Ben Sira 1:1–10 42 3:23b 148 3:29 143 4:12 143 4:13 143 4:24 143 4:24a 148 5:1–8 149 5:1b 149 5:3b 149 5:4–8 149 5:4b 149

5:5–8 5:5a 5:6a 5:6c 5:6c–d 5:7a 5:7c–d 5:8a 5:8b 5:12 5:14c 6:1b 6:5 7:8b 7:12 7:17 7:19 7:21 7:35b 8:2 8:16 10:23 10:25 13:1–13 13:21d 15:5 15:13 16:23 18:32 19:1 20:5 20:18 20:20 21:15 22:3 24:33 25:8 25:21 26:19 26:22 27:16 27:26 28:9 28:17 28:18 30:22 30:22–24 30:22b 30:23

249 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 148–9 148 143, 145 148 143 143 148 145 143 147 147 148 145 148 147 147 110 147 143 143 143 149–50 146 146 146 97 132 146 42 147 145 151 146 146 146 146 146 146 147 147 147 147

250 30:24a 31:23 31:24 32:14 32:22 32:23 32:23–33:2 33:25 35:9 35:24 37:7–15 37:7a 37:7b 37:8a 37:10 37:10a 37:11 37:11a 37:12 37:12a 37:13a 37:17–18 38:3 38:10 39:6 40:23 41:2 43:14 44:11 47:1–11 47:9 47:12 47:13–22 51:13–30

Ancient Sources Index 147 151 151 153 143 150 150 146 143 145 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151–2 151–2 151 151 145 143 143 42 147 151 143 145 146 132 146–7, 152 146 143

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 18:6 24–25

161 11

4 Ezra 8:52

11

DEAD SEA SCROLLS 1QS 4:13

161

4Q184 l. 1

159–60

l. 1–2 l. 2 l. 2–3 l. 3 l. 3–4 l. 3–5 l. 3–7 l. 5 l. 5–6 l. 5–7 l. 6 l. 6–7 l. 7 l. 7–9 l. 8 l. 8–10 l. 9 l. 9–10 l. 10 l. 10–11 l. 11 l. 11–12 l. 12 l. 12–13 l. 13–15 l. 13–17 l. 15 l. 15–17 l. 17

160, 162 159, 163, 165 162–3 163 163 162 163 159, 163 163 163 159 163 159, 161, 163 163 165 164 163 163 159, 163 163 159, 163 163–4 159 163 163 164 162 163 159–60, 163, 165

Damascus Document (CD) 2:4 161 NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 5:3 6:11 11:19 11:25–30 22:15–22 23:34–36 23:37–39 26:53

180 106 168 168 175 168 168 175

Mark 4:8 12:13–17 12:28

181 175 165

Ancient Sources Index Luke 7:35 10:21–22 11:49 13:34

168 168 168 168

John 1:1–18 1:3 1:14 8:58 14:6

168 180–3 181 169 181

Acts 5:29

174

Romans 10:6 12:20 13:1 13:1–2 13:1–7 13:2 13:3–4 13:14

168 168 173 173–4 167, 171, 173–7 173, 175 175 181

1 Corinthians 1:24 1:30 3:11 8:6 10:1–4

168, 180, 182 168 181 168, 171 168

Ephesians 4:24

181

Colossians 1:15–17 1:15–20 1:16 2:3

212 168, 171 180 169, 212

Hebrews 1:1–4 12:5–6

168 167

James 4:6

167–8

251

1 Peter 4:18 5:5

168 168

2 Peter 2:22

168

Revelation 2:7 3:14 21:9–22:5 22:2 22:14 22:19

11, 16 168, 212 11 16 11, 16 16

RABBINIC WORKS Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 12a

42

Sanhedrin 39b

93

Other Rabbinic Works Canticles Rabbah I:vi

117

Mekhilta de–Rabbi Ishmael (Nezikin 18) 199 Qohelet Rabbah 7.1 7:2 7:2.6 7:2.8

195 197 197 197

EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS Gregory of Nyssa Contra Eunomium I.19 183 I.22 180 I.23 180 III.1.21b 180 III.1.28 180 III.1.29 188 III.1.30 180 III.1.30–31 188 III.1.31 186 III.1.34–36 187

252 III.1.35–36 III.1.37–40 III.1.42 III.1.44 III.1.47 III.1.48 III.1.48–49 III.1.50 III.1.51 III.1.52 III.1.53–54 III.1.54 III.1.55–56 III.1.56 III.1.56–60 III.1.57–61 III.1.63 III.1.123–25 III.1.125 III.6.16 III.6.16–17 III.6.17

Ancient Sources Index 180, 182 180 185–6, 189 181 181, 184 183 181 181, 183, 187 181 181 183 181 181 187 184 182 182 183 183 183 183 183

GRECO-ROMAN LITERATURE Aristophanes Peace 979–85 121 Euripides Hippolytus 407–9

121

Trojan Women 665–66

121

Homer Odyssey 8.269–70

121

Xenophon Hiero 4.1

121

CHINESE LITERATURE Confucius Analects 1:3 2:1 2:3

209 207–8, 210 207

2:4 2:5 2:17 2:21 3:11 3:13 4:1–6 4:15 4:25 5:7 5:16 5:19 6:22–23 6:28 6:29 6:30 7:23 7:28 8:2 8:8 8:14 8:18 8:19 12:1 12:2 12:11 12:17 12:19 13:6 13:15 13:23 13:27 14:7 14:12 14:14 14:21 14:26 14:27 14:28 14:41 14:42 15:5 15:8 15:18 15:24 15:32 15:33 15:34 16:7

210–11 207 209–10, 212 207, 210 208 210 207 209, 212 208 209, 212 207 212 209, 212 210 207 209 208 207 208 208 212 210 210 208 209 208 207 207–8, 210 210 212 212 209 212 212 209, 212 212 212 207 209 208 208 207–8, 210 209, 212 207 209 207 209, 212 212 207

Ancient Sources Index 16:13 17:19 18:7 20:3

208 210 207 207–8

Laozi Tao Te Ching 2:38

253

210