Proverbs, Book Of

VIEW:15 DATA:01-04-2020

PROVERBS, BOOK OF.The second book among the Writings is the most characteristic example of the Wisdom literature in the OT. 1. We may adopt the division of the book made by the headings in the Hebrew text as follows:
I. Pro_1:1-33; Pro_2:1-22; Pro_3:1-35; Pro_4:1-27; Pro_5:1-23; Pro_6:1-35; Pro_7:1-27; Pro_8:1-36; Pro_9:1-18, The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel (heading for more than this section). See below.
II. Pro_10:1 to Pro_22:16, The proverbs of Solomon.
III. Pro_22:17 to Pro_24:22, the words of the wise (Pro_22:17-21 forms an introductory poem).
IV. Pro_24:23-34, These also are the sayings of the wise.
V. Pro_25:1-28; Pro_26:1-28; Pro_27:1-27; Pro_28:1-28; Pro_29:1-27, These also are the proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah copied out.
VI. Pro_30:1-33, The words of Agur, etc.
VII. Pro_31:1-9, The words of king Lemuel, etc.
VIII. Pro_31:10 to Pro_31:31, Without heading, but clearly distinct from VII.
Sections I., II., and III. form the body of the book; sections IV. and V. are additions to the earlier portion, and VI., VII., and VIII. are still later additions.
We consider section II. first, because here the typical Hebrew proverb is best seen, especially if chs. 1015 are taken by themselves as IIa. These chapters consist of aphorisms in the form of couplets showing antithetic parallelism (see Poetry). The couplets are wholly detached, and little order is observable in their arrangement. In content they come nearest being popular, even if they are not so actually. In general they show a contented and cheerful view of life. The wise are mentioned, and with admiration, but not as a class or as forming a school of thought or instruction. They are the successful, upright, prosperous men, safe examples in affairs of common life. In IIb the lines are still arranged in distiches, but the antithetic parallelism has largely given way to the synonymous or synthetic variety. This form gives a little more opportunity for classifying and developing the sentiment of the proverb. My son is addressed a few times, but not regularly. Section III. again marks an advance over IIa and IIb. The verses Pro_22:17-21 are a hortatory introduction. There follows a collection of quatrains, instead of couplets. They are maxims with proverbs among them. Consecutive thought has developed. The truths stated are still the simple every-day ones, but they show meditation as well as observation. Section IV. is an appendix to the third, both coming from the Wise. It is very defective in rhythm, and seemingly the text has suffered corruption. In the few verses three themes are treated, chiefly the sluggard. Section V. is easily subdivided. Chs. 2527:22 contain proverbs in the form of comparisons. Chs. 2829 are in the style of section II. Between the two a little piece (Pro_27:23-27) praises the life of a farmer. Section VI. consists of several independent discourses. The heading (Pro_30:1) separates the chapter from the preceding, but otherwise adds little to our knowledge of the origin, for it is wellnigh unintelligible, Even if it consists of proper names, as is most likely, there is no gain from knowing them and nothing more. In Pro_30:15 ff. are several stanzas of peculiar numerical style: there are three things that and four namely Section VII. is a brief manual for a king or judge, though the maxims are rather rudimentary and homely. If there is a temperance lesson, it is only for the king; the advice to the poor and oppressed is very different (see Pro_30:6-7). The remainder of the chapter, section VIII., is noticeable for two things: its alphabetical structure, each couplet beginning with a new letter in regular order, and the unusual subject, the capable housewife. A most delicate tribute is in the omission of any reference to her virtue, which is tacitly assumed, and not even mentioned.
There remains the important section chs. 19. Its position at the head of the book does not show that it was first in point of time. It is clearly a preface, or hortatory introduction. It does not so much give wise counsel of a concrete kind, as praise the wisdom illustrated in the concrete counsels of the following sections. It is studied, philosophical, flowing in style. It addresses My son at the beginning of a new paragraph, exactly as a teacher addresses My hearers as he begins a lecture. In one chapter at least, the eighth, the adoration of wisdom is carried to the limit, and in spite of the fine personification one feels, regretfully, far removed from the plain practical precepts of sections II. and III. In this cosmogonic hymn wisdom is assigned a dignity in the universe hardly inferior to that of the Creator.
Among the various attempts to explain the form in which the book comes to us, perhaps the following will be found as simple as any. We may suppose that the proverbs of Solomon in IIa and IIb were collected separately and then combined in II.; that the words of the wise in III. at first stood by themselves, and were supplemented by IV.; that the two groups, II. and III.IV., were then joined together, becoming known as the proverbs of Solomon; that the collection in V. was attached; that to this book section I. was then prefixed as an introduction, which was thus stamped as the literature of the school of Wisdom. The few remaining chapters, sections VI., VII., and VIII., were added later from the mass of Wisdom literature which must have been in existence, or later came into existence.
2. As for the date of the book, the traditional ascription of parts of it to king Solomon must, of course, be discarded. And with this rejection there disappears any reason for seeking an early date for it. The time when, all things considered, the compilation is best explained, is between b.c. 350 and 150. From the nature of the case it is impossible to fix even approximately the date of the origin of individual couplets. Many of the arguments valid against an early date of compilation are valueless so far as the single proverbs are concerned.
3. The authors of the Wisdom literature do not claim revealed wisdom; their teachings are only practical common sense. They are humanists, basing their morality upon the universal principles underlying all human nature. From this practical interest the view broadens to the wide sweep of ch. 8. Proverbs may be regarded as a manual of conduct, or, as Bruch calls it, an anthology of gnomes. Its observations relate to a number of forms of life, to affairs domestic, agricultural, urban (the temptations of city life), commercial, political, and military (Toy, Proverbs, p. x.).
O. H. Gates.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

prov?ẽrbz:
I. THE BOOK'S ACCOUNT OF ITSELF
1. Title and Headings
2. Authorship or Literary Species?
II. THE SUCCESSIVE COMPILATIONS
1. The Introductory Section
2. The Classic Nucleus
3. A Body of Solicited Counsel
4. Some Left-over Precepts
5. The Hezekian Collection
6. Words of Agur
7. Words of King Lemuel
8. An Acrostic Eulogy of Woman
III. MOVEMENT TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY
1. Liberation of the Mashal
2. Emergence of Basal Principles
3. The Conception of Wisdom
IV. CONSIDERATIONS OF AGE AND LITERARY KINSHIP
1. Under the Kings
2. The Concentrative Point
3. Its Stage in Progressive Wisdom
The Scripture book which in both the Hebrew and the Greek arrangements of the Old Testament Canon immediately succeeds the Psalms. In the Hebrew Canon it stands second in the final or supplementary division called kethūbhı̄m Septuagint Παροιμίαι, Paroimı́ai), ?writings?; placed there probably because it would be most natural to begin this section with standard collections nearest at hand, which of course would be psalms and proverbs. This book is an anthology of sayings or lessons of the sages on life, character, conduct; and as such embodies the distinctively educative strain of Hebrew literature.

I. The Book's Account of Itself.
1. Title and Headings:
At the beginning, intended apparently to cover the whole work, stands the title: ?The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel.? It seemed good to the compilers, however, to repeat, or perhaps retain an older heading, ?The proverbs of Solomon? at Prov 10, as if in some special sense the collection there beginning deserved it; and at Prov 25 still another heading occurs: ?These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.? All these ascribe the proverbs to Solomon; but the heading (Pro_30:1), ?The words of Agur the son of Jakeh; the oracle,? and the heading (Pro_31:1), ?The words of king Lemuel; the oracle which his mother taught him,? indicate that authorship other than that of Solomon is represented; while the mention of ?the words of the wise? (Pro_1:6; Pro_22:17), as also the definite heading, ?These also are sayings of the wise? (Pro_24:23), ascribe parts of the book to the sages in general. The book is confessedly a series of compilations made at different times; confessedly, also, to a considerable extent at least, the work of a number, perhaps a whole guild, of writers.

2. Authorship or Literary Species?:
It is hazardous to argue either for or against a specific authorship; nor is it my intention to do so. The question naturally arises, however, in what sense this book, with its composite structure so outspoken, can lay claim to being the work of Solomon. Does the title refer to actual personal authorship, or does it name a species and type of literature of which Solomon was the originator and inspirer - as if it meant to say ?the Solomonic proverbs?? We may work toward the answer of this question by noting some literary facts.
Outside of the prophets only three of the Old Testament books are provided in the original text with titles; and these three are all associated with Solomon - two of them, Proverbs and the Song of Songs, directly; the third, Ecclesiastes, by an assumed name, which, however, personates Solomon. This would seem to indicate in the composition of these books an unusual degree of literary finish and self-consciousness, a sense on the part of writers or compilers that literature as an art has its claims upon them. The subject-matter of the books, too, bears this out; they are, relatively speaking, the secular books of the Bible and do not assume divine origin, as do law and prophecy. For the original impulse to such literary culture the history directs us to the reign of King Solomon; see 1Ki_4:29-34, where is portrayed, on the part of king and court, an intense intellectual activity for its own sake, the like of which occurs nowhere else in Scripture. The forms then especially impressed upon the literature were the māshāl (proverb) and the song, in both of which the versatile young king was proficient; compare 1Ki_4:32. For the cultivation of the māshāl these men of letters availed themselves of a favorite native form, the popular proverb; but they gave to it a literary mold and finish which would thenceforth distinguish it as the Solomonic māshāl (see PROVERB). This then was the literary form in which from the time of Solomon onward the sages of the nation put their counsels of life, character, conduct; it became as distinctively the mold for this didactic strain of literature as was the heroic couplet for a similar strain in the age of Dryden and Pope.
It is reasonable therefore to understand this title of the Book of Proverbs as designating rather a literary species than a personal authorship; it names this anthology of Wisdom in its classically determined phrasing, and for age and authorship leaves a field spacious enough to cover the centuries of its currency. Perhaps also the proverb of this type was by the term ?of Solomon? differentiated from māshāl of other types, as for instance those of Balaam and Job and Koheleth.

II. The Successive Compilations.
1. The Introductory Section:
That the Book of Proverbs is composed of several collections made at different times is a fact that lies on the surface; as many as eight of these are clearly marked, and perhaps subdivisions might be made. The book was not originally conceived as the development of a theme, or even as a unity; whatever unity it has was an afterthought. That it did come to stand, however, for one homogeneous body of truth, and to receive a name and a degree of articulation as such, will be maintained in a later section (see III, below). Meanwhile, we will take the sections in order and note some of the salient characteristics of each. The introductory section, Proverbs 1 through 9, has the marks of having been added later than most of the rest; and is introductory in the sense of concentrating the thought to the concept of Wisdom, and of recommending the spiritual attitude in which it is to be received. Its style - and in this it is distinguished from the rest of the book - is hortatory; it is addressed to ?my son? (Pro_1:8 and often) or ?my sons? (Pro_4:1; Pro_5:7; Pro_7:24; Pro_8:32), in the tone of a father or a sage, bringing stores of wisdom and experience to the young. The first six verses are prefatory, giving the purpose and use of the whole book. Then Pro_1:7 lays down as the initial point, or spiritual bedrock of Wisdom, the fear of Yahweh, a principle repeated toward the end of this introductory section (Pro_9:10), and evidently regarded as very vital to the whole Wisdom system; compare Job_28:28; Psa_111:10; Sirach 1:14. The effect of this prefatory and theme-propounding matter is to launch the collection of proverbs much after the manner of modern literary works, and the rest of the section bears this out fairly well. The most striking feature of the section, besides its general homiletic tone, is its personification of Wisdom. She is represented as calling to the sons of men and commending to them her ways (Pro_1:20-33; 8:1-21, Pro_8:32-36); she condescends, for right and purity's sake, to enter into rivalry with the ?strange woman,? the temptress, not in secret, but in open and fearless dealing (Prov 7:6 through 8:9; Pro_9:1-6, Pro_9:13-18); and, in a supremely poetic passage (Pro_8:22-31 ), she describes her relation from the beginning with God and with the sons of men. It represents the value that the Hebrew mind came to set upon the human endowment of Wisdom. The Hebrew philosopher thought not in terms of logic and dialectics, but in symbol and personality; and to this high rank, almost like that of a goddess, his imagination has exalted the intellectual and spiritual powers of man. See WISDOM.

