The character of speech (Proverbs 10:20–21)

כֶּסֶף נִבְחָר לְשֹׁון צַדִּיק לֵב רְשָׁעִים כִּמְעָט׃
שִׂפְתֵי צַדִּיק יִרְעוּ רַבִּים וֶאֱוִילִים בַּחֲסַר־לֵב יָמוּתוּ׃

KE-sef niv-CHAR l’-SHON tsa-DEEK LAYV r’sha-EEM kim-AT
sif-TAY tsa-DEEK yir-U ra-BEEM ve-e-vee-LEEM ba-cha-sar-LAYV ya-MU-tu

Choice silver is the tongue of the righteous; the mind of the wicked is (worth) little.
The lips of the righteous feed many, and fools by lack of a mind will perish.

The general topic of speech turns to the valuation of speech of the righteous in these two proverbs. The presence of צַדִּיק and לֵב in the two proverbs and the poetic variants לְשֹׁון and שִׂפְתֵי tie the two together verbally.

“Tongue” and “lips” are both metonymic for speech: the speech of the righteous is presumably pure, refined, perhaps trustworthy, and therefore valuable. The comparison with the mind of the wicked is somewhat unexpected, but reinforces the implicit logical connection between speech and mind.

Read together, the second proverb explicates the value of the speech of the righteous by focusing on its “nourishing” powers. In contrast to the satiety of those who choose to feed on the pure words of the righteous, those without a mind will perish because of that lack: they are starved for common sense.

Loose lips (Proverbs 10:18–19)

כַסֶּה שִׂנְאָה שִׂפְתֵי־שָׁקֶר וּמֹוצִא דִבָּה הוּא כְסִיל׃
בְּרֹב דְּבָרִים לֹא יֶחְדַּל־פָּשַׁע וְחֹשֵׂךְ שְׂפָתָיו מַשְׂכִּיל׃

m’-cha-SE sin-A sif-tay-SHA-ker u-mo-TSEE di-BA HU ch’-SEEL
b’-ROV d’-va-REEM LO yech-dal-PA-sha v’-cho-SHAYCH s’-fa-TAV mas-KEEL

Whoever conceals hatred—lying lips, and whoever spreads a rumor, that one is a fool
In an abundance of words there is no lack of wrongdoing, and whoever restrains their lips shows good sense.

After a brief tangent on wealth, etc., the topic returns to the topic of speech (cf. 10:12–14). These two verses both treat the issue of loose lips. Verse 18 contrasts “concealing” hatred with “spreading” rumors, neither of which is sanctioned. Both halves appear to deal with actions toward an “enemy”: one may keep the hatred hidden through hypocritical speech; or one may spread rumors to the detriment of the person. Murphy notes the presence of both “conceals” and “hatred” also in 10:12, where the effect of hatred is contrasted with the pacifying effects of love.

Verse 19 affirms that with loquaciousness comes wrongdoing, a theme that is affirmed in other wisdom writings as well, e.g., Sir 20:1–8; Abot 1:17 (וכל המרבה דברים מביא חטא, And all multiplying of words brings sin); Counsels of Wisdom 127–34. The last passage is particularly interesting, since it combines the issues of slander and careless speech, as in these two verses (that and I finally bought Lambert’s Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL), so it is good to have such an occasion to cite it):

e ta-kul ka[r-ṣi q/í-bi ba-ni-ti
lim-né-e-ti e ta-ta-me da-me-eq-ta ti-iz-kàr
šá a-kil kar-ṣi qa-bu-ú li-mut-ti
i-na ri-ba-a-ti ša ^dšamaš ú-qa-’-ú rēs-su
e tu-ma-ṣ pi-i-ka ú-ṣur šap-ti-ka
e-nim-me-e kab-ta-ti-ka e-di-iš e taq-bi
sur-riš ta-ta-mu-ú ta-ra-áš-ši ar-ka-niš
ú ina sa-naq at-me-e tu-šá-an-na-aḫ ṭè-en-ka

Do not utter libel, speak what is of good report.
Do not say evil things, speak well of people.
One who utters libel and speaks evil,
Men will waylay him with his debit account to Šamaš.
Beware of careless talk, guard your lips;
Do not utter solemn oaths while alone,
For what you say in a moment will follow you afterwards.
But exert yourself to restrain your speech. (BWL 106)

To life! (Proverbs 10:16–17)

פְּעֻלַּת צַדִּיק לְחַיִּים תְּבוּאַת רָשָׁע לְחַטָּאת׃
אֹרַח לְחַיִּים שֹׁומֵר מוּסָר וְעֹוזֵב תֹּוכַחַת מַתְעֶה׃

p’-u-lat tsa-DEEK l’-cha-YEEM t’-vu-at ra-SHA l’-cha-TAT
O-rach l’-cha-YEEM sho-MAYR mu-SAR v’-o-ZAYV to-CHA-chat mat-E

The wage of the righteous is to life; the gain of the wicked is for sin.
A path to life is one who keeps discipline, but one who abandons a reprimand leads astray.

