I have had a wonderful time working my way through Proverbs 1-9 recently. Part of the reason that the labor has been so enjoyable is that I have been refreshing my own knowledge of the various aspects of this part of the Book of Proverbs. I have always found Proverbs 1-9 to be fascinating; the interplay between Lady Wisdom and the forbidden woman, the father and the son, the My Son poems and the various interludes, are all intriguing. When I read through Proverbs 1-9 recently I noticed a pattern in the first several poems that I would like to wax eloquent about for a few sentences. I will then wildly speculate about what this pattern might indicate. I’m sure some of you will be kind enough to correct me in the comments thread, and I welcome this.

To begin, it might be wise to establish a few assumptions that I’m making. The foremost of these is that repetition is an aid in learning. The more a teacher repeats something, the more likely a student is to remember it. A second assumption that I’ve made is that Proverbs 1-9, in its received form, has been shaped and that there is a reason and/or logic to this shaping. That is not to say that scholars completely understand this reason, but such a reason existed in the mind of the redactor/writer/editor.

Turning to the text itself, the intriguing pattern I was referring to is the tendency, early on in the poems of Proverbs 1-9, to conclude a poem with a summary statement concerning the fate of the wise over against the fate of the wicked. This juxtaposition of the wise and the fool occurs in 1.19 (but only concerning the fool), 1.32-33, 2.21-22, and (possibly) 3.32-35. Each of these sections deal somehow with the fate of the wicked, and most also deal with the fate of the wise as contrasted with that of the fool. Furthermore, each of them reinforces the doctrine of retribution as the governing law of life.

The first three poems (My Son poem #1, Interlude A, and My Son poem #2) all conclude with such statements. The final statement, in 3.32-35, comes at the end of a My Son poem, though Interlude B and My Son poem #3 both lack a similar concluding proverb. What I think may be going on here is that the editor is using these statements as a kind of pedagogical tool.

What I mean by this is that the summary statements serve to do exactly that: summarize the poems that have come before. By repeating similar statements, or at least statements with a similar moral, at the end of the first three poems, the editor is driving home the point that A) each of these poems is, to some extent, saying the same thing and B) obedience==blessing while disobedience==cursing (cf. Deut. 28). The end of chapter three would then serve to again drive home this point. Interestingly these verses juxtapose the wise and foolish in a somewhat unique way (when compared with the other verses listed above); line A of each verse discusses the negative things which YHVH will do to the foolish while line B contrasts the positive things which YHVH will do for the upright. Perhaps also worth mentioning is the fact that these verses represent the first cluster of antithetically parallel verses in Proverbs. That may or may not be significant. I haven’t decided.

By means of conclusion, I think that the various summary statements in Proverbs 1.19, 1.32-33, 2.21-22 and 3.32-35 are intended to drive home a very specific point to the reader. On the one hand it is the point that each of the poems makes in a more specific and verbose way: obedience to YHVH==blessing while disobedience==cursing. As for why the statements cease after the first few poems, my off-the-cuff theory is that having firmly established the point, the editor feels free to begin allowing the specifics of the poems themselves to take center stage. Not that this wasn’t taking place before, but the summary statements certainly draw ones attention back to the overarching point which is being irrespective of the specific content of each poem.

Proverbs 1.8-19, otherwise known as the First Instruction, opens the series of “my son” poems which dominate the first nine chapters of Proverbs. The specific verses I reference in the title (11-18) contain several instances of double entendre.^{here and here.}

I think that the double entendres within the first Instruction in Proverbs 1-9 are meant to be read a certain way on the first reading, and meant to reveal their alternative reading once one has completed the poem for the first time. I will illustrate this below.

The First Reading:
Verse 11

אם־יאמרו לכה אתנו נארבה לדם נצפנה לנקי חנם

English: “If they say, ‘Come with us! Let us lie in wait for blood/Let us ambush the innocent without reason”

Verse 11 is not one of the verses I feel contain a double entendre. Rather, it is one of two unambiguous verses which frame the inner section of the poem. If you refer back to this post you will see that I view verses 11-18 as a large protasis-apodosis (=”if-then” statement). The framing verses on either end are unambiguous, and I think this is important. In the case of verse 11, the meaning is clear: the sinners intend to shed the blood of innocent people.

Verse 12

נבלעם כשאול חיים ותמימים כיורדי בור

English: “Let us swallow them alive like Sheol/whole, like those who go down to the pit”

Verse 12 does contain a double entendre, in my opinion. The first time one reads the verse, the meaning appears clear: the sinners intend to swallow people alive, just like Sheol.² The second part of the verse is simple parallelism, they will swallow the innocent whole. The innocent people will be like those who go down to the pit.

