Wealth and Poverty in The Book of Proverbs

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
99
Editors David J AClines Philip R Davies
JSOT Press Sheffield
This page intentionally left blank
WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE
BOOK OF PROVERBS
R.N. Whybray
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 99
Copyright 1990 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The University of Sheffield 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield S10 3BP England
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd Worcester
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Whybray, R.N. (Roger Norman) Wealth and poverty in the book of Proverbs 1. Bible. O.T, Proverbs. Special subjects. Personal
I. Title
II. Series
223.7083922 ISSN 0309-0787 ISBN 1-85075-264-8
CONTENTS
Abbreviations Introduction Section A. PROVERBS 10.1-22.16 AND 25-29 1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty a. Wealth, power and high social status b. Poverty and low social status c. Some features of the terminology i Toor' and 'poverty' ii 'asir, 'rich' 2. The Speakers and their Values a. The precariousness of life b. The vocabulary of disaster
i Death
7 9 11 11 14 15 15 22 23 23 24
25
ii. Undefined disasters iii The danger of falling into poverty c. Hard work and contentment d. Generosity and oppression e. The work ethic f. The limited value of wealth g. The poor as God's creatures h. Slavery i. The 'royal' proverbs i The king as absolute monarch ii Simple faith in royal justice iii Critical attitudes towards kings iv. Supposed acquaintance with the court v. Conclusion 3. Summary
26 26 31 35 38 39 41 42 45 48 51 53 54 58 60
4. Concluding Remarks a. Wider issues b. The question of consistency c. Redaction and reinterpretation d. Authority and social function i Learned scribes or 'oral literature'? ii. Schools and education iiL The life of the people
Section B. OTHER COLLECTIONS OF SHORT PROVERBS
61 61 62 64 68 68 69 73
75
1. Proverbs 24.23-24 2. Miscellaneous Pieces in Proverbs 1-9 3. Proverbs 30 Section C. PROVERBS 22.17-24.22 Section D. PROVERBS 1-9 Section E. PROVERBS 31.1-9
Section F. PROVERBS 31.10-31 Section G. WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE BOOK OF
75 77 78 85 99 107
111
PROVERBS
Bibliography Index of Biblical References Index of Authors
113
119 123 131
ABBREVIATIONS
ANET AV BETL BHS BKAT BZAW ET ET FOTL HAT HK HUCA ICC JBL JEA JNES L UA L XX OBO OTL OTS RB REB RSV
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J.B. Pritchard, Princeton University Press 1950,19693 The Authorized (= *King James') Version of the Bible Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft English Translation Expository Times The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Tubingen Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, Gottingen Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Teh Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Lunds Universitets Arsskrift The Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Revue Biblique The Revised English Bible The Revised Standard Version of the Bible
Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs The Revised Version of the Bible Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Theology Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Theologische Biicherei, Altes Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alien Testament Theologische Realenzyklopddie Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
RV SBL SET SDB SPAW TBAT TDOT ThWAT TRE VT VT Suppl WMANT ZA W
INTRODUCTION
The unequal distribution of wealth is one of the most pressing problems in the world today. Those who believe that the Bible may have something relevant to say about it need to be able to give as accurate an account as possible of the relevant data. It is apparent to any serious reader that the various biblical books do not all speak with the same voice.1 The purpose of this study is to set out as clearly as possible the attitudes to this question expressed in one Old Testament book: the book of Proverbs. It will be shown that even within this single work several different points of view are to be found. Proverbs 10.1-22.16 and 25-29 together with some shorter passages in other parts of the book are collections of short proverbs. They are of particular interest because it is often in such tiny nuggets of perceived 'wisdom'often called 'sentence literature'that a people's traditional attitudes are most convincingly encapsulated. Elsewhere, particularly in chapters 1-9, 22.17-24.22 and 31, we find quite different attitudes towards wealth and poverty. That these are to some extent related to differences of social class and status is a reasonable assumption, and this investigation therefore necessarily involves some assessment of the social status of the speakers and authors of the material. However, this is not a sociological
Current interest in the problem of world poverty has given rise to a plethora of studies on biblical attitudes towards poverty, some of which will be referred to in the notes which follow. The most detailed of these in the Old Testament field and perhaps the most useful is M. Schwantes, Das Recht der Armen (1977). This, however, as the title states, is primarily concerned only with the rights of the poor referred to in Exod. 23.6 in the phrase mispat 'ebydnek&that is, with their proper status, whether affirmed, recognized or ignored, in society and before the law. The scope of the present study, as the title indicates, is wider.
1
10
Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs
essay in the technical sense. It offers no broad sociological theory, but is entirely concerned with the internal evidence of the texts themselves. It will become apparent that, despite the widely differing points of view expressed in the different parts of Proverbs, the book nowhere gives any hint of a changing situation or of a pressing need for change. What we see here is a self-portrait of a society on the whole uncritical of the status quo.1
I have already dealt very briefly with this topic in 'Poverty, Wealth and Point of View in Proverbs', ET100 (1988-89), pp. 332-36.
SECTION A. PROVERBS 10.1-22.16 AND25-29
1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty a. Wealth, power and high social status 'a$ir, 'rich (person), "the rich" as a class' (10.15; 14.20; 18.11 23; 22.2,7,16; 28.6,11). This term has no synonyms.1 Wealth, however, is denoted by a variety of abstract nouns:
'dger, 'wealth', 11.16, 28; 13.8; 14.24; 22.1, 4 hdn, 'wealth', 10.15; 11.4; 12.27; 13.7, 11; 18.11; 19.4, 14; 28.8, 22; 29.3 mdtar, 'abundance, plenty', 14.23; 21.5 hosen, 'wealth, treasure', 15.6; 27.24 ta'an&g, 'luxury', 19.10 'dsar, 'treasure', 10.2; 15.16; 21.6, 20 hayil, 'wealth' (elsewhere 'strength'), 13.22
The following verbs denote the acquisition or possession of wealth:

'aSar, 'to be or become rich', 10.4, 22; 13.7; 21.17; 28.20 dSn (pual), 'to become prosperous', 11.25; 13.4; 28.25
Other expressions:
$&ba' lehem, 'to have plenty of food', 12.11; 20.13; 28.19 6bba' nepeS, 'eating one's fill', 13.25 S6r 'ab&s, 'a fat ox', 15.17 bayit m&le'^fb&hlm, 'a house full of feasting" (literally, 'of sacrifices'), 17.l'
In addition to these there are numerous references to

1 On '&Str and the various terms for wealth in Proverbs see especially T. Donald, The Semantic Field of Rich and Poor in the Wisdom Literature of Hebrew and Accadian' (1964).
12

kesep, 'silver', 10.20; 16.16; 17.3; 22.1; 25.4,11; 26.23; 27.21 zahab, 'gold', 11.22; 17.3; 20.15; 22.1; 25.11,12; 27.21
and to costly ornaments:

nezem zahab, 'a gold ring", 11.22; 25.12 tapp&M zahab b'ma6kiyydt kesep,' "apples" of gold in a silver setting1, 25.11 halt ketem, 'an ornament of Nubian (?) gold', 25.12 p'ntntm, 'corals', 20.15 kfltyeqar, 'a costly ornament', 20.15
References to commercial activities do not necessarily imply wealth, but they testify to a concern with its power and the temptations of its acquisition:
qana 'to buy1, 17.16; 20.14 makar, 'to sell', 23.23 m'htr, 'price', 17.16; 27.26 md'znayim, 'scales', 11.1; 16.11; 20.23 peles, 'balance, scale', 16.11 'eben, 'stone, weight', 11.1; 16.11; 20.10, 23 'Gp&, 'ephah', 20.10
The inheritance of property is represented by

nahal, 'to inherit', 13.22; 28.10 nah"ld, 'inheritance, property', 17.2; 19.14; 20.21 sapan, 'to store up (for an heir)', 13.22
A number of words denote income and profit:

y'l (hiphil), 'to profit', 10.2; 11.4 ysp (niphal), 'to be increased', 11.24; (hiphil) 'to increase', 10.22 p"ulld 'reward, wages', 10.16; 11.18 fb&'a, Vages, income', 10.16; 14.4; 15.6; 16.8; 18.20 $eker, 'hire, wage', 11.18 neSek, "interest', 28.8 tarbtt, 'increment, usury', 28.8 't$ malweh, 'creditor', 22.7
References to lavish spending, generosity and almsgiving imply some degree of wealth:
pzr (piel), 'to scatter, distribute', 11.24 Sbr (hiphil), 'to sell' (bar, 'corn') (rather than withholding it to make a greater profit), 11.26 hanc,n, 'to be kind, generous (to the poor)', 14.21, 31; 19.17; 28.8 n&tan, 'to give' (to the poor), 28.27
A. 1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty

'IS mat tan, 'a generous man', 19.6 mattat, 'giK, 25.14 fob 'ayin, 'a generous man', 22.9
13
Meanness, on the other hand, is expressed by

h&6ak, 'withhold (one's wealth)', 11.24 mana', 'hold back (grain)', 11.26
There are two words for bribery:

Sohad, 'bribe', 17.8, 23; 21.14 mattan, literally, 'gift' (see above), but used in the sense of bribery, 18.16; 21.14 koper, 13.8; 21.18 means 'ransom'
Warnings against the folly of going bail for others presuppose the possession of property, though they also warn against the danger of losing it:
'arab, 'to go bail', 11.15; 17.18; 20.16; 27.13 '"rubbd, 'security', 17.18 taqa', 'to stand security", 17.18
It may be assumed that wealth, social status and power were closely associated. The following terms denote persons of high social status and power:
melek, 'king*, 14.28, 35; 16.10,12, 13, 14, 15; 19.12; 20.2, 8, 26, 28; 21.1; 22.11; 25.1, 2,3,5,6; 29.4,14 &ar, 'official, nobleman', 19.10; 28.2 razdn, 'ruler', 14.28 nadtb, 'prince, nobleman', 17.7; 25.7; 19.6 qastn, 'ruler, prince', 25.15 nagtd, 'ruler', 28.16 mdSel/moSel, 'ruler', 28.15; 29.12, 26 g*doltm, 'the great, nobles', 18.16; 25.6 yd'es, 'counsellor', 11.14; 15.22 (but for another meaning see 2.i.iv) m'Saret, 'courtier, royal official', 29.12
There are, then, more than 120 verses out of a total of 513 which refer to wealth, a comfortable existence, or positions of power and influence. The list does not include a number of words which refer only indirectly to the possession of wealth, e.g.getm, 'proud', 15.25; 16.19; besa', "ill-gotten gains', 15.27;
14
28.16, orrdSd', 'wicked', a very frequent word in these chapters, which in some instances at least has such an implication. b. Poverty and low social status The two most frequently occurring words meaning 'poor' in these chapters are:
raS, 13.8; 14.20; 17.5; 18.23; 19.1,7,22; 22.2,7; 28.3, 6, 27; 29.13 dal, 10.15; 14.31; 19.4,17; 21.13; 22.9,16; 28.3,8,11,15; 29.7,14
Other words are:

'ant/'&naw 14.21; 15.15; 16.191 'ebydn, 14.31 h"sar-lehem, 'a person in want' (literally, 'one who lacks bread'), 12.9 litweh, 'a debtor1, 22.7 'almand, 'a widow', 15.25
Verbs denoting poverty are:

hasar, to be in want, go hungry", 13.25 ra'eb, to be hungry, starve', 10.3; 19.15; 25.21 y&raS (niphal), 'to be dispossessed, become destitute', 20.13 raS, 'to be poor', 10.4; 13.7
The following nouns denote the state of poverty:

rSS/rtS, 'poverty1,10.15; 13.18; 28.19 heser, 'want, poverty", 28.22 mahsdr, 'want, poverty", 11.24; 14.23; 21.5,17; 22.16; 28.27 m'hittd, 'ruin', 10.15 (also frequently in a less precise sense)
Several other words and expressions refer to various degrees of poverty:

'"rlthat y&raq, 'a meal of vegetables, a poor meal', 15.17 m"dt, 'a little', 15.16; 16.8 pat h"rebd, 'a dry crust', 17.1 The question whether these are two separate words, 'ant, 'poor* and '&nQw, 'humble', or are variants of a single word is especially relevant to the interpretation of certain Psalms, but of little significance in Proverbs, 'ant occurs in the singular in 15.15 and clearly means 'poor'. In 14.21 and 16.19, where the plural is used, Kethib has '"niyytm but Qere '"nawtm. In 14.21 the meaning is clearly the poor'. In 16.19 'humble* is a possible but not a necessary meaning.
1

pat-lehem, 'a crust of bread', 28.21 'ayin, ''nothing", 13.4, 7; 20.4
15
A frequent cause of poverty is laziness, referred to in the following:

'&sSl, lazy, feckless', 10.26; 13.4; 15.19; 19.24; 20.4; 21.25; 22.13; 26.13,14,15,16 'asld, laziness', 19.15 r'miyyd, 'slackness', 10.4; 12.24, 27; 19.15
Laziness is also referred to in other words in 10.5; 27.23-27. Diligence, on the other hand, is praised as a means by which a person may avoid poverty and become self-sufficient or even wealthy:
haras, 'diligent', 10.4; 12.24, 27; 13.4; 21.5 : &bad, to work' (one's land), 12.11; 28.19
Low social status is denoted by the following words:

mas, 'forced labour', 12.24 'ebed, 'slave', 11.29; 12.9; 14.35; 17.2; 19.10; 22.7; 29.19, 21 'aml, labourer', 16.26
There are thus more than seventy verses which refer to poverty or low social status in these chapters. This list does not include a number of verses which refer to the small farmer who works for himself, such as 10.5; 14.4. The frequency of references to wealth, poverty and social status in these chapters may be summed up as follows: Total number of verses Verses in which such references occur Number of relevant words Total number of occurrences of these words c. Some features of the terminology i. "Poor' and 'poverty' ra$ and dal, together with the less frequent 'ant and 'ebyon, are the principal words generally rendered by 'poor'; re& and mahsdr are the main words for 'poverty'. Are these words 513 158 95 261
16
synonymous, or are there nuances which denote different types of poverty?1 Or, again, do they all in fact mean 'poor in the purely economic sense"? These questions have been much discussed. They will be briefly examined here purely from the point of view of the internal evidence of actual usage in these chapters?
Of the twenty-one occurrences of r&S in the Old Testament, sixteen are found in the wisdom literature: fourteen in the chapters of Proverbs under discussion here, and two in Ecclesiastes. Of the five remaining instances, three occur in Nathan's parable (2 Sam. 12.1-4), one in 1 Sam. 18.23 (see p. 17) and one in Ps. 82.3. In this last passage (Ps. 82.3) all the main words for 'poor' (da/, 'ant, r&S and 'ebydn) occur together in a way which suggests synonymity or at least close association. The fact that r&S occurs overwhelmingly in Proverbs led A. Kuschke ('Arm und reich' [1939], pp.47, 53) to suggest that r&S differs in meaning from the others and is used in Proverbs (together with the less frequent haser, and in common with misken, which occurs only in Ecclesiastes) to express a theme peculiar to that book: the rag was, according to him, the person who was responsible, through a defect of character, for his own misfortunes, and deserved no sympathy or help. There were thus two 'classes' of poor in Proverbs, and it is only for the other class that sympathy is expressed. J. van der Ploeg, however ('Les pauvres d'IsraeT [1950], pp. 254-58), disputed this view: there are, he argued, differences between the various words used, but they are only minor ones. Van der Ploeg is correct. In fact none of the occurrences of raS in Proverbs speaks of a poverty that is deserved, and several speak in quite different and positive terms of the ra$: his poverty may be accompanied by moral integrity superior to that of the rich (19.1, 22; 28.6); to sneer at him is to insult his Creator (17.5); Yahweh himself created both him and the rich man (22.2; 29.13). As for the other terms mentioned by Kuschke, haser, 'lacking1, occurs in connection with poverty only in the phrase hasar-lahem in 12.9 in the neutral sense of 'lacking food'. It is true that the cognate term mahsdr, which occurs six times in these chapters, always refers here to deserved poverty; but the other occurrences in the Old Testament show it to have been a purely 'neutral' word with no such implications (Deut. 15.8; Judg. 18.10; 19.19, 20). That it should have acquired a more specialized meaning in Proverbs is unlikely. There is in fact no evidence for Kuschke's thesis that there are two classes of poor in Proverbs. 2 That is, without recourse to etymological arguments, and with an awareness that it is misleading to assume a total uniformity of the meaning of a word throughout the Old Testament, irrespective of context. On the first point, J. Barr (The Semantics of Biblical Language [1961]) has exposed the 'etymological fallacy* of assuming that the meaning of a word can be determined on the basis of a supposed 'root
1
17
1. In some verses two or more of these words occur together in ways which suggest synonymity:
dal/rSS 10,15 A rich man's wealth (hdn 'aStr) is his strong city; the ruin (m'hittat) of the poor (dalltm) is their poverty (reSam).* meaning*. The second point may be illustrated by referring to some recent discussion of the meanings of da/ and rag. Elsewhere in the Old Testament dal oftens means 'weak' rather than poor. Further, it has been pointed out (by van der Ploeg [1950], p.251; Schwantes, pp. 79-80; H.-J. Fabry, ThWAT II, col. 232; R.J. Coggins, The Old Testament and the Poor' [1987-88], among others) that in some passages in the Old Testament laws the dal is not entirely impoverished: he is expected to be able to pay his half-shekel contribution like others (Exod. 30.15) and to contribute sacrificial offerings, even though less is required of him than of other citizens (Lev. 14.21). It has also been pointed out that the raS, 'poor man', in Nathan's parable (2 Sam. 12.1-4), though specifically contrasted with the 'aStr, has his own house and is the possessor of a lamb. Clearly in these contexts these words denote relative rather than absolute poverty. These passages, however, do not justify the assertion (e.g. by Schwantes, pp. 261-62) that this must also be true of the use of these words in Proverbs, for which the internal evidence is of a contrary nature. The laws of Exodus 30 and Leviticus 14usually regarded as lateprobably reflect quite different social and economic circumstances from those of Proverbs, in which these terms may well have somewhat different connotations. With regard to the term raS, David's self-deprecating reference to himself as 'poor and of no account' (r&S w'niqleh) in 1 Sam. 18.23 shows that the term could in certain circumstances be used hyperbolically. Nathan's parable could well be another example of such hyperbolic usage: the author wished to stress the extreme contrast between the economic circumstances of the raS and the 'aStr in the storya contrast so frequently made that it seems to have been a clichebut at the same time the need, also for the purposes of the story, to develop an analogy between David's action in taking another man's wife and that of the 'aStr made it essential that the 'poor' man should have a prized possession which could be taken from him. The fairytale atmosphere of this story is shown by the curious detail that the poor man's lamb was not an ordinary farm animal but a household pet. The context is clearly not one from which a definition of raH in its ordinary usages can be extracted. With regard to the meaning of dal, the definition in Jer. 39.10 of the dalltm as 'those who owned nothing' ('"Ser 'gn-lahem m"Ctmd) is likely to be realistic, at least for the period when it was written. 1 There is a kind of tautology here in both lines. But clearly in the first, hdn is regarded as that which characterizes the 'aStr, and similarly in
18 r&sldd
28.3
A poor man (r&S) who oppresses the poor (dalltm) is (like) torrential rain which leaves no crop.
This proverb only makes sense if the two terms are virtually synonymous.
dal/mahsdr 22.16 He who oppresses a poor man (dal) increases his wealth (leharb6tl&)\
he who gives to the rich CaStr) will only come to want (mahsdr).1 dal/'ebydn 14.31 He who oppresses a poor man (dal) insults his Maker, but he who is generous to a poor man Ceby&n) honours Him. raSImahsdr 2837 He who gives to a poor man (raS) will not come to want (mahsdr), but he who turns a blind eye to him will get many a curse.
It appears from these instances that no distinction is made between the states of poverty denoted by raS/reS, m ahsor, 'ebydn and dal. A further indication of this is to be found in those proverbs in which either ro or dal is contrasted with 'atr. 2. 'ofr and its antonyms 'atr and raSare contrasted in several proverbs in a way which leaves no room for doubt that the author sees these two types as representing the extremes of economic status:
the second line, although the syntactical arrangement is different, re& is intended to denote what is characteristic of the dal. The meaning of this proverb is that wealth affords protection to its possessor while poverty offers none and BO is only one step away from total disaster. * The 16 in I'harbdt Id, literally 'to multiply for him', is ambiguous: the meaning might be either that the oppressor will increase his own wealth or that he will unwittingly increase that of the dal because the latter will receive a blessing to compensate for his ill treatment. There are also other problems of interpretation here: it is not clear why one should give to the rich, or what is the relationship between the two lines. Nevertheless the link between dal and mahsdr is clear.

14.20
19
Even by his neighbour the poor man is hated, but many are those who love the rich man. 18.23 The poor man speaks deferentially, but the rich man answers harshly. 28.6 Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man whose ways are perverse. 22.2 The rich man and the poor man meet one another (nipgaS&Y,1 it is Yahweh who made them both. 22.7 The rich man rules over the poor, and the debtor is slave to the creditor.
Yet 'air and dal are contrasted in exactly the same way. 10.15 has already been considered above. In 28.11 there can be no doubt that dal is the antonym of '&$1r:
A rich man is wise in his own eyes, but a discerning poor man will see through him.
dal is also contrasted quite definitely with hon, "wealth' in 19.4:

Wealth makes many friends, but a poor man becomes estranged from his friend.
It is significant that this theme is identical with that of 14.20 (see above), where the contrast is between 'atr and ra. 3. A further test of the relative meanings of rds and dal may be carried out by comparing what is said in these chapters respectively about the characteristics and situations of the types of person so designated. It has already been pointed out that 14.20 and 19.4 speak respectively of the ras and the dal in similar terms as being friendless and disliked in their communities. A further instance of this in the case of the ras is 19.7:
All the poor man's brothers hate him; how much more do his friends stay clear of him!
A further characteristic of the poor man is his vulnerability to the depredations of the rich and powerful. In the case of the rdS, 18.23 and 22.7 have already been referred to in this connection. There the roS is treated with contempt by the rich
O On the meaning ofnipgQSti see 2.g.
20
man, who regards him as a dependant. The following proverbs refer similarly to the treatment by others of the dal:
14.31a He who oppresses a poor man insults his Maker. 22.16a He who oppresses a poor man increases his wealth.
21.13 refers to those who ignore the dot's cry for help:
He who closes his ear to a poor man's cry of distress will himself get no answer when he cries for help.
29.7 refers to the inability of the dal to obtain justice:

A righteous man recognizes the cause of the poor, but a wicked man does not pay attention to such knowledge.
From these proverbs it might be argued that the dal is not necessarily a poor person but rather a defenceless one. The verb 'a$aq, 'oppress', is used in these chapters only with dal as its object (in 14.31; 22.16; 28.3), never with ras or any other word meaning 'poor*. What kind of 'oppression' is meant is not stated; but 29.7, with its reference to the denial of the daUs civil rights, and perhaps 21.13 with its reference to his cry for help, might suggest that dal here may be intended to convey the idea of a person helpless to defend himself either in legal disputes or accusations or from unscrupulous creditors, rather than simply one who is economically poor. Since, however, poverty and powerlessness were closely associated in ancient Israel, as often elsewhere, and in view of the contrast with hon in 19.4, it is likely that the difference between ras and dal, if any, is one of nuance or point of view rather than of substance. The dal was almost always rdS, and the ras in certain situations was perceived as dal. They are not two distinct types of person. It may also be remarked that 14.31 (see above) regards the dal simultaneously from both angles: as oppressed, he is powerless; as set in parallelism with the 'ebydn, he is poor. A further theme in which the words for poor are used interchangeably is that of the blessing which will reward kindness (hnn) or generosity (ntn) to the poor, sometimes combined with a warning to those who ignore or are unconcerned with their plight. Of the six proverbs in question, three have dal as the recipient, one has ras, one has 'ani/andw, and one has 'ebydn:

28.27a 22.9b 28.8b 19.17a 14.21b
21
He who gives to a poor man (ndten laraS) will not come to want. For he gives of his food to the poor (natan millahmd ladd&l). Gathers it to give to the poor (Fhdnen dalltm). He who is generous to the poor (hdrien dal) lends to Yahweh. And happy is he who is generous to the poor (m'hdnen 'aniyytm/'anawlm). 14.31 He who oppresses the dal insults his Maker, but he who is generous to a poor man (honen 'ebydn) honours Him.
This interchange of terms (hnn in these contexts is virtually synonymous with ntn) confirms the view that, even though dal may in some circumstances have a slightly different connotation from rdS, there was no significant difference between them in the speakers' perception of their economic status. The same is true of both 'ebydn and 'anil'anaw, which occur much less frequently: 'ant/'andw three times, 'ebydn only once. With regard to 'anil'anaw, two more proverbs add further confirmation of this.
16.19 It is better to be humble (S'pal-r&ah) with the 'aniyytm/'anawtm than to divide the spoil with the proud (ge'tm).
Here it has been supposed that 'aniyyim/'anawtm means "humble' as in some of the Psalms; but in view of the tautology which would then be created in the first line, and of the contrast with the 'spoils' (or 'gains'Saldl) of the 'proud' in the second, "poor" (with, perhaps, a small nuance) is to be preferred. The same applies to 15.15:
All the days of the 'ant are wretched, but a cheerful heart is a perpetual feast.
Here 'ant can hardly mean "humble'. It is the days of the poor which are miserable, but there can be an inner cheerfulness able to overcome the unpleasant circumstances. The other words denoting poverty in these chapters speak for themselves. The noun re&/rt and the verb r&& are cognates of rd$, and it is clear that all these denote a state of poverty. The group of words from the root hsr, lack, want' (haserin the phrase hasar-lehemheser, mahsdr) all refer to a state of deprivation of the necessities of life, ra'eb means 'to be hungry, to starve'; yaraS (niphal) 'to be dispossessed, destitute', m'hitta, which occurs several times (10.14, 15, 29; 13.3; 14.28; 18.7;
22
21.15) means desperation or ruin, not necessarily in the economic sense; but in 10.15b it is the consequence of poverty. Conclusion It therefore appears probable that no significant distinction between the words for 'poor" and 'poverty1 was intended by these speakers. The reason for their use of such an abundance of synonyms is not, however, apparent. ii. 'asir, 'rich' Of a total of twenty-three occurrences of 'asir in the Old Testament nine are found in these chapters. In all these cases with one exception (18.11) 'asir stands in opposition to either ras or dal. In contrast with the plethora of words meaning 'poor" it is remarkable that no other adjective or noun signifying 'rich' occurs,1 although a number of other words and phrases denoting wealth and its acquisition are used quite frequently. It is important to note that the portrait of the 'astr presented here is far from sympathetic. In contrast with the poor he has security, or believes himself to be secure (10.15; 18.11), and his wealth brings him many 'friends' ('dhablm, 14.20there is probably an ironical tone here: it is implied that they love' him only for his wealth). The 'asir lords it over the ras (22.7; cf. 22.16) and gives a harsh reply to his entreaties (18.23). In 28.6 the dishonest or 'crooked' Ciqqes) 'asir is contrasted with the honest and upright ras; and in 28.11 it is the ts 'asir who is convinced of his own cleverness (hakam b"endw), but the discerning poor man (dal mebin) who sees through him. The comment that the 'asir and the ras have a common Creator (22.2) and so a common humanity is susceptible of different interpretations, but does not suggest either approval or disapproval of the social and economic system which regards the former as innately superior to the latter.2
1 2
This is true of the Old Testament as a whole. In fact poverty is virtually always taken for granted in the Old Testament in the sense that it is not regarded as an evil contrary to the will of God which can and must be abolished. However, G. von Rad (Weisheit in Israel [1970], p. 105; ET p. 76) correctly pointed out that the point of view expressed in the 'sentence-literature' of Proverbs is
A. 2. The Speakers and their Values
23
It is remarkable that not a single virtue is attributed to the 'as tr in these chapters. Yet other proverbs make it clear that generosity to the poor is well attested. It is equally clear that wealth is not despised by the speakers of these proverbs; it is often regarded as something positively desirable. This may suggest that 'a tr here has a special connotation: that it refers not simply to persons who have achieved or inherited greater prosperity than others, but to a particular kind of person who represents the exact opposite of the truly indigent, and who is regarded by the speakers with hostility. There is no suggestion, however, in these proverbs that the speakers envied the 'a$ tr or wished to attain his status or the position of power that went with it.
2. The Speakers and their Values
The key to the understanding of the attitudes expressed toward the poor in these chapters is to be found in a correct assessment of the standpoint from which the proverbs were composed. It is therefore necessary to consider what were the fears and ambitions, the social and ethical values, and the position in society of their speakers.
a. The precariousness of life
Another of the most striking characteristics of these proverbsapart from the frequency of references to wealth and povertyis the frequency of references to the possibility of a person's being brought low by total disaster. No less than fortyeight separate words and phrases are employed in such references, and the total number of verses concerned is at least 103. These proverbs, in other words, present a picture of a soci'static' to an exceptional degree: it shows no awareness of the social problems and conflicts which are so evident in the teaching of the preexilic prophets. Although these speakers could experience a twinge of conscience over the sufferings of the poor, they did not call for a radical change in the social system, which they regarded as essentially stable. Poverty was, in their view, mainly the consequence of individual failures to conform to the norms of the established social order. See also D. Michel, THE, IV (1979), p. 72.
24
ety in which life was extremely precarious, in which there was an awareness of being surrounded by dangers by which one could easily be totally ruined. While wisdom, piety, honesty and industry are commended as often procuring security and prosperity, the number of warnings about the opposite fate attests in a variety of ways to a deep concern about the extreme precariousness of life. What is in question here is, generally speaking, what we should call 'natural causes'. b. The vocabulary of disaster
'abad, to perish', 10.28; 11.7,10; 19.9; 21.28; 28.28 'ayin, '(to be) not', i.e. to cease to exist, 10.25 bwS (hiphil), 'to put to shame', 10.5; 12.4 dhh (niphal), 'to be thrust down, overthrown', 14.32 da'ak nr, 'lamp is extinguished', 13.9; 20.20 da^ke-mawet, 'the way to death', 14.12; 16.25 hapak, 'to overthrow', 12.7 haras, 'to pull down', 14.1; 29.4; (niphal), 'to be overthrown', 11.a11 hadap, 'to drive out, ruin", 10.3 hata', to miss the way, fail', 19.2 kiSSaldn, 'stumbling, downfall', 16.18 Ibt (niphal), 'to be thrust down, come to grief, 10.8,10 Ikd (niphal), 'to be captured, snared", 11.6 m'gdrd, 'terror', 10.24 mh&md, 'confusion, trouble', 15.16 m'hittd, 'terror, ruin', 10.14,15, 29; 13.3; 14.28; 18.7; 21.15 mdt (niphal), 'to be shaken, be disturbed' (of roots), 12.3 mdqeS, 'snare', 18.7; 20.25; 29.6, 25 mat, 'to die' (as a result of folly, etc.), 10.21; 15.10; 10.16 (Q); (hiphil) 'to kill, destroy1, 21.25 mawet, '(premature) death', 10.2; 11.4,19; 12.28; 16.14 mas, 'forced labour', 12.24 mappelet, 'downfall', 29.16 mdcflg mawet, 'snares of death', 13.14; 14.27 maShtt, 'destruction', 18.9; 28.24 nasah, 'to tear down', 15.25 napa'l, 'to fall', 11.5, 14, 28; 22.14; 26.27; 28.10, 18; (hiphil) 'to cause to fall', 19.15 napal b'ra'A, 'to fall into trouble', 17.20; 28.14 sip (piel), to overturn, ruin', 13.6; 19.3; 21.12; 22.12 'ebrd, 'wrath', 11.4, 23; 14.35