Verse 16 is janus faced, relating to the subject of the preceding proverb (verse 15)—wealth and poverty, and having the common phrase לְחַיִּים “to life” with the following, verse 17.

Commentators seem unduly consternated about both these proverbs. With respect to the first one, there is concern that the gain of the wicked should be “to death” or “to destruction” in order to parallel the first part. The wage of the righteous is “to/for life,” an ambiguous phrase that could mean mean that it leads to life (so e.g., NRSV), that it is permanent or lasting—”for life,” or even possibly that it is employed for life = benefit. By contrast, the wicked use their gain only for sin. The contrast may therefore be intentionally disparaging of the wicked and their use of wealth. Compare this especially with the preceding proverb (verse 15) in which wealth is implied as preferable to poverty; the two proverbs side-by-side temper each other.

Verse 17 compares the person who keeps or observes discipline to “a path to life.” Some commentators conjecture a participle here instead of the noun, in order to better parallel the participle in the second half. Such a change demands too much symmetry of proverbs. They should not be treated as that “predictable.” In any case, the present form of the text is not really a problem: the focus seems to be on actions as exemplary; either they show “a path to life” or they “lead astray.” Perhaps it is our over-individualizing of moral teaching that leads us away from this interpretation, which underscores that my behavior with respect to discipline and guidance I receive affects those around me! It implies both that we must diligently accept and follow discipline and that our behavior should be exemplary for those who may be watching.

The bitterness of poverty (Aḥiqar 105)

טעמת אף זעררתא מררתא ומררא חסין
ולא איתי זי מריר מן ענוה

I have tasted even bitter medlar and the bitterness of endives,
but there is nothing that is more bitter than poverty.

As a follow-up to the preceding post’s theme of wealth and poverty, here is an observation about poverty from Aḥiqar. As with so many proverbs, the artfulness of this one lies in the metaphorical twist of meaning between the lines: “bitter(ness)” in the first line refers to literal, physical bitterness of medlar (small crab-apple-like fruit) and endives; but in the second line it has a metaphorical meaning, referring to the much more “bitter” experience of poverty.

As with the previously discussed proverb, we might be tempted to treat this as a neutral observation. However this would miss the point of proverbs. A couple of quotes from an entertaining article by Bert O. States (Troping through Proverbia, The American Scholar. 70/3 [2001]: 105–12) make the point:

Poetic metaphor is usually concerned with theme rather than thesis, reflection or recognition rather than practical action or behavior (106).

Proverbs, however, are not intended to enlighten as much as they are intended to light the way toward the right course or to justify what one would have done anyway . . . (108).

In other words, proverbs are both: they identify or help us “recognize” situations as a particular type, but in orienting us to the character of the situation at hand they also imply a preferred course of action.

Wealth and Poverty (Proverbs 10:15)

הֹון עָשִׁיר קִרְיַת עֻזֹּו מְחִתַּת דַּלִּים רֵישָׁם׃

hon a-SHEER qir-YAT u-ZO m’-chi-TAT da-LEEM ray-SHAM

The wealth of the rich is their strong city; the ruin of the poor is their poverty.

This proverb links to the preceding only by the repetition of מְחִתַּת“ruin.” The point of this proverb is simple enough, even tautological: the rich are afforded a degree of protection by their wealth that the poor lack, such that they are exposed to possible “ruin.”

The difficulty is what to do with the proverb? Murphy (R. E. Murphy. 1998. Proverbs. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson) concludes that this is simply a reflection on a reality of life, without any moral judgement. But then what of Fox’s notion that though Proverbs betray diverse sociological origins, there is nevertheless a guiding ideology in collecting them—one that portrays an idealistic view of city dwelling (M. V. Fox. 1986. The Social Location of the Book of Proverbs. Pp. 227–39 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. M. V. Fox and et. al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns)?

