PROVERBS 14

It is hard to establish a context for a miscellaneous collection of sayings such as one finds in the center of Proverbs. But the text clearly divides it into the four main sections shown below:

                                               Figure 1: The Central Section of Proverbs

            I. Solomon’s Proverbs: Part I (10:1-22:16)

                        A. Proverbs of Contrast (chs. 10-15)

                                B. Proverbs of Comparison (16:1-22:16)

II. Book of Wisdom: Part I (22:17-24:22)

II''. Book of Wisdom: Part II (24:23-34)

        I'. Solomon’s Proverbs: Part II (chs. 25-29)

                               B. Proverbs of Comparison (chs. 25-27)

                        A. Proverbs of Contrast (chs. 28-29)

The two collections of Solomon's adages probably circulated separately and do contain several duplicated or near-duplicated sayings. For example, just within Proverbs 14 we have the following:

                                    14:1 // 29:4

                                    14:17,29 // 29:11

                        14:23-25 // 28:21

14:31 // 29:13

Note that all of these parallels are found in the two sections labeled “Proverbs of Comparison.” The technical name for the form this type of proverbs takes is “antithetic parallelism.” A simple contrast is set up in the two lines of poetry found within each verse:

                            “A is X, but

                                B is Y.”

There are a surprising number of such contrasted pairs A and B in Proverbs 14, including wise and foolish, faithful and false, fools and the upright, wicked and righteous, joy and grief, perverse and good, simple and clever, poor and rich, toil and talk, truth and lies, tranquil and emotional, and righteousness and sin.

As to how all these individual proverbs are arranged within the book: “The sayings in chs. 10-22 show little continuity, and scholars are still groping to discern reasons for their sequence in the text.” (LaSor) Dorsey echoes this negative assessment and even extends it to the section labeled I' above. There may be no detailed organization to the order of these Solomonic proverbs, but Murphy has demonstrated the extensive use of catchwords to connect adjacent sayings in the first collection (Section I). Skehan even sees significance in the fact that this section contains exactly 375 proverbs since the Hebrew word for “proverb” has a numerical value, using gematria (i.e. a common mystical Jewish practice of adding up the numbers associated with the letters in a word to obtain hidden meanings), of 375.

Translation Issues

This chapter suffers from a number of translation problems in at least 14 verses out of the 35. Perhaps this can be attributed to the early age of the writings and the use of archaic words even at the time of writing. Here are brief discussions of some of these problem verses:

Proverbs 14:1

The Hebrew text makes no sense grammatically: “The wisest women builds a house.” Therefore we have “Wisdom builds herself a house (RSV, JB)” by deleting “women” in order to bring it in line with the parallel wording in Proverbs 9:1a (“Wisdom has built her house.”) NRSV merely corrects the grammar to “The wise woman builds a house.” Alternatively, Hulst suggests “the wisdom of the women.”

Proverbs 14:3

The Hebrew reads, “The talk of fools is a rod of pride (ga'awh).” RSV reads the Hebrew as gewo(h) (“back”) instead. NIV makes a similar adjustment, which C.G. Martin rejects as being unsupported in the text. However, Hulst notes that such a change would bring the thought in line with that of Proverbs 10:13.

Proverbs 14:4

Whybray states that “the Hebrew here is obscure...the point may be that the farmer has to balance the grain consumption of the ox with the value of the work which it does; and if he does so he will realize that it is well worth the expense.”

Hulst similarly says, “The translation of this word is not certain.” But he sees a possible pun since bar can mean either “corn” or “clean.” “Thus, he asks the question, 'where there are no cattle, does one expect to find there any corn (bar) in the manger? The answer is 'of course not,' for one expects to find in that case, a manger that is clean.”

By contrast, RSV changes 'ebus (“manger”) to 'epes (“nothing”) to get “where there are no oxen, there is no grain.”

Proverbs 14:9

Walls reads the obscure first line of this verse as “Guilt(-offering) mocks at fools.” He feels that this “might mean that the sacrifices offered for sin mocks them by their ineffectiveness..., but it seems a curious way to express it...the translation of this difficult verse remains tentative.”

Hulst: “The sense of the sentence is somewhat vague, though it seems to mean that, because fools offer the guilt offering so often and so carelessly it becomes a mockery to them. But 'asam also means 'guilt', and this may be its sense here...The RSV has adopted a completely different reading eliminating any mention of 'guilt.' It renders, 'God scorns the wicked.'”

Whybray states, “The whole of this verse is difficult. The N.E.B. translation represents only one of the possible guesses at its meaning.” That rendering reads, “A fool is too arrogant to make amends; upright men know what reconciliation means.”

C.G. Martin also states that NIV, RSV, and NEB are all guessing at the meaning of the Hebrew text. “There is, however, a good case for AV 'Fools make a mock of sin'...”

Proverbs 14:14b

Hulst explains that RSV changes the Hebrew word ume'ala(y)w to umimma'lala(y)w to yield “and a good man with the fruit of his deeds” in an attempt to provide a better parallel thought to the first line of the verse.

Proverbs 14:17b

Several commentators note that this verse can be taken in one of two ways depending mainly on whether the Hebrew word mezimma(h) is taken to be positive (“discretion”) or negative (“deviousness”).' Thus, the Hebrew reads: “a man of careful thought is hated.” As Whybray states, “This makes no sense.” Thus, NEB translates this line as “distinction comes by careful thought” by just a slight change in the Hebrew text. Others somewhat similarly render it as “a man of discretion is patient.”

