SHUFFLING SCRIPTURE: THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

In R.B.Y. Scott's commentary on the Book of Proverbs as part of the Anchor Bible series, he takes several liberties with the order of the verses in order to “improve” the present Hebrew text. Thus, his proposed order for Proverbs 4-9 is as follows: 4:1-27; 5:21-23; 5:1-19; 6:22; 5:20; 6:1-21; 6:23-35; 7:1-8:36; 9:1-6,10-13,7-9,13-18. These are the only dislocations that actually make it into his new translation. However, in his introduction he additionally expresses the opinion that Proverbs 3:27-30; 5:15-20 (with 6:22); 6:1-5,6-11,12-15; 6:16-19 and 9:7-9 “disturb the order of Part I and may have been inserted later from other sources.” Finally, he proposes that Proverbs 2 is more suitable as the opening of the book rather than 1:8-19. We will only concern ourselves with those changes he actually makes to his text.

Placement of 5:21-23 directly after 4:27

Scott expresses his rationale for this move as follows: “The discourse beginning in iv 20-27 lacks the usual concluding statement of consequences, whereas in v 21-23 there is such a statement which is more suitable following iv 27 than in its present location.”

To understand Scott's reasoning here, we need to keep in mind that he is first of all assuming the correctness of his analysis of Proverbs 1-9 as a discrete section consisting of ten discourses, of which 4:20-27 is Discourse #7. But this is by no means the only way to parse these chapters. For example, Ross pictures a cyclic form to Prov. 1-9:

                                                Figure 1: Organization of Proverbs 1-9

                 Proverbs impart wisdom (1:1-7)

                            Folly may interrupt this purpose (1:8-33)

                Advantages to seeking wisdom (2:1-4:27)

                            Folly may prevent one from seeking it (5:1-6:19)

                Advantages to finding wisdom (6:20-9:12)

                            Folly may prevent this too (9:13-18)

And my own chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) analysis of chapters 4-7 is shown below.

                                           Figure 2: Organization of Proverbs 4:1-7:27

                            A. Seek Lady Wisdom (4:1-6:15)

                                        B. Numerical Proverb (6:16-19)

                            A'. Avoid the Loose Woman (6:20-7:27)

These are just two of many proposals as to the organization of the book, but at least they have the advantage of resulting in the sorts of symmetrical literary forms evidenced throughout the Bible. By contrast, the “Ten Discourse” theory is quite messy in practice since chapters 1-9 also contain (even by their proponents' admission) five major poems, five expanded proverbs, and a numerical saying randomly interspersed with the discourses.

Secondly, Scott says that 4:20-27 has to end with a statement regarding consequences. We will assume that he is correct, although that would only follow if we accept his “Ten Discourse” theory. But even if that is true, he is incorrect in saying that there is no consequence statement there; see v. 26 in which a promise is given that all one's ways will be secure. That eliminates the need for any emendation at all.

The third pillar of Scott's reasoning is that 5:21-23 is “more suitable” after 4:27 than after 5:20. At best, that is a subjective judgment, and at worst it is a totally unjustified one. If you are interested, I suggest you look at 5:21-23 in each position and see if you agree with Scott.

The only reason I can see for wanting to go with this rearrangement is in order to place more references to the “path” of one's life together. However, that key word in 4:1-6:15 (Section A in my analysis in Figure 2) appears exactly seven times, “seven” being the symbolic representation of perfection or completion. Scott could have alternatively picked on Proverbs 5:5-6 to move instead if that was all he was trying to accomplish.

Placement of 6:22 directly after 5:19

Scott is not alone here in making this move since the NEB proposes the same thing. The only possible evidence that such a rearrangement might be necessary comes from the unusual singular pronouns in 6:22. A translation of the Hebrew text reads, “When you walk it will lead you: when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk with you.”

This statement comes directly after the following passage:

    “My child, keep your father's commandment; and do not forsake your mother's teaching. Bind them upon your heart always; tie them around your neck.” (Proverbs 6:20-21)

Since v. 22 appears to refer to the father's commandment and mother's teaching, it is a little unusual to see “it” there in place of the more expected “them,” especially since that plural pronoun appears in v. 21. However, there are several easy ways to get around this apparent contradiction.

One is simply to change “it” to “them,” as was done in the Latin Vulgate. And even without changing the pronoun at all, Waltke mentions two other ways to explain the singular pronoun: (1) it may refer to the combined parental teaching or (2) since the Hebrew word can mean either “it” or “she,” according to the context, it may refer to Lady Wisdom.

Scott latches on to the possible translation “she” as the reason for considering v. 22 as the proper conclusion of 5:15-19 describing the reasons a man should remain faithful to his own wife. So let us consider whether than movement is actually a fit ending to that section.    

There are three key verbs in 6:22 describing what a wife (alternatively, wise commandments) accomplishes for a man: lead his ways, watch over him when asleep, and talking to (i.e. instructing) him. Nine translations and paraphrases I consulted all rendered those three verbs in basically the same terms, and all three verbs are certainly appropriate “job descriptions” of what godly counsel is supposed to do. But are they equally applicable to a setting in which they are supposed to describe what a good wife is to do? The answer is a resounding NO.