Here, however, I find the insights of Shapin helpful (Steven Shapin. 2001. Proverbial Economies: How an Understanding of Some Linguistic and Social Features of Common Sense Can Throw Light on More Prestigious Bodies of Knowledge, Science for Example. Social Studies of Science 31/5: 731-769). Shapin talks about how on the one hand, we often do not need to know the sociological origin (or literal reference) of a proverb in order to understand its import (e.g., don’t look a gift horse in the mouth; a rolling stone gathers no moss). On the other hand, proverbs lose some of their power (i.e., validity and persuasiveness) when they are placed in collections, isolated from the social settings in which they originated and were employed. Proverbs in collections can seem trite, contradictory, etc., whereas “in use” they are strong epistemological and moral tools that classify situations and imply how best to successfully navigating the situation.

How does Shapin’s insights help? I think he makes the important point that proverbs by their very character always have a “moral lesson.” Thus, we are entitled to ask what the moral lesson of this proverb is, even if it does not make a moral judgment on wealth and poverty. I am encouraged by the prospects of studying biblical Proverbs in light of Shapin’s comments. I am encouraged by the fact that they may give us a window in to the ancient culture that has hitherto been largely unexplored—namely, through reconstructing possible social situations in which these proverbs might have naturally been employed. I am also encouraged by the prospect of thereby recovering the moral lessons in these proverbs, which has largely been ignored in favor of understanding their contribution to “wisdom thought.”

More than anything, the task relies on understanding a certain commonality of thought and society between ancients and moderns, and the imagination to envision the sorts of situations that could call forth a given proverb. In the case of Prov 10:15, I can imagine a situation in which financial disaster has overtaken a poor person, and a rich person in a similar position has successfully weathered the storm. It could be spoken by either party—rich or poor—or a third party that is a witness to the unfolding events. The moral lesson? That wealth is useful protection in an uncertain world, so take precautions. Is it anything more than the “evil” associations of wealth in the Bible and history that makes it difficult to embrace such a pragmatic lesson?

On speech (Proverbs 10:13–14)

בְּשִׂפְתֵי נָבֹון תִּמָּצֵא חָכְמָה וְשֵׁבֶט לְגֵו חֲסַר־לֵב׃
חֲכָמִים יִצְפְּנוּ־דָעַת וּפִי־אֱוִיל מְחִתָּה קְרֹבָה׃

b’-sif-tay na-VON ti-ma-TSAY choch-MA v’-SHAY-vet l’-GAY cha-sar-LAYV
cha-cha-MEEM yits-p’-nu-DA-at u-fi-e-VEEL m’-chi-TA q’-ro-VA

On the lips of the discerning may be found wisdom, and a rod for the back of the one who lacks sense.
The wise will store up knowledge, and the mouth of a fool imminent ruin.

These two proverbs revolve around speech, a theme that is dominant through verse 21 of this chapter. The paired vocabulary חָכְמָה/חֲכָמִים and בְּשִׂפְתֵי/וּפִי also hold the verses together. Verse 13b is a variation on 26:3b, which compares the need of a rod for a fool to similar instruments of guidance for animals.

I am inclined to understand verbal ellipsis in both verses, in which case the contrast consists in part in the ironic reversal of meaning of the verb from the first to the second half of the verse: one may find knowledge on the lips of the understanding (taking the verb as a deontic modal expressing permission and hence invitation to partake of the offered wisdom), and one must find a stick for the back of one lacking sense (a deontic modal interpretation expressing necessity: there is no other way to guide one lacking sense). Similarly, the wise will store of knowledge (understood positively as valuing it and storing it up for future use), and the mouth of the fool stores up imminent destruction (in the sense of building up just desserts for their talk). The ironic reversal of the verbs in one case involves the modal interpretation, in the other the metaphoric understanding of the lexeme “store up.” In both cases, however, if the reversals lend to the “antithetical” contrast of the two halves.

A love-hate relationship (Proverbs 10:12)

שִׂנְאָה תְּעֹורֵר מְדָנִים וְעַל כָּל־פְּשָׁעִים תְּכַסֶּה אַהֲבָה׃

sin-A t’-o-RAYR m’-da-NEEM v’-al kol-p’sha-EEM t’-cha-SE a-ha-va

Hatred stirs up strife, and over all offenses covers love.

If there was any overarching theme, e.g., righteous and wicked, holding the proverbs in this collection (or chapter) together, it would appear to fall apart at this point. This proverb supports instead the notion that proverbs may be juxtaposed simply based on “catchwords”—in this case the יְכַסֶּה/תְּכַסֶּה connection with the preceding verse.