One factor in favor of this altered wording is the fact that most of the proverbs in Proverbs 14 consist, as stated above, of two lines in which there is a contrast rather than a comparison between them. That alone would seem to argue against any understanding of verse 17 such as we see in NRSV:

                    “One who is quick-tempered acts foolishly,

                     and the schemer is hated.”

Instead an antithetic translation such as in The Jerusalem Bible would seem to be preferable:

                    “A quick-tempered man commits rash acts,

                     (but) the prudent man will be long-suffering.”

Proverbs 14:24b

J. Davies sees no problem with the Hebrew text as it stands since “folly is both a cause and a result of being a kesil, most notably Proverbs 14:24: 'the folly ['iwwelet] of fools [kesilim] yields folly ['iwwelet].”

However, others think that this makes no sense whatsoever and thus change the Hebrew wording slightly to come up with alternative translations such as:

                    “Folly is the chief ornament of the stupid.” (JB)

                    “Folly is the garland of fools.” (RSV, NRSV)

Proverbs 14:32b

This is a rather important verse theologically, but unfortunately there is a controversy concerning the actual wording. The King James Version (AV) of the whole verse reads:

                        “The wicked is driven away in his wickedness:

                          but the righteous has hope in his death.”

Bruce Waltke gives the fullest explanation of the problem in the second line: “The restoration of the original OT text is foundational to the exegetical task and to theological reflection. For instance, whether the book of Proverbs teaches immortality depends in part on deciding between textual variants in Prov. 14:32b. Basing itself on MT [the Hebrew text], the NIV renders, 'even in [their] death (bemoto) the righteous have a refuge,' a rendering that entails the doctrine of immortality for the righteous. The NRSV, however, basing itself on the LXX [Greek Septuagint], translates, 'the righteous find refuge in their integrity (betummo),' a reading that does not teach that doctrine.” It all depends on whether the original consonantal text read bmtw or btmw.

Commentators are divided on this point with Walls, for example, stating “AV may be right.” However, P.S. Johnston points out, “Such a refuge [at the point of death] is not otherwise an OT concept and is more in line with later eschatology (cf. Wis. 4:7-14).”

Proverbs 14:33b

There is a similar division of opinion regarding the text of this verse. The second line reads in the Hebrew: “(Wisdom) is known in the heart of a fool.” This does not appear to make much sense. However, the same Hebrew text can also be translated as “Wisdom is even known in the heart of a fool.” Hulst also offers another possibility, i.e. the verb yada may mean “humiliate” instead of “is known.” And Martin says that if the Hebrew wording is adopted, “the couplet is an expansion, not a comparison. Even among fools wisdom cannot fail to be recognized.”

But there is yet another explanation, i.e. the negative particle may have been accidentally dropped from the Hebrew text. Thus, it should read “not known” in place of “known.” Scott adopts this explanation in his Anchor Bible translation, and so does NRSV, which additionally notes that this is the reading in the early Greek and Aramaic translations of the OT. In favor of this possibility is the fact earlier mentioned in conjunction with verse 17; it would yield another example of antithetic parallelism:

                    “Wisdom is at home in the mind of one who has understanding,

                     but it is not known in the heart of fools.” (NRSV)

Finally, for a change of pace, consider this collage of mine based on the imagery found in this chapter: You might see how many of the images you can match up with the appropriate verse.

                                                          Proverbs 14 (1994)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROVERBS 8: WISDOM SPEAKS

The best way to begin consideration of this key chapter is to diagram it:

                                                       Figure 1: Structure of Proverbs 8

                                A. Wisdom calls (vv. 1-11)

                                                B. Wisdom among men (vv. 12-21)

                                                B'. Wisdom with God (vv. 22-31)

                                A'. Wisdom calls (vv. 32-36)

Thus, we can point out that:

    1. The chapter breaks down into two halves, as confirmed by verbal parallels between A (“wisdom is better than jewels,” v. 11) and B (“my fruit is better than gold,” v. 19), and between B' (“prudence,” v. 5; “fear of the Lord,” v. 7) and A' (“prudence,” v. 12; “fear of the Lord,” v. 13).

    2. The titles for B and B' above are from A.F. Walls.

    3. The key word “hear” appears in both A (v. 6) and A' (v. 33).

    4. There are approximately fourteen occurrences of first-person pronouns (I, me, and mine) in Section B and seven in B'. These numbers may not be coincidental since “seven” and its multiples in the Bible symbolically represent the concept of “perfection,” which fits exactly with Wisdom's self-description of herself in this chapter.

Rather than take this chapter verse by verse, I would like to zero in on Section B' (see Figure 1), about which H.M. Wolf states, “This is one of the most interesting, yet complex passages in Proverbs.” I could also add that it is also one of the most controversial. Again, an overview of the organization of this section is instructive before proceeding further:

                                                Figure 2: Structure of Proverbs 8:22-31

                        1. Wisdom's origins (vv. 22-23)

                                                2. Negative state of the creation (vv. 24-26)

                                                2'. Positive presentation of the creation (vv. 27-29)

                        1.' Wisdom celebrates humanity's origins (vv. 30-31)

The above scheme is taken from Bruce Waltke, who states, “The section begins with 'the LORD' and ends with bene adam ('humanity'), the climax and aim of God's creative work and the audience of wisdom's appeal (v. 4).”

