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.

Industriousness (Proverbs 10:4–5)

רָאשׁ עֹשֶׂה כַף־רְמִיָּה וְיַד חָרוּצִים תַּעֲשִׁיר׃
אֹגֵר בַּקַּיִץ בֵּן מַשְׂכִּיל נִרְדָּם בַּקָּצִיר בֵּן מֵבִישׁ׃

RASH o-SE kaf-r’-mee-YA v’-yad-cha-ru-TSEEM ta-a-SHEER
o-GAYR ba-KA-yits bayn-mas-KEEL nir-DAM ba-ka-TSEER bayn-may-VEESH

Poverty a slack hand produces, and an industrious hand enriches.
Whoever gathers in summer is prudent, whoever sleeps at harvest is shameful.

Possible social contexts for these two proverbs are easy to imagine, and their moral message is quite universal: industriousness produces wealth and is characteristic of a wise person (lit., “a son of prudence”—not the Beatles’ Dear Prudence). Typical of the collection in chapters 10–22, both of these proverbs are antithetical, with the contrasting character described in the adjoining line: a slack hand (by metonomy = lazy person) and the one who sleeps at harvest time.

Yesterday I mentioned that the theme of wealth connects the preceding two proverbs (vss. 2 and 3) and these two (vss. 4 and 5), though the theme of righteousness and wickedness is absent from the latter pair. Reading these sayings within their literary context of the preceding two verses, however, lends a moral level to these proverbs by implicitly equating the righteous with the industrious and the wicked with the lazy.

In addition, the agency of the Lord in rewarding just desserts to the wicked and the righteous in vs. 3, implies that industriousness and laziness do not produce their own reward, but are rewarded justly by the Lord himself. In this case, even wealth produced hard work cannot lead to pride—the vice of the rich (see tomorrow on Aḥiqar 109)—but should be recognized as God’s just reward.

Righteousness and wickedness (Proverbs 10:2–3)

לֹא־יֹועִילוּ אֹוצְרֹות רֶשַׁע וּצְדָקָה תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת׃
לֹא־יַרְעִיב יְהוָה נֶפֶשׁ צַדִּיק וְהַוַּת רְשָׁעִים יֶהְדֹּף׃

lo-yo-EE-lu o-ts’-rot-re-SHA u-ts’-da-KA ta-STEEL mi-MA-vet
lo-yar-EEV a-do-NEYE ne-fesh-tsa-DEEK v’-ha-vat-r’-sha-EEM ye-DOF

The treasures of wickedness will not profit; but righteousness will deliver from death.
The Lord will not let the righteous person go hungry, but the craving of the wicked he thwarts.

I’ve decided to work my way through some of the chapters of sentence literature in Proverbs, beginning with chapter 10, and see how far I might follow a particular thread of thought. I’m not interested, as many have been, in necessarily discerning a “strategy” to the collection as much as I’m interested in discerning whether, in lieu of a social context, there might be import to the “literary context” in which ANE proverbs appear.

Commentators have noted the dominance of righteous(ness) and wicked(ness) in chapter 10; however, as I look ahead to chapters 11 and 12, I don’t see this dominance much diminished. What I do find interesting in these verses is the juxtapositioning of two sayings about the righteous and wicked followed by two proverbs on industriousness (vss. 4–5, which I’ll post on tomorrow). What holds them all together? It does not appear to be the theme of righteous(ness) and wicked(ness), but that of wealth.

The first two proverbs are concordant and mutually reinforcing: treasure that is characterized by wickedness—whether gained by wicked business dealings or simply that it is possessed by the wicked—cannot “profit” its owner. The second half provides the eschatological (as in just desserts) interpretation to the first half by its mention of righteousness saving from death.

The theme of wealth is maintained in the second proverb by the mention of hunger and desire. Though lacking the eschatological sense of the previous one, this proverb reinforces the idea that wickedness and righteousness bring their just rewards, but in this case the Lord is credited with handing out the rewards. The proverb thus brings an added layer of meaning to the previous one by its proximity: wickedness and righteousness are not ineffectual and effectual, respectively, due to some characteristic inherent to them; rather, the righteous are inherently in relationship with God, who preserves them in life and saves them from death, while the wicked are fundamentally at odds with God and all their pursuit of success is only so much “kicking against the goads.”

On moral training (Proverbs 10:1)

בֵּן חָכָם יְשַׂמַּח־אָב וּבֵן כְּסִיל תּוּגַת אִמֹּו׃

bayn-cha-CHAM y’-sa-mach-AV u-vayn-k’-SEEL tu-GAT ee-MO

A wise child gladdens a father, and a foolish child grieves their mother.