It is unclear to me, however, whether and what this connection adds to the interpretation of either. Could it be that there is an additional contrast of sorts between “covering” of violence and the “covering” of love? But is either saying clear in itself? The notion that love covers over all offenses (or sins) is interpreted in two different, though related, ways in the New Testament: James 5:20 adjoins this saying with one that echoes Prov 10:2b, that the righteous save from death: “whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” It is unclear who’s sins the writer has in mind: those of the person saving or those of the sinner who is saved? 1 Peter 4:8 cites this proverb with what is probably closer to its intended sense in Proverbs: “Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins.”

It would appear that understanding the possible interplay between this verse and the preceding, based on the catchword, hinges more on how verse 11b is understood: does the mouth of the wicked (subj.) cover or conceal violence (obj.) (and what does that mean?), or does violence (subj.) cover the mouth of the wicked (obj.) (and what does that mean?). Although the interpretation “concealing violence” was persuasive to me while interpreting verse 11 in isolation, given the context of verse 12 I’m wondering whether it needs to be rendered “covers violence” and interpreted with respect to verse 12: while love covers over offenses (alluding to atonement, but probably more generally meant as “overlooks” or “forgives”), the mouth of the wicked “covers (everything) with violence,” in the sense of spreads violence all around.

Thus the connection here hinges on a wordplay that takes “covers” in two different metaphorical senses: cover = overlook or forgive in vs. 12b; cover = spread over everything in vs. 11b. Hence the juxtapositioning of these two proverbs results in a contrast not only between hatred and love, but love and violence. Sound plausible? Any other ways to relate these verses or is this just trying too hard?

Two ways (Proverbs 10:8–11)

חֲכַם־לֵב יִקַּח מִצְוֹת וֶאֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם יִלָּבֵט׃
הֹולֵךְ בַּתֹּם יֵלֶךְ בֶּטַח וּמְעַקֵּשׁ דְּרָכָיו יִוָּדֵעַ׃
קֹרֵץ עַיִן יִתֵּן עַצָּבֶת וֶאֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם יִלָּבֵט׃
מְקֹור חַיִּים פִּי צַדִּיק וּפִי רְשָׁעִים יְכַסֶּה חָמָס׃

cha-cham-LAYV yi-KACH mits-VOT ve-e-VEEL s’-fa-TA-yim yi-la-VAYT
ho-LAYCH ba-TOM yay-LECH BE-tach u-m’-a-KAYSH d’-ra-KAV yi-va-DAY-a
ko-RAYTS A-yin yi-TAYN a-TSA-vet ve-e-VEEL s’-fa-TA-yim yi-la-VAYT
m’-KOR cha-YEEM pee tsa-DEEK u-fee r’-sha-EEM y’-cha-SE cha-MAS

The one who has a wise mind will accept commandments and the fool by his lips will come to ruin.
Whoever walks in integrity, walks securely and whoever perverts their way will be found out.
Whoever winks the eye gives trouble and the fool by his lips will come to ruin.
A fountain of life is the mouth of the righteous and the mouth of the wicked covers violence.

I’m treating these four proverbs together because they exhibit a certain (intentional?) unity through the repetition of the second line in vss. 8 and 10, and the following proverb in vs. 12 departs from the theme of wisdom/folly and righteous/wicked found here. That said, of course, vs. 11b is identical with vs. 6b, but I’m not sure what conclusion to draw from that.

Vs. 8 echoes the general motif that heads the chapter: there are two ways, the way of the wise and the way of the fool. Lit., “the foolish of lips” will fall. The contrast between the two lines is subtle (leading some commentators to amend), but speech as a sure indicator of wisdom or folly is frequent enough in wisdom writings to make the implication apparent: the wise will speak well because they accepted instruction, whereas the fool, who has rejected wisdom, will make his folly apparent by his speech and bring ruin on themselves.

Vv. 9–10 have an identical grammatical structure: relative participle, substantive, yiqtol; construct phrase, yiqtol. The participle frequently describes characteristic activities in Proverbs. Vs. 9 presents some obvious alliteration in the first part: ho-LAYCH ba-TOM yay-LECH BE-tach. The point seems to be the same as the English proverb, “your deeds will find you out,” and we can envision similar social situations that would call forth these English and Hebrew proverbs. Vs. 10 describes the characteristic action of winking, though it is not clear the exact significance of this action in ancient Israel. This verse lacks the typical antithesis in the second half, and perhaps it does not belong here, though commentators complain about its fit in vs. 8 as well. Some (e.g., Toy, Murphy) adopt the Septuagint reading as preserving the proper contrast: ὁ δὲ ἐλέγχων μετὰ παρρησίας εἰρηνοποιεῖ “but whoever rebukes boldly makes peace.”