2. The Classic Nucleus:
The section Prov 10:1 through 22:16, with the repeated heading ?The proverbs of Solomon?, seems to have been the original nucleus of the whole collection. All the proverbs in this, the longest section of the book, are molded strictly to the couplet form (the one triplet, Pro_19:7, being only an apparent exception, due probably to the loss of a line), each proverb a parallelism in condensed phrasing, in which the second line gives either some contrast to or some amplification of the first. This was doubtless the classic art norm of the Solomonic māshāl.
The section seems to contain the product of that period of proverb-culture during which the sense of the model was a little rigid and severe, not venturing yet to limber up the form. Signs of a greater freedom, however, begin to appear, and possibly two strata of compilation are represented. In Proverbs 10 through 15 the prevailing couplet is antithetic, which embodies the most self-closed circuit of the thought. Out of 184 proverbs only 19 do not contain some form of contrast, and 10 of these are in Proverbs 15. In Prov 16 through 22:16, on the other hand, the prevailing form is the so-called synonymous or amplified couplet, which leaves the thought-circuit more open to illustrative additions. Out of 191 proverbs only 18 are antithetic, and these contain contrasts of a more subtle and hidden suggestion. As to subject-matter, the whole section is miscellaneous; in the first half, however, where the antithesis prevails, are the great elemental distinctions of life, wisdom and folly, righteousness and wickedness, industry and laziness, wise speech and reticence, and the like; while in the second half there is a decided tendency to go farther afield for subtler and less obvious distinctions. In this way they seem to reflect a growing and refining literary development, the gradual shaping and accumulation of materials for a philosophy of life; as yet, however, not articulated or reduced to unity of principle.

3. A Body of Solicited Counsel:
In the short section Prov 22:17 through 24:22, the proverb literature seems for the first time to have become as it were self-conscious - to regard itself as a strain of wise counsel to be reckoned with for its educative value. The section is introduced by a preface (Pro_22:17-21), in which these ?words of the wise? are recommended to some person or delegation, ?that thou mayest carry back words of truth to them that send thee? (Pro_22:21). The counsels seem intended for persons in responsible position, perhaps attached to the court (compare Pro_23:1-3), who, as they are to deal officially with men and affairs, need the prudence, purity, and temperance which will fit them for their duties. As to form, the detached couplet appears only occasionally; the favorite form is the quatrain; but proverbs of a greater number of lines are freely used, and one, the counsel on wine drinking (Pro_23:29-35), runs to 17 lines. In tone and specific counsel the section has many resemblances to the introductory section (Proverbs 1 through 9), and provokes the conjecture that this latter section, as the introduction to a compiled body of Wisdom, was composed not long after it.

4. Some Left-Over Precepts:
The little appendix (Pro_24:23-34) is headed, ?These also are sayings of the wise.? They refer to wise intercourse and ordered industry. The little poem on the sluggard (Pro_24:30-34), with its refrain (Pro_24:33, Pro_24:14), is noteworthy as being apparently one stanza of a poem which is completed with the same refrain in the introductory section (Pro_6:6-11). The stanzas are of the same length and structure; and it would seem the latter named was either discovered later or composed as a supplement to the one in this section.

5. The Hezekian Collection:
The long section (Proverbs 25 through 29) is headed, ?These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.? The collection claims to be only a compilation; but if, as already suggested, we understand the term ?proverbs of Solomon? as equivalent to ?Solomonic proverbs,? referring rather to species than personal authorship, the compilation may have been made not merely from antiquity, but from the archives of the Wisdom guilds. If so, we have a clue to the state of the Wisdom literature in Hezekiah's time. The collection as a whole, unlike secs. 3 and 4, returns predominantly to the classic form of the couplet, but with a less degree of compression and epigram. There is a tendency to group numbers of proverbs on like subjects; note for instance the group on the king (Pro_25:2-7). The most striking-feature of the collection is the prevalence of simile and analogy, and in general the strong figurative coloring, especially in Proverbs 25 through 27; it reads like a new species of proverb when we note that in all the earlier Solomonic sections there are only two clearly defined similes (Pro_10:26; Pro_11:22). In Proverbs 25 through 27 are several proverbs of three, four, or five lines, and at the end (Pro_27:23-27) a charming little poem of ten lines on husbandry. Proverbs 28; 29 are entirely of couplets, and the antithetic proverb reappears in a considerable number. As to subject-matter, the thought of this section makes a rather greater demand on the reader's culture and thinking powers, the analogies being less obvious, more subtle. It is decidedly the reflection of a more literary age than that of section 2.

6. Words of Agur:
Proverbs 30 is taken up with ?the words of Agur the son of Jakeh,? a person otherwise unknown, who disclaims expert knowledge of Wisdom lore (Pro_30:3), and avows an agnostic attitude toward theological speculations, yet shows a tender reverence before the name and unplumbed mystery of Yahweh (Pro_30:6, Pro_30:9, Pro_30:32). His words amount to a plea against a too adventurous, not to say presumptuous, spirit in the supposed findings of human Wisdom, and as such supply a useful makeweight to the mounting pride of the scholar. Yet over this peculiar plea is placed the word ?Massa? (המּשּׂא, ha-massā'); ?burden? or ?oracle,? the term used for prophetic disclosures; and the word for ?said? (?the man said,? הגּבר נאם, ne'um ha-gebher) is the word elsewhere used for mystic or divine utterance. This seems to mark a stage in the self-consciousness of Wisdom when it was felt that its utterances could be ranked by the side of prophecy as a revelation of truth (compare what Wisdom says of herself, Pro_8:14), and could claim the authoritative term ?oracle.? For the rest, apart from the humble reverence with which they are imbued, these words of Agur do not rise to a high level of spiritual thinking; they tend rather to the riddling element, or ?dark sayings? (compare Pro_1:6). The form of his proverbs is peculiar, verging indeed on the artificial; he deals mostly in the so-called numerical proverb (?three things ... yea, four?), a style of utterance paralleled elsewhere only in Pro_6:16-19, but something of a favorite in the later cryptic sayings of the scribes, as may be seen in Pirḳe 'Ābhōth.

7. Words of King Lemuel:
Pro_31:1-9 (possibly the whole chapter should be included) is headed, ?The words of king Lemuel; the oracle which his mother taught him.? Here occurs again the mysterious Word ?oracle,? which would seem to be open to the same interpretation as the one given in the previous paragraph, though some would make this otherwise unknown monarch a king of Massa, and refer to the name of one of the descendants of Ishmael (Gen_25:14), presumably a tribal designation. The Hebrew sages from the beginning were in rivalry and fellowship with the sages of other nations (compare 1Ki_4:30, 1Ki_4:31); and in the Book of Job, the supreme reach of Wisdom utterance, all of the sages, Job included, are from countries outside of Palestine. King Lemuel, if an actual personage, was not a Jew; and probably Agur was not. The words of Lemuel are a mother's plea to her royal son for chastity, temperance and justice, the kingly virtues. The form is the simple Hebrew parallelism, not detached couplets, but continuous.

8. An Acrostic Eulogy of Woman:
The Book of Proverbs ends in a manner eminently worthy of its high standard of sanity and wisdom. Without any heading (it may possibly belong to the ?oracle? that the mother of Lemuel taught her son) the last 22 verses (31:10-31) constitute a single poem in praise of a worthy woman, extolling especially her household virtues. In form these verses begin in the original with the successive 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet; a favorite form of Hebrew verse, as may be seen (in the original) in several of the psalms, notably Ps 119, and in Lamentations 1 through 4.

III. Movement Toward a Philosophy.
It has been much the fashion with modern critics to deny to the Hebrews a truly philosophic mind; this they say was rather the distinctive gift of the Greeks; while for their solution of the problem of life the Hebrews depended on direct revelation from above, which precluded that quasi-abeyance of concepts, that weighing of cosmic and human elements, involved in the commonly received notion of philosophy. This criticism takes account of only one side of the Hebrew mind. It is true they believed their life to be in direct contact with the will and word of Yahweh, revealed to them in terms which could not be questioned; but in the findings and deliverance of their own intellectual powers, too, they had a reliance and confidence which merits the name of an authentic philosophy. But theirs was a philosophy not of speculative world-making, but of conduct and the practical management of life; and it was intuitive and analogical, not the result of dialectical reasoning. Hence, its name wisdom, the solution itself, rather than philosophy, the love of wisdom, the search for solution. This Book of Proverbs, beginning with detached maxims on the elements of conduct, reveals in many suggestive ways the gradual emergence of a philosophy, a comprehensive wisdom, as it were, in the making; it is thus the pioneer book of that Hebrew Wisdom which we see developed to maturer things in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes. Some of its salient stages may here be traced.

1. Liberation of the Mashal:
We may first note it, or the literary preparation for it, in the opening up of the māshāl, or proverb unit, toward added elements of illustration, explanation, amplitude, a development that begins to appear, in the oldest section (the classic nucleus, section 2) at about Proverbs 16. The primitive antithetic māshāl contrasted two aspects of truth in such a way as to leave the case closed; there was nothing for it but to go on to a new subject. This had the good effect of setting over against each other the great elemental antagonisms of life: righteousness and wickedness, obedience and lawlessness, teachableness and perversity, industry and laziness, prudence and presumption, reticence and prating, etc., and so far forth it was a masterly analysis of the essentials of individual and social conduct. As soon, however, as the synonymous and illustrative māshāl prevails, we are conscious of a limbering up and greater penetrativeness of the range of thought; it is open to subtler distinctions and remoter discoveries, and the analogies tend to employ the less direct relationships of cause and effect. This is increased as we go on, especially by the greater call upon the imagination in the figurative tissue of the Hezekian section, and by the decidedly greater tendency to the riddling and paradox element. The māshāl increases in length and amplitude, both by the grouping of similar subjects and by the enlargement from the couplet to the quatrain and the developed poem. All this, while not yet a self-conscious philosophy, is a step on the way thereto.

2. Emergence of Basal Principles:
One solid presupposition of the sages, like an axiom, was never called in question: namely, that righteousness and wisdom are identical, that wickedness of any sort is folly. This imparts at once a kind of prophetic coloring to the Wisdom precepts, well represented by the opening proverb in the original section (after the prefatory one about the wise son), ?Treasures of wickedness profit nothing; but righteousness delivereth from death? (Pro_10:2). Thus from the outset is furnished an uncompromising background on which the fascinating allurements of vice, the crooked ways of injustice and dishonesty, the sober habits of goodness and right dealing, show for what they are and what they tend to. The sages thus put themselves, too, in entire harmony with what is taught by priests and prophets; there is no quarrel with the law or the word; they simply supply the third strand in the threefold cord of instruction (compare Jer_18:18). From this basal presumption other principles, scarcely less axiomatic, come in view: that the fount and spring of wise living is reverence, the fear of Yahweh; that the ensuring frame of mind is teachableness, the precluding attitude perverseness; that it is the mark of wisdom, or righteousness, to be fearless and above board, of wickedness, which is folly, to be crooked and secretive. These principles recur constantly, not, as a system, but in numerous aspects and applications in the practical business of life. For their sanctions they refer naively to the Hebrew ideal of rewards on the one hand - wealth, honor, long life, family (compare Pro_11:31) - and of shame and loss and destruction on the other; but these are emphasized not as direct bestowments or inflictions from a personal Deity, rather as in the law of human nature. The law that evil works its own destruction, good brings its own reward, is forming itself in men's reason as one of the fundamental concepts out of which grew the Wisdom philosophy.