'akar, 'to make trouble (for)', 11.17, 29; 15.27; (niphal) 'to be troubled', 15.6 sard, 'trouble, distress', 11.8; 12.13; 17.17; 21.23; 25.19 qaldn, 'shame', 11.2; 13.18; 18.3 qasar, 'to be short' (of years of life), 10.27 qasar 'awen, 'to reap trouble', 22.8 ra', 'adversity; wretched', 12.21; 15.15; 19.23; 13.17 ra'a, 'misfortune', 11.27; 13.21; 16.4; 17.13; 22.3; 27.12 r" (niphal), 'to suffer harm', 11.15; 13.20 raqab, 'to rot' (of name), 10.7 raqab, 'to rot' (of bones), 12.4; 14.30 reSet paras, 'to spread a net' (for feet), 29.5 Sbr (niphal), 'to be broken, ruined", 29.1 Seber, 'disaster1,16.18; 17.19; 18.12 S&hd '"muqqd, 'deep pit', 22.14 Sht (hiphil), 'to ruin, destroy', 11.9 s'md (niphal), 'to be destroyed', 14.11 Spl (hiphil), 'to bring low', 29.23 ta'd, 'to go astray', 14.22; (hiphil) 'to lead astray", 12.26; 10.17
25
The above list is not by any means exhaustive. Apart from doubtful cases, ruin or destruction is, for example, sometimes indicated in these chapters by the use of metaphors or similes, e.g. a she-bear robbed of her cubs (17.12), the roaring of a lion (19.12; 20.2), a mouth filled with gravel (20.17), falling into a pit (26.27; 28.10) or being struck by a dislodged rock (26.27). It is often difficult to determine the exact nature of such disasters which may befall a person. Some comments may, however, be made on items in the above list. i. Death Some of these words refer explicitly to deaththat is, to a premature deathseen to be the consequence of wickedness or folly. The wicked person (11.10), the liar (19.9) and the false witness (21.28) will perish Cabad). The wicked person will be no more ('ayin) while the righteous will be established for ever (10.25). The lamp of the wicked will be put out (13.9; 20.20). The fool (10.21), the person who hates reproof (15.10) and the one who 'despises his ways' (19.16) will die (mut). The life of the wicked will be short (qaser) in contrast to the long life promised to those who fear Yahweh (10.27, a specific reference to premature death, clearly to be taken literally). Such premature death (mawet) is the fate of those who pursue evil
26
(11.19), but it can be avoided by righteousness (10.2; 11.4), by attention to the teaching of the wise (13.14) or by the fear of Yahweh (14.27). ii. Undefined disasters Many of the other words in question, however, are more difficult to interpret, either because they are very general in meaning or because they are ambiguous in their contexts. In some cases there is uncertainty whether they are to be understood figuratively or literally; in others, however, the reference is clearly to some unpleasant fate which stops short of death. The wicked person 'falls' (ndpal, 11.5), as does the one who trusts in riches (11.28, in contrast to the righteous one who will 'flourish like a green leaf). The person who leads the righteous astray will fall into his own pit (28.10), while the 'crooked' will fall into trouble (napal bera'a, 17.20), as will the one who hardens his heart (28.14) as opposed to the person who fears Yahweh. Similar observations may be made about the vagueness of meaning of other verbs used in these chapters: dhh (niphal), 'to be overthrown', hata', 'to fail', Ibt (niphal), 'to come to grief, Ikd (niphal), 'to be snared', mdt, 'to totter", br (niphal), 'to be ruined', md (niphal), 'to be destroyed', ta'a, to go astray", r" (niphal), to suffer harm'. Equally with transitive verbs having the sufferer as their object: hapak, to overthrow', haras, to tear down', nasah, to pull down', sip (piel), to ruin', sht (hiphil), 'to destroy1,3pZ (hiphil), 'to bring low5. Many of the nouns used are also of very general meaning: kissalon, 'downfall', m'hftma, 'terror', m'hitta, terror, ruin', mappelet, Tall', mashit, destruction', 'ebra, 'wrath', sard, trouble', qalon, 'shame', ra', 'adversity", ra'a, 'misfortune', Seber, 'disaster'. iii. The danger of falling into poverty There can be little doubt that the danger of falling into poverty was one of the main misfortunes by which the speakers and their audiences felt threatened. In one proverb this is made quite clear by the use of the word mas, forced labour", a term which, although probably used hyperbolicallythe practice seems to have ceased after the reign of Solomonwill not have failed to terrify:

12.24 The hand of the diligent will rule, but sloth will lead to forced labour (mas).
27
In other sayings, where prosperity and security are promised to the righteous, wise or industrious, we may deduce that the corresponding expressions used to describe the fate of the wicked, foolish or lazy refer to a lack of these things, that is, to a fall into poverty, as in the following cases:
14.11 The house of the wicked will be destroyed (yi&Samed),, but the tent of the upright will prosper (yaprtah). 11.28 He who relies on his riches will fall (yippdl), but the righteous will flourish (yiprahU) like a green leaf (ke'aleh). 15.25 Yahweh tears down ((yissah) the house of the proud, but establishes the boundary (yasseb geb&l) of the widow. 12.7 The wicked are overthrown (hapdk)) and are no more Cenam), but the house of the righteous stands (ya'amdd).). 17.20 One whose heart is crooked does not prosper (Id' yimsa'-tdb). and one whose tongue is perverse will fall into misfortune (yippdlb'ra'd).).
The most significant words here are 'house' (bayit), 'flourish' (parah), leaf, Caleh), 'fix a boundary (hisstb gebul) and 'prosper1 (masa' tdb). In 15.25 the fates of the proud and of the widow are contrasted. The situation of the latter is expressed in quite concrete terms: widows are vulnerable to, and can be driven into destitution by, neighbours who move the boundary-stones of their land and so reduce their holdings to their own advantage. The collocation of 'house' with "boundary" in this proverb strongly suggests that "house' here is also to be taken literally, whether in the sense of a building or of a household or family. Yahweh, it is stated, protects the widow and saves her from destitution, while destroying the material wellbeing of the 'proud' or arrogant, driving them into the poverty for which they have destined the widow.1
1 The reference to the plight of widows is a reminder that certain elements in the population were especially vulnerable to exploitation and so to impoverishment because they did not possess full civic rights and so were unable to take legal action against their exploiters. Widows, together with certain other groups, notably orphans (specifically the fatherless) and aliens (gSrlm) with whom they are frequently men-
28
The other references to a liouse' are equally concrete. In 12.7 the 'house' of the righteous will 'stand', that is, stand firm. Again, whether this is to be taken as referring to their home (cf. Job 8.15) or their family, it is a clear reference to economic stability; this suggests that the words used of the wicked refer to their economic ruin. Similarly in 14.11 the destruction of the 'house' of the wicked is contrasted with the prosperity of the upright, prh ('prosper'), as is illustrated by the additional phrase Tike a leaf in 11.28, literally means 'sprout', but is used metaphorically of material prosperity, as in Isa. 27.6; Ps. 92.12 (Heb. 13). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that napal, 'to fall', imd (niphal), 'to be destroyed', and hapak, 'to overthrow* are to be interpreted in a similar way in other passages in these chapters, and also that bayit, 'house', is similarly to be understood when it occurs in such passages as 15.27; 17.13;
tioned together in the laws and elsewhere in the Old Testament, were in this position. For this reason, however, they were regarded as under the special protection of Yahweh (Exod. 22.22-24; Deut. 10.18-19), who would punish those who sought to exploit them. A similar attitude is found in the prophetical hooks and the Psalms. Prov. 15.25 expresses the accepted view. But it is the only one of the proverbs in these chapters which refers to these special categories of the poor: it is the only reference to widows, while orphans and aliens are not mentioned at all. Normally in Israel women were under the protection of their husbands, or, if unmarried or widowed, of their fathers. It is no doubt for this reason that they are so seldom mentioned in these chapters, and that when they are mentioned it is mainly in the context of wifehood or, in association with their husbands, as parents. It was the family as a unit, with the man as the head, which was the normal focus of Israelite social life. So apart from two references to immoral women (22.14; 29.3) and one quite incidental reference to female servants (22.27), the remainder of references to women in these chapters refer to the mother in conjunction with the father (10.1; 15.20; 17.25; 19.26; 20.20) with one reference to the mother alone (29.15), and the rest to various aspects of marriage (11.16, 22; 12.4; 18.22; 19.13, 14; 21.9, 19; 25.24; 27.15-16. 14.1 probably refers to Wisdom personified as a woman). The only proverb which mentions a woman in connection with poverty is 15.25, where it is due to encroachment on a widow's property. That widows might in some circumstances possess property, though this was not normally the case, seems clear from 2 Kgs 8.6 and Ruth 4.3, though the situation remains somewhat obscure (see de Vaux, Institutions, I, p. 91; [ET p. 54]; H.A. Hoffher, ThWAT, I, cols. 311-12).
29
21.12, where an evil fate is predicted for the Tiouse' of the wicked. Finally in 17.20 we have the phrase masa' tab, literally to find (what is) good', here contrasted with 'to fall into misfortune' (napal b'ra'd). It is probable that tab here has the sense of 'material good', that is, economic prosperity, well attested elsewhere in the Old Testament. In three other sayings tob appears in connection with the verbs saba', to be satisfied, have a sufficiency" (12.14), 'akal, 'to eat, be nourished with' (13.2) and nahal, 'to inherit' (28.10). The question is whether these verbs are to be understood literally or figuratively. The first lines of 12.14 and 13.2 are identical except for the verb:
12.14 13.2 From the fruit (p'rt) of a man's mouth he is sated with good (yiba'-t6b), and the reward of a man's hands returns to him. From the fruit (p'rt)) of a man's mouth he eats what is good (yoTial ttb), but the desire of the treacherous is violence.
There is a play on words here. "Fruit' is ostensibly used in its common figurative sense of 'result, product'; yet the verbs 'akal, 'eat' and saba', 'be sated, have enough to eat' suggest a literal consumption of fruit. (It should be noted thatperi is used to denote any kind of vegetable produce, not merely 'fruit' in the restricted modern sense of that word.) In 28.10 yet another verb is used with (66:
He who leads the upright astray into an evil way will himself fall into his own pit; but the innocent will inherit what is good (yinhald-tdb).
Here nahal, 'to inherit', may be used primarily in the figurative sense of 'obtain, receive as a possession"; but there may well also be here a hint of a literal meaning: nahal properly refers to the acquisition of agricultural land capable of providing economic sufficiency. If, then, tob in these cases refers to material wealth or at least sufficiency, it may be supposed that masa.' tob in 17.20 also means to acquire prosperity. This illuminates the meaning of the words describing the opposite fate: yippol bera'a, then,
30
refers to a fall into economic distress, and this is also true of yippdl bi&hutd in 28.10. It is also probably the case in 13.21:
Misfortune (rfl'd) pursues sinners, but prosperity (tdb) rewards the righteous.1
In the two other occurrences of masa' tdb in these verses (16.20 and 19.8) the same meaningof material prosperity is probable, though there is no corresponding expression for the contrary fate. If the above arguments are valid, it is probable that many more of these proverbs envisage the possibility of falling into povertymainly through loss of land due to sin, folly or lazinessthan has generally been recognized. Many of the references to misfortune expressed in general terms conceal quite concrete disasters involving a fall into economic distress. Indeed, in an agricultural setting such as that of the bulk of the Israelite population in ancient times, economic distress is, apart from diseasethe latter not often specifically mentioned in these chapterslikely to have been the kind of disaster most commonly to be met with. Some of the proverbs refer quite specifically to poverty and destitution as the probable, or even certain, fate of certain kinds of person. By far the largest number of such proverbs single out laziness or improvidence as the cause. No less than nine of these (10.4, 5; 12.24; 13.4; 15.19; 19.15; 20.4, 13; 21.25) refer directly to laziness, and several of these state or imply that a refusal to perform agricultural or other manual labour is involved. One (12.24), as has already been noted, refers to forced labour (mas). The fates reserved for the lazy in these proverbs include not only a general state of poverty but, in particular, disgrace in the community (10.5), starvation (19.15; 20.4) and loss of ancestral farm land (20.13). In addition, six humorous proverbs (19.24; 22.13; 26.13, 14, 15, 16) reflect a contempt for the lazy person Casel) which shows him
Most modern versions (e.g. RSV, JB, NEB, REB) take tdb as the subject of this line in the same way that ra'd is the subject of the previous line. Some commentators, however, regard tdb as the object of the verb, with Yahweh (understood but not expressed) as the subject: "but he rewards the righteous with good'. In either case tdb and r&'d are clearly contrasted.
1
31
to have lost the respect and sympathy of his neighbours. In a similar vein, love of pleasure and luxury is given as a cause of poverty (21.17; 28.19), and also a propensity to talk or gossip instead of getting down to work (14.23). The proverbs which specifically connect poverty with other faultsrefusal to listen to advice or instruction (13.18), wickedness in general (13.25) and meanness (11.24)are far fewer, although many predict a bad end for the wicked in more general terms. These frequent references to the threat of poverty can perhaps be partly accounted for by the nature of the antithetical proverb, which obtains its effect by emphasizing the contrast between two extremes as much as possible. It might be argued that these proverbs postulate what could happen rather than what does regularly happen in ordinary life. But it is questionable whether such exaggerationwhich may not be entirely absent from these proverbscan completely account for the phenomenon. The general impression gained by reading these proverbs is of the great uncertainty of life as regards the maintenance of a sufficient living. Such evidence as is to be found here suggests that their settings are predominantly those of the life of small farmers farming their own land (and perhaps, to some extent, of an urban proletariat). It is strongly implied that only constant hard work allied with common sense and a resistance to the temptation to fritter away one's substance on inessentials and self-indulgence can stave off the threat of poverty. While some of the warnings would no doubt constitute sound advice if offered to members of any social class, they would undoubtedly be far more relevant to the circumstances of the manual worker than of the relatively secure upper class. But it would be equally mistaken to describe the speakers of these proverbs as 'the poor*. Although they are acutely aware of the danger of falling into a state of poverty or destitution, they have avoided this fate by their prudence and hard work. c. Hard work and contentment The comments in these proverbs on 'the poor', like those on the rich, appear to reflect a certain detachment; at least, they do not appear to be derived from personal experience. There is,
32
for example, no personal bitterness here as might be expected from persons who either were experiencing or had themselves experienced dire poverty. There is equally no cry of distress; rather, there is observation of cases of distress. This is well illustrated by the way in which the rich and the poor are contrasted in a number of proverbs, for example:
14.20 Even by his neighbour the poor man is hated, but many are those who love the rich man. 18.23 The poor man speaks deferentially, but the rich man answers harshly. 22.7 The rich man rules over the poor, and the debtor is slave to the creditor.
Such contrasts are observations about certain aspects of contemporary society. Their standpoint is most naturally understood as that of persons who regard themselves as belonging to neither of these categories. If they are more than simply neutral observations, they might be understood as warnings of the danger of allowing oneself to fall into the miserable state of poverty: 22.7b in particular, with its reference to debt, is a clear allusion to what was perhaps the most common cause of such misery. But they do not give the impression of being derived from personal experience. The kind of poverty which these proverbs depict is not simply straitened means but actual destitution, a lack of the basic means of sustaining life. This is clear from the words used to describe it. 19.15 and 25.21 refer to a state of actual starvation (ra'eb). The root hsr also is used to denote actual deprivation, both in its verbal form haser (13.25), in the nouns mahsor (11.24; 14.23; 21.5, 17; 22.16; 28.27) and heser (28.22), and quite specifically in the phrase hasar-lehem, 'lacking food' (12.9). Other sayings speak of a person's having 'nothing* Cay in, 13.4, 7; 20.4). In almost all these cases the state of poverty is attributed to sloth, wickedness, meanness, idle talk, carelessness or love of luxury, often contrasted with the opposite characteristics with which no doubt the speakers identified themselves. They are clearly not the deprived ones whose sad case they record. As a safeguard against such extreme poverty several of these proverbs commend hard work, which will not fail to provide a sufficiency:
A, 2. The Speakers and their Values
33
28.19 He who works his own land will have plenty of food (yiba'-
lahem),
but he who follows worthless things will have plenty of poverty (yi6ba'-rt).
(Compare 12.11.) 20.13 has the form of a direct warning as well as a promise:
Do not love sleep, or you will lose your property (tiwwareS); stay awake, eat your fill (eba'-lahem).1
sfba'-lehem here is clearly to be taken literally, as is confirmed by 13.25:

The righteous will have enough food to satisfy his appetite Cokel lesoba' nap6), but the belly of the wicked will go hungry (tehsar).
Other proverbs, it is true, promise far more than this: in 11.25; 13.4; 28.25 it is promised that the generous, the hardworking and the pious respectively will be enriched (dsn, pual); and the verb 'aar, 'to be, become rich', is used similarly in 10.4, 22; 21.17; 28.20. To have enough to eat, then, is not put forward as an ideal: something much better is within the reach of those who obey the rules. But the three proverbs quoted above, which all refer to the small farmer ('he who works his own land') indicate the status of the speakers, a status between poverty and riches, content with a simple life if also ambitious for something more grand. This contentment with a simple life is further illustrated by another series of proverbs:
15.16 Better is a little (me'at) with the fear of Yahweh than great treasure and trouble with it. 16.8 Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice. 15.17 Better is a meal of vegetables (>aruhat yaraq) where there is love than a fat ox eaten in hatred. 17.1 Better is a dry crust (pat harebd) where there is tranquillity (Salwd)
1 Literally, 'Open your eyes, have plenty of bread'. This terse style is more effective than, e.g., 'If you can stay awake you will have enough to eat'. This crude and harsh way of speaking perhaps reflects the atmosphere of hard agricultural labour.
34

than a house filled with feasting and strife.
(We may compare 22.1: A good name is more to be desired than great riches, and esteem more than silver or gold.)
Clearly there is no idealization of the simple life here: all these proverbs do no more than claim that if a choice had to be made, wealth is less desirable than certain other qualities of life which make for contentmentpiety, righteousness, family love, domestic peace. If wealth is accompanied by injustice, hatred, strife or (somewhat more vaguely) 'trouble' (m'huma),and, it seems to be implied, this is often the casethen it is better to remain 'poor*. But this 'poverty''a little', plain food, and even a dry crustis not the utter poverty of the totally destitute. With the exception of the 'dry crust' it is the normal state of the small farmer or worker. It should be noted that even the dry crust may, in the opinion of the author, be accompanied by contentment.1 17.1 may perhaps be a conscious overstatement; but taken together these extremely similar statements, like many others in these chapters which point out the dangers and drawbacks often attached to wealth, are difficult to interpret as expressing the views either of the very poor or of the very rich. The simple life is not presented as an ideal, nor is the life of luxury (we may compare the prayer in 30.7-9, where the petitioner asks to be delivered from both poverty and riches). There are circumstances in which it is best to be content with the little one has even if it does not allow of luxuries. It should be noted that in none of the above proverbs is any of the words noted above as meaning 'poor* (ra, dal, 'ant, 'ebydn) used: nowhere, indeed, in all these chapters is it ever said that poverty in the sense of utter destitution is preferable to any other state of life.
1 Salwd, rendered by 'tranquillity1 in 17.1, is a somewhat ambiguous word. In Ezek. 16.49 it seems to mean 'ease' or 'prosperity', but in Prov. 1.32 it is rather complacency, that is, a false sense of security or prosperity. However, in Ps. 122.7, in a prayer on behalf of the city of Jerusalem, it is paralleled with $&ldm, 'peace'. Here in 17.1 it is contrasted with rtb, 'strife', and probably means either 'concord' or 'tranquillity'. It is unnecessary to emend it to S&ldm on the basis of the LXX's 'peace'.
A. 2. The Speakers and their Values d. Generosity and oppression
35
In the light of the above it becomes clear that there is no reason to suppose that those proverbs which commend generosity towards the poor (14.21, 31; 19.17; 22.9; 28.27) are exclusively addressed to wealthy persons. They are addressed to anyone who is able to spare something to save the really poor from starvation (natan millahmo laddal, 22.9; cf. nfhonen 'aniyyim [14.21]; honen 'ebyon [14.31]; honen ddl [19.17]; noten laras [28.27]all of which mean 'one who is generous to the poor'). Such a person will, because of his good deeds, himself be preserved from want ('en mahsor, 28.27) or is promised blessing or good fortune or a reward from Yahweh. Such a person could as well be one who has only 'a little' himself: indeed, the phrase natan millahmo laddal, literally 'gives some of his own food to the poor*, may suggest that the donor is such a person rather than that he is a wealthy man distributing general largesse.1 The only one of these proverbs which might be supposed to imply the contrary is 14.31, in which the generous man is contrasted with the 'oppressor*:
He who oppresses a poor man CbSeq-dal) insults his Maker, but he who is generous to a poor man (honen 'ebydri) honours him.
In nine of the thirty-six occurrences of the verb 'c&aq in the Old Testament apart from Proverbs (Jer. 7.6; Ezek. 22.29; Amos 4.1; Mic. 2.2; Zech. 7.10; Mai. 3.5; Pss. 72.4; 103.6; 146.7) it denotes the behaviour of the rich and powerful against the poor or disadvantageda rather small number of instances compared with the large number of denunciations of such behaviour, especially in the prophetical books, in which other expressions are used. This appears in fact to be a rather specialized use of this verb. Although it is almost always used of deliberate action taken to the detriment of others (Prov. 28.17 is an exception), the nature and circumstances of such action usually remains undefined. In a number of significant
1 lehem, literally, 'bread* is always used in these chapters in the sense of material food. It never means 'wealth'. If it had been intended here to refer to the benevolence of the wealthy, other words for 'wealth' could have been used.
36
instances, however, there is no reason to suppose that the agent is necessarily wealthier or more powerful than the victim.1 Lev. 19.9-18 consists of a series of rules addressed to a farming community in the form of prohibitions. These cover such matters as the treatment of the blind and deaf, honest behaviour in the local tribunal and general harmonious relations between a man and his neighbour (reaf), concluding in v. 18 with the celebrated command, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Verses 11-13 deal with theft (ganab), swindling (kahaS), cheating (Sqr), false oaths and holding back wages. Verse 13 states: "You shall not "oppress" Casaq) your neighbour or rob him'. In this context 'aaq, although its precise meaning is not clear, may be presumed to be some action which is injurious but on a par with simple theft. It is a crime committed by 'neighbours', that is, fellow-members of the same community. Similarly in Lev. 6.2-4 (Heb. 5.21-23) 'asaq is grouped with swindling, robbery and falsehood among neighbours. Again, in Samuel's defence of his past conduct in 1 Sam. 12, 'aSaq is listed with similar offences including the theft of an ox or an ass. In Hos. 12.7 (Heb. 8), the verb is used of a dishonest trader. These offences are hardly to be designated as 'oppression' in the sense of the actions of the rich intent on ruining the powerless and driving them into destitution or slavery.2 'aSaq, then, is a word with a fairly wide range of meanings. But if it is accepted that it does not necessarily denote an action performed by the wealthy and powerful, it becomes possible to make sense of another verse which has previously been thought to require emendation:
On the vocabulary of oppression in the Old Testament see J. Pons, L'oppression dans I'Ancien Testament (1981); T.D. Hanks, God So Loved the Third World (1983). On 'aSaq see E. Gerstenberger in ThWAT, VI, cols. 441-46. 2 Apart from 14.31 and 28.3 there is a reference to the oppression of the poor CoSSq dal) in 22.16. On the difficulties of this verse see p. 18, n. 1. Here also there is no reason to suppose that the oppressor is himself a rich man; indeed, if it is supposed that the verse is intended as advice to a theoretical third person who is in a position to oppress the poor or give to the rich (or both), it may be suggested that that person is neither the one nor the other.
1