Although I’m generally disinclined to see great deliberation and interpretive importance in the organization of sayings in the book of Proverbs, I can’t help but see this as a fitting, even if not deliberate, heading to one of the sub-collections of sayings in the book, along with the title “Proverbs of Solomon,” which immediately proceeds it.

For some weeks now I’ve analyzed assorted saying that we would dig out, more or less at random, while sitting around the dinner table. As I look toward teaching the book of Proverbs and biblical wisdom literature over the following weeks in my adjunct course at a local college, I want to turn to a more intentional examination of the sayings. So, I offer the following as a tentative list of some of the issues I’m interested in addressing:

1) The analysis of proverbial sayings is still paramount in my mind. I’ve picked up a few more resources (outside of biblical studies) on this topic—and learned some new vocabulary like paremiological (from paremia “proverb”). I’d like to add a more metaphoric and literary perspective to my fledgling linguistic approach, and it appears that there is very little interaction between modern proverb studies (part of folklorist research) and the study of biblical (and ANE) proverbs.

2) In many ways proverbial wisdom is universal, and so I’m choosing to remain mostly within biblical proverbs. E.g., one of my favorite Filipino proverbs, which could as easily appear in any ANE wisdom collection, is “A command from the king? Run urinating!” I’m going to attempt, however, to incorporate/mention ANE parallels wherever possible, looking for elements specific to ANE wisdom.

3) My overriding personal interest remains largely unanswered in my own mind: How do proverbs, especially in a collection, serve for moral education? That they are pedagogical is the standard explanation I’ve heard for years regarding biblical and ANE wisdom writings. This aim is quite apparent in the instructional literature (e.g., Egyptian instructions, Proverbs 1–9) but less so in the sentence literature. Our use of “living” proverbs certainly does not reflect the sort of moral instruction envisioned by a collection of proverbs; indeed, the question arises whether a proverb loses some of its force taken out of its social context and placed in a literary one. At the very least, a plausible social context for the saying must be reconstructed. Note for instance the typical “moral educational” use of living proverbs: A friend tells you about an exciting business opportunity they are rushing into, and you tell them “Look before you leap.” The choice of that proverb is based on its aptness to the situation at hand, and it gains much of its semantic and educative import from it. Placed in a collection, however, it may well appear juxtaposed to “He who hesitates is lost,” in which case the legitimacy of the saying itself is called into question by the contrast, and no amount of qualification about the “general” nature of proverbs will fully overcome the incongruity in the juxtapositioning of the two sayings.

Short break

I’m out of town most of this week, so the blog will be inactive until next Monday. I tried to convince Colin to post all by himself, but he assured me he would forget!

One good turn brings another (Sirach 3:31)

פועל טוב יקראנו בדרכיו ובעת מוטו ימצא משען

po-AYL TOV yik-RE-nu b’-dar-KAV u-b’-AYT mu-TO yim-TSA mish-AN

Whoever does a good deed, it will find him along the way; at the time he falls, he will find support.

This proverb is not quite equivalent to “one good turn deserves another,” which is a warning against ingratitude. Nor is it quite the same as “Do unto others as you would have them do to you,” which is a warning against being nasty toward others. This proverb seems rather an encouragement to do good with the promise that when you need help it will be there in return. I can only vaguely recall some TV commercial and a country and western song that both based on this idea. Most of the time, however, this sort of think is explained in terms of karma or law of attraction. No doubt Sirach thought instead in terms of God’s justice: everyone receives their “come-uppens,” and for the sages this was generally, and somewhat idealistically, thought to happen in this life.

Contentment (Aḥiqar 136)

אל תבסר זי בעדבך ואל תרגג לכביר זי ימנע מנך

Do not despise that which is not your lot, and do not covet some great thing that is withheld from you.

Contentment has always been a challenge. This proverb warns on the one hand of sour grapes, and on the other hand of jealousy. However given our modern culture of “militant consumerism” (Brueggemann’s term), this notion is radical. No one should have to accept a “lot” in life, nor should I ever have a thing “withheld” from me. If I do, I’ll sue!

At our Ash Wednesday service our priest reminded us that the Day of the Lord does not turn the world “upside down,” as it is often describe, but “right-side up,” back in its proper order. The sages recognized certain things are “proper” and “improper” in a world ordered by God’s wisdom. The role of mortals is to look to God and find contentment in their place in the order of his world. This is not, however, fatalistic; the sages go on to offer sound advice, derived from the wisdom of God and the ages, on how to navigate life successfully. But this instruction cannot begin from a militant consumerist mentality!