3. The Conception of Wisdom:
From times long before Solomon sagacity in counsel, and. skill to put such counsel into maxim or parable, gave their possessor, whether man or woman, a natural leadership and repute in the local communities (compare 2Sa_14:2; 2Sa_20:16); and Solomon's exceptional endowment showed itself not merely in his literary tastes, but in his ability, much esteemed among Orientals, to determine the merits of cases brought before him for judgment (1Ki_3:16-28), and to answer puzzling questions (1Ki_10:1, 1Ki_10:6, 1Ki_10:7). It was from such estimate of men's intellectual powers, from the recognition of mental alertness, sagacity, grasp, in their application to the practical issues of life (compare Pro_1:1-5), that the conception of Wisdom in its larger sense arose. As, however, the cultivation of such sagacity of utterance passed beyond the pastime of a royal court (compare 1Ki_4:29-34) into the hands of city elders and sages it attained to greatly enhanced value; note how the influence of such sage is idealized (Job 29:7-25). The sages had definite calling and mission of their own, more potent perhaps than belonged to priests and prophets; the frequent reference to the young and the ?simple? or immature in the Book of Prov would indicate that they were virtually the schoolmasters and educators of the nation. As such, working as they did in a fellowship and collaboration with each other, the subject-matter with which they dealt would not remain as casual and miscellaneous maxims, but work toward a center and system of doctrine which could claim the distinction of an articulated philosophy of life, and all the more since it was so identified with the great Hebrew ideal of righteousness and truth. We have already noted how this sense of the dignity and value of their calling manifested itself in the body of precepts sent in response to solicitation (3 above), with its appendix (4 above) (Prov 22:17 through 24:34). It was not long after this stage of Wisdom-culture, I think, that a very significant new word came into their vocabulary, the word (תּוּשיּה, tūshı̄yāh, a puzzle to the translators, variously rendered ?sound wisdom,? ?effectual working,? and called by the lexicographers ?a technical term of the Wisdom literature,? BDB, under the word). Its earliest appearance, and the only one except in the introductory section (Pro_18:1), is where the man who separates himself from others' opinions and seeks his own desire is said to quarrel with all tūshı̄yāh. The word seems to designate Wisdom in its subjective aspect, as an authentic insight or intuition of truth, the human power to rise into the region of true revelation from below, as distinguished from the prophetic or legal word spoken directly from above. Outside of Proverbs and Job the word occurs only twice: once in Mic_6:9, and once in Isa_28:29, in which latter case the prophet has deliberately composed a passage (Isa_28:23-29) in the characteristic māshāl idiom, and attributed that strain of insight to Yahweh. Evidently there came a time in the culture of Wisdom when its utterances attained in men's estimate to a parity with utterances direct from the unseen; perhaps this explains why Agur's and Lemuel's words could be boldly ranked as oracles (see above, 6 and 7). At any rate, such a high distinction, an authority derived from intimacy with the creative work of Yahweh (Pro_8:30, Pro_8:31), is ascribed to Wisdom (חכמה, ḥokhmāh, in the introductory section; ?counsel is mine,? Wisdom is made to say, ?and tūshı̄yāh? (Pro_8:14). Thus the Book of Proverbs reveals to us a philosophy, as it were, in the making and from scattered counsels attaining gradually to the summit where the human intellect could place its findings by the side of divine oracles.

IV. Considerations of Age and Literary Kinship.
To get at the history of the Book of Proverbs, several inquiries must be raised. When were the proverbs composed? The book, like the Book of Psalms, is confessedly an anthology, containing various accumulations, and both by style and maturing thought bearing the marks of different ages. When were the successive compilations made? And, finally, when did the strain of literature here represented reach that point of self-conscious unity and coordination which justified its being reckoned with as a strain by itself and choosing the comprehensive name Wisdom? What makes these inquiries hard to answer is the fact that these proverbs are precepts for the common people, relating to ordinary affairs of the village, the market, and the field, and move in lines remote from politics and dynastic vicissitudes and wars. They are, to an extent far more penetrative and pervasive than law or prophecy, the educative literature on which the sturdy rank and file of the nation was nourished. 'Where there is no vision, the people let loose,' says a Hezekian proverb (Pro_29:18); but so they are also when there is no abiding tonic of social convention and principle. Precisely this latter it is which this Book of Prey in a large degree reveals; and in course of time its value was so felt that, as we have seen, it could rank itself as an asset of life by the side of vision. It represents, in a word, the human movement toward self-directiveness and self-reliance, without supine dependence on ruler or public sentiment (compare Pro_29:25, Pro_29:26). When and how was this sane and wholesome communal fiber developed?

1. Under the Kings:
When Solomon and his court made the māshāl an elegant fad, they builded better than they knew. They gave to the old native form of the proverb and parable, as reduced to epigrammatic mold and polish, the eclat of a popular literature. This was done orally at first (Solomon spoke his proverbs, 1Ki_4:32, 1Ki_4:33); but the recording of such carefully expressed utterances could not be long delayed; perhaps this brief style coupe was the most natural early exercise in the new transition from the unwieldly cuneiform to the use of papyrus and a more flexible alphabet, which probably came in with the monarchy. At any rate, here was the medium for a practical didactic literature, applied to the matters of daily life and intercourse to which in Solomon's time the nation was enthusiastically awake. There is no valid reason for denying to Solomon, or at least to his time, the initiation of the Solomonic māshāl; and if, as has been suggested, the name ?proverbs of Solomon? designates rather literary species than personal authorship, the title of the whole book (Pro_1:1), as well as the headings of sections (Pro_10:1; Pro_25:1), may be given in entire good faith, whatever the specific time or personal authorship of the utterances. Nor is there anything either in recorded history or the likelihood of the case to make improbable that the activity of the ?men of Hezekiah? means just what is said; these men of letters were adding this supplementary collection (Prov 25 through 29) to a body of proverbs that already existed and were recognized as Solomon's. This would put the composition of the main body of the Proverbs (chapters 10 through 29) prior to the reign of Hezekiah. They represent therefore the chief literary instruction available to the people in the long period of the Kings from Solomon onward, a period which otherwise was very meagerly supplied. The Mosaic Law, as we gather from the finding of the Law in the time of Josiah (2 Ki 22), was at best a sequestered thing in the keeping - or neglect - of priests and judges; the prophetic word was a specific message for great national emergencies; the accumulations of sacred song were the property of the temple and the cult; what then was there for the education of the people? There were indeed the folk-tales and catechetical legends of their heroic history; but there were also, most influential of all, these wise sayings of the sages, growing bodies of precept and parable, preserved in village centers, published in the open places by the gate (compare Job_29:7), embodying the elements of a common-sense religion and citizenship, and representing views of life which were not only Hebrew, but to a great extent international among the neighbor kingdoms. Understood so, these Solomonic proverbs furnish incomparably the best reflection we have of the religious and social standards of the common people, during a period otherwise meagerly portrayed. And from it we can understand what a sterling fiber of character existed after all, and how well worth preserving for a unique mission in the world, in spite of the idolatrous corruptions that invaded the sanctuaries, the self-pleasing unconcern of the rulers and the pessimistic denunciations of the prophets.

2. The Concentrative Point:
For the point in the Hebrew literary history when these scattered Solomonic proverbs were recognized as a homogeneous strain of thought and the compilations were made and recommended as Wisdom, we can do no better, I think, than to name the age of Israel's literary prime, the age of Hezekiah. The ?men of Hezekiah? did more than append their supplementary section (Proverbs 25 through 29); the words ?these also? (גּאלּה, gam'ēlleh) in their heading imply it. See HEZEKIAH, THE MEN OF.
I apprehend the order and nature of their work somehow thus: Beginning with the classic nucleus (Prov 10 through 22:16) (see above, II., 2.), which may have come to them in two subsections (Proverbs 10 through 15; 16 through 22:16), they put these together as the proverbs most closely associated with Solomon, without much attempt at systematizing, substantially as these had accumulated through the ages in the rough order of their developing form and thought; compiling thus, in their zeal for the literary treasures of the past, the body of educational literature which lay nearest at hand, a body adapted especially, though not exclusively, to the instruction of the young and immature. This done, there next came to their knowledge a remarkable body of ?words of the wise? (Prov 22:17 through 24:22), which had evidently been put together by request as a vade mecum for some persons in responsible position, and which were prefaced by a recommendation of them as ?words of truth? designed to promote ?trust in Yahweh? (Pro_22:19-21) - which latter, as we know from Isaiah, was the great civic issue of Hezekiah's time. With this section naturally goes the little appendix of ?sayings of the wise? (Pro_24:23-34), added probably at about the same time. These two sections, which seem to open the collection to matter beyond the distinctive Solomonic māshāl, are, beyond the rest of the book, in the tone of the introductory section (Proverbs 1 through 9), which latter, along with the Hezekian appendix (Proverbs 25 through 29), was added, partly as a new composition, partly as incorporating some additional findings (compare for instance the completion of the poem on the sluggard, Pro_6:6-11). Thus, by the addition of this introductory section, the Book of Proverbs was recognized as a unity, provided with a preface and initial proposition (Pro_1:1-6, Pro_1:7), and launched with such hortatory material as had already, on a smaller scale, introduced the third section. This part not only contains the praise of Wisdom as a human endowment, sharing in the mind and purpose of the divine (Pro_8:22-31), but it has become aware also of the revelatory value of tūshı̄yāh (Pro_2:7; Pro_3:21; Pro_8:14), or chastened intuition (see above, III, 3), and dares to aspire, in its righteous teachableness, to the intimacy or secret friendship of Yahweh (סודו, ṣōdhō, Pro_3:32). All this indicates the holy self-consciousness to which Wisdom has attained.
I see no cogent reason for postponing the substantial completion of the Book of Proverbs beyond the time of Hezekiah. The words of Agur and of King Lemuel, with the final acrostic poem, may be later additions; but their difference in tone and workmanship is just as likely to be due to the fact that they are admitted, in the liberal spirit of the compilers, from foreign stores of wisdom. For spiritual clarity and intensity they do not rise to the height of the native Hebrew consciousness; and they incline to an artificial structure which suggests that the writer's interest is divided between sincere tūshı̄yāh and literary skill. For the sake of like-minded neighbors, however, something may be forgiven.