28.3 A poor man 'oppressing* the poor (geber raS uf'oSeq dalllrri) is (like) torrential rain which leaves no crop (we'(n lahem).
37
The notion of a poor man oppressing the poor has seemed so incongruous to interpreters that it has been assumed (from the LXX onwards) that the text is corrupt, and that rds here is a corruption of some other more 'appropriate' word. Most modern commentators take this view,2 though Ploger defends the Hebrew text. However, he is mistaken in his explanation that raS here means a person who was formerly poor but who has since acquired wealth and now oppresses the class from which he has risen. This would no doubt account for the strong language with which his conduct is described. But this explanation is not necessary, in view of the instances given above where 'asaq appears to denote some kind of anti-social activity which could as well have been practised by a dishonest or unscrupulous poor person against others of his own kind as by a rich man against the poor. To return, then, to 14.31, it may be concluded that, like the other proverbs in these chapters which refer to generosity toward the poor, the first line of this verse does not necessarily refer to wealthy oppressors, and that consequently the second line equally does not necessarily refer to wealthy benefactors. A similar social situation is implied in 21.13, which condemns a lack of generosity to the poor:
He who closes his ear to a poor man's cry of distress (za'aqatdal) will himself get no answer when he cries for help (yiqra').
Literally, 'and no bread', that is, leaving no standing crop of grain. lehem sometimes means corn or grain rather than bread (e.g. in Gen. 47.13,17). 2 E.g., Frankenberg and Toy (supposedly, but not certainly, on the basis of the LXX) emend to ra$a', 'wicked'; Barucq suggests a purely speculative word meaning 'powerful', not otherwise attested in the Old Testament; McKane proposes rdS, regarding this as a variant spelling of ro'S, 'head, chief and so 'a man in authority", BHS most improbably supposes that r&S is a mistake for 'aStr, 'rich'! LXX's 'a man bold in wickedness* may represent an early corruption (Vulg. has 'a poor man'). These emendations are due solely to a failure to understand the semantic range of the verb '6Saq.
38
The scene depicted here is not one of a powerful oppressor callously ignoring the cries of his victim, but of a selfish person, himself in modest circumstances and so vulnerable to sudden misfortune, who refuses to come to the help of a neighbour in need (whose distress may have been caused by a third person or by some impersonal disaster), and can therefore expect no help when he himself needs it from his neighbours. e. The work ethic The emphasis placed in these chapters on the necessity for hard work and the reward which the hardworking person (hariis) will gain, as opposed to the dire fate in store for the lazy person Casel) is remarkable. The word hariis occurs five times in these chapters and nowhere else in the Old Testament; 'dsel occurs eleven times, together with three other occurrences in Proverbs and only one elsewhere in the Old Testament (Eccl. 10.18). r'miyya, 'slackness', occurs four times here, though it is by no means infrequent elsewhere. But a number of other verses in Proverbs express the same theme in other words, for example 19.15 and 20.13, which speak of a person who is ruined because he spends his days sleeping. 15.19 and 20.13 speak specifically of agricultural labour in this context, and 21.25 refers to the person who is ruined because 'his hands refuse to work'. This 'work-ethic' so forcefully expressed here is clearly far less applicableif applicable at allto the upper class, whose members, as 10.15 points out, are protected by the 'strong city' of their wealth. These proverbs are plainly at home among, and addressed to, people who can only survive if they work unremittingly. 16.26 puts this very clearly:
A worker's appetite labours for him (nepeS 'amel 'amel& la); his hunger (pthd, literally 'his mouth') drives him on.
At the same time, the hard worker is assured of his livelihood and may even look forward to prosperity.
A. 2. The Speakers and their Values f. The limited value of wealth
39
A number of proverbs expressing a cautious attitude towards wealth, or warning about its limitations and pitfalls, may also indicate the social background of their speakers. Apart from those which make the pious point that wealth gained by wickedness does not ultimately benefit its recipients (e.g. 10.2; 11.4, 18; 21.6), there are some proverbs which refer with strong disapproval to those whose wealth is acquired suddenly. According to 28.20 undue haste to make a fortune is regarded ipso facto as involving unscrupulousness which will in the end bring its own punishment:
A trustworthy man (t$ >em&n6t) will be richly blessed; but one who is in a hurry to become rich C&s leha'aStr) will not escape punishment (Id yinnaqeh).
20.21 also speaks of the sudden acquisition of property (nahala m'bohelet) as destined in the end to be unblessed, that is, as standing under divine disapproval, and 13.11 (if the text of LXX is followed)1 expresses a similar judgment. There is no suggestion here that the acquisition of wealth is wrong in itself: indeed, 13.11 specifically approves of the person who makes economies over a period of time (qobes 'al-yad) and so gradually 'makes his pile' (yarbeh). These sayings again appear to reflect the views of people of middle status who see themselves as persons who might well be lucky enough to acquire a modest surplus by legitimate means, but who are deeply suspicious of nouveaux riches, from whom they completely differentiate themselves. (Compare also 28.22.) Such people are to be classed neither as 'rich' nor as 'poor1. A similarly cautious note is struck by 11.28, where the person who relies (boteah) on his wealth will be ruined, while the
This is not certain. The Hebrew has mehebel, which has been interpreted as meaning 'out of nothing*. But LXX has 'hastily1, which may be translation ofm'bdhel. Gemser and Ringgren accept this reading. G.R. Driver, Biblica 32 (1951), p. 180, vocalizes as m'hubbal, which he renders by 'obtained fraudulently'. McKane somewhat similarly has 'gained speculatively'. PlOger follows MT but remarks that wealth created 'out of nothing' would have been suspected of having been obtained dishonestly. The LXX's understanding, however, makes good sense in the context of the following line.
1
40
'righteous'with whom presumably the speaker identifies himselfis destined to prosper; at least, the possibility is there. The righteous, however, trust (batah) in Yahweh (16.20; 28.25; 29.25; cf. 28.1). To place one's whole reliance on one's own mind is folly (28.26); here also it is trust in material possessions that leads to ruin. This is a warning about the danger that wealth may lead to a fatal self-confidence, not a rejection of wealth itself. It is a thought more likely to arise in the mind of one who can think of wealth as a future possibility than of either the really poor or the already rich. A somewhat different reflection occurs in 27.24: wealth is ephemeral,
for riches (hosen) do not last for ever, nor a crown (nezer) for endless generations.1
This verse is particularly significant for the present enquiry because of its context. It is part of an unusually lengthy unit for these chapters, in the form of an admonition (27.23-27). It is addressed to the farmer. He is admonished to care for his flocks and herds of lambs and goats, for these, properly tended, will provide enough to feed and clothe him and his household, and also provide him with a surplus: the 'price of a field' (v. 26) which will augment his holding. This is an extended example of the warnings about the need for continuous hard work. There is no reason to suppose, as some commentators have done, that the passage is a parable applicable to some other social class with the references to farming understood figuratively.2 Verse 24 reminds the relatively prosperous farmer that hard work is still necessary if his prosperity is to last: there can be no resting on his laurels, for a farm will not look after itself: its prosperity will quickly disappear if he neglects it. Despite the use of the word hosen (literally, 'store' rather than 'wealth'), this farmer is not one of the truly rich whose wealth
nizer, 'crown', is unexpected here, and emendations have been proposed such as 'oSer, 'wealth', or 'dSar, 'treasure'. There are other problems of text and interpretation in this line, but the point of the passage is not affected. 2 So most recently R.C. Van Leeuwen, Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25-27 (1988), pp. 131-43, where it is interpreted as 'a metaphor for kingship' composed for the edification of kings.
1
41
is an impregnable 'strong city* (10.15) which will protect him against all disasters; he is one whose farm will provide enough for the needs of his family with a little over, but not more. Here, then, we have a clear picture of the person who is not in any sense poor, but who needs nevertheless to guard himself by assiduous labour from becoming so. g. The poor as God's creatures Finally, four proverbs which speak for the poor as having the status of God's creatures no less than the rich and the oppressor give some indication of the social position of their authors:
14.31 He who oppresses a poor man CoSeq-dal) insults his Maker Concha), but he who is generous to a poor man Cebyon) honours Him. 17.5 He who sneers at the poor man (lo'eg laraS) insults his Maker, and he who derives pleasure from his calamity will not escape punishment. 22.2 The rich man and the poor man ('aStr waraS) meet one another (nipgau)\ it is Yahweh who made them both ('6$eh kullam). 29.13 The poor man and the oppressor (raS we'tS tekaktm) meet one another (nipgaSd)', it is Yahweh who gives light to the eyes of both.
The precise meanings of nipgasu (niphal of pgs) in 22.2 and 29.13 have been much discussed. The usual meaning of this verb is 'meet, encounter'; the niphal, as in its only other occurrence in Ps. 85.10 (Heb. 11), presumably has a reciprocal sense, that is, 'meet one another'. Some commentators take this in a literal sense: the rich and the poor (or the oppressor and the poor man) live in proximity to one another (so, e.g., McKane). But in view of the second line, which actually equates them in one respectthat of their common status as creatures of Yahwehit may be suggested that they are seen here as 'meeting5 in a figurative sense, as equals in the sight of God (so Ploger). There is, however, no suggestion here as elsewhere in Proverbs that poverty is something which ought not to exist, or, existing, ought to be abolished. Tahweh made them both.' At the most, these two proverbs speak of a divine requirement from the wealthy that they should recognize that
42
the poor, being equally God's creatures with themselves, are not mere inanimate tools to be exploited. The intention of these proverbs appears to be not unlike that of 14.31 and 17.5, where the Creator himself is said to be himself deeply involved and provoked to anger by the ill treatment or humiliation of the poorest of his human creatures. These proverbs also are best understood as the voice of persons who belong neither to the class of the rich nor to that of the poor. They are concerned with a class of wealthy persons who hold the poor in contempt and think nothing of exploiting them (note the interchangeability of 'aSir and 'i tekdkim1 in 22.2 and 29.13). They are a protest, expressed in a more explicitly theological form than are most of the proverbs in these chapters, in favour of the poor as a class unable to speak for itself, registered by an observer of, rather than by a sufferer from, a social and economic evil. h. Slavery The word 'ebed occurs eight times in these chapters. It is noteworthy that it never occurs here in the plural: there is no reference to multiple slave ownership on a grand scale.2 Apart
1 IS tekaktm means literally 'man of oppressions'. tekaktm, which occurs only here in the Old Testament, is apparently the plural of tok. This word is found in Pss. 10.7; 55.11 (Heb. 12); 72.14, where the contexts make it clear that it is a much stronger term than 'q, and is attributed to wicked and powerful persons who use violence to attain their ends. 2 There is an apparent exception to this in 12.24, where the word mas, 'forced labour', is used:
The hand of the diligent will rule, but sloth will lead to forced labour (mas). Elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. Exod. 1.11; Judg. 1.28-35; 2 Sam. 20.24; 1 Kgs 4.6; 5.13 [Heb. 27]; 12.18) this word always denotes a forced levy imposed by the state, never domestic slavery. There is no record of its use after the reign of Solomon. The occurrence of the word in Prov. 12.24 is, then, most unexpected. But this proverb is clearly not to be taken literally: it is a case of hyperbole. That this is so is supported by the use of the verb maSal in the first line, for maSal, which means to possess supreme authority, must also be used hyperbolically here: simple hard work does not in fact have such remarkable conse-
43
from 14.35, where the word probably though not certainly refers to a royal official rather than a slave, all these proverbs probably refer to households in which only one slave was employed in domestic service. 29.19, 21, which speak of the need for firm discipline over one's slave, are a reminder that slavery was a disagreeable situation akin to poverty, though to some extent alleviated by a roof over one's head and freedom from starvation. Apart from these, two aspects of slavery are dealt with in this group of proverbs. The first of these aspects, on the danger of falling into slavery, is a variant of the theme of the fall into poverty:
11.29b The fool becomes the slave of the wise. 22.7b The debtor becomes slave to the creditor.
The second aspect is the importance for social stability of preserving a proper distinction between slave and free:
17.2 A shrewd slave ('ebed ma$ktl) may gain ascendancy over a worthless son (ben mebtS) and share the inheritance with the brothers. 19.10 It is not proper (Id' naweh) for a fool to live in luxury; even less for a slave to rule over noblemen (Sartm).
The real point of 17.2, however, is not so much the social and economic advancement of slaves as, once again, the danger of a fall into poverty: to make the warning to the worthless son more striking rather than either to condemn or applaud the slave's success. The shameful conduct of the son is probably, as in so many other proverbs in the sentence literature, laziness: the phrase ben mebts occurs also in 10.5, where it clearly has that connotation, and is there contrasted with ben maskil, the shrewd son. But even though the point of the proverb lies elsewhere, it is clear that the conditions of slavery in Israel were not such as to make such a success story impossible. 19.10, however, is clearly antagonistic to such a reversal of roles. The phrase Id' ndweh, which governs both lines of the
quences. The speaker has sought to give emphasis to his presentation of the consequences of hard work and laziness by using extreme language, that of triumphant success beyond all imagining and equally unimaginable total degradation.
44
proverb, means 'improper' or 'unseemly*. In both of its other occurrences in Proverbs (17.7; 26.1) it is, as in the first line here, applied to the conduct or appropriate treatment of fools. But if a fool living in luxury is unseemly, the proverb affirms that even more so Cap ki) is a slave who obtains supreme power. To 'rule over noblemen' is tantamount to becoming kinga situation referred to quite specifically in 30.22 ('ebed ki yimlok), 'a slave when he is (or becomes) king5. As Ploger remarks, what is being described here is nothing less than political revolutionan occurrence not unfamiliar in the ancient Near East and not unknown in Israel. In fact Zimri, who 'slew his master' (horeg '"dondyw, 2 Kgs 9.31) is called the servant or 'slave' ('ebed) of his victim the king (1 Kgs 16.9). It is true that 'ebed is used here in the sense of 'royal official'; but the double meaning of 'ebed may have played a part in the thought of Prov. 19.10. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suppose that this proverb refers to an actual political event. The situation is purely hypothetical. What the proverb reflects is a strongly conservative attitude towards the structure of society. When traditional norms are overthrown, chaos follows. But this proverb, like 17.2, shows that slavery, like poverty, was accepted and taken for granted. These proverbs do not imply that those who owned slaves possessed great wealth. Indeed, if the Massoretic text is correct, a further proverb, 12.9, may even suggest that the possession of just one slave is an indication of a modest way of life:
It is better for a person to be unassuming, with one slave (w"ebed 16) than that he should give himself airs and yet be short of food.1 There is no agreement about this. w"ebed 16 can certainly mean 'who possesses a slave'. Most of the recent translations, however, find the sense unsatisfactory and, mainly following LXX's 'who serves himself, repoint the noun 'ebed to a form of the verb 'abad, to serve' (so RSV, JB, NEB, REB), rendering the phrase as 'earn(s) one's living', 'does his own work' or something similar. Most of the commentaries, however, have been less prone to change the Massoretic Text. The older commentaries of Delitzsch, Wildeboer and Toy all found MT entirely satisfactory. Among more recent commentaries Barucq, Gemser, McKane and Ploger all translate MT as it stands, though leaving the alternative solution open. Ringgren obtains the translation
1
A. 2. The Speakers and their Values i. The 'royal' proverbs
45
The above assessment of the social and economic status of the speakers of these chapters runs counter to the conclusions of many earlier interpreters.1 It has been widely maintained that their Sitz im Leben is not the life of the ordinary citizen but of the royal court.2 This might seem to be implied by the headings
'who is his own servant' without altering MT, though this solution had already been rejected by Delitzsch as linguistically impossible. 1 There has been a virtual consensus that Proverbs is the work solely of the upper class. So, e.g., Kuschke, p. 47; R. Gordis, The Social Background of Wisdom Literature', HUCA 18 (1943/44), pp. 77-118; H.J. Hermisson, Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit (1968), pp. 9496; B.V. Malchow, 'Social Justice in the Wisdom Literature' (1982); Coggins, 'The Old Testament and the Poor' (1987-88); T.R. Hobbs, 'Reflections on "The Poor" and the Old Testament' (1988-89). However, a few scholars have questioned this. M. Lurje (Studien zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen and sozialen Verhaltnisse im israelitisch-jiidischen Reiche [1927]) had already argued for the existence of a 'middling class' of landowners (the gibbdre hayil) who formed the basis of economic as well as military life in the pre-exilic period, but who were distinct from the governing class and no less subject to their oppressive policies than were the small peasants (pp. 17-19). It was to this middle class that G. von Rad, in opposition mainly to Hermisson and also to Skladny (Die dltesten Spruchsammlungen in Israel [1962]), who had understood Prov. 2829 as an instruction to rulers, attributed the proverb literature with which we are here concerned: 'Im Vordergrund stehen die Verhaltnisse einer relativ wohl situierten Mittelschicht' (Weisheit in Israel [1970], p. 105 [ET p. 76]). A somewhat different judgment was expressed by B.W. Kovacs ('Is There a ClassEthics in Proverbs?' [1974]), who attributed Proverbs to an 'intelligentsia' composed probably of 'administrators and teachers, a group separate from the rich or the powerful' who were 'open to experience, concerned for the dclass6' but who lacked the power to change the system (pp. 179-187). Von Rad's view corresponds better to the evidence than does that of Kovacs: there is no evidence of a desire for change in these chapters. 2 This view, based to a large extent on the discovery of similarities between Proverbs and foreign, especially Egyptian, wisdom books, was given wide currency by the publication of von Rad's Theologie des Alien Testaments (vol. 1 [1957], pp.426ff.; ET 429ff.). It was accepted by the present writer (Wisdom in Proverbs [1965]; The Succession Narrative [1968]). It is still widely held: thus Coggins (1987-88, p. 11), still asserts that in it 'access to the royal court is taken for granted'. For recent assessments of the evidence see R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (1974), especially pp. 15-31; The Social
46
of certain sections of the book, which attribute these collections to kings. 1.1, which may be the title of the whole book, or perhaps only of its first section, states that what follows constitutes The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel'. The section beginning in 10.1 is likewise designated The proverbs of Solomon', and 25.1 claims to begin a collection of additional 'proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah transcribed' (or, 'edited': he'tlqu). It has long been recognized, however, that these attributions have no evidential value as far as authorship is concerned and do not necessarily indicate whose is the voice that speaks in these proverbs. The attributions to Solomon are almost certainly connected with a tradition of Solomon's great wisdom attested in 1 Kgs 4.29-34 (Heb. 5.9-14) and in particular of his authorship of three thousand proverbs there claimed for him, and are of later origin. The reference to the activity of the 'men of Hezekiah' in 25.1 is more likely to be the record of an historical fact; but, whatever may be the meaning of the verb he'ttqu,1 it probably tells us no
World of the Wisdom Writers' (1989), pp. 230-36; J.L. Crenshaw, Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom (1976), pp. 16-32; W.L. Humphreys, 'The Motif of the Wise Courtier in the Book of Proverbs' (1978), pp. 177-90. 1 There is no consensus about the meaning of this word here. M. Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [1985], pp. 32-33), regards the verse, no doubt correctly, as a colophon: that is, a scribal note recording the source and nature of the material to which it is attached, and the identity of those who transcribed it. (On possible reasons for such scribal activity in the reign of Hezekiah see R.B.Y. Scott, 'Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel' [1955], pp. 262-79; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [1972], pp. 161-62.) The 'men of Hezekiah' were evidently court scribes. Even if he'ttqu means no more than 'copied' or 'transmitted', this almost unique reference to such activity in the Old Testament may suggest that their work was memorable for some other reason. These scribes may have assembled and compiled material from various sources, and they may have been responsible for its arrangement. If so, it is not impossible that they added further savings of their own composition. However, there is no reason to suppose that this additional material was specifically related to the court. There are only six occurrences of melek in 25.2-29.27, a smaller proportion than in 10.1-22.16. In fact, 25.1 tells us no more than that Hezekiah maintained a body of scribes who, whether at his bidding or on their own initiative, took steps to
47
more than that Hezekiah's court scribes collected or arranged a previously existing number of anonymous proverbs. The question of an original connection between the royal court and all or parts of the book of Proverbs can only be settled by an examination of the contents and points of view of the individual items. In 10.1-22.16 and 25-29 there are twenty-one references to a king or kings (melek, m'lakim). In addition, a number of other words occur which evidently refer to persons in authority or connected with the government (ar, razon, nadib, qasin, nagid, m6sel,g!ddlim,yd'es, m'&aret; the precise status and functions of these are, however, obscure). Some of the proverbs about kings are arranged in groups (16.10-15; 25.2-6); but these express no single common attitude towards kings which might suggest that they have been collected for the use of persons connected with a royal court. Nor does the relative frequency of the so-called 'royal' proverbs suggest such a connection. In fact these proverbs constitute only a small minority of the whole. That such a large and wide-ranging collection of proverbs should contain a fair number of proverbs about kings is not at all surprising: comments and reflections by ordinary citizens on the supreme authority by which they are ruled and by whom their lives are in some measure affected are to be expected. We may compare, for example, English proverbs like 'A cat may look at a king* and The king can do no wrong*, and phrases such as 'a dish fit for a king*, 'every inch a king", 'the king's English'. There is also evidence that the king's activities were not a matter of indifference to the populace. The story of the rebellion of the north against the perceived tyranny of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12) is an example from Israelite history of active participation by ordinary people in political affairs, and that of Absalom's campaigning against David (2 Sam. 15.1-6) also indicates something of the sort. It is therefore not surprising that we find among these proverbs some which may well reflect similar situations:
28.15 A growling lion or a roving bear is a wicked ruler (moSel) over a impoverished people ('am-dal). preserve earlier proverbs in writing. See also R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition (1974), p. 57.
48
Somewhat more menacing is the following:

14.28 A king's glory is dependent on the number of his people; and without any subjects at all a ruler is ruined.
Classification of the royal proverbs The theory of the court provenance of the proverbs which speak of kings and rulers can only be tested if each proverb is separately examined in respect of its attitude towards kingship and political power. Such an examination, which will now be undertaken, suggests the following broad classification: 1. Proverbs that attribute absolute power to kings or rulers. 2. Proverbs that uncritically attribute righteousness and justice to kings. 3. Proverbs that regard the power or success of rulers as limited in various ways and/or condemn those rulers who do not recognize or who exceed these limits. The proverbs in the above three categories constitute the great majority of the 'royal' proverbs in these chapters. It will be submitted that none of them implies that its speaker was closely associated with the king or with other ruling authorities. 4. A few remaining proverbs have been seen as addressed to persons close to kings or rulers. This claim will be examined. i. The king as absolute monarch Five sayings (14.35; 16.14, 15; 19.12; 20.2) speak of the wrath and/or the favour (rasdn) of the king:
14.35 A king's favour is shown to an intelligent servant Cebed maSktl), but his anger towards one who acts shamefully (mebtS). 16.14 A king's anger is a messenger of death, but a wise man can appease it. 16.15Inthelightofaking'sface(be'6r-penS-melek)islife, and his favour is like the clouds that bring rain. 19.12 A king's wrath is like the roaring of a lion; but his favour is like the dew upon the grass. 20.2 A king's threat is like the roaring of a lion;

he who angers him forfeits his life (mit'abberd hdte' nap&6).1
49
These proverbs are often taken to be warnings to members of the king's immediate entourage to avoid angering the king or to appease his wrath, and so believed to fall into the category to be considered under (iv) below. In the case of 14.35 this interpretation might appear to be confirmed by the use of the term 'ebed (literally, 'servant'), which in association with melek often denotes a royal official or minister of state. However, 'ebed has a very wide range of meanings, and in fact any or all of the king's subjects can be described as his 'servants' (so, e.g., 1 Kgs 12.7). In any case this proverb presents other difficulties of interpretation2 which make it of doubtful evidential value. The remaining proverbs in this category are patient of a wide application. 16.15 does not necessarily imply a face-to-face acquaintance with the king: it is a general statement about the king as the source of the prosperity of his subjects.3 19.12 is
1 The meaning of this line is disputed. Whether hit'abber can mean 'to be angry* is uncertain, and the meaning of this form in the other two occurrences in Proverbs (14.16; 26.17) is also doubtful. However, it is probable that the king is here regarded as possessing the power of life and death over his subjects. The verb hata', which in the great majority of cases means 'to sin', occasionally has the sense of 'to miss, fall short, fail to obtain', and this is probably so here. If so, napSd is most naturally understood as meaning 'his life'. The person envisaged is thus presented as, at the least, in danger of losing his life by some action which has aroused the royal anger. 2 The grammar of the second line is anomalous, and some emendation is probably necessary. The meaning of mebtS is also not clear. 3 To see the face of the king' (e.g. in 2 Sam. 14.24) is to appear in person before him. But the phrase '6r pantm, 'the light of the face', which is used here of the king, is extremely rare, occurring in the Old Testament in only five other places. Only once (Job 29.24) is it used of a human being, apparently with the meaning of a cheerful demeanour. In the remaining three passagesall from the Psalmsit is used of the 'face' of God. In Ps. 4.6 (Heb. 7) this is said to be the source of human happiness or prosperity; in Ps. 89.15 (Heb. 16) it is said to light up the path of human life; and according to Ps. 44.3 (Heb. 4) it ensured Israel's conquest of Canaan. In none of these three passages is it supposed that God literally revealed his face to his worshippers. We may also compare the use of the phrase heir pantm, 'to cause one's face to shine', always used of God; in the priestly blessing of Num. 6.25, and, again, in the Psalms, where the worshippers pray that God will cause
50
somewhat similar. But 16.14 and perhaps 20.2 appear to attribute to the king arbitrary powers even including an unquestioned power of life and death over his subjects. It is this in particular which gives these proverbs the appearance of having originated in the rather naive minds of persons who had no first-hand knowledge of the reality of Israelite kingship; for although the extent of royal power in Israel and Judah is not clearly known and no doubt varied from ruler to ruler, there is nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that it was unlimited. Israelite kings were subject to the law. Some kings are admittedly credited in the historical books with murder or attempted murder of their subjects, but in each case this is regarded as wholly exceptional: Saul's attacks on David (1 Sam. 18.10-11; 19.9-10, 11-17) are attributed to an 'evil spirit'; Manasseh committed mass murder, but he is represented as the most evil of all the kings of Judah. It is noteworthy that David's murder of Uriah (2 Sam. 11-12) and Jezebel's of Naboth (1 Kgs 21), which is seen by the narrator as to be laid at the door of the king (w. 17-19), could not be carried out openly, but only by subterfuge: a secret order in the one case to secure death in battle, and in the other the procuring of perjured witnesses. In fact, as is clearly stated in a number of proverbs in these chapters (see [ii] below) and frequently elsewhere in the Old Testament, the king was regarded as the upholder of justice and as the protector of the weak, although the existence of bad rulers was recognized.1
his face to shine on them that they may be saved (Ps. 31.16 [Heb. 17]; 67.1 [Heb. 2]; 80.3, 7, 19 [Heb. 4, 8, 20]). In Ps. 119.35 the psalmist requests that God will cause his face to shine on him so that he may learn his laws. These examples may suggest that Prov. 16.15 regards the kingof course to a lesser degreeas the saviour of his people. 1 There is an extensive literature on this subject, but no significant difference of opinion. In many general works the limitations of royal power in Israel are taken for granted. Thus. R. de Vaux in Les Institutions de I'Ancien Testament (1958) in his chapter on the king (vol. 1, pp. 155-76; ET 100-14) does not discuss this aspect, though it is clear from his account of the king's legislative and judicial functions (pp. 231-34; ET 150-52) that the king, though he had extensive judicial powers, was not the initiator of law but was, on the contrary, subject to the laws. L. Epzstein (La justice socials et le peuple de la Bible [1983]) stresses the difference between the situations in Mesopotamia and Israel, and cites some of the most recent literature on the subject.
51
ii. Simple faith in royal justice Four proverbs express an uncritical and probably traditional faith in the king as the supreme judge in the land:
16.10 The mouth of a king utters oracular decisions (qesem)]1 he does not err when he passes judgment (miSpaf). 16.13 A king values honest speech; he loves those who speak the truth. 20.8 A king seated on the throne of judgment (ydSeb 'al-kisse'-dtn) has an eye to sift out everything that is evil. 20.28 Faithfulness and trustworthiness (hesed we"met) guard the king, and on faithfulness he founds his throne.
In 16.10 and 20.8 the reference to the king's function as judge is clear (mispat, kisse'-dtn), and this is the most natural interpretation of 16.13 and perhaps of 20.28 as well.2 This exalted view of the king's impartiality and discernment is attested elsewhere in the Old Testament. The words of the woman of Tekoa to David in 2 Sam. 14.17"My lord the king is like the angel of God to discern good and evil'express precisely the same view, which is reflected also in the story of Solomon's judgment (1 Kgs 3.16-28) with its concluding words: They perceived that the wisdom of God was in him, to render justice' (Ia'"s6t miSpat). That the same view was held of Israelite kings in general is attested in several of the Psalms and also elsewhere (e.g. Isa. 11.2-3). No doubt few of his subjects had access to the king when he sat as judge or at any other time; the rest had no opportunity to assess his personal qualities at
1 The use of the word qesem presents a difficulty. Elsewhere in the Old Testament this word always means 'divination', and is always condemned as a heathen practice. Here, however, it clearly has a positive meaning. According to the stories about Saul and David there were several ways in which a king might try to obtain advice from God or from other supernatural forces (1 Sam. 28.6), and not all of these were regarded as illegitimate: according to 1 Sam. 23.1-4; 30.6-8; 2 Sam. 2.1; 5.19-24 David 'enquired of Yahweh' and obtained valid advice. Whether the meaning of qesem could be extended to cover such activities, or whether this proverb should be seen as expressing approval of a practice elsewhere condemned is not clear. 2 A slight emendation in the first linereading a singular verb instead of a plural onewould make the king the grammatical subject: The king defends faithfulness and trustworthiness'.
52
first hand. Such personal acquaintance is not what lies behind these proverbs. Rather, they express the confidence of ordinary people in the king as the supreme guarantor under God of the soundness of the judicial system. 21.1 also refers to the total dependence of the king on divine control:
A king's mind (leb) is a conduit of water controlled by Yahweh: he turns it wherever he wishes.
The application of this proverb is illuminated by the two verses which immediately follow:
21.2 21.3 A man's whole conduct may seem wholly right in his own eyes, but it is Yahweh who test hearts (token libbdt). The doing of what is right and just C^&oh s'daqd UmiSpat) is more pleasing to Yahweh than sacrifice.
If, as is probable, these three proverbs have been placed together because of their mutual relevance, they go somewhat further than the proverbs just considered (though this may be implied in 20.28) in attempting to account for this confidence in the royal justice: a king may be inclined, as a mere man, to give priority to his own interests or to trust his own unaided but fallible judgment, but Yahweh is in control of his mind and will and so overrules these natural impulses. There is again no reason to suppose that such proverbs arose at the royal court. The same confidence is shown in 20.26 (cf. 20.8), where it is the wisdom of the king which ensures the punishment of the wicked:
A wise king sifts out the wicked and drives the wheel over them.1
Probably it is taken for granted here that all kings have been endowed with such wisdom (cf., again, 2 Sam. 14.17), though it is possible that a distinction is implied here between kings who are wise and kings who are not.
1
The meaning of this line is obscure. If the reading 'wheel' is correct, some kind of punishment may be meant; but no convincing evidence of such a practice has been found. REB's 'and turns the wheel of fortune against them' (following G.R. Driver, Biblica 32 [1951], p. 184) is purely speculative. The most recent discussion of the problem is that of D.C. Snell, The Wheel in Proverbs xx 26', VT 39 (1989), pp. 503-507.
53
iii. Critical attitudes towards kings Not all the proverbs in these chapters express the same confidence in the king's justice. 29.14 lays down conditions for the stability of the throne:
If a king is faithful in dispensing justice to the poor (Sopet be''met dalltm), his throne will be established for ever.
25.5 speaks of kings who wittingly or unwittingly accept the advice of evil counsellors:
Remove the wicked from the presence of the king and his throne will be established in righteousness.
29.12 speaks of the way in which a ruler (mosel, but the reference is probably to a king) may himself encourage corruption by his naivete or deviousness:
If a ruler listens to falsehood all his officials (me&arft&w) will be wicked.
16.12 is ambiguous:
Wrongdoing is hateful for kings, for it is by righteousness that a throne is established.
The commentators are divided on the question whether this verse speaks of evil done by the king, or of evil done by others which the king ought to abominate. Probably the second interpretation is correct. The meaning of 29.4 is also disputed, but it is probably an attack on ruinous taxation or, possibly, on the acceptance of bribes by the king:
A king gives stability to a country by just government; but one who practises extortion (IS frtLmdt) ruins it.
However this may be, a number of other proverbs about the behaviour of 'rulers' certainly refer to evil practices: falsehood in a nadib, 17.7; a wicked ruler (mosel) over a poor people, 28.15; a ruler (mdsel) who rules by favouritism rather than by justice, 29.26; cf. also possibly 28.16. Even more forthright is 14.28:
A king's glory is dependent on the number of his people (b'rob'am);
54