But we can drill down into the organization even further by considering the elements within units 2 and 2'.

                                                 Figure 3: Structure of Proverbs 8:24-29

                a. waters of the deep (v. 24)

                                b. mountains and earth (v. 26)

                                                c. heavens and horizon (v. 27)

                                                c'. skies (v. 28a)

                a'. fountains of the deep (vv. 28b-29a)

                                b'. foundations of the earth (v. 29b)

With the organizational matters finished, we can not proceed to a more detailed consideration of the problems of interpretation present in Proverbs 8:22-31.

Proverbs 8:22

The problems begin with v. 22, concerning which Walls says, “Since the time of the opening of the Arian controversy in the 4^th century this verse has been one of the most discussed passages in the OT. The main point at issue is, what is the meaning of the word qana translated 'possessed' or created. The Arians used the LXX [i.e. Septuagint] 'the Lord created me' as one of their main proof texts for their thesis that Christ was a created being.”

Interestingly, their opponents in the Church agreed with the Arians that Wisdom referred to Christ, the eternal Word. But the orthodox explanation was that verse 22 referred to the creation of Jesus as a human being. However, there are problems with the reasoning of both historical parties.

C.J. Collins notes that elsewhere in Proverbs the concept is to “get” or “possess” wisdom (see Proverbs 1:5; 4:5,7; 15:32; 17:16; 18:15; 19:8; 23:23). H.M. Wolf adds Proverbs 16:16 to this list. Thus, qana probably means “to possess” in 8:22 as well, rather than “to create.”

“The emphasis..is on the fact that wisdom belongs to the LORD, not on how or when it came so to belong.” (C.G. Martin)

Wolf also expresses the opinion that “verses 22-25 are a consistent whole referring to the birth of wisdom, brought forth by God to be intimately involved with the work of creation. Although it is possible to connect 'wisdom' with Christ as the only-begotten Son of God...the fact that birth imagery is used with the mountains and seas (cf. Ps. 90:2; Job 38:8-9) makes this interpretation unlikely.”

On an historical note, Shaye Cohen explains, “The Logos of Philo resembles the figure of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 (Philo specifically connects the two.)...because of its obscurities and ambiguities, the passage does not make it clear whether Wisdom is merely an attribute of God or whether she is being endowed with some measure of autonomy and independence. Philo identified Wisdom with the Logos. John and other Christians identified Wisdom with the Logos and the Logos with Christ. The rabbis of the third and fourth centuries identified Wisdom with the Torah...and argued that God created the world by consulting the Torah.”

“In the case of Prov. 8, the personification of 'wisdom' as being in God's presence directly preceding his creation of the world is to indicate that God's wisdom enabled him to be the perfect artisan in accomplishing this marvelous work.” (Beale)

“Some feel that the paragraph does refer to the work of Christ at the Father's side in creation. Attractive as this interpretation my appear, it fails to take the context into account...She is contrasted to lady 'Folly', who is also calling out to the naïve and inviting them to harken to her voice (9:13-18).” By the way, if anyone wonders why Wisdom is pictured as a woman rather than a man, E.C. Lucas explains: “It is very probable that the feminine gender of the noun 'wisdom' in Hebrew (hokma) led to the personification of Wisdom as a woman.”

Kidner concludes, “Although 'wisdom' in Proverbs 8 does not refer directly to Christ, the concept 'paves the way for the New Testament proclamation of the personal Word and Wisdom of God.'”

New Testament Echoes

In light of Kidner's comment above, this may be as good a time as any to look at some NT passages which may reflect Proverbs 8.

    I Corinthians 8:6 – “The references to the roles of the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ in creation ('from whom and through whom') also reflect traditional scriptural affirmations of the roles of God and of Wisdom in creation.” (Ciampa and Rosner)

    Colossians 1:15-20 – “Paul may have had this passage in mind in his description of Christ's role in creation, but there are crucial differences...In Paul's view, Christ is more than the embodiment or personification of Wisdom, for unlike Wisdom he is the uncreated image of God and sustains what he has created (vv. 15-17), and he is the focus of all creation (v. 16c; cf. Eph. 1:10) and himself embodies all the divine attributes.” (M.J. Harris)

    II Peter 3:5 – “Many commentators take by God's word to refer both to the divine fiat which was active in creation, and also to the Eternal Word through whom creation was accomplished (Jn. 1:3; Heb. 1:2). The same ambiguity can be found in Hebrews 11:3. I doubt whether this double meaning was intended in this context, it was undoubtedly a commonplace in Jewish Wisdom literature (Pr. 8:23-31).” (M. Green)

Proverbs 8:23

P. Schmidt states, “Prov. 8:23 is difficult. Wisdom says me'olam nissakti, I was poured out from eternity (Eng. versions 'I was set up'). The Gk. translators varied in their renderings.” It may mean wisdom was standing at God's disposal from the beginning or that he had been appointed by Him for a specific task. Thus Walls says, “Set up may refer to God's appointment of wisdom for her task.”