3. Its Stage in Progressive Wisdom:
It is too early in the history of Wisdom to regard this Book of Proverbs as an articulated and coordinated system. It is merely what it purports to be, a collected body of literature having a common bearing and purpose; a literature of reverent and intelligent self-culture, moving among the ordinary relations of life, and not assuming to embody any mystic disclosures of truth beyond the reach of human reason. As such, it has a vocabulary and range of ideas of its own, which distinguishes it from other strains of literature. This is seen in those passages outside of the Book of Proverbs which deliberately assume, for some specific purpose, the Wisdom dialect. In Isa_28:23-29, the prophet, whom the perverse rulers have taunted with baby-talk (Isa_28:9, Isa_28:10), appeals to them with the characteristic Wisdom call to attention (Isa_28:23), and in illustrations drawn from husbandry proves to them that this also is from Yahweh of hosts, 'who is transcendent in counsel, preeminent in tushı̄yah' (Isa_28:29) - teaching them thus in their own vaunted idiom. In Mic_6:9-15, similarly, calling in tūshı̄yāh to corroborate prophecy (?the voice of Yahweh,? יהוה קול, ḳōl Yahweh, ותוּשׁיּה, wethūshı̄yāh, Mic_6:9), the prophet speaks of the natural disasters that men ought to deduce from their abuse of trade relations, evidently appealing to them in their own favorite strain of thinking. Both these passages seem to reflect a time when the Wisdom dialect was prevalent and popular, and both are concerned to call in sound human intuition as an ally of prophecy. At the same time, as prophets have the right to do, they labor to give revelation the casting vote; the authentic disclosure of truth from Yahweh is their objective, not the mere luxury of making clever observations on practical life. All this coincides, in the Wisdom sphere, with what in Isaiah's and Micah's time was the supreme issue of state, namely trust in Yahweh, rather than in crooked human devices (compare Isa_28:16; Isa_29:15); and it is noteworthy that this is the venture of Wisdom urged by the editors of Proverbs in their introductory exhortations (compare Pro_22:19; Pro_3:5-8). In other words, these editors are concerned with inducing a spiritual attitude; and so in their literary strain they make their book an adjunct in the movement toward spirituality which Isaiah is laboring to promote. As yet, however, its findings are still in the peremptory stage, stated as absolute and unqualified truths; it has not reached the sober testing of fact and interrogation of motive which it must encounter in order to become a seasoned philosophy of life. Its main pervading thesis - that righteousness in the fear of God is wisdom and bound for success, that wickedness is fatuity and bound for destruction - is eternally sound; but it must make itself good in a world where so many of the enterprises of life seem to come out the other way, and where there is so little appreciation of spiritual values. Nor is the time of skepticism and rigid test long in coming. Two psalms of this period (as I apprehend) (Psalms 73 and 49) concern themselves with the anomaly of the success of the wicked and the trials of the righteous; the latter pointedly adopting the Wisdom or māshāl style of utterance (Psa_49:3, Psa_49:4), both laboring to induce a more inward and spiritual attitude toward the problem. It remains, however, for the Book of Job to take the momentous forward step of setting wisdom on the unshakable foundation of spiritual integrity, which it does by subjecting its findings to the rigid test of fact and its motives to a drastic Satanic sifting. It is thus in the Book of Job, followed later by the Book of Ecclesiastes, that the Wisdom strain of literature, initiated by the Proverbs of Solomon, finds its Old Testament culmination.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Proverbs, Book Of
the 20th book of the Old Test., according to the arrangement of the English Bible, where it is placed between the Psalms and Ecclesiastes, doubtless from its presumed relation to the other works of Solomon; and in the Hebrew Bible it likewise follows the Psalms as part of the Kethubim, or Hagiographa. In the German MSS. of the Hebrew Old Test. the Proverbs are placed between the Psalms and Job, while in the Spanish MSS., which follow the Masorah, the order is Psalms, Job, Proverbs. This latter is the order observed in the Alexandrian MS. of the Sept. Melito, following another Greek MS., arranges the Hagiographa thus: Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, as in the list made out by the Council of Laodicea; and the same order is given by Origen, except that the book of Job is separated from the others by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. But our present arrangement existed in the time of Jerome (see Prtf. in Libr. Regum, iii: Tertius ordo ἁγιόγραφα possidet. Et primus liber incipit ab Job. Secundus a David....' Tertius est Solomon. tres libros habens: Proverbia, quae illi parabolas, id est Masaloth appellant: Ecclesiastes, id est,'Coeleth: Canticum Canticorum, quem titulo Sir Asirim prmnotant). In the Peshito Syriac, Job is placed before Joshua, while Proverbs and Ecclesiastes follow the Psalms, and are separated from the Son Song Songs by the book of Ruth. Gregory of Nazianzum, apparently from the exigencies of his verse, arranges the writings of Solomon in this order: Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Proverbs. Pseudo Epiphanius places Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. and Song of Songs between the 1James , 2 d books of Kings and the minor prophets. The following article treats of the book both from an internal and an external point of view. SEE BIBLE.
I. Title. As in the Pentateuch, the book of Proverbs takes its Hebrew title from its opening words מַשְׁלֵי, שְׁלֹמֹה, or מַשְׁלֵי, mishly, simply. From this are directly derived the titles it bears in the Sept. παροιμίαι, Σαλομῶντος) and Vulgate (Libel Proverbiorum, quem Hebraei Misle cappellant), and the name by which it is universally known in English. Another title, perlalps more appropriate to the book as a whole, is derived from its chief subject, Wisdom. In the Tosaphoth to Baba Bathra (fol. 14 b), we find Proverbs and Ecclesiastes combined under the name סֵפֶר חָכְמָה, the book of wisdom, and this title appears to have passed thence into the early Church. Clemens Roman. (Lj. ad Coo-. i, 57) when quoting i, 23-31 says, οὕτως λέγει ἡ πανάρετος σοφία, a name which, according to Eusebius (H. E. 4:22), was adopted by Hegesippus. Irenteus, and the whole band of the ancients, following the unwritten Jewish tradition, and by Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii, § 22). It is styled by Gregory Naz. (Orat. xi) παιδαγωγικὴ σοφία, and by Dion. Alex. σοφὴ βίβλος. In the catalogue of canonical books compiled by Melito of Sardis preserved by Eusebius (H. E. 4:26), we find Παρ. Σαλομ. ἡ καὶ Σοφία, a name which, as well as Sopientia, is of frequent occurrence in the early fathers (see Cotelerius in Clem. Rom. l.c.; Vales. ad Euseb. l.c.), though by no means restricted to the book of Proverbs, being equally used. as Cotelerius proves, of Ecclesiasticus and The Wisdom of Solomon, a circumstance from which some confusion has arisen.
The word מָשָׁל, mashal. by which the so-called Proverbs of Solomon are designated (Pro_1:1; Pro_1:6; Pro_10:1; Pro_25:1; and 1Ki_4:32 [5:12]), is more appropriately translated in the Vulgate parabola. It is akin to the verb מָשִׁל, corresponding with the Arabic mnathala and the Syriac methal, to be like, and primarily signifies a comparison, similitude, parable (Eze_17:2; Eze_24:3); whence it easily passed to those pithy, sententious maxims so often in the East appearing in the form of a terse comparison, of which many are to be found in the book before us e.g. Pro_26:1-3; Pro_26:6-9; Pro_26:11; Pro_26:14; Pro_26:17 and then to proverbs in general, whether containing a similitude or not (1Sa_10:12; 1Sa_24:13 [14]; Ecc_12:9). Its scope was still further enlarged by its application to longer compositions of a poetical and figurative character e.g. that of Balaam (Num_23:7; Num_23:18, etc., and Job_27:1; comp. Psa_49:5; Psa_78:2), and particularly to taunting songs of triumph over fallen enemies-e.g. against the king of Babylon (Isa_14:4), the Chlalleans (Hab_2:6 : comp. also Mic_2:4; Deu_28:37; 1Ki_9:7). SEE PROVERB.
But the book of Proverbs, according to the introductory verses which describe its character, contains, besides several varieties of the mashal, sententious sayings of other kinds, mentioned in 1:6. The first of these is the חַידָה, chidah, rendered in the A.V. dark saying, dark speech, hard question, riddle, and once (Hab_2:6) proverb. It is applied to Samson's riddle (Judges 14), to the hard questions with which the queen of Sheba plied Solomon (1Ki_10:1; 2Ch_9:1), and is used almost synonymously with marshal in Eze_17:2, and in Psa_49:4 (5); Psa_78:2, in which last passages the poetical character of both is indicated. The word appears to denote a knotty, intricate saying, the solution of which demanded experience and skill: that it was obscure is evident from Num_12:8. In addition to the chidah was the מְלַיצָה, melitsah (Pro_1:6, A.V. the interpretation, marg. an eloquent speech), which occurs in Hab_2:6 in connection both with chidch and marshal. It has been variously explained as a mocking, taunting speech (Ewald); or a speech dark and involved, such as needed a melits, or interpreter (comp. Gen_42:23; 2Ch_32:31; Job_33:23; Isa_43:27); or again, as by Delitzsch (Der Prophet Htbclukmk, p. 59), a brilliant or splendid saying (Glanz-oder Vohlrede, oratio splendida, elecyas, lumninibus ornata). This last interpretation is based upon the usage of the word in modern Hebrew, but it certainly does not appear appropriate to the Proverbs; and the first explanation, which Ewald adopts, is as little to the point. It is better to understand it as a dark, enigmatical saying, which, like the mashal, might assume the character of sarcasm and irony, though not essential to it. SEE PARABLE.
As might be expected from the nature of the work contemplated, the proverbs before us almost exclusively bear reference to the affairs of this life; but while a future existence is not formally brought to view, yet the consciousness of such an existence runs throughout, and forms the basis on which many of the strongest, most decisive. and oft-repeated declarations are made. For example, Pro_11:7 has no meaning except on the supposition that the writer believed in a future life, where, if not here, the hope and expectation of good men should be realized. If death were, in his judgment, annihilation, it would be equally the overthrow of the expectation of the righteous as of the wicked. See also, as affording similar indication, Pro_14:32; Pro_23:17-18. SEE IMMORTALITY.
II. Canonicity. The canonical authority of the book of Proverbs has never been called in question, except among the Jews themselves. We learn from the Talmud (Shabbath, fol. 30 b) that the school of Shammai, thus early adopting the principle of the free handling of Scripture, was led by some apparent contradictions in the book (e.g. Pro_26:4-5) to question its inspiration, and to propose to cast it out of the canon. It is indeed certain, if we credit the Jewish tradition, that it did not at once take its place on a level with the other canonical Scriptures, but, like the Antilegomena of the New Test., remained for a time in suspense. According to Wolf (Bibl. Hebr. 2, 119) and Zunz (Gott. Vor'traag. p. 14), it was not till the period of the Persian rule that the men of the great synagogue admitted it to an equal rank with the other Hagiographa. In the remarkable passage of the Talmud, however, which contains the most ancient opinion of the Jews on the formation of the Old-Test. canon (Baba Bathra, p. 14, apud Westcott, Bible in the Church, p. 36), its recognition is fixed earlier: the Proverbs ( Meshalim) being included with Isaiah, Canticles ( Shir Hashirim), and Ecclesiastes ( Koheleth) in the memorial word Jamshak, specifying the books written i.e. reduced to writing-by Hezekiah and his learned men. With the trifling exception mentioned above, its right to a place in the canon has never been questioned since its admission into it, and there is no book of Holy Scripture whose authority is more unshaken. The amount of inspiration in the book has been a matter of speculation since the days of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who believed that the wisdom contained in it was that of Solomon only, not of the Spirit of God; even as some of the rabbins found in Ecclesiastes no divine wisdom, but merely that of Solomon. Leaving such vain and impracticable distinctions, the canonical authority of the book is attested to us by the frequent use of it in the New Test. The following is a list of the principal passages:
Pro_1:16 Rom_3:10; Rom_3:15.
Pro_3:7 Rom_12:16.
Pro_3:11-12 Heb_12:5-6; Rev_3:19.
Pro_3:34 Jam_4:6.
Pro_10:12 1Pe_4:8. *
Pro_11:31 1Pe_4:18.
Pro_17:13 Rom_12:17; 1Th_5:15; 1Pe_3:9.
Pro_17:27 Jam_1:19.
Pro_20:9 1Jn_1:8.
Pro_20:20 Mat_15:4; Mar_7:10.
Pro_22:8 (Sept.) 2Co_9:7. *
Pro_25:21-22 Rom_12:20. *
Pro_26:11 2Pe_2:22.
Pro_27:1 Jam_4:13-14; Jam_4:16.
Of these only those marked with an asterisk are actual quotations; in the others there is a more or less direct allusion. SEE WISDOM PERSONIFIED.
III. Divisions. The thirty-one chapters of the book of Proverbs may be roughly divided into four sections:
1. The hortatory introduction (1-9);
2. The first collection of the Proverbs of Solomon, properly so called, with its appendices (10-24);
3. The second collection, compiled by Hezekiah's scribes (25-29);
4. An appendix by different writers.
1. The first of these sections has no continuous connection, and is hardly capable of any very accurate subdivision. The separate chapters form in some instances a connected whole (e.g. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9); sometimes the connection does not extend bevond a few verses (e.g. Pro_3:1-10; Pro_3:13-26; Pro_4:14-19; Pro_6:1-11). There is little coherence between the separate chapters, and little unity beyond that of the general subject or the mode of treating it; so that if one chapter were to be removed, the organization of the whole would not be affected, and it would hardly be missed. Ewald, however, who, somewhat in defiance of the internal evidence, looks on this portion as an original whole, thoroughly connected, and cast, as it were, at one gush, after the general introduction (Pro_1:1-7) discovers three subdivisions, marked as well by the contents as by the position of the imperative verb at the beginning of the sections (e.g. Pro_1:8; Pro_4:1; Pro_6:20); while in the smaller divisions mi son stands before the verb (e.g. Pro_1:10; Pro_1:15; Pro_2:1; Pro_3:1; Pro_3:11; Pro_3:20; Pro_4:21, etc.). Ewald's subdivisions are
(1) a general admonition to the pursuit of wisdom, not fully completed, but running off into particulars (Proverbs 1:8-3);
(2) an exhaustive enumeration of the particular points of his admonition (Pro_4:1 to Pro_6:29), until
(3) the discourse, gradually rising in power and grandeur, at last attains an almost lyrical flight (Pro_6:20-29). According to Delitzsch (in Herzog's Encyklop.) this section is divisible into fifteen separate strains
(1) Pro_1:7-19;
(2) Pro_1:20-33;
(3) Proverbs 2,
(4) Pro_3:1-18;
(5) Pro_3:19-26;
(6) Pro_3:27-35,
(7) Pro_4:1 to Pro_5:6;
(8) Pro_5:7-23;
(9) Pro_6:1-5,
(10) Pro_6:6-11,
(11) Pro_6:12-19;
(12) Pro_6:20-35;
(13) Proverbs 7;
(14) Proverbs 8;
(15) Proverbs 9.
2. The second section (10-24) evidently contains three subdivisions
(a) the collection of unconnected proverbs or gnomes (Pro_10:1-22; Pro_10:16);
(b) the words of the wise (comp. Pro_1:6; Ecc_9:7; Ecc_12:11), consisting of a more connected series of maxims, with a hortatory preface recalling the style of the first section (Pro_22:17; Pro_24:22);
(c) a shorter appendix of proverbial sayings, with the title these also belong to the wise, ending with a description of a sluggard (Pro_24:23-34).
3. The third section is a continuous series of gnomic sayings without any subdivision (Proverbs 25-29).
4. The fourth section, like the second, separates into three parts
(a) the words of Agur, a collection of proverbial and enigmatical sayings (30),
(b) the words of king Lemuel (Pro_31:1-9); and
(c) a short alphabetical poem in praise of a virtuous woman (Pro_31:10-31).
IV. History of the Text. The variations from the existing Masoretic text of the book of Proverbs presented by the versions of the Sept., the Peshito- Syriac, the argum, and to some extent by the Vulgate, bear witness to the former existence of copies differing in many and not unimportant points from that which has become the authoritative text. The text, as preserved in these ancient versions, differs from that of our Hebrew Bibles both in excess and defect. They contain clauses, verses, and sometimes paragraphs not to be found in our extant copies, for the existence of which it is difficult to account, unless they formed part of the book which was before the translators; while other portions are wanting, for the absence of which no sufficient account can be given, except that they were not read in the ancient Hebrew MSS. they employed. The very large number of minor discrepancies, both in language and arrangement, which we meet with, all tend to confirm this view, and it well deserves consideration what influence these variations, which every student knows are not confined to this book, should have on the ordinarily received hypothesis of the integrity and purity of the present Hebrew text. This, however, is not the place for the prosecution of this investigation. We shall content ourselves with pointing out the principal points of variation.
1. To commence with the Sept., the earliest of the existing versions. The translation of this book, like that of Job, proves a more competent acquaintance with the Greek language and literature than is usual with the Alexandrine translators. The rendering is more free than literal, giving what the writer conceived to be the general spirit of the passage without strict adherence to the actual words. Bertheau remarks that the version of this book appears to have been undertaken rather with a literary than a religious object, as it was not read in the synagogues or required for their internal regulation. It is to this freedom of rendering that not a few of the apparent discrepancies are due, while there are others which are attributable to carelessness, misconception of the writer's meaning, or even possibly to arbitrary alterations on the part of the translators. In some cases, also, we find two incompatible translations fused into one e.g. Pro_6:25; Pro_16:26; Pro_23:31. Of the majority, however, of the variations no explanation can be offered but that they represent a different original, and therefore deserve consideration for the history of the text.
In the first division (1-9) these variations are less considerable than in the second. Two verses appended to ch. 4 remove the abruptness of the close and complete the sense. To the simile of the ant (6:8), that of the bee is added. The insertion after 8:21 seems out of place, and disturbs the continuity. In ch. 9 there are two considerable additions to the description of the wise and foolish women, which seem to complete the sense in a very desirable manner. The variations are much more considerable in the section 10-24. A large number of verses are wanting (Pro_11:4; Pro_13:6; Pro_16:1-4; Pro_18:23-24; Pro_19:1-2; Pro_20:14-19; Pro_21:5; Pro_22:6; Pro_23:23 which comes in very awkwardly in the Hebrew text; Pro_24:8); the arrangement of others is dislocated e.g. ch. 15 closes with Pro_24:29, Pro_24:30; Pro_24:32-33 standing at the beginning of ch. 16, while a verse very similar to Pro_24:31 is found after Pro_16:17; Pro_19:3 stands as the last verse of ch. 18; in ch. 20 Pro_19:20-22 come between Pro_19:9-10. The most extraordinary dislocation, hardly to be ascribed to anything but an error of the scribe, appears in ch. 24. After Pro_19:22 is introduced Pro_29:27, to which succeed four distichs descriptive of the wrath of a king and urging attention to the writer's words, not found in the Hebrew. We then find 30-31, 9 (i.e. the prophecy of Agur and of Lemuel), with the remainder of ch. 24 foisted in between Pro_29:14-15 of ch. 30. The remainder of ch. 31, the acrostic on a virtuous woman, stands in its right place at the end of the book. The additions in this section are also numerous and important. We find proverbs intercalated between the following verses: Pro_10:4-5; Pro_11:16-17 (by which a very imperfect antithesis in the Hebrew is rectified); Pro_12:11-14; Pro_13:9-10; Pro_13:13-14 (found in the Vulgate, Pro_14:15-16); Pro_14:22-23; Pro_15:5-6; Proverbs 18, 19, 27, 28; Proverbs 28, 29; Pro_17:6-7; Proverbs 16, 17; Pro_18:22-23; Pro_19:7-8; Pro_22:8-9 (found with slight variations 2Co_9:7); 2Co_9:9-10; 2Co_9:14-15. In the dislocated ch. 16 five or perhaps six new proverbs appear. Intercalated proverbs are also found in the section 25-29 e.g. Pro_25:10-11; Proverbs 20, 21; Pro_26:11-12 (found also in Ecclesiastes 4:21), Pro_27:20-21; Pro_21:22; Pro_29:25-26. Besides these, a careful scrutiny will discover a large number of smaller interpolations throughout, many of which are only explanatory clauses.
To specify the words and clauses which vary from the Hebrew would carry us far beyond our limits. For these and the comparison of the two versions generally, the student may be referred to Jager, Observ. in Prov. Salom. vers. Alex., and Schleusner, Opusc. Critic. In many of these cases the Sept. has probably preserved the true reading (e.g. 10:10, b); but, on the whole, Ewald and Bertheau agree that the Masoretic text is the better and purer.
2. The Peshito-Syriac version, like the Sept., while it agrees with the Hebrew text generally, presents remarkable deviations in words and clauses, and contains whole verses of which there is no trace in the Hebrew. Some of the variations only prove a different interpretation of the text, but others are plainly referable to a difference in the text itself (e.g. Pro_7:22 sq.; Pro_15:4-15; Pro_19:20; Pro_21:16; Pro_22:21, etc.), and thus confirm the view that at the time the version was executed i.e. anterior to the 4th century the present Hebrew text was not universally recognised.
3. The Vulgate translation of Proverbs, hastily executed by Jerome in three days (together with Ecclesiastes and Canticles), offers largely the same phenomena as the Sept. version. Many of the additions of the Sept. are to be found in it e.g. Pro_10:4; Pro_12:11; Pro_12:13; Pro_15:5; Pro_15:27 (comp. Pro_16:6); 16:5, etc.; and in one or two instances it has indepenennt additions e.g. Pro_14:21; Pro_18:8. There can be little doubt that in these points it preserves an authentic record of the state of the text at a period anterior to any existing Hebrew MS.
4. We may conclude this hasty review with the Targum. That on the Proverbs is considered by Zunz (p. 64), on lingutistic grounds, to be nearly contemporaneous with those on the Psalms and Job, and is assigned by Bertheau to the latter half of the 7th century, though it is not quoted before the 12th. The version is close, and on the whole follows the original text very faithfully, though with some remarkable deviations (the following are quoted by Bertheau Pro_7:22; Pro_10:3; Pro_14:14; Pro_25:1; Pro_25:20, etc.). Its similarity to the Peshito is too remarkable to be accidental (Pro_1:2-3; Pro_1:5-6; Pro_1:8; Pro_1:10; Pro_1:12-13; Pro_2:9-10; Pro_2:13-15; Pro_3:2-9, etc.), and is probably to be accounted for by the supposition of a subsequent recension of the text, which is very corrupt, based upon that version. See Wolf, Biblioth. Hebrews 2, 1176; Dathe, De Rat. Consens. rems. Chald. et Syr. Proverbs Salom.; Zunz, Gottesdienst. Vortrag.
V. Form and Style.
1. The difference of style and structure between the first and second divisions is apparent on the most cursory perusal. Instead of the detached gnomes of the latter, we find a succession of hortatory addresses, varying in length and differing in subject, though for the most part on the same plan and with the same general object, in which the writer does not so much define wisdom as enlarge upon the blessings to be derived from its possession, and the lasting misery which is the consequence of the violation of its precepts, and in the most powerful and moving language urge the young to the earnest pursuit of it as the best of all good things. Whether originally written as a proem or introduction or not, it is certainly well fitted to occupy its present place, and prepare the mind of the reader for the careful consideration of the moral and practical precepts which follow. The style is of a much higher and more dignified character than in the succeeding portions; the language is more rhetorical; it abounds in bold personifications and vivid imagery. The concluding chapters (8, 9) are cast in the grandest mould of poetry, and are surpassed in true sublimity by few portions of Holy Scripture. At the same time, when this portion is viewed as a whole, a want of artistic skill is discoverable. The style is sometimes diffuse and the repetitions wearisome. The writer returns continually on his steps, treating of the same topic again and again, without any apparent plan or regular development of the subject.
As regards the form, we find but little regularity of structure. The paragraphs consist sometimes of no more than two or three verses (Pro_1:8-9; Pro_3:11-12; Pro_6:1-19); sometimes the same thought is carried through a long succession of verses, or event an entire chapter (Pro_2:1-22; Pro_5:1-20; Pro_6:20-35; Proverbs 7, 8, 9). A very favorite arrangement is a paragraph of ten verses (Pro_1:10-19; Pro_3:1-10; Proverbs 11-20; Pro_4:10-19; Pro_8:12-21; Proverbs 22-31), a form which, if we may trust the Sept. version, existed also in the copies employed by them in Pro_4:20-27; Pro_5:6-11; and, according to the Peshito-Syriac, in Pro_4:1-9. The parallelism of members is sometimes maintained, but frequently neglected. The parallels are usually synonymous (e.g. Pro_1:8-9; Pro_1:11-12, etc.). The antithetical parallels found in Pro_3:32-35 belong to a series of gnomes which disturb the harmony of the passage, and appear scarcely in their appropriate place. It may be remarked that the name Elohim occurs only six times in the whole book, and thrice in this section (Pro_2:5-17; Pro_3:4). The other places are, Pro_25:2; Pro_30:5-9. Other unusual words are חָכְמוֹת, wisdoms, for wisdom in the abstract (Pro_1:20; Pro_9:1; found also in Pro_24:7); זָרָהthe strange woman, which occurs repeatedly (e.g. Pro_2:16; Pro_5:3; Pro_5:20, etc., found nowhere else save in Pro_22:14; Pro_23:23); and נָכְרַיָּה, the stranger (Pro_2:16; Pro_7:5, etc.; found also in Pro_20:16; Pro_23:27; Pro_27:13); i.e. the foreign prostitute, then as now lurking at the dark corners of the streets, taken as the representative of the harlot sense seducing the youlng and inexperienced from true wisdom. Ewald also notices the unusual construction of שְׁפָתִיַם, a dual fem. with a verb in the masc. plur. (Pro_5:2); while in the next verse it has properly a fern. plur., and the unusual plur. אַישַׁים(Pro_8:4).