and without any subjects at all (be'epes f'Qm) a ruler (razdn) is ruined.
This saying appears to envisage a situation in which a king may be overthrown by being rejected by his peoplea not uncommon situation in the history of Israel and Judah. Of all the proverbs in these chapters this is one which seems most likely to reflect a specific event or situation. It is difficult to say whether it is intended as a warning to the king to be careful to foster the loyalty of the population or as a rallying-cry by a would-be rebel leader. But there is no reason to attribute it to persons close to the king. iv. Supposed acquaintance with the court 16.14, 15; 19.12 and 20.2 have already been discussed. Of the other proverbs which have been supposed to refer to court life, only two (25.6-7 and 22.11) specifically mention a king (melek). A few others (25.15; 18.16; 11.14; 15.22; 20.18) which employ other terms (qastn,ffddUm,yd'es)will, howev be discussed. 25.6-7 has seemed to many scholars to be a clear example of a proverb addressed to the ambitious courtier, warning him that he is more likely to obtain the higher status that he seeks by adopting a modest stance than by putting himself forward in the presence of king and high officials:
Do not give yourself airs in the presence of the king (melek), or usurp the place of the great (g'doltm); for it is better that one should say to you, 'Come up here', than that you should be put down in the presence of a prince (nadtb).
There are, however, considerations which make such an interpretation dubious. As Plb'ger pointed out, this advice is applicable to any person with social pretensions: the court setting may be merely by way of illustration. There is a parallel in Lk. 14.7-11, where the settingthat of precedence at a wedding feastis also merely illustrative: the real point is expressed in the proverb in v. 11, "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted'. This proverb occurs again in Lk. 18.14 and Mt. 23.12, but in a quite different setting in each case.
55
The probability that the setting of Prov. 25.6-7 is merely illustrative is strengthened by the occurrence of two other terms denoting superior status: g'doltm and nadtb. There is no need to form an imaginative picture of a court scene involving the presence of persons holding three or more distinct ranks at court. The three terms are probably used interchangeably. g'doltm, 'great ones' or 'grandees', is a general and somewhat vague term, and this is also true ofnddib, *prince'. The latter term does not appear to denote the holder of a specific rank or office. It is probably significant that, like g'doltm, it does not occur in any such specific sense in prose texts, while in poetical texts it refers quite generally to persons of superior rank or power (e.g. Job 12.21; Isa. 13.2). In some passages (Pss. 107.4041; 113.7-8) it is directly contrasted with the poor ('ebyon, dal). In the other three verses in the chapters under discussion in which it occurs its meaning cannot be precisely determined in two (17.7, 26); in the third, 19.6, it probably denotes a wealthy but generous person. In Job 34.18 it is paralleled with melek. In Num. 21.18 it is parallel with sartm, which there probably means leaders', though elsewhere more frequently 'officials'; and in Prov. 8.15-16 it appears in a list with kings, rdz'ntm, sartm and sdp'te sedeq, 'righteous rulers'; that is, in an undifferentiated catalogue of persons possessing power and authority. It is unlikely that in Prov. 25.6-7 there is any intention to make any more precise differentiation between these terms. There is, then, nothing improbable in the view that Prov. 25.6-7 is a general admonition which does not necessarily imply a connection with a royal court. The practice of using the figure of a king or ruler for illustrative purposes is not unknown in wisdom literature. An example in the Old Testament is Ecclesiastes 1-2, where Qoheleth writes in the first person under the guise of Solomon in order to make the point that if even wealthy and powerful kings find life unsatisfactory, ordinary persons are even more likely to do so. He also used the royal theme in a variety of other ways. Living at a time when Israel had no king and the Ptolemaic emperor was utterly remote from the lives of his readers, he used it in 4.1316, 8.2-9 and 10.16-17 to illustrate certain aspects of his teaching about the futility of life, the impossibility of knowing the future, and the limited value of wisdom. In the story about
56
the poor wise man in 9.13-18 a king is introduced in a necessary yet quite peripheral role. It is also instructive to note how the figure of a king is used in the so-called 'numerical proverbs' in Proverbs 30. In w. 27, 28 and 31 it is brought into connection with some common objects: the locust, lizard, lion, cockerel (7)1 and he-goat. These proverbs show how the idea of kings and their characteristics was so prominent in the Israelite mind that it sprang easily to mind when comparisons between ordinary phenomena were made. The thought of the mysterious efficiency of a horde of locusts (v. 27) brought to mind the thought of kings as organizers of society (or of armies); that of the equally amazing ubiquity of the lizard despite its insignificant size brought to mind the royal palace as the most inaccessible, to ordinary people, of all places (v. 28). The theme of the impressive stateliness of gait of the lion and certain other animals brought to mind the supposedly dignified and confident manner of kings (w. 29-31). These proverbs reflect a picture of kings and their surroundings in the minds of ordinary people who really knew little or nothing of royal courts. A similar process of thought may easily have given rise to such sayings as Prov. 25.6-7. The other verse in this category in which a close proximity to the king appears at first sight to be presupposed is 22.11, which in the Hebrew contains the words re'ehtt melek, 'the king is his friend'. But this verse is clearly corrupt. The LXX version of it has no reference to a king. There is no scholarly consensus about the original Hebrew text, and the verse cannot be used as evidence of the milieu in which the proverb originated.2 In 18.16 and 25.15 there is no mention of a king or his court. These proverbs are concerned with ways in which a man may influence those more powerful than himself.
18.16 A man's gift makes room for him, and brings him before great men (g'doltm). 25.15 A ruler (qastn) may be persuaded with patience, and a soft tongue can break a bone.
1 2
The meaning of this word is uncertain. See the discussions in the commentaries.
57
The vagueness of the word g'dollm has been noted above. qasin, elsewhere a military commander or a national leader, is used in the latter sense in Prov. 6.7. Neither saying points clearly to a court origin. The point of both is a general one, widely applicable: patience, plausible speech and the offering of gifts are all means to get one's way. Three proverbs refer not to kings or rulers but to 'counsellors' or advisers (yo'es) and the advice Cesd) which they give:
When there is no skilful direction (tahbulldt) a people Cam) falls; and safety lies in an abundance of advisers (berbb yd'es). 15.22 When there is no discussion (sdd) plans come to nothing; but with an abundance of advisers (b'rob y6'"stm) they may succeed. 20.18 Plans formed by consultation Cesd) can be successful; and it is by skilful direction (tahbulldt) that one should wage war. 1 11.14
Compare also (from another part of Proverbs):

24.5-6 Wisdom prevails over strength,2 and a knowledgeable man over brute force, for skilful direction (tahbulldt) is needed to wage a war,3 and safety lies in an abundance of advisers (b'rdb yo'es).
These proverbs have often been supposed to be political or military advice offered to kings by persons acting in an advisory capacity close to the throne. This view is based on several features: the use of the word 'am, taken to mean 'nation', in 11.14, the references to waging war in 20.18 and 24.6, and the use of the words yo'es and 'esa and, perhaps also, of tahbulldt, 'skilful direction'. It is true that yd'es, the qal participle of ya'as, 'to advise' or 'to form plans', is used in the Old Testament as a technical term with the meaning 'royal counsellor',4 and that 'esa also is sometimes used with a similar connotation;5 but this is by no
The Hebrew has the imperative: 'Wage war!' Following the LXX. The Hebrew text makes no real sense. 3 The Hebrew has 'you will wage war1. 4 E.g. 2 Sam. 15.12; 2 Chron. 22.4; 25.16 in connection with Judaean kings, and also several times with regard to foreign kings. B Especially in 2 Sam. 16-17 (frequently) and 1 Kgs 12.14.
2 1
58
means always the case^yd'as frequently has a quite general sense; an example from these chapters of Proverbs of such a general use of the participle is the phrase yo'ase Sdlom (Prov. 12.20), meaning those who together form plans for the common good, tahbullot, always in the plural and found, apart from these verses, only three times in the Old Testament (Job 37.12; Prov. 1.5; 12.5) refers there quite generally to the making of skilful plans. 11.14 may be a reference to national policy, although 'am, 'people', does not necessarily mean a nation in the political sense: it has a wide range of meanings which include 'the common people' or 'people in general'2in short, any kind of community in which some kind of leadership is required if it is to hold together and be preserved from harm. Finally, waging war Casd milhama) is certainly the prerogative of kings; but it must be questioned, with Ploger, whether the references here are more than simply illustrative. The impression that they are merely used as illustrations of a general point is confirmed strongly by 24.5-6, the second half of which is almost identical with 20.18. The allusion to the planning of a war in 24.6 is clearly intended to be simply a particular example of the general statement in v. 5. It is reasonable to suppose that 11.14 is similarly to be taken in a general, illustrative sense. The point of all these proverbs is that before any important activity is undertaken it is advisable to consult others and to form a common plan. What everyone knows about the necessity for a co-ordinated military strategy is equally applicable to ordinary life. v. Conclusion The common view that the so-called 'royal proverbs' in these chapters have their Sitz im Leben in the royal court rests to a large extent on certain presuppositions derived from non-bib'isA meaning 'advice' is used in a quite general sense elsewhere in these chapters: 12.15; 19.20. It is also attributed to Wisdom (1.25, 30; 8.14) and to Yahweh as guiding the individual worshipper (Pss. 73.24; 119.24). It is in fact a quite general word for advice. 2 E.g., the inhabitants of a city, Gen. 19.4; 1 Sam. 9.13; Jer. 29.16; the common people, Jer. 21.7; Neh. 5.1; people in general, Gen. 50.20; Num. 11.34; Josh. 5.5; Jer. 36.9. REB's 'army' is less probable.
1
59
lical sources rather than on a dispassionate examination of these proverbs themselves. The similarities between Proverbs and foreign, especially Egyptian, wisdom books whose background was the royal court, together with the attributions to Solomon and the 'men of Hezekiah' and the references to Solomon in 1 Kings as an author of many proverbs seemed to point to a similar backgroundthat is, the Israelite royal courtfor the former. But not all the Egyptian books in question which refer to kings have court connections; this is particularly true of the late Demotic 'instructions'.1 This view of the royal provenance of Proverbs has, however, in turn, coloured the interpretation of the proverbs about kings and rulers, which when viewed from that perspective might well seem, both by their relative frequency and by their contents, to confirm that interpretation. But if that presupposition is set aside and the proverbs in question are examined each by itself for the internal evidence which it provides, a different conclusion emerges. That ordinary people in the ancient world living under a monarchical system should give expression in their proverbs to their awareness of their political rulers, should have their own views about the duties of those rulers and about the extent to which those duties were performed, and should also draw analogies between life at court as they imagined it and their own lives is no more extraordinary than the way in which ordinary people in modern times with no direct knowledge talk about 'the government' and its ministers.
For example, Papyrus Insinger is clearly addressed to a readership of modest status: it refers frequently both to superiors and inferiors, and has much to say about how to behave when impoverished (e.g. 'Do not steal out of hunger; you will be found out' [27.2]), but also includes advice about the proper attitude to be adopted towards the king (4.4) and other powerful persons (4.2). The Instruction of Anksheshonqy, despite its prose prologue connecting itsomewhat bizarrelywith the royal court, is also of modest origin. It includes the 'egalitarian' comment that 'There is no son of Pharaoh at night', yet also the advice 'Know how to sit in the presence of Pharaoh' (cf. Prov. 25.6-7); the latter advice may possibly be analogous to the Japanese custom whereby each house, however modest, has a tokonoma or place reserved for the Emperor, should he choose to stay there. For translations of these Demotic works see M. Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Literature in the International Context (1983).
1
60
Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs 3. Summary
The foregoing discussion has led to the following conclusions: 1. An exceptionally large proportion of the proverbs in these chapters concerns wealth, poverty and social status. 2. Virtually no distinction is made in these chapters between the words ra$, dal, 'ant and 'ebyon. All have the connotation "poor*. 3. 'Poor' is used here in an absolute sense: the poor are the destitute, that is, those who possess nothing at all. Whether their plight is due to their own shortcomings or to malice on the part of others, or to any other cause, they are powerless and vulnerable. It is a moral and religious duty to show generosity towards them. 4. Only one term is employed here to denote 'rich': 'atr. Although the authors of these proverbs do not despise wealth, they use this term to characterize a particular kind of wealthy person with whom they do not wish to be identified, and of whom they have no good to say. It may be legitimate to conclude that a distinction is implied here between two kinds of persons of substance (compare the book of Job) of whom only one is distinguished by the term 'a$ir. 5. A further striking feature of these chapters is the large number of proverbs which refer to disasters which may occur in human life. These reflect a fundamental anxiety about the precariousness of life, and presumably reflect the particular situation of their speakers. 6. A fall into povertyin the sense of that defined in conclusion 3 aboveis prominent among these potential disasters. 7. On the other hand, these proverbs reflect the belief that poverty, which is clearly not the present state of the speakers themselves, can generally be avoided by hard work (accompanied by contentment with one's lot), generosity to the poor and a recognition that wealth is not an unmixed blessing and is not so unconditionally desirable as to outweigh all other considerations. 8. The tenor of these proverbs suggests that those who speak in them are themselves neither rich nor poor in the sense
A. 4. Concluding Remarks
61
in which they use these terms, but are people of moderate means who consider that increased prosperity may well be within their means, yet are equally aware of the possibility of their falling into destitution. Their outlook is essentially conservative: they take the existence of both poverty and slavery as a normal feature of society. 9. The so-called 'royal proverbs' referring to the king (or kings) and other persons in authority express different attitudes ranging from almost religious reverence to open criticism and suspicion. But these are the attitudes of ordinary people and not necessarily of courtiers closely associated with the king. 4. Concluding Remarks a. Wider issues In the foregoing study there has been a deliberate attempt to avoid a priori notions about the origin of the short proverbs in these chapters or about the composition either of these sections of the book or of the book as a whole, and to consider, as far as possible, the actual content of each proverb regarded as a selfcontained statement pertaining to wealth, poverty, power and social status. No precise sociological theories have been put forward; no hypothesis about the historical background has been proposed; there has been no discussion of current theories of the origin or purpose of Israelite wisdom as displayed in these chapters, whether popular, tribal, aesthetic, pedagogic, didactic, edifying, recreational or other. The only exception to this was the argument that the references to kings do not necessarily imply a setting in the royal court. This fresh approach may incidentally throw some light on such problems, but the principal aim of the study is to discover whether a distinct attitude towards affluence and poverty can be discerned here. Thus the restriction of the study to one particular aspect of life in ancient Israel obviously imposes a limit on its usefulness for the elucidation of wider issues. These will be briefly discussed in the concluding part of this chapter, but only in so far as they have some relevance to the main thesis.
62
Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs b. The question of consistency
Although it is undisputed that 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29 were originally two separate collections of proverbsand that it may be possible to discern subdivisions also within these there is a remarkable consistency of viewpoint throughout all these chapters on the subjects with which this study is concerned.1 The existence of poverty is taken for granted, and no question of theodicy is raised in connection with it. It is throughout recognized as a danger which is always present. Although it is frequently caused by human shortcomings, the poor should be helped and not shunned, and generosity to the poor will be rewarded. Wealth and power are not evil in themselves, and the acquisition of wealth is an approved goal; but it is also stressed that it is frequently accompanied by arrogance and cruelty. Such general agreement does not, of course, preclude such divergences as may be explicable within the mind of a single individual, and still more among members of the same social class. Such variations may be accounted for by changes of mood or circumstances. Absolute logic and consistency are
Many writers, among them von Rad in his magisterial study of the wisdom books of the Old Testament, have treated the 'sentence-literature' of the bookprimarily 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29as basically an unified body of literature sufficiently homogeneous in its outlook to be characterized as a whole and in general terms. This is the position which has been adopted in this study. A detailed examination has shown that, at least on the subjects dealt with here, these chapters are not basically inconsistent, and that they are representative of a particular social class. (This is contrary to the view of Schwantes, who sees these proverbs as a compilation representing a whole community in its social diversity.) The unitary view adopted here does not, of course, imply unity of authorship, nor should it be taken to exclude the likelihood of a redactional history. U. Skladny's attempt (Die altesten Spruchsammlungen in Israel [1962]) to find a Sitz im Leben for each of several sections of these chapters, largely based on a statistical count of the recurrence of themes, is not convincing. On the question of the presence of 'Yahweh-proverbs' in these collections, see [c] below. McKane's clasification of the material into three strata is not persuasive. In any case these redactional questions do not affect the conclusions of the present study.
63
hardly to be expected here.1 These divergent views include the following: 1. While the rich man ('a tr) is always regarded with hostility, some proverbs (10.4, 22; 21.17) use the cognate verb $r to indicate a desirable state of affairs: the virtuous person may be expected to 'become rich' as a reward for his virtue (though it is never stated that he may become an 'a$ir\). 2. Some proverbs commend contentment with 'a little'; others express approval of an ambition to become prosperous. 3. Some proverbs speak of wealth as ephemeral while others appear to regard it as the definitive reward of the righteous and hardworking. 4. There is a wide variety of views about the monarchy, ranging from the view that the king is divinely guided and can do no wrong to an attitude of realism and even of cynicism. In this connection it should be taken into consideration that the very form of the short proverb (almost always consisting of two short lines and comprising eight words or less) may be at least partly responsible for these differences. The capacity of the short proverb for expressing the complexity and nuances of human thoughts is extremely limited. It is basically capable of expressing only a single thoughtwhether twice repeated, as in the so-called synonymous parallelism, or by making a stark contrast between opposites, as in the 'antithetical' proverbswithout the possibility of the addition of subordinate clauses or other devices which might introduce qualifications or modifications to the main thought. Only in the so-called
We may compare the well known so-called 'contradictions' in Ecclesiastes, once reckoned to be due to glosses or multiple authorship but now generally recognized to be attributable to a single writer, Qoheleth. In his case it is not muddled thinking which caused the apparent inconsistencies, but the complexity and many-sidedness of the intellectual problems with which he had set himself to wrestle. In the case of the proverbs in the book of Proverbs multiple authorship is a more probable explanation, but for these authors too truth was often multifaceted.
1
64
' "better"-proverbs' (eighteen in number in these chapters) is there a possibility of introducing a comparative standard of values, and even in these it is often questionable whether the intention is not rather to make a contrast between absolutes (good-not good) than a comparison between relative goods.1 Only in a few cases such as 26.4, 5proverbs not concerned with wealth or povertyis an attempt made to indicate the complexity of a problem by juxtaposing two apparently contrary pieces of advice. Otherwise the nuanced argument so characteristic of the thought of the later Qoheleth is totally absent. This limitation is not peculiar to the book of Proverbs but exists in the 'sentence literature' of all languages. The English proverbs 'Many hands make light work' and 'Too many cooks spoil the broth' each express a partial truth. The form and brevity of the genre preclude a full treatment of the subject. Within such limitations, however, it may be asserted that the proverbs in these chapters concerned with wealth and poverty leave a general impression of consistency of point of view. c. Redaction and reinterpretation It must be emphasized that the present study is primarily concerned not with the collections of proverbs in their final arrangement but with the individual proverbs. The self-contained character of the proverbs, together with their sheer quantity (there are 375 in 10.1-22.16 alone) and the lack of a single pervasive theme or progression of ideas clearly points to a process of accretionmost probably carried out in several stages over a considerable periodby which these individual proverbs, perhaps first grouped in smaller collections, were assembled. That their final arrangement was by no means entirely haphazard has recently been more and more recognized. It may, then, be that in this process of redaction
For a summary of the discussion on this point see G.S. Ogden, "The "Better'-Proverb (Tob-Spruch), Rhetorical Criticism, and Qoheleth', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 489-505.
65
attempts were made to modify the original impact of some of the original proverbs by placing them in specific contexts: it has, for example, been suggested that within 10.1-22.16 in its final form the proverbs have been arranged in such a way that 15.33-16.9 now form a central 'core' concerned with the centrality of Yahweh in human affairs, closely followed by a series of proverbs about kings (16.10-15)an arrangement which was intended to give a particular interpretation to the section as a whole, not only with regard to the centrality of Yahweh in human affairs but also in defining the role of the king as both dependent on the will of Yahweh and, at the same time, as in some important respects Yahweh's vicegerent.1 This, then, would constitute a theological reinterpretation of older proverbs: the 'royal proverbs' in 16.10-15, for example, do not all by any means convey this message when considered separately and in isolation. There is certainly room for further investigation of the redactional process.2 The view of McKane that There is, for the most part, no context in the sentence literature' and that one must simply accept 'the random way in which wisdom sentences follow one upon the other in any chapter'3 amounts to no more than an admission that modern scholars have so far not been able satisfactorily to discover what such a 'context', whether literary or theological, might be. The argument that no deliberate arrangement of these proverbs should be looked for because other collections of short proverbs from
R.N. Whybray, 'Yahweh-Sayings and their Contexts in Proverbs, 10,1-22,16' (1979). 2 Various attempts have been made to account for the arrangement of the 'sentence-literature' in Proverbs. They include, apart from Whybray's article referred to in note 1 above, the following: G. Bostrom, Paronomasi i den aldre hebreiska Masckalliteraturen (1928); H.-J. Hennisson (1968), pp. 171-83; G.E. Bryce, 'Another Wisdom"Book" in Proverbs', JBL 91 (1972), pp. 145-57; O. Pl6ger, 'Zur Auslegung der Sentenzensammlungen des Proverbienbuches' (1971), pp. 402-16 and the same author's Sprilche Salomos (1984), passim; E.G. Van Leeuwen (1988). Most of these studies are concerned with both form and content, some of them primarily with the former. 3 W. McKane, Proverbs, p. 11.
66
the ancient Near East also appear to have no logical or other rational sequence has also lost some of its force.1 Nevertheless, this approach is still in its infancy. It remains to be shown to what extent the process of redaction has significantly altered the ideological thrust of these chapters, or indeed of the book as a whole.2 Whatever conclusions may be reached in the future on this question, it is not without relevance for the sayings about wealth and poverty. The question here is a theological one. Some of these proverbs speak specifically of Yahweh's concern for the poor and of his hostility toward the arrogance of the rich, while most make no reference to God at all. Can this difference be explained in terms of redactional history? Should the former group be regarded as introducing a religious or theological dimension into the collections which was totally absent from them in their original contexts, or is it only a matter of some proverbs expressing explicitly a religious dimension which was already implicit in others? Certainly in terms of practical attitudes there does not appear to be any fundamental difference between the two groups. There are in fact only eighteen verses in these chapters in which Yahweh (or, in two cases, simply 'the Maker") is mentioned in connection with statements about wealth and poverty. In every case the point which is made is closely paralelled by one made in a similar statement in which God is not referred to at all. In several of them the frequently occurring theme of kindness and justice towards the poor is given additional force by saying that Yahweh himself will protect the poor and punish the greedy (10.3; 15.25) or that he will reward the generous (19.17; 25.21-22). The statement in 15.16 that 'a little with the fear of Yahweh' is preferable to riches accom-
See, e.g. E.I. Gordon, Sumerian Proverbs (1968), p. 19; W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (1960), pp.213, 225; M. Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature (1983), pp. 63-65. 2 Compare B.S. Childs's comment (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [1979], p. 551) that 'the many excellent insights gained from a study of the book's prehistory do not always contribute to a more profound understanding of the present text, as one would hope'.
67
panied by trouble has very close links with 15.17,1 16.8 and 17.1, where love, righteousness and concord respectively stand in place of the fear of Yahweh. 15.18; 28.25 and 29.22 all speak of violent or greedy men who provoke quarrels (y'garek madon); of these, only in 28.25 are such men contrasted with those who trust Yahwehperhaps because such a person is better able to control his anti-social bent. A number of proverbs which affirm Yahweh's detestation of dishonesty (11.1; 16.11; 20.10, 23) add divine sanction to the numerous proverbs about corrupt practices and ill-gotten gains. Proverbs about the legitimate desire for wealth are reinforced by the assurance in 10.22 that Yahweh himself will assure by his blessing the fulfilment of such an ambition. The only proverbs in this group which strike an unexpected note are four which base their call for just and generous treatment of the poor on the fact of their status as God's creatures (22.2; 29.13; 14.31; 17.5; see 2.g. above). While the first two of these are content simply to state that rich and poor 'meet together" as being both Yahweh's creatures, leaving the readers to draw their own moral conclusions, 14.31 and 17.5 speak of the 'Maker' of the poor CdsehQ.) as being shamed or scorned (herep) by those who oppress or mock the poor. This application of 'creation theology1 to the question is of great interest; but the actual function of the invocation of the deity is once again only to reinforce that concern for the poor which is characteristic of the whole of these chapters and which may well be based on an unexpressed religious sentiment. It would be unwise to conclude that the proverbs about rich and poor which refer explicitly to God are necessarily intended as pious or theological correc-
This juxtaposition is almost certainly significant. Other cases of deliberate juxtaposition of Yahweh-sayings with non-Yahweh sayings on the subject of wealth and poverty almost certainly include 18.10, where the assertion that the name of Yahweh is a strong tower (migdal-'oz) immediately precedes the assertion in v. 11 that the wealth of the rich is, or is thought to be, 'his strong city" (qiryat 'uzz6); and possibly also 22.2, whose statement about the common status of rich and poor as created by God may be a comment on v. 1, which declares a good reputation to be preferable to wealth.
68
tions of 'secular' proverbs which completely lack such a religious basis.1 d. Authority and social function Since the main purpose of the above investigation is limited to the examination of the attitudes towards poverty, wealth and social status reflected in these short proverbs, the question of the nature of their authority and social function, which has been much discussed in recent years but without the emergence of a general consensus, lies outside its scope, except in so far as it has been necessary to attempt to define the point of view from which their speakers perceived the society in which they lived. It has been suggested here that this point of view was that of the 'petit peuple', neither rich nor poor, rather than the high officials of the court. But some reference ought to be made to other hypotheses. Can any of these account equally well for the attitudes towards wealth and poverty uncovered in the foregoing discussion? i. Learned scribes or 'oral literature*? It has been argued that these proverbs are miniature works of art (Kunstweisheit) too finely wrought to be the creations of simple people: they can only have been composed by learned scribes such as those attached to a royal court or temple; and that as such they bear the marks of literarythat is, writtenrather than oral composition. These views, however, have been severely shaken by much recent research into the so-called 'oral literature' of modern non-literate peoples, of which a vast quantity has now been assembled and committed to writing by anthropologists, and which can be studied in its
This is a modification of my earlier opinion expressed in the article referred to on p. 65, n. 1, in which I referred to the 'theological reinterpretation' of older 'secular' proverbs. I should no longer use the term 'secular' in that connection. The 'Yahweh-proverbs' may be said to represent a theological development in so far that they reflect a tendency to clarify Yahweh's involvement in all that happens; but trary to a widely held viewthere is in my opinion no reason to suppose that the absence of reference to Yahweh in the majority of these proverbs necessarily implies a lack of recognition of that involvement.
1
69
living context in the life of the communities which produced it. Comparative studies have shown that this literature' of orally composed and orally transmitted proverbs often bears astonishing similarities in virtually every respect including those of form, style, artistry, themes with that of the short sayings in the book of Proverbs, and may justly be compared with the latter. A particular valuable contribution to this kind of study is Laurent Nar6's Proverbes salomoniens et proverbes mossi, in which a member of the Mossi people in Burkina Faso (formerly Haute Volta) has carried out a detailed comparison of the proverbs in Proverbs 25-29 with no less than 1,900 proverbs gathered from his own people. After stressing the remarkable formal similarities between the two collections, he concludes: 'The Mossi proverbs equal in profundity the teaching of the biblical proverbs themselves, to the extent that they formulate in equivalent terms certain important principles such as that of immanent justice, condemning evil in all its forms and encouraging good; and above all in that, like the biblical proverbs, they recognize God, not only as the Creator of the universe, but as the protector of the poor and the supreme guarantor of the moral order'. Nare" demonstrates such an abundance of agreement with Proverbs on such matters as family life, social and political structure, the contrasts drawn between righteous and wicked, wise and foolish, lazy and industrious, rich and poor, the principle of retribution and moral and religious principles in general that it becomes eminently reasonable to suppose that the milieux from which the two 'literatures' emerged bore a strong resemblance the one to the other.1
ii. Schools and education
The view that these proverbs must be the work of learned scribes is closely associated with that which sees them as intimately connected with education; that is, not with parental, but with formal or public education carried on in institutions
1 L. Nar6, Proverbes salomoniens et proverbes mossi (1986), pp. SOSSOB. See also C. Westermann, 'Weisheit im Sprichwort' (1971); A. Barucq, 'Proverbes (Livre des)', SDB 8 (1972), cols. 1414-19; F.W. Golka, 'Die KSnigB- und Hofspriiche und der Ursprung der israelitischen Weisheit', VT 36 (1986), pp. 13-36.
70
often referred to in modern scholarship as 'schools' and sometimes as 'wisdom schools' or temple schools'. The existence of such institutions in ancient Israel before the Hellenistic period has been and continues to be debated and need not be discussed here. It is, however, generally admitted that the evidence put forward in favour of the existence of schools in ancient Israel is of an indirect nature: it is based mainly on the fact that in the two dominant cultural centres of Israel's world, Egypt and Babylonia, school education had long been an indispensable institution, supplying a regular stream of educated persons without whose expertise the administration of those empires would have been impossible. On the assumption that a similar necessity must have existed in the much smaller political states of the areaa theory later supported to some extent when information about PhoenicianCanaanite states of the late second millennium became availablethe book of Proverbs has been scrutinized for traces of dependence on the literature provided for, or in some way connected with, those foreign institutions. Two short sections of Proverbs30.Iff. and 31.Iff.are attributed to authors with apparently non-Israelite names, and may actually be of foreign origin; but nothing is known about their background. Another section, however22.1724.22has been compared in detail with an extant text known to have been used as a manual of instruction in Egyptian schools, and it has long been generally accepted that the Hebrew text was directly modelled on the Egyptian one. But this theory of direct dependence has recently been challenged.1
The Egyptian text in question is The Wisdom ofAmenemope (partial translations in ANET, pp. 421-25; D.W. Thomas [ed.], Documents from Old Testament Times, 1958, pp. 172-86; W. Beyerlin [ed.], Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testaments, 1978, pp.49-62). The theory was first put forward by A. Erman, "Bine agyptische Quelle der "Spruche Salomes"', SPAW 15 (1924), pp.86-93. It has been questioned by two Egyptologists, J. Ruffle, "The Teaching of Amenemope and its Connection with the Book of Proverbs', Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977), pp. 29-68 and K.A. Kitchen, 'Egypt and Israel During the First Millennium B.C.', VT Suppl 40,1988, pp.107-23.
71
Nevertheless it is clear that both texts, and probably parts of Proverbs 1-9 as well,1 belong to the same literary type. Whether these connections with foreign wisdom literature, or other external evidence which has been adduced, prove the existence of schools in Israel remains debatable.2 Foreign influence may have been exercised in other ways. But apart from this question, it would be mistaken to suppose that because some parts of Proverbs are of foreign origin or have been composed on the basis of foreign models, this is necessarily true of other parts. In fact in the chapters with which we are concernedthat is, the so-called 'sentence-literature' consisting of short sayings, quite different from the 'Instruction genre' found in chs. 1-9 and 22.17-24.22there is no real evidence of direct foreign influence, although a few of these proverbs have a kind of family resemblance to items in other collections such as the Words of Ahikar, a copy of the Aramaic version of which was found among the Jewish texts found in Elephantine. Such similarities suggest that there was a certain amount of international exchange of proverbial material, at any rate at a relatively late date (the Elephantine material comes from the fifth century BCE). As for more general similarities, these are to be expected, since similar situations tend to produce similar reactions. Thematically at least, many of these proverbs draw on what appears to be a common stock of common sense and moral principle which found its expression as much in sayings from Greece or Rome, China or Japan, or from modern non-literate societies, as in Egyptian or Mesopotamian literature.3
R.N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (1965); C. Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1-9 (1966). 2 See the discussions in R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition (1974), pp. 33-43; B. Lang, 'Schule und Unterricht im alten Israel' (1979), pp. 186-201; A. Lemaire, Les ecoles et la formation de la Bible dans I'ancien Israel (1981); F.W. Golka, 'Die israelitische Weisheitsschule oder "des Kaisers neue Kleider"', VT33 (1983), pp.257-70. 3 It is perhaps worthy of note that the closest parallels between Prov. 10.1-22.16; 25-29 and Egyptian literature are with the Instruction of Amenemopet, the work which is believed to have served as a model for another part of Proverbs, 22.1724.22 (see the footnotes to the translations in the three works mentioned on p. 70, n. 1). G.E. Bryce (A Legacy of Wisdom [1979]) finds a quantity of parallels between the sentence lit1
72
This is as true of proverbs concerning wealth and povrty ase of the rest. The similarities between the short proverbs on this subject in the book of Proverbs and the corresponding literary works of Egypt and Mesopotamia are of a very general character. Compared with the former, it is remarkable how little of the vast body of ancient Egyptian literature is concerned with this question.1 The genre of the short proverb is not, in any case, an Egyptian genre. In the extant Mesopotamian literature too the few references to these subjects are to be found mainly not in the collections of short sayings or proverbs, but in the longer poems whose form is quite different from that of the chapters of Proverbs under discussion.2
erature of Proverbs and Egyptian sources, though he admits that 'Since the traditions of wisdom were international, it is not unusual to find many sayings in which the imagery and thought are strikingly similar. To trace these in every case to external sources would reduce the quest for closely associated parallels to a hopeless search. Without any verbal or ideological control to identify their source, the whole body of wisdom literature would become an amorphous mass capable of producing connections in every direction" (pp. 131-32). On Egyptian, Greek, Roman, post-biblical and mediaeval Jewish, New Testament and Norse wisdom literature see the various contributions in E. Jacob (ed.), Sagesse et Religion (1979). Compare also the Japanese Testamentary Admonitions ofKujoden (tenth century CE; English translation in G. Sansom, A History of Japan to 1334 (1958), pp. 180-83. On presentday 'oral wisdom' see 4.d.i. 1 The book of Proverbs shares to a large extent the attitudes towards wealth and poverty displayed in the literature of the ancient Near East generally: wealth is a good gift bestowed by the gods, though it also has its dangers; the existence of poverty as such poses no problems, though the poor have rights, and it is the religious duty of the citizenand especially of the king to maintain these rights. Godor the gods loves the poor. Beyond general similarities such as these it is doubtful whether there has been any direct foreign literary influence on the chapters of Proverbs under consideration here. See H. Brunner, 'Die religiose Wertung der Armut im alten Agypten' (1961); F.C. Fensham, "Widow, Orphan and the Poor in the Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature' (1962); H. Wissmann, 'Armut I', TRE IV, pp.6972; D.H. Engelhard, "The Lord's Motivated Concern for the Underprivileged' (1980); L. Epzstein (1983). 2 See the translations in W.G. Lambert (1960).
73
iii. The life of the people It is now more and more generally accepted that the origins of the 'sentence literature' in the book of Proverbs are primarily to be sought in the life of the people of Israel itself. However, the precise function of these proverbs in the national life is not easy to determine. They cover a very wide range of situations in both social and domestic life, and concern themselves with an equally wide range of attitudes, from the trivial to the religious. It is doubtful whether any conclusions about their functions can be drawn from their form. Much has been made in recent study, for example, of the importance of the distinction between the 'imperative' admonition (Mahnwort) and the 'indicative' statement (Aussagewort), the former being supposed to be the form employed by someone in a position of authority, whether parent, tribal leader, teacher, lawgiver or sage, to command or advise.1 In fact, however, this function is no different from that of the Aussagewort or indicative type of proverb: a statement like
(10.5) A son who puts by in summer is intelligent, but a son who sleeps at harvest brings shame
is clearly no less a piece of advice, and is no less effective, than the imperative
(20.13) Do not love sleep, or you will lose your property; stay awake, eat your fill;
nor is the purpose of