Verse 16

כי רגליהם לרע ירוצו וימהרו לשפך דם

English: “For their feet run to evil/they make haste to shed blood”

This is the most apparent, and in some ways most striking, of the ambiguities in this section of Proverbs. During the initial reading the sense of the verse appears to be clear: the father warns the son that he should avoid the sinners’ path because they “make haste to spill blood” (ie, they kill people). The sinners run to evil, and that evil is–presumably, the shedding of blood.

Verse 18

והם לדמם יארבו יצפנו לנפשתם

English: “These people lie in wait for their own blood/they set an ambush for their own life”

Once the reader arrives at the end of the poem, the verses mentioned above take on a different meaning. Only at the end is the alternative reading revealed unambiguously. In fact, verse 11, with its unambiguous declaration concerning the sinners ensures that the reader will read the poem in a certain way. Once one arrives at verse 18, however, everything is seen in a different light. The sinners lie in wait for their own blood! Each of the verses mentioned above can now be seen in a different light. Interestingly, verse 18 borrows the vocabulary of verse 11. In both verses the sinners “lie in wait.”

The Second Reading:
Verse 12
This verse is the most difficult in which to see the alternative reading. It is here, however. The first stitch says plainly “let us swallow them, as Sheol, alive!” or in easier English, “let us swallow them alive, like Sheol.” The issue is not with the initial stitch, but rather with the second “and whole, like the ones going down to the pit.” During the first read-through of the poem verse 11 has already prepped the reader in how to understand this. However, during a second reading something doesn’t sit right. The issue is visible, even in translation. In the first stitch the sinners want to be “like Sheol.” The innocent are swallowed “alive.” The second stitch lacks a verb, and so the verb from the first stitch does double duty. This is a normal occurrence in poetry. So, the second stitch means “let us swallow them whole, like the ones going down to the pit.” This too is obvious even in translation, even on the initial reading. The question, of course, is to what is “like the ones going down to the pit” parallel? The answer is clear, it is parallel to “like Sheol.” In other words, the sinners declare that they themselves will go down to the pit.³

Verse 16
One way of understanding the Hebrew word רע in the first stitch (translated “evil”) is “trouble.” In other words, one might read the first stitch as “their feet rush to trouble,” (ie, they get themselves into trouble). As Waltke has written, “in 1:16 it [רע] can denote either moral evil or calamity.”⁴ This is not the most eye-popping double-meaning in the verse, but it is certainly interesting to note. The second stitch presents the most striking ambiguity, as well as the most easily recognized. On the first reading the meaning seems obvious, the sinners make haste to spill the blood of the innocent. Once one has read verse 18, however, things shift slightly and one realizes that the verse may easily be read to mean that the sinners make haste to shed their own blood.

As I mentioned before, I’m currently doing a study of Proverbs with some of the high school and college students at my church. I’ve been working through the first Parental Instruction over the past several days. During this time I have been struck by the difficulty in accurately identifying the structure of a poem that, on the surface, seems somewhat simple.

One might take, for instance, the disagreement between Murphy’s structural analysis and Waltke’s analysis. Murphy outlines the passage thusly:¹

I. Admonition to heed parental teaching, with motive clause (vv. 8-9)
II. Warning against enticement of sinners (vv. 10-19)
     A. Casuistic² introduction (vv. 10-14)
     B. Admonition, with motive clause (vv. 15-16)
     C. Description of ways of sinners (vv. 17-19)

Waltke, on the other hand, outlines the passage as follows:³

1. Introduction: Summary Statement (1.10)
2. Body: Sinners’ Temptation Unfolded (1.11-14)
3. Body: The Father’s Warning Unfolded (1.15-18)
4. Conclusion: The Lesson’s Moral (1.19)

That Waltke’s division is somewhat arbitrary can be seen from the fact that the poem break down into sections of exactly equal size. The two external statements are exactly one verse, while the internal body of the poem is divided into two sections of two verses each. He views verses eight and nine as separate from this poem.