Proverbs 8:24-25

“The metaphor 'brought me forth' signifies that Solomon's inspired wisdom comes from God's essential being; it is a revelation that has an organic connection with God's very nature and being, unlike the rest of creation that came into existence outside of him and independent from his being.” (Waltke)

Hartley points out that “the language of [Job] 15:7a is almost identical to that of Prov. 8:25a. Like wisdom, this heavenly man [Adam] was the first of God's creative acts (cf. Ezek. 28:11-19 and Sirach 49:16).”

Proverbs 8:27

“Prov. 8:27 refers to God as setting a 'circle upon the face of the deep'. Does this teach the circularity of the earth? Or does it refer to the circularity of the heavens above?” (Ramm) He concludes: “To set a circle is to draw the boundaries for the ocean beyond which it is not to come. So interpreted the verse does not refer to the sphericity of the earth, but to the divinely drawn boundaries of the ocean.” Note that this understanding is different from the one I used to formulate the structure shown in Figure 3 above.

Proverbs 8:30

The major bone of contention in this verse concerns the translation of the rare Hebrew word 'amon. Bruce Waltke outlines four different approaches to understanding this word in its context.

        1. The majority view is that it can be best translated as “craftsman.”

C.J. Collins says, “For Wisdom to be a 'craftsman' suggests that the creation is in some sense like a finely functioning work of skill.”

Walls: “Wisdom is not only present at, but is the mediatrix of creation. Human craftsmanship is the product of wisdom (Ex. 35:31); so also is the craftsmanship that formed the world.”

        2. On the other hand, if “craftsman” is the proper translation, then perhaps it doesn't refer to Wisdom but to God instead, i.e. “beside Him, the Craftsman.”

        3. If 'amon is read as 'amun, then the image fits a “nursling” or “little child.”

        4. 'amon may be a grammatical form of 'mn, meaning “faithfully” or “continually.”

Waltke opts for option 4 as giving the best parallelism within verse 30.

                “And I was                               beside him       faithfully

                 and I was        delighting                                  daily

                 and I was        celebrating      before him         at all times.”

        5. Additionally, E.C. Lucas notes that 'amon may mean “counselor.” That understanding might fit in with the rather ludicrous rabbinical exclamation that God consulted the Torah before creating the world.

 

"GREATER THINGS THAN THESE" (JOHN 14:12)

John utilizes the word “greater” no less than thirteen times in his Gospel. And interestingly over half of the occurrences appear as exact or near doublets. So we have:

        “Are you greater than Jacob (4:12) / Abraham (8:53)?”

        “He will show him greater works” (5:20) / “Greater works than these will you do” (14:12)

        “My Father...is greater than all” (10:29) / “The Father is greater than I” (14:28)

        “The servant is not greater than his lord” (13:16; 15:20)

The second example above is the one I would like to discuss. John 5:20 does not pose any special problem in understanding since it just states that God the Father will show more marvelous works through Jesus that will be amazing to behold. But John 14:28 is another story. So here is how it reads in the RSV:

    “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.”

The second appearance of “works” in this verse is actually missing in the Greek. Thus, the English translations are evenly divided between adding “works” (generally understood as miracles) and the more ambiguous term “things.”

That promise, if it indeed refers to miracles seems a little hard to swallow in light of Jesus' raising people from the dead, stilling storms, feeding multitudes, etc. Thus, Borchert feels that “greater” can hardly mean more dramatic works than those. But he goes on: “It does not take a genius to imagine how many interpretations of this statement are possible.” That may be true, but quite surprisingly, the commentators I consulted fell into two interpretive camps, with some minor variations within each.

Worldwide Evangelism

This appears to be the most popular understanding of John 14:12. But it is expressed in various different ways by scholars:

    Donald Guthrie: “Clearly the 'works' must here be understood in terms of God-given mission, and 'greater works' would then related to the wider opportunities which the disciples would have when Jesus had returned to the Father...The book of Acts is a commentary on this promise.”

    As one example of this, F.F. Bruce cites Peter's hearers who on the Day of Pentecost were converted. They “amounted to three thousand – a much larger company won in a single day than Jesus had secured to His allegiance in two or three years of public ministry.”

    Morris: “Jesus is not speaking of the doing of miracles, but of service of a more general kind...What Jesus means we may see in the narratives of the Acts. There there are a few miracles of healing, but the emphasis is on the mighty works of conversion.”

    Ryle: “There is no greater work possible than the conversion of a soul.”

    Borchert feels that the context of this saying, Jesus' death and resurrection, demands that the words refer to communicating to the world the forgiveness of sins.

    Blum: “The apostles would not necessarily do more stupendous miracles than Jesus did...but their outreach would be greater...Miracles are important, but some evangelists have done 'even greater things than these' by preaching the good news to many thousands of people.”

    Ellis: “The works performed by the Christian are done in communion with the living Savior. But they are greater in their sphere of influence. Jesus' works were limited to the days of His flesh and the land in which he lived. But the Church which is His body has a worldwide influence in winning men for Him.”

    O.M. Hendricks: “Jesus' ascension to the Father opens up a global mission (17:20-24).”

    D.G. Miller: “Greater works (of a more exalted nature because redemption is achieved) will be done by the believers through prayer (vv. 13,15), obedience (v. 15), and the Holy Spirit (counselor, vv. 16,17).”