(13.24) A person who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him betimes
in any way different from

(19.18a) Chastise your son while there is hope for him.
To treat these different grammatical forms as indicative of different functions is to follow a false trail.2 Modern popular proverbs may equally be found in either the indicative or the
See the discussions in W. Zimmerli, 'Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit' (1933), pp. 184-86; C. Westermann, "Weisheit im Sprichwort' (1971), pp. 76-78 (= 1974, pp. 152-54); E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des 'apodiktischen Rechts' (1965). 2 Compare the view of R.E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature (1981), p. 6.
1
74
imperative mood, and are used with no consciousness of any difference of function. The problem of the original function of these proverbs is only one aspect of a much wider question about the origins and functions of proverbs in general, about which there is at present no general agreement.1 It is in any case the nature of a proverb to be adaptable to a variety of situations. The sayings in Proverbs may not be 'popular proverbs' in the sense in which this phrase is used today, but it must be assumed that what they have to say, even if often a truism, was intended in the first place to convey a message capable of influencing the actions or behaviour of the recipient to his advantage. It is in this way that the proverbs about wealth and poverty should be understood: they are part of a very rich store of anonymous reflections based on experience and offered as maxims by persons who claimed to possess an unusual degree of common sense or wisdom, and which were thought worth remembering and eventually recording and collecting.2 There is nothing in them to suggest that they were composed as tribal law or to form part of a system of education. Even their form can no longer be regarded as proof of a literary culture, for there are close formal analogies in the oral proverbs of modern non-literate peoplesanalogies which include, for example, the parallel couplet. It is improbable that greater precision can be obtained on this matter.
See J.M. Thompson, The Form and Function of Proverbs in Ancient Israel (1974). 2 Some of these proverbs contain a strong element of humour. These include some which poke fun at the lazy (22.13; 26.13-15). But, although they are clearly intended to make the hearers or readers laugh, entertainment was not their main purpose. Pointing the finger of scorn at the sluggard was one way of persuading him to change his ways and so avoid the disaster predicted for him in other more 'serious' proverbs.
SECTION B. OTHER COLLECTIONS OF SHORTPROVERBS
1 Proverbs 2423-34
The first words of 24.23a, These also are of wise men' (gam 'elleh lah"kamim) clearly mark the beginning of a new section of the book, which equally clearly ends with v. 34, since 25.1 introduces a further section. The 'also' presumably refers back to 22.17-24.22, which is introduced in 22.17 as 'words of wise men', suggesting that 24.23-34 was at some stage appended to the previous section. This passage is of mixed character as regards both form and contents. Its two themes are honesty and impartiality in the administration of justice (w. 23b-26, 28-29) and the importance of sound agricultural practice (w. 27, 30-34). The first of these themes gives no clue to the social status of author or readers, since ordinary citizens had responsibility for judicial procedures not only as witnesses but also as judges.1 The remarks about country life in w. 27, 30-34 are to be taken literally, as in the comparable proverbs in 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29, and appear to come from the same milieu. Verse 27 is reminiscent of 27.23-27:
First organize your work out of doors (bah&s) and set it up satisfactorily on the land; only after that should you build your house (bSteka).
Whether the last line refers to the construction of a dwelling house or the founding of a family,2 its concern is with the
See, e.g., Boecker, Recht und Gesetz (1976). The same theme is found in the sentence literature of Proverbs, especially 18.5 and 28.21. 28.21a is verbally almost identical with 24.23b. In the laws of the Old Testament, especially in Deut. 1.17 and 16.19, the duty of impartiality in administering justice was laid on 'all Israel'. 2 bayit often means 'family1 or 'household'. But there seems to be a deliberate contrast here between 'out of doors' (bah&s) and 'on the
1
76
importance of getting one's priorities right. It presupposes a situation in which a man's livelihood is dependent on the proper management of his land, which must come before everything else. Verses 30-34 belong to the category of the fully developed moral tale. The speaker describes a situation or series of events which he has witnessed (w. 30-31) and then points a moral (w. 32-34; cf. 7.6-27; Ps. 37.35-36). It has been suggested that the original setting of such moral tales was the formal instruction given in a 'school'.1 However, the form of address 'my son(s)' characteristic of such formal instruction (cf. 7.1, 24) is lacking. Setting aside the question whether children in ancient Israel were educated by professional teachers or by parents,2 it should be noted that this passage has much in common thematically with a number of proverbs in 10.122.16. It may also be significant that the 'moral' in w. 33-34 is identical almost word for word with 6.10-11, and may thus have been a 'floating' saying which could be used in a variety of contexts. The theme is that of the disastrous fall into utter poverty which will inevitably befall the lazy person. In both theme and vocabulary the passage is strongly reminiscent of the proverb material. 'dseZ(v.30), re$ (v.34) and mahsdr (v.34) are key words in 10.1-22.16 and 25-29. Sena, 'sleep' (here in the plural, v. 33) occurs in 20.13, which is a brief statement of precisely the same theme (cf. also 10.5; 19.15; 26.14). The statement in v. 31 about the sluggard whose stone wall is broken down (neh'rasa, niphal of haras) brings to mind the use of that verb in 14.1; 29.4, where it refers to the ruin which is the consequence of folly. Above all, the characterization of
land' on the one hand and the house as an Interior* on the other: bayit sometimes has the meaning of 'interior1 in contrast with h&s, 'exterior'. BHS adopts the other interpretation: on the grounds that the last line of the verse is too short, past commentators have supposed that some words have dropped out, and have attempted to supply them. BHS has adopted one of these conjectures, suggesting that 'take to yourself a wife' should precede 'build your house'. But such attempts to rewrite the Hebrew text have nothing to commend them. 1 H.-J. Hermisson, Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit (1968), pp. 183-36. * See Whybray (1974); Lang (1979); Lemaire (1981); Golka (1983).
B. 2. Miscellaneous Pieces in Proverbs 1-9
77
the lazy person as one who sleeps while his property and livelihood fall into ruin about him links the passage firmly with the proverbial material in 10.1-22.16. 2. Miscellaneous Pieces in Proverbs 1-9 These chapters contain mixed material: a series of instructions or admonitory discourses, some poems about or attributed to a personified 'Wisdom', and a quantity of additional material generally of a proverbial character and more or less loosely attached to other genres. Some of this last, like 27.23-27, exceeds the bounds of the short proverb. This proverbial material cannot always easily be distinguished from its contexts. On the whole, as far as it can be identified, its themes are identical with themes that occur in 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29. But it contains little that is directly relevant to the concerns of wealth and poverty. In 5.22-23 and 6.12-15 the disastrous fate of the wicked is announced in terms familiar from the other proverbial material (mut, 'to die', sbr [niphal], 'to be broken'; also 'ed, 'distress, calamity*, a term used in 17.5; 27.10 without any reference to its cause). Of these 6r (niphal, 6.15), paralleled with pit'om yabo' 'edd, *his distress will come suddenly*, is, as in 29.1, to be taken as referring to an unspecified disaster, not necessarily as a reference to poverty. 6.6-11, whose final lines are virtually identical with 24.33-34, constitutes yet another exhortation to diligence with a corresponding warning about the fate of the slumbering idler. 6.16-19, which lists things which Yahweh hates, also strongly implies disastrous consequences but without specifying them. 6.1-5, on the folly of going bail for another person, may be compared with similar warnings in 11.15; 17.18; 20.16; 27.13 and employs the same terminology Carab, taqa'). The consequences of such rashness are clearly economic:
6.3a b Do this then, my son, and save yourself, for you have fallen into your neighbour's power...
78
5 free yourself like a gazelle from the hunter,1 like a bird from the hand of the fowler.
Like the corresponding proverbs mentioned above, this passage implies two things: on the one hand that the present economic position of the person in question is that of one who expects to have the means to fulfil the obligations imposed by his guarantee, and on the other that when it comes to the point he may find himself unable to do so, in which case he himself would become bankrupt and fall into poverty. (This passage, it should be noted, is cast in the form of a teacher's or parent's instruction ['My son', w. 1 and 3].) These somewhat isolated pieces have no context except that they are loosely attached to other genres. They may have existed separately before finding their present position in the book. But in general they correspond closely to the material in 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29. Apart, perhaps, from 6.3-5 with its instructional form they offer no additional evidence about authorial stance and provide no additional clues about attitudes towards wealth and poverty. 3. Proverbs 30 This chapter also contains very varied material. Those passages in which references to wealth, poverty and social status occur are the following: w. 7-9,10, 11-14,17, 21-23. These and the other pieces in the chapter may be extracts from a larger composition (Barucq); however this may be, their lack of a larger context makes an assessment of their social provenance difficult to carry out. But there are some indications of a variety of differing points of view. Verses 7-9 are a rarity in the book of Proverbs: a prayer in the first person singular, apparently addressed to Yahweh. It is
The Hebrew has miyy&d, 'from the hand', which by itself makes no sense. The need for emendation is generally recognized, but the commentators are divided between mimmasdd, 'from the net' (so REB; cf. a similar rendering in LXX) and missayy&d, 'from the hunter'. The latter proposal, which makes a better parallel with the first line and only requires the conjectural restoration of one consonant, is perhaps to be preferred.
1
B. 3. Proverbs 30
79
probably unconnected with w. 1-3 (4), which are also expressed in the first person singular and may also be addressed to God.
30.7 8 9 Two things I ask of you; do not deny them to me while I live, Put deceit and lying far from me; give me neither poverty nor wealth (re'S w&'oSer), but provide me with my proper share of food (lehem huqqt),1 lest being replete Ce&ba") I should deny you (w'kihaitt) and say, 'Who is Yahweh?', or lest being impoverished Ciww&reS) I should become a thief and violate (wetapa&tt)22 the name of my God.
Of the two requeststo be preserved from lying and deceit and from both poverty and wealth (v. 8)only the second needs and receives further elucidation (v. 9). When the elucidation is given, however, the two requests are seen to be similar: the petitioner asks God to protect him from actions which he evidently regards as especially heinousperhaps because they are signs of a fundamental inner corruption of character, whether shown towards God (hubris) or man (dishonesty) which would inexorably lead to disastrous consequences. The ideas expressed here go beyond anything to be found in the sentence literature and are clearly the result of serious reflection. In particular, the request for a bare sufficiency (lehem huqqt, v. 8c) rather than wealth strikes an entirely different note. To ask to be spared from falling into poverty is admittedly quite in accordance with the sentence literature: it
1 Literally, 'food of my portion". The precise meaning of huqqt here is not clear. McKane, for example, renders the phrase by 'the bread that is my due', interpreting this as meaning 'a fair portion', while REB has 'the food I need*. Fortunately the previous line shows what it is that the petitioner is asking for: a modest sufficiency. 2 The verb tUpai with the name of God (or God himself) as its object occurs only here, and its precise meaning is not clear. The verb frequently means 'seize, lay violent hands on', and McKane renders it here by 'violate' in the sense of infringing God's holiness. Other commentators suggest that the offence in question may be equivalent to that prohibited in the Third Commandment (Exod. 20.7; Deut. 5.11). G.R. Driver (cited by Gemser), followed by REB, proposed that tapaStt should be repointed as tapaSlt, which he connected with an Arabic verb meaning 'besmirch'.
80
is the kind of petition which the authors of these proverbs might well have made to God. Not so, however, with the request not to be given wealth. For in 10.1-22.16 wealth ('65 er), though it is less desirable than a good reputation (22.1) and can lead to disaster if it breeds over-confidenceperhaps with the implication that such over-confidence shows a lack of trust in Godis nevertheless regarded as a due reward together with honour and life', for humility and (perhaps) for the fear of Yahweh (22.4). Here, on the other hand, wealth is regarded as something to be absolutely avoided: it is so likely to lead to pride and blasphemy that it is placed on a par with deceit and lying as an evil from which Yahweh's protection is sought! The attitude here expressed towards poverty (re'S) also is not really the same as in the sentence literature. The petitioner regards poverty not only as a misfortune but as a corrupting influence no less than wealth, inevitably leading to dishonesty and thus to a kind of blasphemy. This attitude is quite different from that of the sentence literature, where a poor man may be honest, and where it is better to be poor and honest than to be rich and crooked (19.1; 28.6) and better to be poor than a liar (19.22). It is true that the request for a modest sufficiency (v. 8c) has some superficial comparability with those proverbs (15.16, 17; 16.8; 17.1) which assert that such a state, if accompanied by the fear of Yahweh or honesty or a state of domestic harmony, may be preferable to wealth when it is accompanied by the opposite qualities; but the motivation for the request here is somewhat different. The petitioner appears to be saying that such a state is the only way in which a person can avoid sin and disaster. This is by no means the thought of the authors of the sentence literature, for, as has been said, they regard wealth, despite its pitfalls, as a reward rather than a curse. The thought expressed in these verses has no real parallel either in Proverbs or elsewhere in the Old Testament. The passages which come closest to it are Deut. 8.11-14; 31.20 and Job 21.7-15; 31.24-28. All these are concerned with the fact that wealth can lead to apostasy. In Deut. 8.11-14 Moses warns the people of Israel on the eve of entering the Promised Land of the danger that when they have entered the land and
B. 3. Proverbs 30
81
become prosperous they may become proud and forget Yahweha warning also obviously applicable to individuals. In 31.20 he warns more specifically that they may, when they acquire material prosperity, turn from Yahweh to other gods. In Job 21.7-15 Job complains that the wicked prosper, and, in words reminiscent of Prov. 30.9, that
21,14 They say to God, 'Let us alone; we do not want to know your ways! 15 What is Shaddai that we should serve him, or what should we gain by praying to him?'
In Job 31.24-28 Job speaks of two sins: putting one's trust in one's wealth, and the worship of sun and moon. Both of these are described as a denial of God (khs, piel, v. 28, as in Prov. 30.9). These are by no means complete parallels to Prov. 30.7-9. They do, however, attest a fully developed and reflective theology somewhat analogous to that passage, and so may suggest that the latter comes from a more consciously theological milieu than that of the sentence literature of Proverbs. These verses are far removed from the practical situations with which the short proverbs are concerned. They express a purely individual piety. Verses 10 and 22 are concerned with domestic slaves. It should be noted that the possession of slavesor at least, of one slavewas in ancient Israel by no means a sign of superior wealth or power. Israelite slaves were not necessarily purchased in a purely commercial transaction, though this might be so. A slave was frequently a defaulting debtor or a poor person who had no alternative but to enslave himself.1 According to Prov. 12.9 as commonly interpreted, the possession of just one slave and no more may have been a sign of a modest way of life.2
See R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de I'Ancien Testament I (1958), pp. 126-30; ET Ancient Israel, pp. 80-83. 2 2 This verse may be loosely rendered: 'Better to be unpretentious (niqleh) with just one slave (we'ebed 16) than ostentatious and bankrupt*. But Ringgren considers this to be an impossible translation of w"ebed 16, and renders it by 'and (to be) one's own slave', while LXX has 'working for oneself, which may presuppose the pointing of 'bd as the participle 'dbed. See also p. 44 above.
1
82
Like poverty, with which it was closely connected, the practice of slave ownership was taken for granted. The Old Testament laws, however, contained important regulations about slavery designed to mitigate the lot of slaves. Kindness and consideration for slaves are not mentioned in any part of Proverbs, though this does not necessarily imply that its authors were not concerned with this. The references to slaves in ch. 30 do not indicate any difference of point of view from that of the sentence literature of 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29. 30.22a refers, like 19.10, to a slave's becoming king, and v. 23b to a female slave who supplants her mistress:
30.21 Under three things the earth quakes (ragez& 'eres) and four things it cannot bear: 22 a slave who becomes king, and a fool who is well nourished; 23 a hated woman1 who gets married, and a slave (Siphd) who supplants her mistress.
The solemn introduction to this numerical proverb leads the reader to expect a catalogue of things so portentous as to herald some cosmic disaster. The verb ragaz, 'shake, quake', with 'eres, 'the earth, ground' as its subject occurs in four other passages in the Old Testament and always in connection with a catastrophic divine intervention in human affairs: a divinely motivated panic on the part of the enemies of Israel (1 Sam. 14.15); the catastrophic 'day of Yahweh' accompanied by the shaking of the heavens, with the sun, moon and stars darkened (Joel 2.10); the 'day of Yahweh' in Amos (Amos 8.8); and the cosmic phenomena which accompanied the crossing of the Red Sea (Ps. 77.18 [Heb. 19]). Yet the four things here stated to provoke such a state of affairs include such comparatively insignificant matters as an overfed fool and an unpopular wifetruly an anticlimax. Roth's view (1965, pp. 34-36) that this proverb has great sociological significance in that it 'codifies a social order* and so serves to stabilise social life by designating any change within that social set-up as "earth shaking"' is probably to take it too seriously. It is surely
?n&'&, 'hated', may mean 'divorced' (so G.R. Driver, cited by Gemser) or simply 'unattractive'.
1
B. 3. Proverbs 30
83
intended to be ironical, a caricature of those who see disaster in everything, somewhat comparable to the English riposte to such people, Well, it's not the end of the world, is it?' This is not to say that the speaker approves of the things listed, or even that he regards them as totally unimportant. He has assembled a group of occurrences which are in his opinion, unfortunate or damaging enough. Whatever the precise meaning of the second and third items may be, it is not right that a slave should usurp the throne or that a maidservant should supplant her mistress. As in 19.10, slavery was part of the normal order of things, and a reversal of positions within society was to be deplored. Verse 10, which is an isolated admonition, also mentions slaves:
Do not slander a slave to his master, for he may curse you, and you will stand condemned (we'aSamta).
Although the meaning of the second line is not entirely clear,1 the first shows that the proverb is primarily concerned with the relationship between the master of a house and his household rather than being a comment on slavery. It is a warning against interference in the domestic affairs of other people. As elsewhere in Proverbs it presupposes the practice of slavery, but it also treats the slave as a human being. Verses 11-14, though not strictly a numerical proverb, is a list of four kinds of person (ddr) whose character and activities are clearly regarded as reprehensible although no such judgment is overtly expressed. These are: persons who curse or denounce their parents, the self-righteous, the arrogant and the violent. This last item (v. 14) specifically mentions violent attacks on the poor:
People {ddr) whose teeth are swords and whose jaws are knives, devouring the '"niyytm from the earth
1 The verb 'a$am can mean either 'be guilty" or 'be held guilty'. Hence here it may mean either 'be in the wrong1 or 'suffer a penalty1 such as, perhaps, a breach of friendship between the tale-teller and the slave's master.
84