I find both of these analyses lacking. Murphy’s is perhaps preferable to Waltke’s, but even the former seems to me to divide the section somewhat arbitrarily. Obviously any analysis of this nature may seem arbitrary to some extent; let me be clear, I mean to say that I do not see that Murphy and Waltke have been lead by the text in their analyses. If I were to analyze the structure of the passage, I might decide on something such as:

I. Introduction (vv. 8-9)
II. Protasis (vv. 10-14)
     A. General warning (v. 10)
     B. Specific example (vv. 11-14)
III. Apodosis (vv. 15-19)
     A. Apodosis proper (v. 15)
          1. Motivation Clause One (v. 16)
          2. Motivation Clause Two (vv. 17-19)

Although I prefer my own analysis of the structure of the First Instruction, I have no doubt that others will find fault in various places. My point in this post is not to convince anyone that I have arrived at the correct answer to the question of structure. Rather, I mean to point out that analyzing the structure of even a seemingly simple poem such as Proverbs 1.8-19 is a difficult endeavor. Having said that, I would be interested in thoughts on my own analysis of the structure of the First Instruction. Discussion is always a worthwhile pursuit.

UPDATE: June 9, 2009; 11:31AM: After only a few minutes further reflection, I’ve decided that verse ten is a protasis and apodosis within itself, 10a-Protasis, 10b-Apodosis. So that should probably be included in a new roman numeral before “II. Protasis” thus causing the current II to be moved to III and so on. Something like:

I. Introduction (vv. 8-9)
II. General Warning (v. 10)
     A. Protasis (v. 10a)
     B. Apodosis (v. 10b)
III. Specific Example – Protasis (vv. 11-14)
IV. Specific Example – Apodosis (vv. 15-19)
     A. Apodosis proper (v. 15)
          1. Motivation Clause One (v. 16)
          2. Motivation Clause Two (vv. 17-19)

I am currently in the middle of preparing for a study of Proverbs 1-9 with some folks from my church. I use such studies as an excuse to further my own knowledge of a particular topic. As I was working on Proverbs 1.1-7, which we’ll cover in the first week, I ran across verse six:

להבין משל ומליצה דברי הכמים וחידתם

The final word presents its own interesting issues in the present context, but they are–perhaps–more easily dealt with than those associated with מליצה. The issue with מליצה is that it is only used twice in Biblical Hebrew (three times if one includes its occurrence in Ben Sira), and therefore pinning down an exact meaning is difficult. BDB glosses the word as “satire, mocking poem” which works fine in Habakkuk 2.6, but doesn’t exactly fit the context in the present passage; at least, that tends to be the argument that scholars make. Michael Fox lists six possible options for the word’s meaning in his commentary on Proverbs 1-9:

1. An easily understood saying
2. A dark saying (based on LXX)
3. A satirical statement
4. An allusion
5. A smooth saying
6. Parable, possibly “trope”

Of these, it seems that #1 may be dismissed as an over simplification. Fox dismisses #2 by saying that the reading of LXX is a “surmise based on the collocation with [חידה].” It would appear that #4 and #5 are based primarily on seeing the word as derived from מלץ rather than ליץ. This meaning does not, however, work out quite as well as some others in the Habakkuk passage. In addition, it seems to me that attempting to derive the word from מלץ is a little bit of a reach. Specifically, it allows a scholar to make sense of this word in Proverbs, but in such a way that may be just a little too perfect.

That leaves #3 and #6 as realistic options in my mind. Fox favors #6, writing “judging from its few occurrences, however, [מליצה] refers to artistic epigrams, never folk sayings, whereas [משל] is both.” To be completely honest, I think that Fox rests his conclusions on tenuous evidence. Three occurrences is slim evidence to begin using words such as “never” without heavy qualifications. The occurrence in Ben Sira is further complicated by its apparent reliance on Proverbs 1.6. I’m not prepared to say that he is incorrect. Rather, I’m nervous because he seems to be saying a great deal based on comparatively little evidence. Let me be clear, I don’t have a problem saying that a מליצה is somehow related to a משל or even that it is a type thereof. My problem is in saying that it “refers to artistic epigrams, never folk sayings.” I simply don’t believe there is enough evidence to make such a distinction.

Bruce Waltke, in a disappointing turn, simply cites Torczyner and says that מליצה is synonymous with משל. He is able to do this, partly, because he takes the vav which connects the two words as the vav explicativum. Fox, on the other hand sees מליצה not as an explanation of משל but as a specific type thereof. Other scholars fall into either these two camps, or one of the others mentioned above.

My question is, what is a מליצה? Personally, I’m leaning towards option #3 above, that מליצה refers to some kind of satirical statement or saying. This much seems clear if the word is derived from ליץ. I would even be willing to say that it is, perhaps, a type of משל, because of its occurrence in parallel to that word in any extant text. However, I am not entirely convinced by this, and Fox’s view has certain merits.

So, I’d like to open this up for some discussion. I know that several of you who frequent this blog share my interest in the Wisdom Literature; perhaps you have something to offer?