    Iverson: “Given the implications of John's Christology and receptivity to the gospel already displayed by the Gentiles, it may be that the 'greater works' include the missional expansion of the church among the Gentiles.”

Miracles

Then there are those who either cite miracles of the type Jesus carried out in the flesh as part of what He is talking about, feel that is the main meaning of his statement, or are rather ambiguous in their explanations:

    The notes in The Jerusalem Bible state that “Christ brought revelation and salvation; his miracles were 'signs' of these things. The 'works' of the disciples will continue this ministry.”

    Twelftree: “In using 'work' (ergon) especially for Jesus' miracles, the Fourth Gospel conveys the idea that God is to be understood as the author of, particularly, what is seen in Jesus' miracles... However, while the miracles are a distinct 'work' of Jesus, in also using 'work' for the whole ministry of Jesus, and even his works, John blurs the distinction between the miracles, the words and the entire work of Jesus...”

    Davids: “What are these works? We know that they are not his teachings for he refers to his works as evidence for believing his teachings. Thus they must be 'the miracles' (as the NIV correctly translates), for those are the works which in John are connected with people believing...Given the context, the greater things can only be greater miracles.”

He sees no problem with believers carrying out greater miracles since it is still God, working through them, who is the source of the power. “They are at least equal in kind and could be viewed as greater in the sense that they are done over a wider area and thus on a scale that Jesus could not do while on earth but can do as glorified in heaven.” Davids cites as examples, Galatians 3:5; I Corinthians 12; James 5:14-16; and Hebrews 6:4-5.

    Raymond Brown notes that other references to 'greater works' are found in John 1:50 and 14:20 “in a context referring to judging and giving life, and perhaps a share in these two works is included in what the disciples are now being promised. They will share in judgment, for the risen Jesus will give them power over sin (xx 21-23) and will give them the Paraclete who will prove the world wrong about judgment (xv 8,11). They will also have a mission to bring a share in Jesus' life to others ('bear fruit': xv 16).” Lastly, Brown mentions the miracles that believers will be able to do that are found in the dubious longer ending of Mark as well as Matthew 21:21 as possible additional “works.”

 

II SAMUEL 22 (PSALM 18)

 

                                    II Samuel 22 (1994) 

Chapter 22 of Second Samuel presents us with a rare example of a large passage of Scripture which is also found in the Psalter. But the two versions are not exactly identical. Therefore scholars have treated this situation as fertile ground for trying out their various theories to account for the minor differences between the two.

Context

But before going any further, it is instructive to consider the literary context of II Samuel 22.

Figure 1: Echoes of Saul’s Reign (II Sam. 21-24)

    A. Nation afflicted with famine because of blood-guilt;

            B. Curse removed by Gibeonites hanging Saul’s sons (21:1-14)

                   

        C. David’s mighty men: battle with Philistines (21:15-22)

        D. David’s song of praise (II Sam. 22:1-32)

                                D'. David’s royal psalm (23:1-7)

        C'. David’s mighty men: battles with Philistines (23:8-39)

    A'. Nation afflicted with pestilence because of census;

            B'. Curse removed after offerings to God are made (ch. 24)

Both central sections are poetic compositions associated with David placed in the middle of an extended narrative passage. Additionally tying the two together is the image of God as a “rock” found at the beginnings of D (22:2) and D' (23:3).

Divisions

Determination of the internal structure of Section D begins with its breakdown into individual units. And here we run into various opinions expressed in the scholarly literature:

DeClaisse-Walford: The chapter breaks into two equal parts with the limits of the first half being identified by the inclusio “rock, refuge, shield” (vv. 2-3)... “shield, refuge, rock” (vv. 31-32). Her more detailed breakdown into sub-units includes: 1-4; 5-7; 8-16; 17-20; 21-25; 26-31; 32-37; 38-46; and 47-51 with both 17-20 and 38-46 dealing with the rescue itself.

On the other hand, NRSV divides II Samuel 22 into the following sub-sections: verses 1-6; 7; 8-16; 17-20; 21-25; 26-31; 32-43; 44-46; 47-49; and 50-51. As you can see, this division is not at all consistent with that of DeClaisse-Walford.

McCarter feels that the major division is between vv. 1-20 and vv. 29-51. “The intervening material in vv. 21-28 consists of an assertion of the psalmist's innocence and purity (vv. 21-25) followed by the quotation of 'an old gnomic quatrain'...(vv. 26-27) and a brief reference to Yahweh's just reversal of human fortunes (v. 28).” But in his Anchor Bible translation of II Samuel 22, he breaks it up into the following smaller paragraphs: 1-3; 4-25; 26-28; 29-30; 31-35; 36-37; 38-46; and 47-51.

However, Anderson, Schmidt and Taylor feel it is a composite poem consisting of a lament for a falsely accused man (vv. 1-31) and a royal thanksgiving (vv. 32-51). And Anderson outlines the smaller sub-units as follows: 1-3; 4-7; 8-16; 17-20; 21-31; 32-46; and 47-51.

The Jerusalem Bible also recognizes a basically two-part structure to the poem but divides it instead into verses 1-28 (a thanksgiving prayer) and verses 32-51 (a royal victory song). Similarly, Baigent identifies the two major units as verses 1-31 and 32-51.

Structure

With this lack of a scholarly consensus, I felt free to throw my hat in the ring also, using as my main guides not only the thematic changes within II Samuel 22 but also looking for an overall symmetrical arrangement to the whole poem. The results are shown in Figure 2.

                                            Figure 2: The Organization of II Samuel 22

    1. Prayer for salvation (1-4)

            2. Figurative distress (5-6)

                    3. I called and He saved me (7)

                            4. God's figurative actions (8-17)

 

                                    5. God's literal action (18-20)

                                            6. David's righteousness (21-25)

                                            6'. God's loyalty to the righteous (26-28)

                                    5'. David's actions through God's help (29-41)

 

                    3'. They called but no one answered (42)

                            4'. Figurative victory (43)

            2'. David raised above them (44-46)

    1'. Prayer of praise (47-51)

Note the close family resemblance between this literary structure and that of chapters 21-24 as a whole shown in Figure 1. Helping to confirm this architecture are (1) the inclusio of unit 6 by repetition of “The LORD rewarded me for my righteousness” at verses 21 and 25, (2) the presence of “wide/broad place” in 5 and 5', and (3) “blameless” and “wicked/perverse” in 6 and 6'.

Priority

Psalm 18 has the identical structure as shown in Figure 2 except that the verse numbers are all one verse less than found in II Samuel 22. But the next logical question to ask is which version is the original one. And here again, there is really no scholarly agreement. Three possibilities have been proposed:

Psalm 18 is the earlier version.

Tsumura mentions only two possibilities: (1) Psalm 18 was written in standard Hebrew spelling but the writer of II Samuel reproduced it from memory or dictation using phonetic spelling or (2) the author of Samuel copied Psalm 18 as it was written in standard Hebrew, but all the spellings in the collection of Psalms were later “modernized.”

II Samuel 22 is the earlier version.

E.J. Young studies the small variants between the two and concludes that II Samuel 22 is the earlier version, with Psalm 18 making changes to increase “the intimacy in the relationship between the implied author and the deity.”

Similarly, McCaw and Motyer say that Psalm 18 is “a version of 2 Sa. 22, slightly revised to make it suitable for general use.”

“Generally, the morphology of Psalm 18 is viewed as being later.” (deClaisse-Walford)

Both passages are drawn from the same original poem.

Chisholm feels that both versions preserve portions of the original reading and both make interpretive changes to it.

McCarter: “there are no structural or compositional differences between the two, and it is certain that they stem from a single original poem. The several divergences that do exist are scribal in origin and correspond to the categories of change that take place in the transmission of any ancient text.”

Evidence from the Literary Structure

It is intriguing to use Figure 2 as a test to distinguish between the various discrepancies to see which one of the two versions we have today adheres best to its organization. The assumption I will make in such an examination is that the original divinely-inspired version possessed the sort of symmetry found throughout the Bible, both OT and NT. However, the author of II Samuel or the compiler of the Psalter may not have recognized all the subtleties of such literary arrangements and therefore inadvertently disrupted some of the parallel patterns present in the original.

I will not list by any means all of the minor differences between Psalm 18 and II Samuel 22, but here are a few in which literary analysis may actually help distinguish which, if either, of the versions may have altered the text for the worse. My assumption, which may be false, is that later scribes were unlikely to have been aware of the complex ways God directed the pens of the biblical authors to create such masterpieces of literary construction. I feel this is a justified assumption since it has only been in about the last 50 years or so that Bible scholars have begun to recognize that same fact.

II Samuel 22:1 The words “the servant of the Lord” describing David in the first verse of Psalm 18 are missing here. But their inclusion would certainly provide an appropriate contrast to the closing section of II Samuel 22 in which this same servant is exalted above his enemies. Such reversals of fortune are, of course, common in Jesus' later teachings.  In addition, M'Caw and Motyer point out that this missing phrase “is a highly honorable one and...almost always applied to Moses or used prophetically of the Messiah.” That latter possibility fits well with the final verse of II Samuel 22 with its reference to God showing his steadfast love to his anointed (i.e. “messiah”). Thus, Psalm 18 provides the closest adherence to the structure of Figure 2.

II Samuel 22:1-2 Between these two verses, the Psalm 18 parallel adds, “I love you, O Lord, my strength.” Looking at Figure 2, you can see that this reference to David's love of God is matched in the corresponding ending to the chapter by God's love of David (sections 1 and 1'). This is likely to be a purposeful comparison in light of the fact that the word “love” only appears in these two places in the chapter. Thus, in this first example, Psalm 18 would appear to preserve the original version of the poem better than II Samuel 22.

II Samuel 22:3 At the very end of this long verse is the line “You delivered me from violence.” But in this case, it is Psalm 18 which deletes these words entirely. From a structural viewpoint, a reference to God's “deliverance” here in section 1 is matched very well with “You delivered me from the violent” in section 1' (v. 49). Thus, we would have to say that it is II Samuel 22 which has the best claim to adhering to the original or being the original version.

II Samuel 22:7 This verse in section 3 has its counterpart in verse 42 (section 3'). Psalm 18 has the word “cry” in both places whereas II Samuel 22 has “call” instead in v. 7. Therefore, on this occasion it is the Psalter's version which provides the best verbal match.