and the 'ebydntm from the land.1
All these types are condemned elsewhere in Proverbs, often with the prediction of a horrible fate in store for theme.g. for those who curse their parents, 20.20; the arrogant, 15.5; those who attack the poor or helpless, 14.31; 22.22-23. Two of these kinds of conduct, arrogance and violence, are listed in the numerical proverb 6.16-19 as things which Yahweh hates and abominates. 30.11-14 is similar to that proverb except that there is no mention of God here. There seems to be no connection between the four items in the list; many more items could be doubtless have been added, so one may presume that it was about these four that the speaker felt most strongly. Although all the types mentioned are clearly regarded as particularly deserving of punishment, the fact that violence against the poor comes last and in a verse twice as long as any of the others may indicate that the speaker regarded this as the most heinous sin of all. But this judgment is echoed so widely in the other sections of Proverbs that it gives no indication of its social provenance: it no doubt expresses the judgment of all rightthinking people.
1 The Hebrew text has me'adam, 'from mankind'. An emendation to m$'ada.m&, 'from the land', makes a better parallel with the first line and is often proposed, though not universally accepted.
SECTION C. PROVERBS 22.17-24.22
These chapters are generally regarded as constituting a single distinct section of the book, though some scholars have held them to be an assemblage of two or more shorter sections.1 Since the publication of the Egyptian Instruction known as the Wisdom of Amenemope in 19222 it has been almost universally believed by scholars that there is a distinct literary relationship between the two works. The general view has been that the author of the Hebrew work was familiar with the Egyptian one and based his own work on it, at least as far as 23.11. The main alternatives to this theory were that Amenemope was dependent on the Proverbs material3 or that both works were dependent on some common source.4 If Prov. 22.17ff. were in fact based on Amenemope this might provide a clue to the social provenance of the former; and this would be relevant for an assessment of those passages in it which refer to wealth and poverty. The author of Amenemope, though apparently himself not of the highest rank in Egyptian society, was a government official and scribe whose purpose was, inter alia, to set out 'the rules for courtiers' (Introduction, 1. 4). It became a literary classic, and was used, copied and recopied in Egyptian schools for a long time. The social milieu which it reflects is clearly very different from that which we have postulated for Prov. 10. Iff. and 25-29. However, in recent studies there has been a trend towards a more cautious attitude with regard to the closeness of its relaSee Niccacci, Troverbi 22,17-23,11' (1979). See p. 70, n.l. 3 This view was most notably defended by E. Drioton, 'Sur la Sagesse d'Amenemope' (1957). 4 The fullest exposition of this view is that of I. Grumach, Untersuchungen zur Lebenslehre des Amenemope (1972).
2
86
tionship to Prov. 22.17ff. than was earlier the case.1 Some Egyptologists, indeed, have actually doubted whether there is any direct relationship at all between the two texts.2 They have pointed out that although the Proverbs passage has the same form as that of some Egyptian Instructions, that form was not an Egyptian particularity but was widespread in ancient Near Eastern literature, and its appearance in an Old Testament book therefore requires no special explanation. The genre may well have been employed in Canaan before the arrival of the Israelites. It has also been pointed out that most of the themes which Prov. 22.17ff. has in common with Amenemope are by no means confined to these two works but belong to traditions common to the whole cultural area; doubt has also been thrown on the detailed arguments for particular verbal correspondences.3 Other problems, such as the completely different sequence of themes in the two works, equally remain unsolved. It now seems, therefore, that it would be unwise to base any conclusions about the social status of the author(s) of Prov. 22.17-24.22 on the supposed direct dependence of this passage on Amenemope. However, there can be no doubt that in most respects itor at least 22.17-23.11corresponds closely to
For example, D. Romheld, Wege der Weisheit (1989), emphasizes the extent of the use of other sources by the author of the Hebrew work, and also claims that he exercised a high degree of freedom and creative originality in his adaptation of Amenemope, even maintaining that he deliberately ignored the expression of personal piety which strongly characterizes that work, reverting to the older view of the operation of retributive justice on which both earlier Israelite and Egyptian wisdom literature were based. 2 So J. Ruffle, The Teaching of Amenemope and its Connection with the Book of Proverbs' (1977); KA. Kitchen, 'Egypt and Israel During the First Millennium B.C.' (1986), especially n. 70. D. ROmheld's comment (Wege der Weisheit, p. 5, n. 16) that Ruffle's views 'sich jedoch zu Recht mit ihrer Meinung nicht durchsetzen konnten' seems premature. 3 E.g. by Ruffle, 'Teaching*, pp. 37ff. The linguistic arguments of Drioton and others used to demonstrate the dependence of Amenemope on Prov. 22.17ff. have also been rejected, e.g. by R.J. Williams, The Alleged Semitic Original of the Wisdom of Amenemope' (1961), and B. Couroyer, 'L'origine 6gyptienne de la Sagesse d'Amenemop' (1963).
1
C. Proverbs 22.17-24.22
87
the Egyptian 'instruction' form, and it thus remains legitimate to make comparisons between it and that literature, and particularly with Amenemope, which is still the extant text with which it has most in common, as well as with other examples of the Instruction form in the Old Testament (specifically, with parts of Prov. 1-9). In fact the passage has all the marks of an Instruction'. It is clearly a work concerned with education. One of the clearest signs of this is the use of the expression 'my son' (beni) (23.15, 19, 26; 24.13, 21). This expression occurs very frequently also in Proverbs 1-9 in passages where the author exhorts this 'son' to heed his teaching. In three passages there (1.8; 4.1; 6.20) he refers to himself as the 'father* of the pupil, and in 1.8 and 6.20 the mother is associated with the father as coteacher. In Egyptian and Mesopotamian Instructions too the author claims to be the father of the recipient of the teaching. It is generally held that 'father* and 'son' in those literatures are often fictitious expressions referring respectively to teacher and pupil in the schools. Whether these expressions in Proverbs 1-9 are similarly fictitious or are to be taken literally as referring to instruction imparted within the family, there can be no doubt that this is educational literature. It may be assumed that this is also true of 22.17-24.22.l (It must be admitted that some parts of these chapters, especially 23.1314, which gives advice on the application of discipline to young boys, read somewhat strangely if it is supposed that this is an
1 The expression 'my son' does not occur in 22.17-23.11, the passage which most closely resembles Amenemope. It is, however, frequently found in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian didactic literature. It does not occur in the body of Amenemope, though the author of that work in the introduction (not the prologue) claims to have written it for his own son. The difference in this respect between the two halves of 22.1724.22 perhaps supports the view that 23.1224.22 is derived from an originally separate literary source from 22.17-23.11. Nevertheless the form of 22.17-24.22 as a whole, with its extended prologue and its reference in 22.20 to the thirty distinct admonitions which follow (it is generally accepted that iPldStm, 'thirty', should be read here in place of Kethib's SlSwm or Qere's SaltStm) is a unity in its present form.
88
instruction given to children or young men rather than to adults having families.)1 Another indication that 22.17ff. belongs to the category of the wisdom Instruction is found in the opening verses, 22.1721. Whatever may be the relationship, if any, to the Prologue ofAmenemope, which in some respects these verses closely resemble, there can be no doubt that this is the formal prologue to an Instruction, characteristic of the genre. The speaker calls for close attention to the teaching which follows ('words of wise men'), and expatiates upon its permanent value to the recipient as a guide for life. Whether the whole of the remainder of 22.17-24.22 belongs to this Instruction is not certain. 23.12 and 23.26, which strongly resemble the headings to instruction material in Proverbs 19 (1.8; 2.1-5; 3.1-4; 4.1-2; 5.1-2; 6.20-21; 7.1-3) may be briefer headings introducing what were originally distinct Instructions. If this is so this section of Proverbs comprises no less than three Instructions: 22.17-23.11, 23.12-25 and 23.26-24.22, each with its own prologue or heading. Yet another indication of the Instruction form in these chapters is the predominance of the admonition: that is, of the direct address to the reader in the form of either positive or negative advice or commands in the imperative or in the vetative Cal followed by the jussive) respectively, as distinct from the statement which refers to some aspect of life or conduct, and from which the reader or listener must draw his
This may, however, be explained by a comparison with a passage in the Aramaic Words of Ahiqar (where in fact there is a possibility of a common source or even of direct dependence). In Ahiqar, lines 81-82 (ANET, p. 428; Thomas, p. 272) the instructor appears to justify his application of corporal punishment to his young pupil by first quoting and then commenting on a current proverb: 'Do not spare your son the rod, if you cannot keep him from [ ].' If I strike you, my son, you will not die; but if I leave you to your own heart []. It is possible that in Prov. 23.12-14 the instructor uses a somewhat similar argument, but in the reverse order: an admonition to pay attention to the words of the teacher (v. 12) is followed by a quotation (w. 13-14) intended to justify the use of corporal punishment if the pupil does not obey. A similar phenomenon is found in some Egyptian school texts (see ROmheld, Wege der Weisheit, pp. 47-52).
1
C. Proverbs 22.17-24.22
89
own conclusions about the appropriate conduct to pursue. The admonition form is extremely rare in the proverb collections of 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29: there are only twenty-two of them in more than five hundred verses. In the Instructions, on the other hand (e.g. Amenemope), the admonition is the dominant, though not the exclusive, form employed. In Prov. 22.17-23.11 every item with one exception (22.29) is in the admonition form, and this is also true of 23.12-25, the only exception being 23.15-16. In 23.26-24.22 there are four (or five) exceptions out of thirteen: if we assume that 23.26 is a heading and not integral to what follows, 23.27-28; 24.3-7, 8-9 and 10 contain no admonitions, while 23.29-35 is mainly descriptive, though it seems to have been built round an admonition in v. 31. But here also the admonition form is the dominant one. The admonition is not, of course, in itself an indication of the Instruction form: many proverbs have this form, and the twenty-two cases of admonitions in Prov. 10.1-22.17 and 2529 do not affect the judgment that these are collections of sentence literature, not instructions. But the overwhelming proportion of admonitions in 22.1724.22, taken with other evidence, is a sure indication that we are here dealing with an Instruction or Instructions of a type known from Egyptian and other non-Israelite literature. In order to assess the items in these chapters which speak of wealth and poverty it is important to determine as far as possible the social position of their authors). The very fact that this is formal Instruction material shows that, whatever traditional material may have been used, this is the work of a writer or writers rather than simply a collection of separate orally transmitted proverbs. This view is also supported by its form. The author, then, belonged to the literate section of the community. His profession may have been that of a scribe, although this should not be taken for granted.1 Many of the themes employed here were current throughout the ancient Near East and were not confined to a single social stratum. They are common both to the Egyptian
1 See R.N. Whybray, Intellectual Tradition (1974), passim, but especially pp. 55-70.
90
Instructions and to the proverb collections of Prov. 10.1-22.16 and 25-29. These common themes include, apart from generalities about the importance of acquiring wisdom and following the advice of the wise or of the teacher (22.17-21; 23.12, 15-16, 19, 23, 26; 24.3-7, 13-14), condemnation of robbery, violence, perversion of justice and wickedness in general (22.2223; 23.17-18; 24.1-2, 15-16, 19-20); warnings against association with the hot-tempered and irascible (22.24-25), drunkenness and gluttony (23.20-21, 29-35) and consorting with loose women (23.27-28); duties towards and reverence for parents (23.22, 24-25); the importance of disciplining one's children (23.13-14); condemnation of encroachment on the property of others, especially the poor and defenceless, by moving boundary stones (22.28; 23.10-11); the ephemeral nature of wealth and the folly of pursuing it at all costs (23.4-5). Other items have echoes in the sentence literature of Proverbs but few or none in the non-Israelite literature: the imprudence of giving guarantees or pledges for others (22.26-27); condemnation of those who gloat over the misfortune of a personal enemy (24.17-18cf. Prov. 25.21-22); the folly of conversing with fools (23.9). It is important to notice that, in contrast with their frequency in 10.1-22.16 and chs. 25-29, there are no references to agricultural or pastoral life in these chapters (unless moving a boundary stone implies this). The two references to drunkenness, one of which associates it with gluttony, may be indication of an urban setting, and this may also be true of the reference to consorting with immoral women, which in such a relatively short Instruction has a much more prominent place than does the single reference to this among the innumerable items of the sentence literature (29.3) which deals with the matter in a single line and in a very matter-of-fact way: it is a waste of money. 22.29 has been taken to refer to a scribe or official with a position in government service, but who is ambitious to rise further in his profession:
Do you see a man skilful (m&htr) in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure persons (ha$ukktm).
C. Proverbs 22.17-24.22
91
There are several reasons for this interpretation. First, it has been thought to have a particularly close resemblance to the final words of Amenemope:
As for the scribe who is experienced in his office, he will be found worthy to be a courtier.
Secondly, 'standing before kings', if taken at its face value, certainly means occupying a high position at court with direct access to the king (though the plural Icings' is odd). Thirdly, the word mahir, 'quick, skilful', has associations with scribes both in the Old Testament and elsewhere in the literature of the ancient Near East. Two passages in the Old Testament, Ps. 45.1 (Heb. 2) and Ezra 7.6, contain the phrase soper mahir, which certainly means 'a skilful scribe'.1 It is used in Ps. 45 by the author about himself, and in Ezra 7.6 of Ezra, who is there said to have been 'a scribe skilful (i.e., probably, 'experienced' or 'expert') in the law of Moses'. However, this interpretation of Prov. 22.29 is by no means certain. As has already been pointed out, a direct literary relationship between Prov. 22.17-24.22 and Amenemope is now regarded with some reservation, and Prov. 22.29 itself makes no overt reference to the scribal profession, mahir, a rare word in the Old Testamentit occurs only four times altogether is used in Isa. 16.5 in a quite general sense: it refers there to a future Davidic king who will be a judge (Sopet) who will 'pursue justice and be swift (mahir) to do righteousness (doreS mi&pat umehir sedeq)'. The reference is thus ostensibly to a man who is efficient in his business, whatever that may be. The assertion that such a man will 'stand before kings' (the plural suggests that this is a general proposition, not referring to any king in particular) may well be a case of hyperbole comparable to that which has already been noted in 25.6-7.2 As Ploger remarks, the writer wishes to stress the general point that there is no limit to what a man can achieve who does his work efficiently and skilfully. It is, of course, possible or even probable that the author had the scribal profession in mind;
On sdper mahtr see the discussion in W. McKane, Prophets and Wise Men (1965), pp. 28-36. 2 See pp. 54-56 above.
1
92
but there is no reason to suppose that either he or his readers occupied, or were likely to occupy, high social positions. The same is true of 24.6, which refers to the need for careful strategy and planning in waging successful war. Although these are activities of kings and their close advisers, this verse, as has already been pointed out in considering 20.18,1 is no more than a vivid illustration of the general truth expressed in the previous verse, that 'wisdom prevails over strength, and a knowledgeable man over brute force'. It is not intended to be advice to royal counsellors. 24.21-22 is obscure. After exhorting the pupil to 'fear Yahweh and the king", it advises him not to consort with Sontm, for they will come to sudden disasterand will presumably drag their associates down with them. It has been supposed by some commentators that the obscure word Sonim means 'persons of high rank, noblemen'; but this meaning is quite uncertain, and no conclusions about the social status of the author can be drawn from these verses.2 23.1-3 does, however, provide some such indication. It concerns the proper behaviour to be observed when one is invited to dine with a mosel, 'ruler*clearly a person of the very highest rank. Evidently the guest is himself of a much lower rank and is exhorted to be careful of his manners. Yet he is of sufficient standing to be invited to dine with such a distinguished person. 23.6-8 also refers to an invitation to dinner. It is now possible to form some idea of the social status and circumstances of the author of these chapters. He is a literate
See pp. 57f. above. Sdnlm is ostensibly the masculine plural of the qal active participle of $Qn&, 'to change', 'to be different'; hence the rendering 'And meddle not with them that are given to change* (AV, RV). This idea hardly fits the context, though PlSger among others rather unconvincingly takes the line to refer to those who wish to overthrow the concept of the close relationship between Yahweh and the king, which he takes to be implied by the previous line. Others have proposed emendations of the text, notably ofSdntm to len&hem and of 'al-tit'arab, 'Do not associate with' to 'al-tit'abbar: 'Do not fall out with either of them' (cf. RSV). On the other hand, L. Kopf (1959), pp. 280-83, followed by D.W. Thomas, G.R. Driver and REB, retains Sdnlm but takes it to mean 'noblemen' on the basis of an Arabic verb saniya, 'to be high'. But this is hardly satisfactory in view of v. 22.
2 1
C. Proverbs 22.17-24.22
93
person, capable of composing an elegant piece of literature. He may himself be a scribe, though this is not certain. His purpose is to instruct a pupil, who may or may not be his own son, in the proper way to behave towards God and his fellow-men and so to live a happy and successful life. His concerns are not those of the farmer, and he is probably a city-dweller. His circumstances are probably considerably better and more prosperous than those of the speakers of the proverbs in the sentence literature, but he does not belong to the higher ranks of society, although he may be on 'social terms' with some members of the highest class. There are relatively few direct references to wealth and poverty in these chapters: 22.22-23, 28; 23.4-5,10-11. Two items refer to the crime of encroaching on the property of others by moving boundary markers:
22.28 Do not move the ancient boundary stone (g'b&l '61am) which your ancestors set up. 23.10 Do not move the ancient boundary stone and do not encroach on the land of the fatherless (y'tomtm), 11 for their helper is powerful; he will take up their cause against you.
This is the same theme as that of Prov. 15.25 but in the form of a negative admonition with, in the case of 23.10-11, an added motive-clause 15.25 reads:
Yahweh tears down the house of the proud but establishes the boundary of the widow (g'b&l 'almond).
There is also a close parallel inAmenemope ch. VI, 7.15: 'and do not disturb the boundaries of the widow1. 22.28a and 23.10a, which are verbally identical, do not specify the status of the persons whose property is liable to be stolen in this way. 23.10b is more specific: the land in question belongs to the 'fatherless'. In the interests of parallelism and in order to bring the Hebrew text into closer alignment with the corresponding passage in Amenemope, Gemser suggested that 23.10a originally read 'Do not remove the boundary stone of the widow' ('almana for 'olam). This emendation is purely speculative. 23.10b, however, is sufficiently explicit: it is a condemnation of a crime committed against a kind of person universally regarded in the Old Testament as particularly
94
defenceless against the depredations of the powerful and so needing special protection. But this is an example of a moral sanction which was clearly of general application and not restricted to Israel. Nor is the warning of 23.11 that God will intervene to protect the helpless unique to Israel: it is strongly implied also in the corresponding passage from Amenemope that divine retribution will fall on the guilty person. 22.22-23 is the only passage in these chapters which specifically refers to the poor:
22 Do not rob a poor man (da/) because he is poor (da/), and do not crush the poor man Cant) in court; 23 for Yahweh will take up their cause, and will rob of life those who rob them.
This is the only occurrence in these chapters of the words dal and 'ani which occur regularly in Prov. 10.1-22.16 and 2529. Probably both lines of v. 22 refer to the same thing: the use of judicial procedures, such as the hiring of perjured witnesses or the bribing of judges, to defraud the poor of their rights. There is no specific reference to this practice in the sentence literature of Proverbs, although several of the proverbs in those collections should probably be interpreted in this sense. The practice is specifically condemned in the laws of the Old Testament. The importance of ensuring that the poor receive justice is, however, a regular theme of Egyptian literature, and one whole bookthe Protests of the Eloquent Peasantis entirely devoted to this theme. There is also a comparable passage in Amenemope (ch. II, 4.4-5), where also there is a parallel to the warning in v. 23 that Yahweh will intervene and punish the crime. 23.4-5 speaks of the futility of the relentless pursuit of wealth, on the grounds that even if it is successfully attained it will evaporate and disappear again in no time at all:
4 5 Do not weary yourself to get wealth (Fha'a$tr): use your intelligence, and desist! Before you can look round it will be gone! For it will surely grow wings like an eagle or a bird of the heavens.1
There are some textual and other difficulties in v. 5, but the general sense is clear. In v. 5a it is probably necessary to read h"ta'tp (hiphil)
C. Proverbs 22.17-24.22
95
What is striking about this admonition is its lack of any qualification. Admittedly the idea that wealth, though in general desirable, is not the most important thing in life is frequently stressed in the sentence literature of Proverbs; but there it is almost always credited with at least a relative value, as long as it is acquired honestly. Only 27.24 states baldly that wealth does not last, but in a quite different connection. 27.24 is addressed to the farmer, and makes the point that he can only remain prosperous by dint of unremitting hard work: a farm does not look after itself. In 23.4-5 the point made is very different: the attempt to make money is itself hard work, a laborious business which is not worth the candle because wealth does not last. This is a long way from the principle accepted throughout the ancient Near East and enunciated frequently in the sentence literature of Proverbs, that wealth is a concrete proof of divine blessing, and as such can be relied upon to last as long as its recipient retains God's approval. The other proverbs in the sentence literature which come closest to 23.4-5 in regarding wealth as ephemeral are all concerned exclusively with fortunes made in some undesirable way. 20.21 and 28.20 are warnings against its too rapid acquisition, perhaps with the idea that this necessarily involves some criminal activity, a point which is clearly made in 10.2; 11.4, 18; 21.6. 11.28 is a warning against trusting in riches, probably because this is incompatible with putting one's trust in God. 15.16; 16.8; 17.1 speak of wealth as having only a relative value in comparison with such advantages as peace and contentment. Elsewhere in Proverbs, 30.8-9 regard wealth as undesirable because it may lead to apostasy. The reason for the unqualified rejection of making wealth one's unique goal in 23.4-5 is not clear. It may be that, like some of the proverbs referred to above, these verses take it for granted that such a policy cannot be carried out honestly, and so is bound in the end to fell. This is the message of the seventh chapter of Amenemope, which has often been compared to them, partly because it employs the same imagery of wealth's
with Qere rather than ht'wp (Kethib) and to regard the apparent interrogative form as equivalent to a conditional clause, and in v. 5c to read yS'&p (Qere) for w'yp (Kethib).
96
taking wings and flying away (Amenemope ch. VII, 10.4-5). This passage refers specifically to wealth gained by robbery. If this is what is meant in Prov. 23.4-5 it would account for the fact that these verses appear to run counter to the belief that wealth is God's gift. (See below.) Alternatively it may perhaps be implied that precisely because it is God's gift it is wrong to seek it for oneself. These verses are strangely similar to the teaching of Qoheleth (Eccl. 4.7-8; 5.13-17 [Heb. 12-16]). They may have been inspired by some precise circumstances of which we are ignorant, and they are therefore something of an enigma. (Equally enigmatic is Ptahhotep's 'If a man says: "I shall be rich", he will have to say, "My cleverness has snared me"' [The Instruction ofPtahhotep, third millennium BC; translation in M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. I, p. 65]). The following admonition, which is not precisely concerned with poverty but with persons threatened with death, should perhaps be added to the list of relevant passages:
24.10 If you show yourself to be weak at a critical time how limited is your strength! 11 Rescue those who are being hauled off to death (lequhtm
lammawet),
and do noc hold back Cim-tah^dk) from helping those who are stumbling (?) to be butchered (m&ttm lahereg);1 12 for if you say, 'But we know nothing about this', will not He who tests the heart be aware of it? He who observes your conduct will know; and He repays every person according to his deeds.
These verses are no less enigmatic than 23.4-5. One difficulty is that it is not certain whether v. 10 is related to w. 11-12 or is to be regarded as an independent piece. A further problem concerns the Hebrew text of v. 10, which may have suffered some omission. But the principal difficulty concerns the interpretation of w. 11-12.
1 mattm is ostensibly the masculine plural active qal participle of mat, 'totter*. But G.R. Driver (1932), p. 146, took it to be the participle of a (supposed) verb cognate with Aramaic metd, m'td', in the sense of 'ready for', i.e. 'on the point of (death). Van der Ploeg (1952) and others point the words as mutttm, the hophal participle of natd, giving it the meaning led away1.
C. Proverbs 22.17-24.22
97
It has been widely assumed that v. 11 refers to persons who have been sentenced to death by judicial procedure and are being taken to a place of execution. The teacher charges his pupils with the duty of rescuing them, adding that those who fail to do so will be judged and duly punished by God. In other words, if this interpretation is correct, the pupil is told that it is his duty to impede the due process of law. If the persons in question had been justly sentenced, this advice would be inexplicable. Some commentators have therefore supposed that they are people who have been unjustly convicted. But there is no hint of this in the text. Moreover, the teacher appears to assume that the pupil, if faced with such a situation, would be in a position to rescue the prisoners. This would, however, clearly not be the case except in a revolutionary situation in which divine sanction was being invoked to encourage the pupil to action with a view to overthrowing a tyrannous regime; and this is equally improbablecompare v. 21, "My son, fear Yahweh and the king'\ While the circumstances which gave rise to this admonition remain unknown, it may be appropriate to point out that these verses in fact make no reference whatever either to a judicial trial or to a death sentence, or to an execution, whether legal or arbitrary. Verse 11 refers simply to persons who have been seized (Fquhim, literally, 'taken') by others, and are about to be killed (lammawet, 'to death'; hereg, 'slaughter"). No reason is given for these violent actions. Gemser suggested that the language used here is figurative, citing such passages as Ps. 94.6, where he takes 'kill' and 'murder' to be hyperbole for oppression of the poor and defenceless by the powerful. On the other hand, we may compare Prov. 1.10-19, which refers in a quite literal sense to robbery with violence'Let us lie in wait for blood' (ne'erb& I'dam; 'let us waylay an innocent person' (nisp'nd, I'naqt hinnam), v. 11; 'and they hasten to shed blood* (wtmaharu lispok-ddm), v. 16. 24.11-12, then, may refer to mugging or robbery with violence. The pupil is warned that to refuse to interfere Cim-tahsdk) to rescue the victim is culpable cowardice (this is perhaps hinted at in v. 10) which God will
98
not fail to punish. (The suggested parallel in the equally enigmatic Amenemope ch. VIII, 11.6-7 is dubious.)1 Four of these five admonitions, then (22.28; 23.10-11; 22.2223; and [probably] 24.10-12) are concerned with various forms of robbery: the theft of property by stealth, the swindling of the powerless through suborning of judges or witnesses in the courts, robbery with violence. In three cases the pupil evidently needed to be warned and threatened not to commit these offences; in the fourth (24.10-12) he is told that it is equally heinous to stand by and not intervene to rescue the victims of crime. In all but one it is specifically asserted that God himself will take action to punish those who disobey. The themes of the admonitions are for the most part quite conventional, having parallels both with other parts of the Old Testament and with other ancient Near Eastern literature; but taken together they give the impression of coming from a lawless and violent society, in which the poor, the helpless and the innocent are frequently in danger from criminal acts. The pupil is urged to resist the prevailing lawlessness. He is promised no reward; rather, he is threatened with divine punishment if he disobeys. Since all the crimes mentioned here have their root in greed, the admonition against eagerness to acquire wealth (23.4-5) may reflect the teacher's conviction that 'money is the root of all evil"that is, that the desire for it often leads to crime. These admonitions support the view that these chapters come from a very different kind of society from that reflected in the sentence literature.
This passage appears to be an admonition not to render up to justice a fugitive who has concealed the reason for his flight. See, e.g., Romheld, Wege der Weisheit, pp. 89-95.
SECTION D. PROVERBS 1-9
These chapters are composed of three kinds of material: (1) a collection of relatively extensive sentences ('discourses') on particular themes, generally similar in form to the individual chapters of Egyptian Instructions such as Amenemope or Papyrus Insinger1 (l.Sff.; 2.1ff.; S.lff.; 3.21ff.; 4.1ff.; 4.10ff.; 4.20ff.; S.lff.; 6.20ff.; 7.1ff.), preceded by a general Prologue, (1.1-7) has been expanded with (2) poems in praise of a personified Wisdom (1.20-33; 3.13-20; 8.1-36; 9.1-18) and (3) by some miscellaneous material, mainly short proverbs, of which some has already been discussed.2 That this is mainly educational literature is shown by its form and vocabulary. The expression 'my son' (beni), which we have seen to be a form of address by father or teacher to his son or pupil, characteristic of the Instruction, occurs in these chapters fifteen times. To these must be added four occurrences of the plural form bantm. Of these nineteen occurrences, ten form part of the initial address to the pupil in the
For a recent translation with commentary and introduction of this important Egyptian Instruction of the Hellenistic period, see M. Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature (1983), pp. 107-234. It is a highly organized work consisting of a prologue, twenty-five chapters (of which 15 are missing) each provided with its own subject-heading, and epilogue. An earlier important study containing text, transcription, French translation and commentary and introduction is F. Lexa, Papyrus Insinger (1926). 2 On the composition and literary history of Proverbs 1-9 see R.N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (1965); B. Lang, Die weisheitliche Lehrrede (1972); B. Lang, Frau Weisheit (1975). More recent study has caused me to modify my views about some matters, especially with regard to the existence of schools in Israel based on Egyptian models, but not on the question of literary history. Lang's most recent book, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs (1986), presents a more radical and speculative thesis about the origin of the Wisdom poems in Proverbs 1, 8 and 9 than in his 1975 work.
1
100
ten discourses, while another six (1.10,15; 3.11; 5.7, 20; 7.24) are employed within discourses to emphasize particular points. The remainder occur in other material: two (6:1, 3) in a briefer admonition already discussed, and one (8.32) in a speech by Wisdom. In two instances the mother's teaching (tora) is mentioned together with the father's instruction (mftsar, 1.8) or 'commands' (miswa, 6.20). The pupil is regularly admonished to pay attention to the teaching of the 'father* and is told of its great value for the further conduct of his life, and also to model himself on him (4.3-4). Each discourse begins with its own prologue. The general Prologue (1.1-7) has undergone expansion, and in its present form may be intended as an introduction to chs. 1-9 as a whole.1 It is in many ways similar to the Prologue of Amenemope. Most of the discourses, again like the chapters of Amenemope, are unified disquisitions on single themes. Some of these have also undergone subsequent expansion internally or at the end: consequently, although it is quite clear where they begin, it is not always possible to determine with certainty the point at which they originally ended. The discourses are elegant literary compositions and presuppose an educated readership. Both teacher and pupil evidently belonged to a social stratum superior to that of the ordinary farmer of the sentence literature, though not necessarily to the governing class. There are no direct references to the scribal profession, unless the ability to read and write is to be taken to point to a scribal provenance.2
The additions to the original Prologue include v. 5, which extends the readership to thepresumably adult'wise' (hakam) and 'discerning* (n&bdn) who, it is claimed, will thereby be able to increase the wisdom that they have already acquired. The attribution to Solomon in v. 1 follows the established convention which credits kings, and, in Israel, especially Solomon, with the authorship of wisdom Instructions. 2 The phrase 'scribal profession* applied to the circumstances of ancient Israel is more difficult to define than in the case of Egypt or Mesopotamia. A. Lemaire (Les icoles [1981]) concludes from his study of the available epigraphical and literary material that by the end of the period of the monarchy literacy had become widespread in Israel by the establishment of 'schools' of many kinds, including not only the lowest administrative levels but even 'the majority of villages' (p. 48),
1
D. Proverbs 1-9
101
The most prominent theme, one which forms the subject of no less than four of the ten discourses, is the importance of avoiding the temptations of immoral women. The other themes include the avoidance of association with criminal gangs (l.Sff.; 4.10ff.), duties towards God (3.Iff.) and duties towards neighbours (3.2Iff.). Two discourses have quite general themes: the importance of cultivating wisdom (4. Iff.) and of moral vigilance and self-control (4.20ff.). Some of these themes are identical with themes found in the Instructions of 22.17ff.: the avoidance of immoral women, association with criminals, the cultivation of wisdom. There are clear indications that these discourses have their provenance in an urban society. This is especially evident in ch. 7, where the teacher paints a vivid picture of sexual seduction: the young man seen from a window passing in the dusk along the street ('ober bdSStiq) by the corner (pinna) (v. 8) where is the house of the woman who comes to meet him dressed like a prostitute (&t zond, v. 10), a woman who does not stay at home (v. 11) but lies in wait at every corner ('esel kol-pinna te'erob) and in the street (htiq) and public squares (r^hobot, v. 12), kisses him in the street (v. 13) and invites him to her house; the luxurious furniture of the house (w. 16-17); the story of the husband who has 'gone away on a long journey taking a bag of silver with him' (w. 19-20) and will not return home for some time. Indications of an urban setting are to be found also in other chapters. As in 22.17ff., the references to gangs of criminals and the warnings against immoral womenmore frequent than in 22.17ff.probably suggest this. It is also noteworthy that there are no references in these discourses to agricultural labour. The sole reference to agricultural procedure is in 3.9-10; but the language used here 'your wealth' (honeka), 'all your produce' (kol-Fbu'ateka), the barns Casamim) filled with grain, the winevats (fqabim) filled with wine (note the plurals and the word 'all')strongly suggests large-scale farming rather than personal labour. The pupils for whom these discourses were intended were eviwhere instruction was given probably by local levites (p. 56) to peasants and artisans (p. 57).
102
dently the sons of wealthy entrepreneurs who employed labourers to work their farms, and who did not necessarily live on their estates. Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of these discourses is that the poor are not mentioned at all. ('"nawim/ '"niyytm in 3.34 means "humble' rather than 'poor1.) To some extent this may be coincidence: various features suggest that these ten discourses were not originally planned as a single coherent Instruction covering the whole range of human conduct as some of the Egyptian Instructions seem to have been. Such an Instruction would be most unlikely to have devoted no less than four chaptersout of a total of tento the same subject (immoral sexual relations) largely expressed in identical or synonymous terms. But even allowing for a certain randomness or lack of logic in the selection of the material, the failure to include any recommendation to help or pity, or even to refrain from oppressing or defrauding, the poor is surely significant. Some such reference might have been expected at least in 3.21ff., which lists a number of duties towards others. In this passage it is true that w. 27-28 advise the pupil to confer a benefit or favour (hen) on another person when able to do so, and to do it promptly; but there is nothing here to indicate that the other person is in economic distress. It is rather a warning to be on good terms with neighbours (cf. w. 29,30). The main concern of these admonitions appears to be the happiness and success of the pupil as he will go through life. Piety and the acquisition of wisdom are stressed, but because the neglect of these will lead to personal disaster. Virtuous conduct is positively recommended, but in very general terms, for example in 1.3, which refers to the value and importance of sedeq, miSpat and meSartm, all terms corresponding roughly to 'right conduct'. But when it comes to detailed admonitions, the main emphasis is negative: do not commit robbery and violence, do not imitate or associate with evil men, do not become involved with immoral women, avoid bad relations with neighbours, because these things will bring about your ruin. Both the good and the bad conduct referred to in these passages are characteristic of the well-to-do. The gang of robbers depicted in 1.10-18 as persons to be avoided do not rob because they are poor, nor indeed do their victims appear to be poor:
D. Proverbs 1-9
103
there is 'rich treasure' to be obtained from robbing their houses. The motive for these crimes is stated quite clearly in 1.11:
They say, 'Come with us; let us lie in wait for blood; let us waylay some innocent person for fun (hinnam, literally, 'for no reason')'.
There is evidently no lack of money among these people and their families, and it may be spent wisely, in "honouring Yahweh' with sacrificial offerings so that the barns and winevats may be well filled (3.9-10), or foolishly, for example in the attempt to buy one's way out of trouble by offering damages (koper) or hush-money (Sohad) to the husband whose wife one has seduced (6.35). It is significant that it is the difficulty of appeasing the wronged husband that is the reason advanced for keeping away from other men's wives: 'one who commits adultery is simply lacking in sense' (h"sar-leb, 6.32). Nothing is said about using one's wealth to relieve the poor. The 'Wisdom'-poems in chs. 1-9 reflect the same social circles as the discourses. The setting is even more explicitly urban. Each of the two great poems in which a personified Wisdom speaks (1.20-33; 8.1-36) begins with an introductory statement about the places where she speaks: in the street and public squares and by the city gates, at the entrance to the city, in prominent places (1.20-21; 8.1-3; cf. 9.3).1 Admittedly she addresses her teaching to humanity in general (bene 'adam, 'the sons of men', 8.4); and her stance at the entrance to the city may suggest that her audience consisted partly of travellers rather than residents of the city. Nevertheless the stress on the city as the place where she speaks is clearly intended to indicate that it is in the city and not in the farms and villages that wisdom is to be found.
1 The suggestion that these references to public places were made because it was there that schools were located (e.g. Lemaire, Les Scales, p. 53; Lang, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs, pp. 29-33) is purely speculative; nor does Lang's reproduction on p. 32 of a courtyard school of Yemeni Jews in Jerusalem in the 1920s add anything to the argument. As both these authors acknowledge, these were the best locations for public speakers, such as 'Wisdom' is here represented as being, to obtain a hearing.
104
As in the ten discourses, there is no mention in the wisdom poems of chs. 1-9 of the poor or of poverty. Indeed, there are strong indications that the provenance of the wisdom poems and the discourses in their final redaction is the same, though the wisdom poems represent a further development of the teaching. What is predicated of the teacher's instruction in the discourses is predicated of 'Wisdom', presented as a female figure, in the wisdom poems; this process has already begun in the discourses, especially in 4.1-9, where an injunction to 'embrace' Wisdom, expressed partly in terms used by Wisdom of herself in the wisdom poems, appears to have been added to a passage in which the teacher urges the pupil to take to heart the 'wisdom' of his own teaching. Even more than in the discourses, the theme of the wisdom poems is that by the acquisition of wisdom the pupil will attain success, wealth and power: not only riches and honour ('oSer w'kabdd, 3.16; 8.18), wealth (hon, 8.18) and full treasuries ('osfrdt, 8.21) are hers to give, but also powerthe power enjoyed by kings and rulers (8.14-16). There is in fact no limit to the advantages that Wisdom can confer. That is why it can be said that Wisdom is more precious than silver, gold and precious stones (3.13-17; 8.10-11, 19); for the kind of'wisdom' depicted here is not an abstract virtue or a humble intellectual gift but is the sole sure means to success and prosperity as well as to a happy and long life. The implication is that wealth without wisdom is a dubious advantage because it can easily be lost; the only sure way to success is to acquire wisdom first, for this will confer the practical shrewdness to enable one not only to make money but to keep it and increase it and to use it so as to acquire influence and power. The point of view of the discourses and the wisdom poems is reflected in their theologyor, rather, by the limitations of their theology. In six of the ten discourses (1.8-19; 4.1-9; 4.1019; 4.20-27; 6.20-35; 7.1-27) there is no reference to God at all. There is reason to believe that this may also have been the case with some of the remaining four discourses in their original form. In 2.1-22 the verses which refer to God (5-8) give the impression of being an interpolation glossing the advice to acquire wisdom above all else with the theological comment that the wisdom in question is Yahweh's wisdom. In 3.21-35
D. Proverbs 1-9
105
God is mentioned in w. 26 and 32-34. In v. 26 he appears in a secondary positionthat is, in a motive-clause where he is said to be the guarantor of the pupil's security; but this function has already been attributed to wisdom (w. 22-24). Verses 32-34 refer in very general terms to his attitude towards wicked and righteous, scornful and humble, but may also have been inserted, again by means of a motive clause, into the original text. They do not form the climax of the discourse, which finally reverts in v. 35 to the theme of wisdom and the importance of avoiding folly. In 5.1-23 the only reference to God (v. 21) may well also be an interpolation. Only in 3.1-12 does God occupy the central place in the advice given by the teacher. These references to God in the discourses of chs. 1-9 are merely part of the teacher's advice to the pupil in the context of the pursuit of success in life. The pupil's attention is always directed upon himself and his prospects. 3.4 puts the matter very clearly: if the pupil heeds the master's teaching,
Then you will find favour and success (hen we$ekel tdb) in the sight of God and man.
In other words, standing well with the world and being in God's good books are equally important as the way to achieve success. There is no room here for disinterested concern for others. Words like sedeq, 'righteousness' (1.3; 2.9), miSpat, justice' (1.3; 2.8, 9), meSartm, 'uprightness' (1.3; 2.8, 9), >emei, 'faithfulness' (3.3), hesed, loyalty1 (3.3),;y6&r, 'honesty' (4.11), yearim, 'upright' (2.7, 21), holek& torn, 'blameless' (2.7), saddiqim, 'righteous' (4.18), Fmtmim, Tblameless' (2.21) occur, sometimes in conjunction with their opposites, in admonitions to practise virtue; but they are often used interchangeably, sometimes as denoting behaviour pleasing to God; no specific definition of them is given. They are often equated with wisdom, understanding and the like. In the wisdom poems, apart from 8.22-31 (on which see below) the references to God are very few: 1.29; 3.19-20; 8.13, 35; 9.10. All these poems are in praise of a personified Wisdom, who is represented as the speaker in the two major poems of 1.20-33 and ch. 8. It is not difficult to see that these references to God belong to a later redaction of an earlier text which was
106
wholly concerned with Wisdom, rather than of God, as the giver of all good gifts& wisdom which, as in 2. Iff. which we have already considered, is basically no more than the worldly wisdom imparted by the teacher but is now presented in terms of quasi-divinity. The verses which refer to God represent a theological attempt to 'take over* Wisdom's powers on behalf of Israel's God. The poems make excellent sense without them. In 1.20-33 the only reference to God (v. 29) is an obvious interpolation identifying Wisdom, or, more precisely, "knowledge', with Yahweh. In 3.13-18 God does not appear at all: w. 19-20 have clearly been tacked on to this poem with the purpose of associating Wisdom with Yahweh in the creation of the world, thus both enhancing her status, but at the same time bringing her, as it were, under God's control. 8.22-31 is a more extended example of the same process. The two references to God in the rest of ch. 8 (w. 13, 35) serve the same purpose as 1.29. 9.10-11 are a particularly obvious example of this kind of interpolation:
10 The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Yahweh, and knowledge of the Most Holy One is understanding; 11 for through me your days will be increased in number and years will be added to your life.
The 'me' of v. 11 can hardly be God, who is referred to in the third person in v. 10. It must presumably be the teacher of the discourses, who in 3.2 and 4.10 and in almost identical terms offers long life to those who heed his teaching, or Wisdom, who similarly offers long life in 3.16. It is in fact probable that v. 11 was originally the direct continuation of Wisdom's speech in w. 1-6. Whether this be so or not, the passage runs quite smoothly without v. 10. Apart, then, from the two passages about Wisdom's part in the creation of the world, God's role in these poems is superfluous. He appears here merely as supporting the teaching of Wisdom as an additional guarantor of success, long life and happiness to the wise, never as the protector or guardian of the rights of the less fortunately endowed.
SECTION E. PROVERBS 3 . 11 9
The 'Sayings of Lemuel, which his mother taught him' (v. 1), which appear to be of non-Israelite origin,1 are an Instruction addressed to apresumably young and inexperiencedking, one Lemuel of Massa, by his mother, that is, the queenmother, teaching him the proper behaviour and the duties expected of kings. It thus belongs to a particular type of Instruction known as the 'royal instruction', of which several survive from the ancient Near Eastern world, notably the Egyptian Instruction for King Merikare2 and Instruction of King Amenemhet3 and the Babylonian Advice to a Prince.* The first two of these are addressed by a king to his heir. The Sayings of Lemuel are distinctive in that the speaker is the mother rather than the father of the pupil. After an introduction (w. 1-2) this Instruction deals with three royal duties: to avoid entanglements with potentially dangerous women (v. 3), to avoid over-indulgence in drink (w. 4-5) and to protect and render justice to the poor and defenceless (w. 8-9). The proportion of the Instruction which is devoted in one way or another to duties towards the poor is remarkable: only
1 According to the punctuation in the Massoretic text, mas$&' stands by itself and would probably have to be rendered by 'an oracle'; but 'king of Massa' is more probable. No Israelite king of this name is known to the Old Testament. The provenance of the Instruction is uncertain. A Massa is mentioned in Gen. 25.14 and 1 Chron. 1.30 as a son of Ishmael, perhaps suggesting a North Arabian tribe; but there are linguistic forms used in Prov. 31.1-9 (bar, 'son'; m'laktn, 'kings') which suggest Aramaic influence. 2 English translations in ANET, pp. 414-18; Thomas, pp. 155-61; Beyerlin, pp. 44-47. 3 English translation in AMET, pp. 418-19. 4 English translation in W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (1960), pp. 110-15.
108
v. 3 is entirely unrelated to this topic. The concern for the poor is here expressed in terms not of simple benevolence or charity but of specific duties. The poor clearly have legal rights; and it is among the principal duties of a king to ensure that these are not infringed by others. Thus in w. 4-5 the reason given why he should not over-indulge in alcohol is that he must remain alert to see that the laws are not disregarded by the powerful:
5 lest because of drink he might forget the decree (mehuqqaq) and set aside the legal rights of any who are poor (dtn kol-bene'Snf).
In w. 8-9 the king is to speak out (petah-ptka, literally, 'Open your mouth') on behalf of the dumb Cillem, perhaps to be understood figuratively of one who for some reason is unable to speak for himself) and the weak, and is especially told to support the legal rights of the poor when he acts as judge:
9 Open your mouth and judge justly ($epat-sedeq) and render justice to the poor and needy ('ant w"eby6n).
Verses 6-7 begin with a plural imperative, fnu, 'Give'. This is inappropriate in an Instruction addressed exclusively to a single person and suggests that these verses are a later addition to the text, probably inserted at this point because of their common topic, drink (Seker sandyayin both occur in w. 4 and 6). There is a further connection between the two admonitions: whereas the motive clause in v. 5 begins with the words pen-yi&teh weyiSkah, 'lest he drink and forget.,.', the motiveclause in v. 7 gives the opposite advice but in otherwise identical words: yiSteh w'yiSkah, 'let him drink and forget...' Whereas w. 4-5 warn the king not to drink, w. 6-7 encourage the readers to give drink to those who are ruined Cobed} and desperate (marS nepeS) to help them to drown their sorrows and forget their poverty (rt$). This is rather strange advice: the persons addressed are clearly possessed of resources which would enable them to give material assistance to the unfortunate, but are not encouraged to do so. Their poverty is taken for granted, and only an opiate is considered an appropriate gift. Apart from w. 6-7, this Instruction depicts the duties of a king almost exclusively in judicial terms. He is not presented
E. Proverbs 31.1-9
109
as a lawgiver, but rather as one who, as judge, must constantly bear in mind the traditional laws and customs (m'huqqaq), and must be especially on his guard to protect the poor and powerless against those who try to defraud or oppress them. This ideal of kingship, including the particular concern for the rights of the poor, is one which is found everywhere in the ancient Near East: even Hammurabi in the preamble to his law code' does not claim to be the maker of laws, but rather to have been appointed by the gods
to promote the welfare of the people... , to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak.
Similarly in the Old Testament the same idea prevails, for example in Ps. 72.12-14, where the king
will rescue the needy Cebydn) who appeal for help, the poor Cant) who have no protector. He will have pity on the poor and needy (dal we'eby6n) and save the lives of the needy from death; he will redeem them from oppression and violence.
In the sentence-literature of Proverbs also it is asserted that the king, if his throne is to remain secure, must be one who is 'faithful in dispensing justice to the poor' (Sdpet be'"met dallim). But it is in these 'Sayings of Lemuel' that the importance of this particular role of the king is most fully emphasized in the book of Proverbs.
SECTION F.
PROVERBS 31.10-31
The picture of the ideal king in 31.1-9 is followed by one of the ideal, or perfect, wife.1 The social and economic status of this lady is clearly high, but the setting is neither royal nor aristocratic. The family lives entirely secure from anxiety about the future (v. 25), a state of affairs very different from that in which the proverbs of the sentence literature were produced. They are warmly clothed in the winter, and they also have clothes of costly materials (w. 21, 22). The husband is well known in the community and is one of the elders, who plays his part in public affairs (v. 23). His contribution to the wealth of the family is not mentioned as the poem concentrates entirely on the accomplishments of his wife, but he is clearly not a nonentity. However, it is evident from the enumeration of her various activities that she makes a significant contribution to the family's prosperity by her acumen and commercial activities such as the sale of wool and linen presumably produced on the estate but woven by her (w. 13,14,16-19, 24). There was no intention here to paint a picture of a particularly pious woman: her perfection consists not in her piety but in her practical qualities, which make her an ideal companion for her husband. Nevertheless, among her manifold activities noted here is the giving of charity to the poor ('ant, 'ebyon, v. 20). The matter-of-fact way in which this is introduced briefly and without elaboration among a host of other topics suggests that it was not regarded by the author as an act of especial piety, but as a normal action in households whose members Tear Yahweh* (v. 30). As elsewhere in Proverbs, the existence of the poor is taken for granted; but the alleviation of
The phrase 'e$et-hayil has been variously translated, e.g. AV 'a virtuous woman'; RSV, REB, 'a good wife'; PlOger, 'a capable wife'. The description which follows in w. llff. indicates what the author meant.
1
112
their hardships by those who could afford such acts of charity was equally taken for granted.
SECTION G.
WEALTH ANDPOVERTY IN THE