Vs. 11 returns to the righteous/wicked contrast. The phrase מְקֹור חַיִּים “fountain of life” is used in Proverbs to describe the teaching of the wise (13:14), fear of God (14:27), and of wisdom (16:22), in addition to the speech of the righteous, here. The second half of the verse, though better suited to this proverb (note the repetition of “mouth”) than vs. 6, remains somewhat obscure: violence characterizes the speech of the wicked, or the wicked conceal their violent intents in their speech, or something else?

Given the possible problems with corrupt or mixed up second lines here and in vs. 6, I can’t help wondering whether such problems are due to dropping the second line of proverbs in common usage, for example, “The bigger they are . . .,” “If it ain’t broke . . .,” “When the going gets tough . . .” Could popular employment of the first line only of proverbs to recall the import of the entire saying lead to variation or even corruption of the second line? I can’t think of any significant variations in English proverbs to justify such a supposition, but it is nevertheless intriguing to me.

A lasting name? (Proverbs 10:6–7)

בְּרָכֹות לְרֹאשׁ צַדִּיק וּפִי רְשָׁעִים יְכַסֶּה חָמָס׃
זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב׃

b’-ra-CHOT l’-ROSH tsa-DEEK u-fee r’-sha-EEM y’-cha-SE cha-MAS
zay-cher tsa-DEEK liv-ra-CHA v’-shaym r’-sha-EEM yir-KAV

A blessing is on the head of the righteous, [and the mouth of the wicked conceals violence].
The memory of the righteous is for a blessing, and the name of the wicked will rot.

There is an insurmountable textual problem in vs. 6: the second part of the saying (in brackets) does not create a clearly suitable contrast with the first part, and is repeated verbatim in vs. 11 of the chapter, where it creates a more fitting contrast. There are other cases of repetition in the chapter as well (cf. vss. 8b and 10b), which probably indicates textual corruption more than intentional unifying of the proverbs.

These two proverbs are held together by the theme of צַדִּיק/רְשָׁעִים (“righteous”/”wicked”) that pervades the beginning portions of this section (chap. 10–22) and more specifically by the word “blessing” in both. Interestingly, these contrast in number whenever they are used together in this chapter (I haven’t looked beyond here yet; nor do I have an explanation): “righteous” (sg.)/”wicked” (pl.) .

Presuming a parallel between the use of ancient proverbs and modern ones, we might imagine any number of social situations that would spontaneously call forth these sayings or allusions to them. They serve as general cautions against wicked behavior (defined socially, religiously, or morally) and/or motivations for righteous behavior—the promise of ongoing good repute and blessing. Can we safely say that the ancients were more concerned than we moderns with preservation of their name and memory? In a sense we only have the anecdotal evidence surrounding the importance of progeny and statements like this. Sometimes I’m not so sure there is a difference in value between ancients and moderns—at least in academia: we simply strive to get our name remembered with a blessing through affixing it to the front of a book, which we hope will be reprinted often and listed in perpetuity on Amazon (sorry, perhaps a bit too cynical).

Less can be stated about the literary context. Nothing much seems to be added to our understanding of these verses by their placement save the fact that a general picture of the righteous and wicked is being constructed in this collection, and therefore the import of the various righteous-wicked proverbs is strengthened by the collection. With respect to these two sayings in particular, there is clearly an emphasis on being blessed and being a blessing by acting righteously that is the result of the grouping of these similar proverbs.

On wealth (Aḥiqar 207; Sirach 5:1, 8)

. . . אל יאמר עתירא בעתרי הדיר אנה

Let not the rich man say, “In my wealth I am glorious . . .”
break

. . .אל תשען על חילך ואל תאמר יש לאל ידי
אל תבטח על נכסי שקר כי לא יועילו ביום עברה

al-ti-sha-AYN al-chayl-KA v’-al-to-MAR YAYSH le-AYL ya-DEE . . .
al-tiv-TACH al-nich-say SHE-ker KEE lo yo-EE-lu b’-yom ev-ra

Do not rely upon your wealth, and do not say “I have the power!” . . .
Do not trust in deceptive wealth, for it will not profit on the day of wrath.

Here are some proverbs on wealth from Aḥiqar and Sirach. The Aḥiqar proverb points to the wide-spread caution in ANE wisdom literature about the vice of glorying in one’s wealth. Sirach speaks at length on this issue, but I’ve quoted only the first and last verses in the relevant section. The first parallels the sentiment in Aḥiqar quite closely (on the wording of the second part fo Sirach 5:1, cf. Gen 31:29, Prov 3:27, Mic 2:1). The second echoes both the ideas and some of the wording (יועילו) as Prov 10:2, though Sirach has a less ambiguous eschatological concern.