II Samuel 22:29 This verse reads “You are my lamp, O LORD.” But the Hebrew of Psalm 18 at this point says instead: “You light my lamp.” I would have to say that the metaphorical language of II Samuel here (in section 5') fits better with the similarly metaphorical construction “the LORD was my stay.” in the parallel section 5 (verse 19)

II Samuel 22:43 II Samuel reads “like the dust of the earth” whereas the same verse in Psalm 18 says, “like dirt in the face of the wind.” This is an ambiguous example since if we look to the parallel section II Samuel 22:8-17 we see both “earth” (v. 8) and “wind” (v. 11) in evidence, so either version provides a good match with the structure of Figure 2.

II Samuel 22:29-41 There is one final example that is telling, and it involves a literary technique unifying section 5' of Figure 2. Consider the almost symmetrical pattern formed by the repeated key words in this unit:

                                          Figure 3: Key Words in II Samuel 22:29-41

        girded (32)

                    feet (33a)

                    feet (33b)

                                hands (34a)

                                            arms (34b)

                                -------------

                     feet (36)

                     feet (38)

        girded (39)

All that is missing is a match for “hands” in verse 34a to make this perfectly symmetrical. But it turns out that Psalm 18 has “right hand” in the parallel verse to II Samuel 22:35, which completes the pattern. The most obvious implication is that the author of II Samuel 22 chose to delete that reference, and thus destroyed the carefully worked out symmetry of the original, captured in Psalm 18.

The conclusion from all of these contrary indications would appear to confirm the earlier mentioned contention of Chisholm: Both versions preserve portions of the original reading and both make interpretive changes to it. But perhaps such a literary analysis as briefly described above could help future scholars to better “reconstruct” the original version.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN THE BIBLE

Most people who read through the Old Testament legal material found mainly in the Book of Leviticus are struck with the apparently inappropriate punishments for various crimes. In some cases, the penalty seems to be too harsh by today's standards while in other cases it strikes us as too lenient. But there is a rationale behind it all.

Concerning the former situation, Kaiser asks the question: “Is the death penalty justified for all the crimes listed [in Leviticus 20:1-27; 24:10:23]?” Some of the offenses listed as deserving the death penalty seem justified, even for us today, such as burning babies alive to appease an idol. However, the same penalty for other offenses, such as the various sexual sins listed in Leviticus 20:10-21, seems unduly harsh.

But Kaiser points to three possibly mitigating factors:

    1. The wording of some of the penalties enjoin a “shutting off,” which may refer to excommunication from the community of God rather than death.

    2. Even out-and-out prescription of the death penalty may mean that God will visit a premature death on the offender. Remember that in the OT, the Jews were not given a clear revelation of the possibility of an afterlife so that all punishments needed to be meted out in this life in order to uphold God's sense of justice. But in the NT, it becomes clear that God's judgment often waits until after the offending party has died.

    3. “In fact, there is little evidence that many of these sanctions were ever actually carried out, except in the specific example of a premeditated murder (see Numbers 35:31).” (Kaiser)

Just look at the story of the woman caught in adultery, narrated in John 8. It has all the appearance of a situation purposely set up by the religious rulers in order to test Jesus to see what he would do. For one thing, it is a bit unusual that the man involved in the affair was not also brought forward for trial. Secondly, under Roman law the Jews had no authority to carry out the death penalty for any offense, much less a relatively minor one such as adultery.

On the other hand, consider the types of crime that would probably warrant prison time today such as manslaughter, rape, or grand theft. The OT penalties for such offenses generally consisted of some sort of financial restitution only. We want to know why the criminal wasn't punished more harshly.

One simple answer to that question is that for most of Israel's early history there were no prisons. The biblical stories of prisons that are the most famous are those in Egypt where Joseph was incarcerated and those of the Romans who imprisoned Paul and other disciples for varying lengths of time.

“As a sanction, prison is mentioned quite often in the Bible, but imprisonment was not covered in the Mosaic law, and there were no prisons, in the modern sense of long-term incarceration, in ancient Israel. Yet penal slavery and prisons were part of the ancient Near East and were well enough known that writers could employ prison as an image effectively.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Asa of Judah put Hanani the seer into the stocks temporarily (II Chronicles 16:10), and Ahab had Micaiah put into prison for a short time period on rations of bread and water (I Kings 22:27). Also, Cogan says, “Persons could be confined until their case was decided; e.g., the Sabbath violator (Num 15:35-36) and the blasphemer (Lev 24:10-12)...Micaiah was detained until his prophecy could be verified, unlike Jeremiah, who was adjudged harmful to society and so restrained (Jer 37:15; 38:6).”

Concerning that latter case, Jeremiah is actually put into a muddy cistern, not a prison but a place where he was expected to starve to death (Jeremiah 38:6-13). This is even an echo of Joseph's treatment at the hands of his brothers when they agreed to leave him at the bottom of a dry pit. Of course, in both cases God's chosen men are rescued.

The bottom line from these examples is that the Jews never did have the sort of penal system in place that would allow incarceration to serve as a form of legal punishment in which the time in prison could be adjusted to be in line with the seriousness of a crime that was more than a mere civil case and less than one deserving death. Therefore, monetary recompense to the victims was the best option for dispensing justice in those cases.

 

"HAIL, MARY, FULL OF GRACE"

I rarely take potshots at my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, but I thought it might be useful to at least zero in on one common aspect of their religious practice, recitation of the “Hail, Mary.”

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus..
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Even non-Catholics are probably aware of this prayer, often in the context of a movie in which someone in the confessional booth is being told to recite so many Hail Mary's to atone for some sin they have committed. That is hardly the original context of the first half of this prayer, which is not a prayer at all. The words in bold were originally said by an angel to Mary before announcing to her that she would bear the expected Messiah (Luke 1:28). The following two lines in italics were then taken from Luke 1:42, Elizabeth's address to Mary. The words of the rest of the prayer, as most all Protestants would agree, are not found in the Bible at all and actually go against the whole thrust of New Testament teaching.

But rather than quote comments from Protestant scholars, I would like to concentrate on what two Roman Catholic priests and one Catholic Bible translation have to say:

    “Rejoice, so highly favored!* The Lord is with you.**” (Jerusalem Bible)

* “The translation 'Rejoice' may be preferred to 'Hail' and regarded as containing a messianic reference. 'So highly favored', i.e. as to become the mother of the Messiah.”

** “The angel's word's recall several O.T. passages referring to the Messiah.”

    “Hail, favored woman! The Lord is with you!” (Anchor Bible)

The translator, Joseph Fitzmyer, adds these comments: “For Luke, Mary is the model believer (see 1:45), pronounced blessed; and because she has been favored, she will be declared blessed by all generations (1:48). In Acts 1:14 she sits among the believers awaiting the promised holy Spirit.”

    “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you.” (The Birth of the Messiah, Raymond Brown)

Concerning the first half of this proclamation, Brown explains: “In the Greek expression chaire kecharitomene, words of closely related stems are involved. Chaire is related to the noun chara, 'joy.' Kecharitomene is from the verb charitoun, a factitive verb, 'to make one favored, to give one grace,' of the same stem as charis, 'grace, favor.'

Brown also notes in relation to the second half of the angel's greeting, “While the phrase assures Mary of God's support, it does not mean that the Lord Jesus is within Mary's womb. After this phrase the Codices Alexandrinus, Bazae, and many of the versions, including the Latin, add: 'Blessed are you among women.' This is almost certainly a scribal borrowing from 1:42, but it has influenced the 'Ave Maria' prayer.”

Many years ago I had a rare religious discussion with a close friend who was a Catholic. I stated that one of the differences between us was that Protestants believed that salvation was by grace, whereas Catholics felt it was by works. I don't know if my comments at the time were totally theologically correct, but I still remember my friend's response. He corrected me by saying, “We Catholics believe in grace also. In fact, we are given a whole list of things that we can do in order to earn it.” I hope that is not still the standard teaching in Roman Catholic churches, but it became very obvious to me that a theologically charged term such as “grace” is capable of total misunderstanding by many lay persons. So I was pleased to see that “full of grace” in the more recent Catholic writings has been replaced by the more accurate “favored.” That latter word immediately conveys the fact that some outside party (God in this case) has conveyed favor on Mary, not that she already possessed it through her own merits.

One additional word easily misunderstood is “hail.” One standard definition is “to greet with enthusiastic approval or acclaim” as in “Hail, Caesar” or “Hail to the Chief.” But as the Jerusalem Bible translation notes, the Greek word is merely a standard form of greeting such as “rejoice” or “good day to you.” It certainly does not denote placing the person being greeted on any sort of higher plane or indicate superiority on their part.

Also, Raymond Brown's comments regarding line 2 of the Ave Maria also provide another useful corrective to what is apparently the erroneous idea among some Catholics that “the Lord” already was in her womb. That would fit with the heretical (from a Protestant viewpoint) notion that Mary was “the mother of God,” as in line 5 of the Ave Maria. After all, “Lord” in Luke 1 almost certainly means “Yahweh, God the Father” who is the One giving her favor. Therefore she certainly did not give birth to Him. And as Fitzmyer notes, she will only receive the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity) after Jesus has been crucified and resurrected. In fact, as JB notes, she is only predicted to give birth to the promised Messiah, certainly not God.

As for the rest of the teachings in the Hail Mary, there is certainly nothing unbiblical about calling Mary “holy,” since the New Testament teaches that all believers are holy, set apart by God. The only problem is when she is singled out as “holy” in some sort of special sense, such as in the common phrase “The Holy Family.” It is no wonder that the later Koran confusedly felt that the Holy Trinity of the Christians consisted of God, Jesus, and Mary since that was probably the common understanding of many in the Church at that time period.

Then there is the idea stated in line 6 that dead believers who were especially holy, such as Mary or the official “saints,” can continue to intercede with God on our behalf. That notion only comes from one hint in the Apocryphal writings, not from any teachings in the NT. On the other hand, we are clearly told that believers now have access to the very throne of God through the intercession of Jesus Christ. To say that we need to first go through any earthly priest or dead human being residing in heaven is heretical to say the least.

Finally, the Ave Maria alludes to the Catholic practice of Extreme Unction, in which a priest says a final prayer over a person right before he or she dies to ensure that all the person's sins will be forgiven and they will be guaranteed a place in heaven. I don't know how strictly the Catholic Church still adheres to that belief, but it is implied in the final line of the prayer. Sadly, I had a dear relative, a faithful Protestant, who was obsessed all her life with the belief that if she died in her sleep without first praying that all of her sins that day be forgiven, she would never be allowed into heaven. It is an extreme example of faith by works instead of grace, whether or not she would ever have admitted it.