BOOK OF PROVERBS
The foregoing study has revealed a great variety of attitudes towards wealth and poverty in the book of Proverbs. These attitudes are to some extent related to the social and economic status and point of view of the various speakers or writers, but by no means wholly so. One thing they have in common: the existence of povertythat is, the presence in society of a number of poor personsis taken for granted. Like disease, poverty is regarded as a misfortune to which human beings generally are liable; and in every generation there will always be some persons afflicted by it. In the sentence literature, though not in the other parts of the book, some attempt is made to discern its causes; but nowhere is any possibility of eliminating it envisaged. There is no notion that it is due to a flaw in the organization of society which could be corrected, nor any perception that impoverished individuals might be helped in such a way as to restore them to prosperity and to a proper place in the life of the community. The notion of social reform was apparently not conceivable. Concern for the poor, then, was necessarily limited in its expression to the protection of such persons from exploitation and if possible their preservation from actual starvation by acts of charity. The voice that is inevitably missing in the book is that of the poorthat is, of the totally destitutethemselves. All those who speak in the book have material possessions, though in a greater or less degree. Although their views about wealth differ to some extent according the their circumstances, there is on this subject too greater a degree of unanimity, with one exception: 30.7-9. Apart from this passage, the speakers share the view common to their ancient Near Eastern civilizations that wealth is, generally speaking, a blessingthough some qualify this assessment in various ways.
114
The sentence literature (10.1-22.16; 25-29 and miscellaneous pieces in 24.23-34; 5.15-23; 6.1-19) expresses the views of persons of moderate means mainly engaged in farming their own land. For them, increased prosperity was, in general, desirable, and also within the bounds of possibility. It would not come to the lazy, but hard work and God's approval could bring it about. Wealth could also be obtained by dishonest dealing and brutal oppression, but would not protect the wicked from inevitable retributionthough it was admitted that this did not always seem to happen, and that there was a type of rich man who regarded his position as impregnable, and continued to despise and oppress the poor with impunity. Wealth, then, though in general desirable, had its dangers and pitfalls. It was not the most precious of all things in life, and there was much to be said for a quiet life even in somewhat straitened circumstances. On the other side of the coin, life was very precarious for these small farmers, and a fall into real poverty was a constant possibility, even though it could to some extent be averted by constant hard work, prudence and good husbandry. Laziness and extravagance were a main cause of poverty. Those who were able to make a sufficient living for themselves had a duty to be generous to the truly poor, and such generosity would honour God and would be duly rewarded by Him. The miscellaneous material of ch. 30 offers little that differs from the above except, as has already been remarked, for the prayer in w. 7-9 which rejects both wealth and poverty as likely to corrupt, and asks for a bare sufficiency. It stands on its own as a theological reflection. The Instructions in 22.17-24.22 and chs. 1-9 belong to a quite different social world from the sentence literature: the world of educated, well-to-do, acquisitive urban society. Both are wholly concerned with getting to the top; and little concern with the poor is expressed, though the urban poor were no doubt in as much need as the rural poor. There is no sense of a caring community here. In the discourses in chs. 1-9 there are no references to the poor at all. In 22.17-24.22 there are two: the prohibition of moving boundary stones (23.10-11), which refers to the property of the fatherless, and 22.22-23, which prohibits defrauding the poor of their rights. In both
G. Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs
115
cases the reason given for the prohibition is that those who do these things will find that God is their adversary. Both these admonitions have parallels in Amenemope, and were probably standard features of such Instructions. It was important to have God on one's side if one was to be successful in life. There is no suggestion here that actual charity towards the poor is a duty. With regard to wealth, 23.4-5 warns the pupil against wearying himself to become rich, since wealth so acquired will not last. As has been remarked above, this admonition, which also has a parallel in Amenemope, may refer to money acquired dishonestly; it may also be a standard feature of the Instruction form. The rest of this Instruction does not give the impression that money is of no consequence, though social climbing seems to be more important. In the discourses in chs. 1-9 wealth and power are the primary goals in life. In the wisdom poem of ch. 8 the pursuit of Wisdom is said to be more important than the pursuit of wealth, but only because wealth acquired without wisdom will prove to be ephemeral, while Wisdom will herself bestow true and lasting wealth on her possessor. The difference in tone between these two Instructions and the third, 31.1-9, is striking. The fact that it is addressed to a kingand by the queen-mother with all her experience of the temptations to which kings are especially proneno doubt largely accounts for this: the concerns of kings are different from those of others. Whereas the young men addressed in 22.17fF. and chs. 1-9, who are already well-to-do, have their feet on a ladder which if due care is exercised will lead upwards, kings are free from the kind of worldly ambitions which are theirs: they are already at the top; and though they may have imperial ambitions, within their own realms they are the masters. They admittedly need wisdom as much as anyone else, and it is the purpose of'royal Instructions' such as this to impart it to them. But their very position enables them, unlike the ambitious young men of 22.17ff. and 1-9, to pay serious attention to the welfare of the community which they rule. On the lowest level it is in their interest to do so if they are to maintain their position and avoid the fate of the unfortunate king of 14.28. Buteven though in this brief Instruction there
116
is no mention of God or of the role of the king as his earthly representativethere is more to it than this. In conformity with the view of kingship common to the peoples of the ancient Near East, this Instruction is wholly concerned with what is fitting behaviour for a king, and mainly with his duties towards his people, especially towards the poor and defenceless. The poem about the good wife (31.10-31) also makes a contrast with 22.17fF. and chs. 1-9. The family depicted here, although clearly well-to-do, lives a life which is far removed from the thrusting ambitious life depicted in those other two Instructions. This is a picture of wealth honestly earned by dint of industry and hard work combined with good sense and shrewdness; and as such it obviously has the author's approval. While concentrating on the activities of the wife, it portrays a family which has achieved the worthy ambition referred to in such proverbs as 28.19,20: of the blessings which will reward the honest and upright farmer and his family, who do not forget to be generous to those who are less fortunate than themselves. From the foregoing investigation it is clear that the book of Proverbs presents no single attitude towards wealth and poverty, but a variety of attitudes, which to some extent, but not wholly, correspond to the social and economic situations of the various speakers. Four types of social milieu are easily identifiable: the court, educated urban society, prosperous farmers and small farmers earning a precarious living. But both within these categories and beyond them uncertainties remain: for example, who are the 'wise'is the term simply descriptive of the mental superiority of some persons, or does it denote a distinct group? is the instructional material the work of 'professional' teachers, or simply of parents? are the wisdom-poems in chs. 1-9 to be attributed to persons who were in some sense theologians? to what milieu did the author of 30.79 belong? what are the implications of the attribution of the 'Words of Agur" (30.1ff.) and the Words of Lemuel' (31.1-9) to non-Israelites? Economically the four main types of speaker can be divided into two groups: those who are well-to-do or wealthy, and those who have enough to support themselves but are aware
G. Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs
111
of the precariousness of their situation. However, their attitudes towards wealth and poverty are not wholly determined by their economic situations. The urban well-to-do regard wealth as fundamentally desirable and strive to increase their wealth, both for its own sake and for the social success and power which it brings. These have little concern for the sufferings of the poor, whom they hardly mention; at the most they repeat the traditional negative view that to illtreat or defraud the poor is foolish because if they do so they will find that God will intervene as their adversary to protect the poor, and as a result their hopes and ambitions will fail, or an even worse fate may befall them. On the other hand, in 31.10-31 we have a picture of a family which has achieved wealth simply by honest labour and industry, and probably also because it Tears Yahweh'. It is steadily increasing its wealth, yet there is no hint that such success is or has been a consuming ambition. This family remembers the needs of the poor and is generous to them. The king, whose duties are set out in 31.1-9, is presumably wealthy, though wealth is not mentioned at all in this passage. Duties towards the poor, however, play a prominent part in the admonitions. This concept of the king as protector of the poor is an important one: though God is not mentioned, the king's role is akin to that of God himself as set out elsewhere in the book. The situation of the poor is therefore not entirely hopeless as long as the king fulfils his duty to hear their cause and render justice to them. Finally, the small farmers of the sentence literature do not despise wealth if it is honestly and innocently acquired, although they are aware of its dangers and temptations. While they know how narrow is the line which divides them from actual poverty, they also hope and believe that prosperity and security could be theirs. Not surprisingly, they are concerned with their economic prospects in a way in which the already successful and prosperous family of 31.10-31 is not; but, like the latter, they regard wealth simply as something to be enjoyed: unlike the authors of 22.17ff. and chs. 1-9 they do not seek power; they do not wish to dominate others. Although they believe that in many cases the poor deserve their fate, and although they themselves may have little to spare, they rec-
118
ognize that they have a duty to give material help to their unfortunate brethren, apparently regardless of the cause of their poverty.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barr, J., The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961 Barucq, A., Le Livre des Proverbes, Sources Bibliques, Paris: Gabalda, 1964 'Proverbes (Livre desy, SDB VIII, 1972, cols. 1395-1476 Beyerlin, W., ed., Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, OTL, London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978 Boecker, H.J., Recht und Gesetz im Alien Orient, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976; ET Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East, London: SPCK, 1980 Bostrom, G., Paronomasi i den aldre hebreiska Macshalliteraturen, LUA N.F. Avd. 1. Bd. 23. Nr. 8, Lund: Gleerup; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1928 Brunner, H., 'Die religiose Wertung der Armut im alten Agypten', Saeculum 12 (1961), pp. 319-44 Bryce, G.E., 'Another Wisdom-"Book" in Proverbs', JBL 91 (1972), pp. 145-57 A Legacy of Wisdom. The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel, Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press; London: Associated University Presses, 1979 Childs, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London: SCM, 1979 Coggins, R.J., The Old Testament and the Poor*, ET 99 (1987-88), pp. 11-14 Couroyer, B., 'L'origine 6gyptienne de la Sagesse d'Amenemope'', RB 70 (1963), pp. 208-24 Crenshaw, J.L., ed., Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, New York: Ktav, 1976 Donald, T., The Semantic Field of Rich and Poor in the Wisdom Literature of Hebrew and Accadian', Oriens Antiquus 3 (1964), pp. 27-41 Drioton, E., 'Sur la Sagesse d'Ame'ne'mope'', Melanges bibliques re'dige's en I'honneur de Andre" Robert, Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957 Driver, G.R., Problems in "Proverbs"', ZAW 50 (1932), pp. 141-48 Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs', Biblica 32 (1951), pp. 173-97 Engelhard, D.H., The Lord's Motivated Concern for the Underprivileged', Calvin Theological Journal (Grand Rapids) 15 (1980), pp. 5-26 Epzstein, L., La justice sociale dans le proche-orient ancien et le peuple de la Bible, Paris: Cerf, 1983. ET Social Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible, London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986 Erman, A., "Bine agyptische Quelle der "Spriiche Salomos"', SPAW 15,1924, pp. 86-93 Fabry, H.-J., 'dal', ThWAT, II, 1977, cols. 221-44. ET TDOT, III, 1978, pp. 20830 Fensham, F.C., "Widow, Orphan and the Poor in the Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature', JNES 21 (1962), pp. 129-39
120
1985
Fishbone, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Clarendon, Frankenberg, W., Die Sprtlche, ubersetzt und erklart, HK, 1898 Gemser, B., Sprilche Salomos, HAT 162,1963 Gerstenberger, E., Wesen und Herkunft des 'apodiktischen Rechts', WMANT 20, Neukirchen: NeuMrchener Verlag, 1965 "aSaq', ThWAT VI, 1989, cols. 441-46 Golka, F.W., 'Die israelitische Weisheitsschule oder "des Kaisers neue Kleider", VT 33 (1983), pp. 257-70 'Die K6nigs- und Hofspruche und der Ursprung der israelitischen Weisheit', VT 36 (1986), pp. 13-36 Gordis, R., The Social Background of Wisdom Literature', HUCA 18 (1943/44), pp. 77-118 * Poets, Prophets and Sages. Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971, pp. 160-97 Gordon, E.I., Sumerian Proverbs, New York: Greenwood Press, 1968 Grumach, I., Untersuchungen zur Lebenslehre des Amenemope, Miinchener Agyptologische Studien 23, Berlin, 1972 Hanks, T.D., God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary of Oppression, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983 Hermisson, H.-J., Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit, WMANT 28, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968 Hobbs, T.R., 'Reflections on "The Poor" and the Old Testament', ET100 (198889), pp. 291-94 Humphreys, W.L., The Motif of the Wise Courtier in the Book of Proverbs', Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, ed. J.G. Gammie et al., Scholars Press, Missoula for the Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1978, pp. 177-90 Jacob, E., ed., Sagesse et Religion. Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1976), Bibliotheque des Centres d'Etudes Superieures Specialises, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979 Kayatz, C., Studien zu Proverbien 1-9. Eine Form- und Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung unter Einbeziehung agyptischen Vergleichsmaterials, WMANT 22, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966 Kitchen, K.A., 'Egypt and Israel During the First Millennium B.C.', Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, VT Suppl 40,1988, pp. 107-23 Kopf, L., 'Arabische Etymologien und Parallelen zum Bibelwdrterbuch", VT 9 (1959X pp. 247-87 Kovacs, B.W., 'Is There a Class-Ethics in Proverbs?', Essays in Old Testament Ethics, ed. J.L. Crenshaw and J.T. Willis, New York: Ktav, pp. 17189 Kuschke, A., 'Arm und reich im Alten Testament mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der nachexilischen Zeit', ZAW 57 (1939), pp. 31-57 Lambert, W.G., Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford: Clarendon, 1960 Lang, B., Die weisheitliche Lehrrede. Eine Untersuchung von Sprttche 1-7, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 54, Stuttgart: KBW, 1972 Frau Weisheit. Deutung einer biblischen Gestalt, Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1975 'Schule und Unterricht im alten Israel', La Sagesse de I'Ancien Testament, ed. M. Gilbert, BETL 51, Gembloux: Duculot and Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979, pp. 186-201 Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs. An Israelite Goddess Redefined, New York: Pilgrim, 1986
Bibliography
121
Lemaire, A., Les 6coles et la formation de la Bible dans I'ancien Israel, OBO 39, Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981 Liehtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols., Los Angeles: Berkeley, 1973-80 Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context. A Study of Demotic Instructions, OBO 52, Freiburg (Schweiz): Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983 Lurje, M., Studien zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhaltnisse im israelitisch-jUdischen Reiche von der Einwanderung in Kanaan bis zum babylonischen Exit, BZAW 46, Berlin: Tgpelmann, 1927 McKane, W., Prophets and Wise Men, SBT 44, London: SCM, 1965 Proverbs. A New Approach, OTL, London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970 Malchow, B.V., 'Social Justice in the Wisdom Literature', Biblical Theology Bulletin (Rome) 12 (1982), pp. 120-24 Michel, D., 'Annut II. Altes Testament', THE IV, 1979, pp. 72-76 Murphy, R.E., Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, FOTL 13, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 Nar6, L., Proverbes salomoniens et proverbes mossi. Etude comparative & partir d'une nouvelle analyse de Pr 25-29, Publications Universitaires Europeennes 283, Frankfurt and Berne: P. Lang, 1986 Niccacci, A., Troverbi 22,17-23,11', Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 29 (1979), pp. 42-72 Oesterley, W.O.E., The Wisdom of Egypt and the Old Testament in the Light of the Newly Discovered Teaching ofAmen-em-ope', London: SPCK, 1927 Ogden, G.S., The "Better"-Proverb (T6b-Spruch), Rhetorical Criticism, and Qoheletb.', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 489-505 Ploeg, J. van der, 'Lea pauvres d'Israel et leur piete', OTS 7, Leiden: Brill, 1950, pp. 236-70 Spreuken, uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd, De Boeken van het Oude Testament 8/1, Roermond and Maaseik: J.J. Romen & Zonen, 1952 Ploger, O., 'Zur Auslegung der Sentenzensammlungen des Proverbienbuches', Probleme Biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rod zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H.W. Wolff, Munich: Kaiser, 1971, pp. 402-16 Spruche Salomos (Proverbia), BKAT 17, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,1984 Pons, J., L'oppression dans I'Ancien Testament, Paris: Letouzey & Ane, 1981 Pritchard, J.B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950,19693 Rad, G. von, Theologie des Alten Testaments I, Munich: Kaiser, 1957. ET Old Testament Theology I, Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1962 Weisheit in Israel, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. ET Wisdom in Israel, London: SCM, 1972 Romheld, D., Wege der Weisheit. Die Lehren Amenemopes und Proverbien 22,17-24,22, BZAW 184, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989 Roth, W.M.W., Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament: A Form-Critical Study, VT Suppl 13,1965 Ruffle, J., The Teaching of Amenemope and its Connection with the Book of Proverbs', Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977), pp. 29-68 Sansom, G., A History of Japan to 1334, London: Cresset, 1958
122
Schwantes, M., Dos Recht der Armen, Beitrage zur bibliachen Exegese und Theologie 4, Frankfurt and Berne: P. Lang, 1977 Scott, R.B.Y., 'Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel', Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Presented to H.H. Rowley, ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas, VT Suppl 3, Leiden: BriB, 1955, pp. 262-79 Skladny, U., Die altesten Spruchsammlungen in Israel, Gfittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962 Snell, D.C., The Wheel in Proverbs xx 26", VT 39 (1989), pp. 503-507 Thomas, D.W., ed., Documents from Old Testament Times, London: Nelson, 1958 Thompson, J.M., The Form and Function of Proverbs in Ancient Israel, The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1974 Toy, C.H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, ICC, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899 Van Leeuwen, R.C., Context and Meaning in, Proverbs 25-27, SBL Dissertation Series 96, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988 Vaux, R. de., Leg Institutions de I'Ancien Testament, 2 vols., Paris: Cerf, 1958, 1960. ET Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961 Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford: Clarendon, 1972 Westennann, C., 'Weisheit im Sprichwort', Schalom. Studien zu Glaube und Geschichte Israels, Alfred Jepsen zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. K.-H. Bernhardt, Stuttgart: Calwer, 1971, pp. 73-85 = Forschung am Alien Testament. GesammeUe Studien II, THAT 55, Munich: Kaiser, 1974, pp. 149-61 Whybray, R.N., Wisdom in Proverbs. The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 19, SBT 45, London: SCM, 1965 The Succession Narrative. A Study of II Sam. 9-20 and I Kings 1 and 2, SBT Second Series 9, London: SCM, 1968 The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament, BZAW 135, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974 Tahweh-Sayings and their Contexts in Proverbs, 10,1-22,16', La Sagesse de I'Ancien Testament, ed. M. Gilbert, BETL 51, Gembloux: Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979, pp. 153-65 'The Social World of the Wisdom Writers', The World of Ancient Israel. Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, ed. R.E. Clements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 227-50 Williams, R.J., "The Alleged Semitic Original of the Wisdom of Amenemope', JEA 47 (1961), pp. 100-106 Wissmann, H., 'Armut T, THE IV, 1979, pp. 69-72 Zimmerli, W., 'Zur Struktur der alttestameutlichen Weisheit*, ZAW 51 (1933), pp. 177-204. ET 'Concerning the Structure of Old Testament Wisdom', Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. J.L. Crenshaw, New York: Ktav, 1976, pp. 175-207
INDEXES
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Genesis 19.4 25.14 47.13,17 50.20 Exodus 1. 11 20.7 22.22-24 23.6 30 30.15
31.20
58 n 2 107nl 37nl 58n2
80, 81
20.24
42 n 2
Joshua 5.5
58 n 2
42n2 79 28 9nl 17 17
Judges 1.28-35 42n2 18.10 16nl 19.19-20 16nl Ruth 4.3 1 Samuel 9. 13 12 14.15 18.10-11 18.23 19.9-10, 11-17 23.1-4 28.6 30.6-8 2 Samuel 2.1 5.19-24 11-12 12.1-4 14-17 14.17 14.24 15.1-6 15.12 16-17
28 58 n 2 36 82 50 16, 17 50 51nl 51nl 51nl
Leviticus 6. 2-4 [5. 2123] 36 14 17 14.21 17 19.9-18 36 19.11-13 36 19.13 36 19.18 36 Numbers 6.25 49n3 11.34 58n2 21.18 55 Deuteronomy 1.17 75nl 5. 11 79 8.11-14 80 10.18-19 28 15.8 16nl 16.17 75nl
1 Kings 3. 16-28 51 4.6 42n2 4. 29-34 [5.914] 46 5.13[27] 42n2 12 47 12.7 49 12.14 57n5 12.18 42n2 16.9 44 21 50 21.17-19 50 2 Kings 8.6 9.31
28 44
1 Chronicles 1.30 107nl 2 Chronicles 25.16 57n4 22.4 57n4 Ezra 7.6
91
51nl 51nl 50 16, 17 51 52 49n3 47 57n4 57n5
Nehemiah 5. 1 58n2
Job
8. 15 12.21
28 55
124
21.7-15 29.24 31.24-28 34.18 37.12