2. In the second division, the Proverbs of Solomon, which form the kernel of the book, (Pro_10:1 to Pro_22:17), we find a striking similarity of structure throughout. Every verse (reckoned by Delitzsch at 375) in its normal form consists of two members, each containing three, four, or more rarely five short words. (The one exception to this rule [19:7] is probably due to the loss of a member, which is supplied by the Sept.) Every verse is independent, with no necessary connection with those that precede or follow, and, generally speaking, no attempt at arrangement. Ewald's theory of a continuous thread of connection running through this collection in its original form, and binding together the scattered sayings, has absolutely no evidence in its favor, and can only be sustained by supposing an almost total dismemberment of this portion of the book. It is true there are cases in which the same subject recurs in two or three successive verses (e.g. Pro_10:2-5; Proverbs 18-21; Pro_11:4-8; Proverbs 24-26), but these are the exceptions, and only occur, as Ewald elsewhere allows, when, from the studied brevity of the proverbial form, a thought cannot be expressed in all its fulness in a single verse. The cases in which the same characteristic word or words recur in successive proverbs are more frequent (e.g. Pro_10:6-7; Pro_8:10; Pro_11:5-6; Proverbs 10, 11, etc.). But in every instance each verse gives a single definite idea. nor do we ever meet with two verses so connected that the latter contains the reason of the counsel, or the application of the illustration given in the former.
Nearly the whole of the proverbs in the earlier part of this division are antithetical; but after the middle of ch. 15 this characteristic gradually disappears, and is almost entirely lost in the concluding chapters. A large number are synonymous (e.g. Pro_11:7; Pro_11:25; Pro_11:30; Pro_12:14; Pro_12:28; Pro_14:13; Pro_14:17; Pro_14:19, etc.), some aphoristic (e.g. Pro_11:31; Pro_13:14), especially with the comparative and מַן(e.g. Pro_12:9; Pro_15:16-17; Pro_16:8-9, etc.), or אִ כּיַ, much more (e.g. Pro_11:31; Pro_15:11; Pro_17:7). Others are synthetic (Pro_10:18; Pro_11:29; Pro_14:17, etc.); only two are parabolic (Pro_10:26; Pro_11:22). The style is lower and more prosaic than in the former section. Ewald regards it as an example of the most ancient and simplest poetical style, full of primeval terseness, and bearing the visible stamp of antiquity in its language and imagery without any trace of later coloring. He remarks very justly that the proverbs in this collection are not to be looked upon as a collection of popular sayings, embodying mere prudential wisdom. but that they belong to the higher life, and are as broad in their grasp of truth as in their range of thought. The germ of many of them may have been found in popular sayings; but the skill and delicacy with which they have been fashioned into their present shape, though of the simplest kind, display the hand of a master.
Ewald remarks the following peculiar phrases as occurring in this section. Fountain of life, Pro_10:11; Pro_13:14; Pro_14:27; Pro_16:22 (comp. Psa_36:9 [10]): tree of life, Pro_3:18; Pro_11:30; Pro_13:12; Pro_15:4 : snares of death, Pro_13:14; Pro_14:27 (comp. Psa_18:5 [6]): and the following favorite words מִרְפֵּא, healin in in various similes and applications, Pro_12:18; Pro_13:17; Pro_16:24 (but this also occurs in the former section, Pro_4:22; Pro_6:15) מְחַתָּה, destruction, Pro_10:14-15; Pro_10:29; Pro_13:3; Pro_14:28; Pro_18:7; Pro_21:15; and only in four other places in the whole Bible: יָפַיחִ, part from פּוּחִ, to blow, Pro_12:17; Pro_14:5; Pro_14:25; Pro_19:5-9 (comp. Pro_6:19; Psa_12:6; Psa_27:11): the unfrequent roots סֶלֵ, perverseness, Pro_11:3; Pro_15:4, and the verb סַלֵּ, to pervert, destroy, Pro_13:6; Pro_19:3; Pro_21:12; Pro_22:12 : the phrase לאֹ יַנָּקֶה, shall not go unpunished, Pro_11:21; Pro_16:5; Pro_17:5 (comp. Pro_28:20; Pro_6:29): רַדֵּ, he that pursueth, Pro_11:19; Pro_12:11; Pro_13:21; Pro_15:9; Pro_19:7 (comp. Pro_28:19), and nowhere else. Ewald instances also as archaic phrases not met with elsewhere, עִד אִרְגַּיעָה, but for a moment, Pro_12:19 : יָד לְיָד, hand join in hand, Pro_11:21; Pro_16:5 : הַתְגִּלִּע, meddled with, Pro_17:14; Pro_18:1; Pro_20:3 : נַרְגָּן, whisperer, talebearer, Pro_16:28; Pro_18:8 (comp. Pro_26:20-22). The word יֵשׁ, there is, though frequent elsewhere, scarcely occurs in Proverbs, save in this section, Pro_11:24; Pro_12:18; Pro_13:7; Pro_13:23; Pro_14:12, etc.
3. With Pro_22:17, the words of the wise (comp. Pro_1:6), we are carried back to the style and language of the proem (ch. 1-9), of which we are also reminded by the continued address in the second person singular, and the use of my son. There is, however, a difference in the phraseology and language; and, as Maurer remarks, the diction is not unfrequently rugged and awkward, and somewhat labored. Parallelism is neglected. The moral precepts are longer than those of ch. 10-22, but not so diffuse as those of the first section. We find examples of the distich, Pro_22:28; Pro_23:9; Pro_24:7-10 : the tristich, Pro_22:29; Pro_24:29 : but the tetrastich is the most frequent, the favorite form being that in which the second member gives the ground of the first, Pro_22:22-23; Proverbs 24, 25; Proverbs 26, 27, etc. We also find proverbs of five members, Pro_23:4-5; Pro_24:3-4 : several of six, Pro_23:1-3; Pro_23:12-14; Pro_23:19-21; Pro_24:11-12 : and one of seven, Pro_28:6-8. We have a longer strain, Pro_23:29-35, against drunkenness.
4. The short appendix, Pro_24:23-34, comprising more words of the wise, can hardly be distinguished in style or form from the preceding. It closes with a proverb-lay of five verses on the evils of sloth.
5. The second collection of the Proverbs of Solomon (ch. 25-29), transcribed (הֶעְתַּיקוּ, Sept. ἐξεγράψαντο, Aq. μετῆραν; Gr. Ven. μετήνεγκαν; comp. Pusey, Daniel, p. 322 note) by the scribes of Hezekiah, closely resembles the former one. They are, according to Pusey, identical in language. It has, however, some very decided points of difference. The parabolic proverb is much more frequent than the antithetical, the two members of the comparison being sometimes set side by side without any connecting link (e.g. Pro_25:12-13), which is in other cases given merely by ו, and, or כֵּן, so (Pro_26:1-2; Pro_26:18-19; Pro_27:8, etc.). The parallelism is sometimes strict, sometimes lax and free. There is a want of the sententious brevity of the former collection, and the construction is looser and weaker. The proverbs are not always completed in a single verse (Pro_25:6-7; Pro_25:9-10; Pro_25:21-22; Pro_26:18-19); and more frequently than in the former section we have series of proverbs with an internal connection of subject (Pro_26:23-25; Pro_27:15-16; Pro_27:23-27), and others in which the same key-word recurs (Pro_25:8-10; Pro_26:3-12; Proverbs 13-16). This is not foumnd so often after Pro_27:5; but a close examination of the text suggests the idea that this may be due to a disturbance of the original order (comp. Pro_27:7; Pro_27:9; Pro_28:4; Pro_28:7; Pro_28:9; Pro_29:8; Pro_29:10, etc.). Ewald discovers a want of the figurative expressions of the earlier collection, and a difference of language and phraseology, while Rosenmüller remarks that the meaning of the proverbs is more obscure and enigmatical. The greater part of them are moral precepts. The earlier collection may be called a book for youth;' this a book for the people' (Delitzsch); the wisdom of Solomon in the days of Hezekiah (Stier).
6. The three supplemental writings with which the book closes (ch. 30, 31) are separated from the other portions and from one another no less by style and form than by authorship. Ewald somewhat arbitrarily divides ch. 30 after Pro_29:14 (a division, however, sanctioned by the Sept.), and thinks it not improbable that ch. 30 and Pro_31:1-9 are from the same pen. He also regards the opening verses of ch. 30 as a dialogue, Pro_31:2-4 being the words of an ignorant disciple of Agur, to which the teacher replies. The difference between the enigmatical savings of Agur (which find a counterpart in the collections of Oriental proverbs) and the simple admonitions of Lemuel's mother is very great if we assign them to one author. In ch. 30 we have, in Ewall's words, instead of moral aphorisms, a succession of elegant little pictures illustrative of moral truths, evidencing a decay of creative power, the skill of the author being applied to a novel and( striking presentation of an old truth. The ancient terse proverbial form is entirely lost sight of, and the style rises to a height and dignity warranting the use of the term מִשָּׂא(comp. Isa_13:1; Hab_1:1, etc.) applied to both. In the words of king Lemuel we find much greater regularity. The parallelism is synonymous, and is maintained throughout. The alphabetical ode in praise of a virtuous woman a golden A B C for women (Doderlein) has all its verses of about the same compass. The parallelism is very similar to that of the Psalms, especially those in which the same alphabetical arrangement is found.
VI. Authorship and Date. On these points the most various opinions have been entertained, from that of the rabbins and the earlier school of commentators, with whom some modern writers (e.g. Keil) agree, who attribute the whole book to Solomon (even Pro_30:31 are assigned to him by Rashi and his school), to those of Hitzig and other representatives of the advanced critical school, who, however widely at variance with one another, agree in reducing to a minimum the wise king of Israel's share in the book which from the remotest antiquity has borne his name. In the face of such wide discrepancies, where the same data lead careful investigators (e.g. Ewald and Hitzig) to exactly opposite conclusions, a satisfactory decision of the question of authorship and date is hardly to be hoped for. It may rather be doubted whether the evidence at present before us is such as to admit of an absolute determination of the question at issue. Where so much indefiniteness exists, all we can do is to balance probabilities and to abstain from dogmatic decisions.
The evidence in favor of a composite origin of the book appears, we must confess, irresistible. No unprejudiced person, we think, accustomed to the consideration of such questions, could read the book for the first time, even in English, without seeing in it the traces of several different authors, or at least editors. Irrespective of the two concluding chapters, the express reference to other sages (חֲכָמַים, in Pro_22:17; Pro_24:23; comp. Pro_1:6) indicates a diversity of authorship, while the difference of style between various divisions of the work strengthens the hypothesis. Indeed, a careful observer will find at the very outset an indication of the composite character of the book in the introductory verses which profess to give the contents and character (Pro_1:1-7). These prepare us to find in it, not merely proverbs and eloquent speeches (margin, A.V.: interpretation), but also such words of the wise as those we have just referred to, and dark sayings like those of Agur.
Are we, then, to discard the title, the Proverbs of Solomon, and to consider that the designation has been given to the book erroneously? To us this appears rash in the extreme. We know from historical sources that Solomon was the author of a very large number of proverbs; and nothing but that restlessness of speculation which discards old beliefs simply. as it would seem, because they are old, and seeks to unsettle all that hias hitherto been held certain, can discover any sufficient reason for questioning that Solomon was the composer of the greater part of those contained in our present book, especially in the sections Pro_10:1 to Pro_22:16; Proverbs 25-29. However much these collections may have been modified in successive redactions, though too much has probably been conceded to this hypothesis, of which there is no definite trace, and by which a work may be made to assume any form that may suit the theory to be supported, we have no sufficient reason for doubting that Solomon was the originator of the peculiar style of poetry in which they are composed, and that, even if they are not all to be referred to him, the mass are his, and that they are all pervaded with his spirit, and may be assigned to his epoch. Even those attributed to the ancients may have been found by Solomon already floating in a semi-gnomic form, and recast by him in a more distinctly proverbial dress. Eichhorn finds in them no trace of language or thought subsequent to the time of Solomon. Even Ewald, who insists most on the collection as we have it having suffered from abbreviations, transpositions, and unauthorized additions, remarks that the proverbs all breathe the happy peace and growing civilization of Solomon's age; nor is there any epoch either earlier or later to which we could preferably assign them.
The proverbs in the later collection (ch. 25-29), though they present some diversities, do not differ so essentially from the earlier ones as to give any sufficient grounds for questioning the accuracy of the superscription (Pro_25:1). The title itself informs us that the compilation was not made till four centuries after Solomon, and the differences are not greater than might be looked for in sayings that had been so long floating about among the common people, and thereby subjected to disfigurement and change. The indications of an altered state of society and a decrease of confidence in the rulers, in which Ewald discovers such unmistakable proofs of a later date, are hardly so evident to others as to himself. We know too little of the internal economy of Solomon's reign to enable us to pronounce authoritatively that such and such expressions are inconsistent with the state of the people and tone of thought at that period.
The objection brought by Eichhorn and others against assigning the proverbs in the two collections to Solomon, that the genius of no one man, not even one as divinely gifted with wisdom as Solomon, is sufficient for the production of so large a number, is puerile in the extreme. Those we possess are but a portion of the three thousand ascribed to him (1Ki_4:32), and scarcely give twenty for each of the forty years of his reign.
The general didactic tone of the book is asserted to be more consistent with the character of a prophet or priest than that of a king (Davidson). To this it is replied that this is true of kings in general. but not of such a king as Solomon, to whom God gave a wise and understanding heart, whose proverbs are eminently didactic, and who has in 1 Kings 8 discoursed on the divine economy towards mall in a way that no prophet or priest could well surpass. The praises of monogamy, and the strict illjunctions against adultery, are urged by Bertholdt as reasons why Solomon, a polygamist himself, and Bathsheba's son, could not be the author of this section. It is, however, a remarkable feature of the Old Test. in general, and not peculiar to this place, that polygamy, however generally practiced, is never praised; that invariably where the married state is spoken of in terms of praise it is the union of one man to one woman that is held up to honor. Beside the force of this objection is considerably modified by the reflection that precepts are here given for the mass of men, with whom monogamy is the general rule, though polygamy may be common among the richer classes (Wilkinson's Egypt, 2, 62); and also that the contrast here drawn (Pro_5:18, etc.) is not between monogamy and polygamy, but between the marriage tie and adulterous connection. As to the supposition that the repeated warnings against adultery could not come from one whose own mother fell into that sin, no great weight can be attached to it; for a moral and religious teacher must disregard considerations which would influence other men. The allusions to deeds of violence (Pro_1:11-19; Pro_2:12, etc.) are supposed by Ewald to indicate a state of confusion inconsistent with that state of peace and social security which marked the reign of Solomon (1Ki_4:25). To this it is replied that a condition of great private wealth, such as was the condition of Solomon's times, always tempts needy and unprincipled men to acts of unlawful violence; and that nothing bevond crimes which now are committed in the most civilized and best-regulated countries are referred to in the passages in question. Besides, Judaea always afforded in its caverns and wildernesses peculiar facilities for robbers (Jdg_6:2; 1Sa_24:1). From a supposed degeneracy of style, Ewald attributes this section to the earlier part of the 7th century B.C. But other critics do not see this. Davidson thinks it indicates a flourishing state of Hebrew literature, and refers it probably to the 9th century B.C., an opinion in which he coincides with Hitzig. The grounds on which Ewald relies for his alleged degeneracy of style seem weak. Thus, he asserts that the plural ishim (Pro_8:4) is so unusual as to indicate a very late date. It is certainly very unusual, for it occurs only three times (Furst). From these, however, we cannot argue as to the (late, as one of them is in Isaiah, another in Psa_141:3, attributed to David, and the third in the passage above referred to.
Similar and equally futile objections have been based, by Bertholdt and others, on the familiarity displayed in the proverbs with circumstances and conditions in life with which it is supposed that Solomon as a king could have had no experimental acquaintance. For example, it is maintained that Pro_10:5; Pro_12:10-11; Pro_14:4; Pro_20:4, must have been written by a landowner or husbandman: Pro_10:15, by a poor man: Pro_11:14; Pro_14:19, by a citizen of a well-ordered state: Pro_11:26, by a tradesman: Pro_12:4, by one who was not a polygamist: Pro_14:1; Pro_15:25; Pro_16:1; Pro_17:2; Pro_19:13-14; Pro_20:10; Pro_20:14; Pro_20:23, by an ordinary citizen: Pro_25:2-7, not by a king, but by one who had lived some time at a court: Pro_27:11, by a teacher of youth: Pro_17:23-27, by a sage who lived a nomadic life: Pro_28:16, by one free from those errors which weakened Solomon's throne, and robbed his son of his kingdom. It is needless to point out the weakness of these fancied arguments which would affect no one who had not a theory of his own to support. They are akin to those which have been used with as little success to prove that no one man could have written the plays of Shakespeare, and they display the most marvellous ignorance of that many-sidedness and keenness of perception and insight which are characteristic of the highly gifted among mankind.
As little weight is to be assigned to the objections drawn from the repetitions. It is true that we find the same idea, and even the same words, recurring not only in the two collections (e.g. Pro_21:9; Pro_25:24; Pro_18:8; Pro_26:22; Pro_22:3; Pro_27:12; Pro_22:13; Pro_26:13; Pro_19:24; Pro_26:15; Pro_19:1; Pro_28:6), but in the same collection (e.g. Pro_14:12; Pro_16:25; Pro_10:1; Pro_15:20; Pro_16:2; Pro_21:2; Pro_10:2; Pro_11:4; Pro_13:14; Pro_14:27; Pro_26:12; Pro_29:20). This latter is, however, no more. as Umbreit remarks, than is natural in such a compilation, in the formation of which one is very apt to forget what had already been set down; while the former class of repetitions is easily to be accounted fir by the anxiety of the collectors to lose nothing which had the stamp of Solomon's authorship, even though the same idea had already been expressed in the earlier collection; and it goes far to confirm the view that Solomon was the composer of the whole.
The internal evidence derived from language, construction, ideas, historic background, and the like varies with every successive critic, and is entirely inadequate to varrant any decisive verdict. Its precariousness is proved by the opposite results to which the same data lead various commentators. Keil maintains that every part of' the book, with the exception of the last two chapters, corresponds to the epoch of Solomon, and that only. Eichhorn agrees with this to a certain extent, but limits the correspondence to ch. 1-24; while Ewald, Hitzig, and Bertheau, and other minor critics, arrive at conclusions expressed with equal confidence and at variance with these and with one another. There is, however, one evidence which speaks strongly in favor of an early date the entire absence of all reference to idolatry. The form of religion appearing throughout is purely Jehovistic (as we have noticed above, Elohim occurs only four times in the body of the work), and false gods and foreign faiths are not even referred to.
The above remarks refer chiefly to the collection of proverbs properly so called, which we have no Difficulty in ascribing, on the whole, to Solomon as their ultimate author. We may, if we choose, suppose that the men of Hezekiah made a collection of unwritten proverbs current among the people, and by them supposed, truly or not, to have come down from Solomon; but the men of Hezekiah, or whoever wrote the superscription of 25:1, declare those they put forth to have been copied from written records. Assuming this to be the correct view, the difference between these proverbs and those which went before is, that whereas in Solomon's time the latter were arranged as we have them, the former were in Hezekiah's time selected from more ancient written records and added to the existing collection. It gives us the idea, which is itself an extremely probable one, that voluminous records were made in Solomon's time of the wise king's sayings, either by himself or by scribes. This idea derives considerable confirmation from the notice in 1Ki_4:30-34, where we are told of the accurate account taken of his compositions and sayings, and even of the precise number of his proverbs and songs. We are led to suppose, then, that in Solomon's time a selection (Pro_10:1 to Pro_22:16) was made bv himself, or under his immediate supervision, while in Hezekiah's time a further selection was made, and an exact transcript taken. A comparison of the proverbs in these two collections lends strong confirmation to this view, In selecting or arranging a collection in Solomon's time, and under his inspection, the choice would naturally fall upon the most perfect, and as alterations might he freely made by their actual author, these would tend to bring them into a still more finished form. Accordingly, we find in the more ancient collection a certain tastefulness and polish which the others do not possess. In the former each verse contains its own perfect sense, and this usually comprised in a certain number of words, varying from seven to nine, beyond which they very rarely extend. In the latter, while the sense is generally contained in one verse, it not unfrequently runs through two or more verses. Examples from these might easily be produced as concise and perfect in form as the others (e.g. Pro_25:2-3; Pro_25:14); but very commonly the sense is brought out in a much more diffuse manner (e.g. Pro_25:6-7; Pro_25:9-10; Pro_25:21-22; Pro_26:18; Pro_26:20; Pro_27:15-16; Pro_27:23-27). In the individual verses also we find occasionally a far greater number of words than are ever admitted into those of the older collection (e.g. Pro_25:7; Pro_25:20); and the parallelism, which never fails in the verses of the earlier, is often wanting in those of the later division (Pro_25:8; Pro_25:21-22; Pro_26:10; Pro_27:1). This agrees with the idea which we think warranted by a comparison of Pro_25:1 with 1Ki_4:32-33, that the proverbs in this collection are probably much as they fell from Solomon's lips, and were first committed to writing by himself or others under him; and that while the former collection received his own final corrections, the men of Hezekiah simply copied from the text before them, but did not venture upon any alteration in the form.
The case is somewhat different with regard to the introductory chapters (1- 9), and there is more ground for the diversity of opinion as to their date and authorship. It is certainly quite possible that the whole or a considerable portion of this section may have been written by Solomon. The differences of style, of which Ewald makes much, are, as Bertheau has shown, somewhat exaggerated by him, and are not perhaps greater than may be accounted for by the different nature of the compositions. The terse simplicity of a proverb would be out of place in a series of hortatory addresses such as those which characterize this section. Ewald dwells with emphasis on the internal evidence of a late date afforded by the state of society, and the tone of feeling as portrayed here. But we repeat our former remark, that we know too little of the internal history of Judaea at this time to allow us to speak with so much confidence on these points, and express our conviction that the conclusions drawn by Ewald are not warranted by the premises. The imagery all points to a large and profligate city, such as Jerusalem may well have become during the middle of Solomon's prosperous reign; and the vivid representation of the habits of the foreign prostitutes and lawless freebooters who roamed its streets is hardly more than could have been attained by one who, lilke Harun Alraschid, was fond of laying aside his kingly state and visiting his city in disguise.
It is evident, from what we have remarked in a former section, that we regard the proem (ch. 1-9) in its present form as a composite work, though very possibly proceeding from one pen. The similarity of style, subject, and treatment, is strongly in favor of unity of authorship, while the internal evidence favors the view that it is compiled of various unconnected members, collected and arranged subsequently to the time of their composition. The date of this compilation it is impossible to fix. The evidence on this point is faint and untrustworthy, and has led different investigators to very opposite conclusions. Ewald places it in the 7th, Hitzig in the 9th century B.C., while Keil, as we have seen, ascribes it to the time of Solomon. The resemblance that may be traced in this portion of the work to the spirit and teaching of the book of Job, and the recurrence of some of the words arid images found there, is employed both by Hitzig and Ewald to aid in determining the date of this section (comp. Job_15:7 with Pro_8:25; Job_21:17, Pro_13:9; Job_28:18, Pro_8:16; Job_5:17, Pro_3:11; see Pusey, Daniel, p. 323, note 7). But as there is no unanimity as to the date of the composition of Job, little help is to be expected from this source, nor can we be surprised at the diversity of opinion among those who have employed it: Ewald maintaining that the writer of Proverbs had read and made use of Job: Hitzig, on the contrary, believing that the former is the earlier work, and that the author of Job borrowed from Proverbs. The adoption of such expedients proves most forcibly the cormplete want of any decisive testimony which will enable us to arrive at any trustworthy conclusion as to the date of this section. In the midst of this uncertainty, the above solution is as probable as any other namely, that it is due to Solomon's authorship out of materials existing at his time.
The similarity in style between 1-9 and the appendix to the first collection of proverbs (Pro_22:17-24) appears to favor the view that this supplement is due to the same person by whom the proem was prefixed to the book. Ewald enumerates several reasons for ascribing the two to the same writer (p. 42), but finally decides against the unity of authorship. The proverbs themselves, designated as words of the wise, are evidently distinguished from those Qf Solomon, and are probably to be regarded as the adages of other sages, which the compiler of the work thought too valuable to be lost, and therefore appended to his larger collection. The short supplement (Pro_24:23-34) is accounted for by Umbreit on the supposition that the compiler had laid aside his work for a time, and took it up again on the discovery of fresh sayings worthy of preservation. He renders לְחֲבָמַים, for, not of the wise, and regards them as directed to the compiler's scholars. Ewald, Bertheau, Delitzsch, etc., defend the received translation.
It only remains for us to speak of the threefold supplement (30, 31), with regard to the authorship and date of which again nothing can be determined. It would be hardly profitable to discus the marvellous fabric of fanciful history and biography which has been evolved from the scantiest materials by Hitzig, Bunsen, and Bertheau. Those who desire it may refer to their works to see the grounds on which Massa (A.V. the prophecy) is identified with a district in Arabia (Gen_10:30; Gen_25:14; 1Ch_1:30) of which Lemuel was king, and Agur with a descendant of the Simeonites, who in the reign of Hezekiah drove out the Amalekites from Mount Seir (1Ch_4:42); or, again, on which it is sought to prove that Agur and Lemuel were brothers, sons of the reigning queen of Massa. We would rather commend to our reader Eichhorn's sensible words that Agur should remain Agur, and belong to the wise men of the old world of whom history gives us no further information, and with him deprecate spinning a long thread of tedious conjectures alout a name, which do not advance us an inch in our insight into the literature of the old world, or any profitable learning. As little to the purpose is the fancv of Doderlein that the opening part of ch. 30 is a dialogue that Ithiel is a heathen; Agur a much valued servant of Ithiel, to whom, as his master, his praver (Pro_5:7-9) is addressed. Manv are content with saying that Agur was an unknown Hebrew sage, the teacher of Ithiel and Ucal names from which, also, many unprofitable speculations have been built and that he lived subsequently to the reign of Hezekiah. Still more probable do we regard the view which identifies him with Solomon himself under a fanciful name. SEE AGUR; SEE MASSA.
Lemuel to God, devoted to God, after the analogy of לָאֵל, Num_3:24 (Pusey) may certainly be regarded as a figurative name descriptive of an ideal king, a monarch as he should be (Ewald; Eichhorn; comp. Pusey, Lect. on Daniel, p. 13 note 1, p. 323, note 5). SEE LEMUEL
The alphabetical lay which concludes the whole has usually been thought to belong to the latest period of Hebrew poetry, and hardly to be placed higher than the 7th century. Its style and language seem to distinguish it from the words of Lemuel, with which it has sometimes been confounded; but we are again warned against the precariousness of such grounds of argument as to authorship.
The results of our inquiry may be thus summed up. The nucleus of the book is the larger collection of proverbs (Pro_10:1 to Pro_22:16). These may safely be regarded as really what they profess to be, the proverbs of Solomon. Whether they were arranged as we now have them and published by him, there is not sufficient evidence to determine. It is probable, however, that the collection was either contemporaneous with or not long subsequent to him. The greater part of the hortatory introduction (1-9) may also be, with great probability, ascribed originally to Solomon, though we incline to the belief that its present form is due to a later compiler, who collected the admonitions of the wise king, and prefixed them to his book of proverbs. The same author also appears to have added the appendix (Pro_22:17; Pro_24:22), containing proverbs of which Solomon was not the proper author. but perhaps only the earliest collector, and after this from similar sources were supplied the few supplementary sayings (Pro_24:23-34). The time when this was done cannot be fixed, but there are cogent arguments in favor of a latate date. The second collection, as its name declares, was formed by the scribes of Hezekiah, cir. B.C. 725. The last two chapters contain compositions of the dates and authors of which nothing certain can now be known. They, too, may have been in some important sense due to Solomon, but were probably inserted by a later editor.
It will not be worth while to enumerate the many and widely varying theories of recent critics as to the dates of the composition of the different parts of this book, and the time when it assumed its present form. One or two of the most characteristic may be specified. Suffice it to say that Ewald would place the publication of Pro_10:1 to Pro_22:16 about two centuries after Solomon, and 1-9 in the first half of the 7th century. Not much later the second collection of proverbs (25-29) was added, the sections Pro_22:17-24 being due to the same compiler. Hitzig, on the contrary, views 1- 9 as the earliest part of the book; 10-22, 16 and Pro_28:17-28 being added about B.C. 750. Twenty-five years later Hezekiah's collection followed; the gaps being filled up and the volume completed by some unknown compiler at a later period. The theory of Delitzsch (Herzog, Encyklop., s.v. Spruche) is marked by more calm sense, but even this is in parts not a little fanciful or conjectural. Rightly regarding 10-22. 16 as the kernel of the book, and mainly composed by Solomon, he divides the whole into two portions
(1) 1-24, 22 put forth in the time of Jehoshaphat; the introduction (1-9) and appendix (Pro_22:16-24; Pro_22:22) being written by the compiler, whom he regards as a highly gifted didactic poet, and an instrument of the spirit of revelation; and
(2) Pro_24:23-31, published in the reign of Hezekiah; the introductory and closing portions (Pro_24:23-34; Pro_30:31) being set on either side of the collection of Soiomon's proverbs to serve as a kind of foil.
The two periods which are generally selected in opposition to the above views of the Solomonic authorship for the composition of various parts of the book are the reign of Hezekiah and the times subsequent to the captivitv. Neither of these periods seems to suit the general character of Proverbs at all so well as the reign of Solomon. Hezekiah found his kingdom in great domestic miserv-immersed in idolatry and subject to foreign rule. At home his pre-eminent character was that of a social and religious reformer, struggling against the sins and evils of his times; abroad the most active period of his reign was distinguished by a series of wars, during some of which his kingdom was reduced to the verge of ruin, the whole land overrun by hostile armies, its fenced cities taken, and the king forced to submission. The terror of an Assyrian invasion also hung over the land for years. The later period of his reign, indeed, was peaceful; but the evils of preceding reigns were far from being eradicated, and he had before him the certain prospect, conveyed by prophecy, of the utter prostration of his kingdom. His chief works seem to have been the making a pool and conduit to bring water to Jerusalem. On his death Judah relapsed into idolatry. The times subsequent to the captivity were marked by equally strong characteristics, and chiefly of a mournful kind a feeble, struggling, and too often languid and depressed remnant, striving amid many difficulties to maintain their ground and bear up amid manifold discouragements. With neither of these periods does the general character of Proverbs agree. Royalty marks it throughout, sharply distinguishing it from any period subsequent to the captivity; as by other marked features it bears the impress of a time different from Hezekiah's. Its warnings are not against the public sins which disgraced that period, nor are its consolations suited to the public trials which were threatening to bring both king and kingdom to the ground. Its pointed allusions to a powerful monarchy, a numerous and wealthy people, and such sins as readily spring up in a time of plenty; its fine linens of Egypt, its high places thronged, its roads covered with travellers, its gates and cities crowded and rejoicing, its precious stones and fine gold and architectural illustrations, its people living beneath the eye of their monarch and dependent on his good-will, all seem to mark a reign when an absolute monarch ruled over a great and wealthy people, who lived at ease at home, and had no dreaded'eenemy io their borders; who traded to distant lands and brought their products into common use; when the worship of Jehovah prevailed through the landl, and men had leisure for learningl; when wisdom sat on the throne, personified in Solomon, and the evils which must ever exist while man is a fallen being were evils inseparable from any condition of humanity, and especially from one abounding with the elements of material prosperity. SEE SOLOMON.
VII. Commentaries. The following are the special exegetical helps on the whole book; a few of the most important of them are designated by an asterisk Origen, Commentarii (in Opp. vol. 3); also Scholia (in Bibl. Patr. Gallandii, vol. xiv); Basil, Commentarii (in Opp. II. i); Bede, Expositio (in Opp. vol. iv; also in Works, vol. ix); Honorius, Commentarius (in Opp. p. 1140); Ralbag [Levi ben-Gershon], פֵּרוּשׁ[with Ben-Meira's commentary], by Baholes (Leiria, 1492, fol.; afterwards in the Rab. Bibles; also [with Aben-Ezra, etc.] in Latin by Ghiggheo, Amst. 1638, 4to); Arama, יִד אִבְשָׁלוֹם(Constantinop. s.a. 4to; with notes by Berlin, Leips. 1859, 8vo); Imm. ben-Salomo, פֵּרוּשׁ[with Kimchi on Psalm] (Naples, 1486. fol.); Shalom ben-Abraham, קִב וְנָקַי(Salonica, 1522, fol.; also in Frankfurter's Bible); Melancthon, Explicatio (Hag. 1525, and elsewhere later, 8vo); Munster, Adnotatione, (Basil. 1525, 8vo); Jos. ibn-Jachja, פֵּרוּשׁ[with Job, etc.] (Bologna, 1538, fol.; also in Frankfurter's Bible); Cajetan [Rom. Cath.], Enarratio (Lugd. 1545, fol.); Fobian, תִּרְגּים(Constantinop. 1548, 4to); Arboreus [Rom. Cath.], Commnentarius (Par. 1549, fol.); Malvenda [Rom. Cath.], Exrplicatio (in Opp. Lugd. 1550, fol.); Bayne, Commentarii (Par. 1555, fol.; also in the Critici Sacri, vol. iii); Lavater, Commentarii (Tigur. 1562, 4to, 1565, 1572, 1586, fol.); Strigel, Scholia (Lips. 1565, Neost. 1571, 8vo); Jansenius [Rom. Cath.], Adnotationes (Lovan. 1568. 8vo, and elsewhere later, with Psalm, etc.) Sidonius [Rom. Cath.], Commentarii (Mog. 1570, fol.); Mercer, Commentarii (Genev. 1573, fol.; also [with Job] Amst. 1651, fol.); Cope, Exposition (transl. by Outrerd, Lond. 1580,4to); aard. ben-Jakob, מַשְׁלֵי(Cracow, 1582, 4to); Is. ben-Miose, תָּמַים יִחְדָּיר(Lublin, 1592, 4to); Drabit, Auslequngq (Erf. 1595, 8vo); Musselt Commentaire (Lond. 1596, 8
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments 2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!

Saiba Mais

Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Profecia
O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

VIEW:15 DATA:01-04-2020

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

BUSCADAVERDADE

Saiba Mais

Tags