“Lead” or “guide” is the usual English translation of the Hebrew verb nachah. It appears 29 times in the Old Testament, and in 27 of those appearances the one leading is either God or a king. In the remaining two occurrences, the “leader” is a bribe or the integrity of the upright. There isn't the slightest hint in the rather patriarchal OT that it is the appropriate role for a wife to be her husband's guide.

The next line of 6:22 talks about this person or thing guarding/watching over the man while he sleeps. One can imagine godly counsel figuratively guarding a person even while asleep, but to expect that a good wife will stay up all night watching over her husband is a little hard to imagine. Actually, there are only two times in the Bible when I recall a woman watched a man sleeping, both in the book of Judges. The first instance was when Jael waited until General Sisera was sound asleep so that she could hammer a stake through his head (ch. 4). And the second time was when Delilah had the Philistines shave Samson's head while he slept on her lap (ch. 16). So we hardly have a good precedent for women being reliable night guards. By contrast, Proverbs 4:6 says that wisdom will guard you.

So how does Scott justify saying that 6:22 more appropriately belongs with the section regarding a good wife? He accomplishes it in quite an easy manner by re-translating the two pertinent verbs as “help” and “cherish” instead. Even the NEB has enough intellectual honesty to stick to the accepted translations of “guide” and “watch over,” as inapt these verbs are in their revised setting.

Scott is another prime example of someone who is so entranced with his own theory that he is not only willing to rearrange the text to justify it, but also replace the acceptable definitions of two Hebrew words in order to do it.

Reordering the verses in Proverbs 9

In Scott's treatment of this chapter, he reverses the order of verses 7-9 and 10-12 and places v. 16 in brackets as an unnecessary and inappropriate duplication of v. 4. He devotes one page of his commentary on Proverbs attempting to justify these changes in the text. So let us look at some of his reasoning:

    “The invitation to Wisdom's banquet in vss. 5-6 is incomplete without some such statement of Wisdom's rewards as is found in vs. 11.”

But that is exactly what v. 6 provides: “Lay aside immaturity, and live, and walk in the way of insight.”

    “Its [i.e. verses 7-9] chiastic structure identifies it as a distinct literary unit, and its abrupt introduction of a totally different theme and audience shows that it has intruded in this context.”

Contrary to Scott's contention, the chiastic structure of 7-9 is not really that obvious. At the same time, he fails to recognize the larger context of 8:1-9:18, which in fact is a chiasm (see Figure 3). In that setting, you can see that verses 7-9 fit perfectly and are no intrusion at all.

Figure 3: Structure of Section IV

A. Wisdom's Invitation (8:1-9:6)

        B. Scoffers (9:7-8a)

                C. The Wise (9:8b-9)

                        D. Acquiring Wisdom (9:10-11)

                C'. The Wise (9:12a)

        B'. Scoffers (9:12b)

A'. Foolish Woman's Invitation (9:13-18)

“He feels that the contrast attempted by some later editor between wisdom (see Section A above) and folly (Section A') was poorly done since “Here she is specifically 'Folly' (kesilut, a word not used elsewhere), the opposite of Wisdom as such; there [i.e. elsewhere in Proverbs] she [kesil] is the 'fruit' of the lack of wisdom in a particular form of behavior, the sexual immorality associated with pagan religion. Though admittedly the two ideas are closely related, they are not the same.”

If kesiluth only appears once in the OT, then there are no other sources one can consult to test out his contention that its meaning differs from that of kesil. The distinction he draws between the two related Hebrew words is certainly a subtle one, so subtle that other scholarly commentators have apparently missed it altogether:

Domeris says that “the voice of Wisdom and the noise of Folly (cf 9:1-6 and 9:13-17) both call out to the simple (ignorant).”

Woodcock states, “Three Hebrew words are rendered 'fool.' These are kesil, 'ewil, and nabal. The first two may mean either fool or foolish.” He does not distinguish between kesil and kesiluth.

“Two conflicting worldviews make their appeal [in Proverbs]: 'of Wisdom/Folly, Good/Pseudo-Good, Life/Death...” (Waltke)

Pan says that “Madame Folly (kesilut...) in 9:13 is the opponent of Lady Wisdom (9:1).”

Lastly, he omits v. 16 since it is an obvious imitation of v. 4 which does not really fit in this new setting.

“Both women vie for the attention of the impressionable, and the appeal of their competing attentions is enhanced by sexual imagery...Whereas Wisdom is open in her dealings, casting a watchful eye over her charges (Prov 4:6), Folly is 'loud-mouthed' and 'ignorant' (or 'uncaring') (Prov 9:13), thus sharing some characteristics with her targeted clientele (Prov 9:16).” (Davies)

Koptak is the only one who feels he must make a remark concerning the identical wording in the two invitations: “She (Woman Folly) sits idly at the door of her house, without servants, calling out with her own voice a parody of Woman Wisdom's invitation, even repeating her words.” That explanation appears to be an adequate one for those who insist that her wording is “inappropriate” in Proverbs 9:16.