80, 81 49n3 80, 81 55 58
Psalms 49n3 4.6[7] 42nl 10.7 31.16 [17] 50 37.35-36 76 44.3[4] 49n3 45.1[2] 91 55.11[12] 42nl 67.1[2] 50 35 72.3 72.12-14 109 42nl 72.14 58nl 73.24 77.18 82 [19] 80.3,7,19 [4,8, 50 20] 16 82.3 85.10 41 [11] 89.15 49 n 3 [16] 92.12 28 [13] 97 94.6 103.6 35 107.4041 55 113.7-8 55 119.24 58nl 119.35 50 34 nl 122.7 146.7 35 Proverbs 9. 71, 77, 1-9 78, 87, 88, 99-
1.1-7 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8-19 l.Sff. 1.8
1.10-19 1.10-18 1.10,15 1.11 1. 20-23 1.20-21 1.25,30 1.29 1.32 2. 1-22 2.1-5 2. Iff. 2.5-8 2.7,21 2.7 2.8,9 2.9 2.21 3.1-12 3. Iff. 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.9-10 3.11 3. 13-20 3.13-19 3.13-18 3.16 3. 19-20 3.21-35 3.21ff. 3.22-24 3.26 3.27-28
106, 11417 99, 100 46, 100 102, 105 85 58, 100 104 99, 101 87, 88, 100 97 102 100 103 99, 103, 105, 106 103 58nl 105, 106 34nl 104 88 99, 106 104 105 105 105 105 105 105 99, 101 106 105 105 101, 103 100 99 104 106 104, 106 105, 106 104 99, 101, 102 105 105 102
3.29-30 3.32-34 3.34 3.35 4.1-9 4.1-2 4. Iff. 4.1 4.3-4 4.10-19 4. lOff. 4.10 4.11 4.18 4.20-27 4.20ff. 5.1-23 5.1-2 5. Iff. 5.7,20 5. 15-23 5.21 5.22-23 6.1-19 6.1-5 6.1,3 6.3-5 6.3a 6.3b 6.5 6.6-11 6.7 6.10-11 6.12-15 6.15 6.16-19 6.20-35 6.20-21 6.20ff. 6.20 6.32 6.35 7 7.1-27 7.1-3 7.1,24 7. Iff. 7.6-27
102 102 105 104 88 99,101 87 100 104 99, 101 106 105 105 104 99, 101 105 88 99 100 114 105 77 114 77 78, 100 78 77 77 78 77 57 76 77 77 77, 84 105 88 99 87, 100 103 103 101 104 88 76 99 76
Index of Biblical References

7.8 101 101 7.10 101 7.11 7.12 101 101 7.13 7.16-17 101 7. 19-20 101 7.24 100 105, 115 8 8.1-36 99, 103 8.1-3 103
8.4 103 104
125
58 24, 27, 28 14, 15, 16nl, 32,
44, 81 11, 15, 33 25 29
10. 15 10. 15b

10. 16 10. 17 10. 20 10. 21 10. 22 10. 24 10. 25 10.,26 10.,27 10.,28 11.,1 11.,2 11.,4,19 11.,4,18 11,,4,23 11..4 11,.5,14, 28 11,.5 11 .6 11 .7,10 11 .8 11 .9 11 .10 11 ,11 11 .14
11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 38, 41 22

12, 25 12 24, 12, 24 24, 15 25 24 12, 25 11, 39, 24 26 24 25 67 25
12. 5 12. 7 12. 9

12. 11 12. 13 12. 14 12. 15 12. 20 12. 21 12, 24,27 12. 24 12. 6 12. 27 12.,28 13,,2 13. 3 13,,4,7 13.,4 13 .6 13 .7,11 13 .7 13 .8 13 .9 13 ,11 13 .14 13 .17 13 .18 13 .20 13 .21 13 .22 13 .24 13 .25 14 .1 14 .4 14 .11 14 .12 14 .16 14 .20
58nl
58 25 15 15, 24, 27, 30,
8.10-11,
19
8.13, 35 8.14-16 8.14 8.15-16 8.18 8.21 8.22-31 9.1-18 9.1-6
105, 106
104
67
42n2
25 11 24 28 21, 15, 11, 30, 24 11 11, 11, 24, 39 24, 25 14, 25 25 11, 73 11,
58nl
55 104 104
12, 24
95
105, 106
99 106 9.3 103 9.10-11 106 9.10 105
10.122.16
9, 11-78,
80, 82, 85, 89, 90, 94, 114 28, 46, 85 10.1 10.2 lit 12, 24, 26, 39, 95 10.3 14, 24, 66 10.4-5 50 10.4,22 11, 33, 63 10.4 14, 15 10.5 15, 24, 30, 43, 73, 76 10.7 25 10.8,10 24
10.14,15,
29 21, 24
24 26 24 24 25 25 25 24 13, 54, 57, 58 13, 25, 77 11 .15 11 .16,22 28 11 .16,28 11 11 .17,29 25 12 11 .18 26 11 .19 12 11 .22 12-14, 11 .24 31, 32 11 .25 11, 33 11 .26 12, 13 11 .27 25 11 .28 26-28, 39, 95 11 .29 15 11 .29b 43 24, 25, 28 12 .4
24 32 15, 33 14 13, 14 25 26 25, 31 12 14,
31-33
24, 28, 76 12, 15 25, 27, 28 24
49nl
14, 22, 32 35 35
11, 19, 14 .21,31 12, 14 .21 14, 14 .21b 21
126
14 .22 14 .23

16,.14-15 16..14 16,.15 16..16 16,.18 16,.19 16.,20 16,,25 16,,26 17.,1 78, 54 24, 48, 50 19 .1,22 16nl 24 19 .2 24 19 .3 19 .4,14 11 19 .4,17 14 19 .4 19, 20 19 .6 13, 55 19 .7 19 19 .8 30 19 .9 24, 25 19 .10 11, 13, 15, 43, 44, 82, 83 19 .12 13, 25, 48, 49,54 19 .13,14 28 19 .14 12 19 .15 14, 15, 24, 30, 43, 38, 76 19 .16 25 19 .17 12, 35, 66 19 .17a 21 19 .18a 73 58nl 19 .20 80 19 .22 25 19 .23 15, 30 19 .24 28 19 .26 20 .2,8, 26,28 13 20.2 25, 48, 50, 54 20 .4,13 30 20 .4 15, 30, 32 51, 52 20 .8 20 .10,23 12, 67 12 20 .10 20 .13 11, 14, 30, 33, 38, 73, 76 12 20 .14 12 20 .15 20 .16 13, 77 25 20 .17 20 .18 54, 57, 58, 92
25 11, 31, 14 .24 11 14 .27 24, 14 .28,35 13 14 .28 13, 24, 53, 14 .30 25 14 .31 14, 20, 35, 37, 42, 14 ,31a 20 14 .32 24 14 .35 15, 43, 15 .6 11, 24, 15 .10 15 .15 14, 15 .16-17 80 15 .16 11, 24, 66, 15 .17 11, 15 .18 67, 15 .19 15, 15 .20 28 15 .22 13, 15 .25 13, 24, 28, 15 .27 13, 15 .3365 16.9 16 .4 25 16 .8 12, 33, 80, 16.,10-15 47, 16 .10,1215 13 51 16,.10 16,.11 12, 53 16,.12 51 16. 13
14, 32 26 21, 48, 115 18, 21,
48-50
25
36n2,
41,
67, 84
24,
48, 49 12, 25
25
21, 25
14, 33, 95
33, 67 30, 38 54, 57

14, 27,
12 24, 13, 30, 24 15, 11, 33, 67, 12, 17. 2 43, 17,.3 12 17.,5 14, 41, 67, 17.,7,26 55 17,.7 13, 17,.8,23 13 17,,12 25 17,,13 25, 12 17,.16 17,.17 25 17,.18 13, 17,.19 25 17,.20 24, 27, 17,,25 28
14, 21
30 38 15, 39,
80, 95
15, 44
16nl,
42, 77
44, 53
28 77 26, 29
18-31
18,.3 18.,5 18,.7 18,.9 18,.10 18.,11,23 18..11 18..12 18,.16 18. 20 18. 22 18.,23 19. 1 19. 1,7, 22 25
75nl
21, 24 24
66, 93 25, 28
67nl
11 11, 22,
14, 69, 95 65
67nl
25 13, 54, 56 12 28 14, 19, 22, 32 80 14
67

20.20
24, 25, 28, 84 12, 39, 95 20.21 12 20.23 24 20.25 52 20.26 51, 52 20.28 21.1 13 52 21.2 52 21.3 21.5,17 14, 32 11.15 21.5 21.6,20 11 39, 95 21.6 21.9,19 28 24, 29 21.12 14, 20, 37 21.13 21.14 13 22, 24 21.15 11, 31, 21.17 33, 63 21.18 13 25 21.23 15, 24, 21.25 30, 38 24, 25 21.28 11 22.1,4 12, 34, 22.1 67, 80 14 22.2,7 22.2,7, 11 16 16nl, 19, 22.2 22, 41, 42, 67 22.3 25 22.4 80 12, 14, 22.7 15, 19, 22, 32 32, 43 22.76 25 22.8 22.9,16 14 13, 35 22.9 22. 9 b 21 22.11 13, 54, 56 24 22.12
127
22.13
22.14 22.16 22.16a 22.1724.22 22.1723.11
15, 30, 74n2 24,25,28 14, 18, 20, 22, 32, 36n2 20
9, 70, 71, 75, 85-98
86, 87nl, 88, 89 22.17-21 88, 90 22.17ff. 101, 1117 22.17 75 22.20 87nl 22.24-25 90 22.26-27 90 22.27 28 22.22-23 84, 90, 93, 94, 98, 114 22.28 90, 93, 98 22.28a 93 22.29 89-91 23.4-5 90, 9396, 98, 115 23.6-8 92 23.9 90 23.10-11 90, 93, 98, 114 23.10 93 23.10a 93 23.1 Ob 93 23.11 85, 94 23.12-25 88, 89 23.12-14 88nl 23.12,1516,19, 23,26 90 23.12 88 23.13-14 87, 88nl, 90 23.15-16 89
23.15, 19, 26 87 23.17-18 90 23.20-21, 29-35 90 23.22,2425 90 23.23 12 23.2624.22 88, 89 23.26 88, 89 23.27-28 90 23.27 89 23.29-35 89 23.31 89 24.1-2, 15-16, 19-20 90 24.3-7, 13-14 90 24.5-6 57, 58 24.5 58 24.6 57, 58, 92 24.8-9 89 24.10-12 98 24.10 89, 96 24.11-12 97 24.11 96, 97 24.12 96 24.13,21 87 24.17-18 90 24.21-22 92 24.21 97 24.23-34 75-77, 114 24.23a 75 24.23b-26, 28-29 75 24.27, 30-34 75 24.27 75 24.30-34 76 24.30-31 76 24.30 76 24.31 76 24.32-34 76 24.33-34 76, 77 24.33 76 24.34 75, 76
128
25-29

9, 11-78, 82, 85, 89, 90, 94, 114
28.6
16nl, 19, 22, 80 28.8,22 11 28.8 12 28. 8b 21 28.10,18 24 28.10 12, 25, 26, 29, 30 28.11 19, 22 28.14 24,26 28.15 13, 47, 53 28.16 13, 14, 53 28.17 35 28.19 11, 14, 15, 31, 33, 116 28.20 11, 33, 39, 95,
116
25.1,2,3, 5,6 13 25.1 46, 75 25.2-6 47 25.4,11 12 25.5 53 25.6-7 54-56, 59nl, 91 25.6 13 25.7 13 25.11-12 12 25.11 12 25.12 12 25.14 13 25.15 13, 54, 56 25.19 25 25.21-22 66, 90 25.21 14, 32 25.24 28 26.1 44 26.4-5 64 26.12-16 15, 30 26.12-15 74n2 26.14 76 26.17 49nl 26.23 12 26.27 25 27.10 77 27.12 25 27.13 13, 77 27.15-16 28 27.21 12 27.23-27 15, 40, 75, 77 27.24 11, 40, 95 27.26 12, 40 28.1 40 28.2,8, 11,15 14 28.2 13 28.3, 6, 27 14 28.3 18, 20, 36n2, 37
29.23 29.25 29.26 29.27 30 SO.lff. 30.7-9
25 40 53 46nl 78-83,
114
30.8-9 30.22 30.27,28, 31 56 31 9 31.1-9 107-109, 111, 115,

17
70, 116 34, 113, 114, 116 95 44
31.10-31 111, 112, 116, 117 Ecclesiastes 1-2 55 4.7-8 96 4.13-16 55 5.13-17 [12-16] 96 8.2-9 55 9.13-18 56 10.16-17 55 10.18 38 Isaiah 11.2-3 13.2 16.5 27.6 51 55 91 28
28.21 28.21a 28.22 28.24 28.25 28.26 28.27 28.27a 28.28 28.29 29.1 29.3 29.4,14 29.4 29.5 29.6,25 29.7,14 29.7 29.12,26 29.12 29.13
29.14 29.15 29.16 29.19,21 29.22
15, 75nl 75nl 14, 32, 39 24 11, 33, 40, 67 40 12, 14, 18, 32, 35 21 24 45nl 25, 77 11, 28, 90 13 24, 53, 76 25 24 14 20 13 13, 53 14, 16nl, 41, 42, 67 53 28 24 15, 43 67
Jeremiah 7.6 35 21.7 58n2 29.16 58n2 36.9 58n2 39.10 17 Ezekiel 16.49 22.29 34nl 35

Hosea 12.7[8] Joel 2.10 Amos 4.1 8.8
36 82 35 82
129
Micah 2.2
35
Matthew 23.12 54 Luke 14.7-11 54 14.11 54 18.14 54
Zechariah 7. 10 35 Malachi 3.5 35
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Barr, J. 16n2 Barucq, A. 37n2, 44nl, 69nl, 78 Beyerlin, W. 70nl, 107n2 Boecker, H.J. 75nl Bostrom, G. 65n2 Brunner, H. 73nl Bryce, G.E. 65n2, 71nl Child, B.S. 66n2 Coggins, R.J. 16n2, 45nnl,2 Couroyer, B. 86n3 Crenshaw, J.L. 45n2 Delitzsch, F. 44nl Donald, T. 11 Drioton, E. 85n3,86n3 Driver, G.R. 39nl, 52nl, 79n2, 82nl, 92n2,96nl Engelhard, D.H. 72nl Epzstein, L. 50nl, 72nl Erman, A. 70nl Fabry, H.J. 16n2 Fensham, F.C. 72nl Fishbane, M. 46nl Frankenberg, W. 37n2 Gemser, B. 39nl, 44nl, 79n2, 82nl, 93,m 97 Gerstenberger, E. 36nl, 73nl Golka, F.W. 69nl, 71n2, 76n2 Gordis, R. 45nl Gordon, E.J. 66nl Grumach, I. 85n4 Hanks, T.D. 36nl Hermisson, H.J. 45nl, 65n2, 76nl Hobbs, T.R. 45nl Hoffher, H.A. 27nl Humphreys, W.L. 45n2
Jacob, E. 71n3 Kayatz, C. 71nl Kitchen, K.A. 70nl, 86n2 Kopf, L. 92n2 Kovacs, B.W. 45nl Kuschke, A. 16nl, 45nl Lambert, W.G. 66nl, 72n2,107n4 Lang, B. 71n2, 76n2, 99n2,103nl Lemaire, A. 71n2, 76n2,100n2, 103nl Lichtheim, M. 59nl, 66nl, 96, 99nl Lurje, M. 45nl Malchow, B.V. 45nl McKane, W. 37n2, 39nl, 41, 44nl, 62nl, 65,79nnl,2, 91nl Michel, D. 22n2 Murphy, R.E. 73n2 Nar6, L. 69 Niccacci, A. 85nl Ogden, G.S. 64nl Ploeg, J. van der 16nnl,2, 96nl Ploger, O. 37,39nl, 41,44,54,58, 65n2,92n2, lllnl Pons, J. 36nl Rad, G. von 22n2, 415nnl,2, 62nl Ringgren 39nl, 44nl, 81nl Romheld, D. 86nnl,2, 88nl, 98nl Roth, W.M.W. 82 Ruffle, J. 70nl, 86nn2,3 Sansom, G. 71n3 Schwantes, M. 62nl Scott, R.B.Y. 46nl
132

Weinfeld, M. 46nl Westermann, C. 69nl, 73nl Whybray, R.N. 45n2,46nl, 65nl, 71nnl,2, 76n2,89nl, 99n2 Wildeboer 44nl Williams, R.J. 86n3 Wissmann, H. 72nl Zimmerli, W. 73nl
Skladny, U. 45nl, 62nl Snell, D.C. 52nl Swantes, M. 9,16n2 Thomas, D.W. 70nl, 88nl, 92n2, 107n2 Thompson, J.M. 74nl Toy, C.H. 37n2,44nl Van Leeuwen, R.C. 40n2, 65n2 Vaux, R. de 27nl, 50nl, 81nl

Wealth and Poverty in The Book of Proverbs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wealth and Poverty in The Book of Proverbs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

JSOT Press Sheffield

This page intentionally left blank

WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 99

223.7083922 ISSN 0309-0787 ISBN 1-85075-264-8

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

SECTION A. PROVERBS 10.1-22.16 AND25-29

The following verbs denote the acquisition or possession of wealth:

In addition to these there are numerous references to

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

and to costly ornaments:

The inheritance of property is represented by

A number of words denote income and profit:

A. 1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty

Meanness, on the other hand, is expressed by

There are two words for bribery:

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

Other words are:

Verbs denoting poverty are:

The following nouns denote the state of poverty:

Several other words and expressions refer to various degrees of poverty:

A. 1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty

A frequent cause of poverty is laziness, referred to in the following:

Low social status is denoted by the following words:

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty

dal is also contrasted quite definitely with hon, "wealth' in 19.4:

O On the meaning ofnipgQSti see 2.g.

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

29.7 refers to the inability of the dal to obtain justice:

A. 1. The Vocabulary of Wealth and Poverty

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A, 2. The Speakers and their Values

sfba'-lehem here is clearly to be taken literally, as is confirmed by 13.25:

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values d. Generosity and oppression

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values f. The limited value of wealth

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values i. The 'royal' proverbs

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs

A. 2. The Speakers and their Values

Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs