If it is not the non-Yahwistic nature of Proverbs’ motivation which makes it special, then can it be its focus on the individual? After all, compared to Deuteronomy, it does have an individualistic flavour, as it does not mention the nation and the holy land. Does not this ‘individualism’ make Proverbs’ self-interest distinctively selfish?
However, the different focuses of the two books are just that: different focuses. For, while there is a real difference here between the two works, it does not necessarily reflect two fundamentally different worldviews, anthropology, or religious thinking.
The narrative context in Deuteronomy makes an emphasis on the communal, national side of life almost inevitable. Moses addresses the nation just before occupying the national land and urges them to obey the law in order that the nation can live long and prosper in the land. Nevertheless, it is obvious that it is the individual who has to keep the law. It is an individual who finds the ox of a neighbour and not the nation (22:1), an individual who must have right, honest weights (25:15), an individual man and not a nation who engages a woman (28:30), and it is not only the nation but the individual, too, who will gain a long life through responsible behaviour in such situations and will enjoy the fruits of his or her deeds (22:7). So, though Deuteronomy looks at the issues from a national perspective, it also counts on the responsibilities, aims, and rewards of the individual.
Similarly, though Proverbs is written from the perspective of individuals, it is hardly ‘individualistic’ in the sense of being blind to corporate issues. Indeed, wisdom as such already presupposes a community, as many of its functions relate to relationships with others and
391
Of course, when someone wants to decipher the composition-history of the book it is legitimate to suppose and argue that the narrative context is a later layer. (There are numerous reconstructions for the composition-history. More recent ones include theories like Crüsemann 1996:201‒215; 265‒275 and Rofé 2002:4‒9.) However, if one wishes to understand the book as a whole then paying attention to all of its parts and their interactions is advisable and possible (see, for example, Christensen 2001:LXVIII‒LXX; McConville 2002:38‒40). Deuteronomy is an excellent example of the literary and theological importance of the narrative framework in a book. Note, for example, the dominant role of Moses in Deuteronomy, even though his name never appears in Deut. 6‒26. (I am grateful to Prof. Walter Moberly for drawing my attention to this feature of Deuteronomy.)
123
promote the well-being of the community.392 As Solomon asked for wisdom in order to be able to govern Yahweh’s chosen nation (1 Kings 3:9) so we read in Proverbs that kings and rulers rule through wisdom (8:15‒16) and kings uphold the justice and well-being of the whole community (16:10; 20:8, 26; 29:4). What is more, it is a major role of righteousness and wisdom to enable not only kings but also commoners to build their community.393
What might be somewhat misleading is that besides the numerous references to the benefits of wisdom for the whole community, Proverbs contains many verses that do not refer explicitly to society. However, even in these individual-focused verses, the vocabulary does not let the reader forget about the corporate side of wisdom. Take, for example, one of the key categories of Proverbs, the ‘righteous’ person.394 I suggest that the implied reader of the text is supposed to remember every time he395 reads about the ‘righteous’ that righteousness is intrinsically connected to the well-being of the whole society. He is supposed to remember this simply because it is mentioned so often in other verses. The wise and the righteous provide knowledge, healing, and life to others (Prov. 10:21; 12:18; 15:2, 7), they care for the needs of others (12:10; 14:21), they provide wise guidance for the whole nation (11:4), and promote impartiality in judgment. For this community-building behaviour they are praised by the whole nation (24:23‒24; 28:21). It is no wonder that the whole city rejoices when it goes well for the righteous (11:10).
If we search all of those verses of the whole Bible that contain either קדצ, הקדצ or קידצ, we find that the three most common words mentioned together with righteous people and righteousness are הוהי, ע , and טפשמ. These terms define the place and function of the קידצ in שר society. ע is the opposite of a קידצ (some proverbial examples are Prov. 10:2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 16, שר 20, 24, 25, 28, 30; 11:5, 8, 10, 18, 23, 31; 12:3, 7, 10, 12, etc.); הוהי loves the קידצ and protects him (Prov. 3:33; 10:3; 15:9, 29; 18:10); and טפ , (right) judgement, seems to be one of the שמ main activities of a קידצ (1:3; 2:9; 8:20; 12:5; 16:8; 21:3, 5). טפשמ incorporates caring for the
392
The ‘community’ implied by the Solomonic title of the received form of the book is the whole of Israel, but, of course, the actual reader (as differentiated from the implied reader) might also think of the particular community he or she is part of, be it the Persian province of Yehud or the Christian community.
393
In most ancient near eastern societies the king represented the god(s) by mediating his/their justice and righteousness. About the democratisation of this idea in Israel see Levenson 1988:114‒117.
394
In a linguistic study of appellations in Proverbs, Heim argued persuasively that םכח and קידצ are usually co-referential (Heim 2001:77‒103).
395
124
well-being of the poor, the neighbour, and anyone who has a just cause against someone else. This close connection between טפשמ and righteousness shows, again, the corporate function of a קידצ. So, the frequent use of terms like קידצ and טפשמ keeps the social significance of wisdom constantly in the reader’s attention, even where the corporate aspects of wisdom are not explicitly mentioned.
William P. Brown reached a similar conclusion. He writes, ‘To welcome wisdom necessarily involves becoming a responsible and productive citizen of a community whose character is formed by justice and equity by those who have gone before, laying a foundation for those to come.’396
Consequently, Deuteronomy and Proverbs should be probably understood as speaking about the two sides of the same coin. The two books simply construct different implied readers: one is a nation at the border of the land to be occupied, the other is an individual member of that nation who already lives in the land. But the difference in implied readers, and therefore the emphases of the two books, does not necessarily mean that one is ‘individualistic’ and the other is ‘communal.’ Proverbs’ emphasis is on the self-interest of the individual, but it also makes clear that it is also the interest of the whole community—and we can see the reverse picture in Deuteronomy.
Summary
We have seen that if Proverbs’ ‘selfishness’ seems ‘special’ compared to Deuteronomy’s then it is:
because there are a few (but only a few), typically Israelite religious motivational sentences in Deuteronomy;
because most proverbial sayings lack a Yahwist context (but the literary framework of Proverbs can provide such a context);
because the emphasis is on the individual (though this does not make Proverbs ‘individualistic.’)
396
Brown 1996:34, see also p. 35 about the communal significance of Prov. 3:27‒31; see also Treier 2006:43.
125
We can draw three main conclusions from these observations. First, compared to Deuteronomy, the special nature of Proverbs’ ‘selfishness’ is more apparent than real. Second, this does not mean that Proverbs’ motivational system is as ‘selfless’ as that of Deuteronomy. In fact, quite the opposite: Deuteronomy’s appeal to self-interest seems to be as undeniable as that of Proverbs. This means that the problem of self-interest is not a special problem of Proverbs, but a more general one, probably relevant for much of the Bible. If Proverbs is more suitable for investigating this problem than many other biblical books then it is so because the above listed three characteristics make self-interest more palpable for the modern reader in it but not because it is more real there. Third, the most significant difference between the two books seems to be a difference in perspective. Namely, the implied reader of Proverbs is the individual and not the community as in Deuteronomy. However, the individual perspective of Proverbs does not rule out, but presupposes, communal aims.
If these thoughts about the relationship between the individual and communal interests in Proverbs are right, then Proverbs’ teaching is not dissimilar to the thinking of Thomas Aquinas in these matters. After all, Thomas also emphasised the complementarity of individual and communal interests. He also taught that the individual, by acting according to his or her true interest, builds up the community, and that the other-oriented justice has to accompany the self-interested prudence.
However, the acknowledgement of self-interest and its combination with other-oriented justice and communal interests are only two, though crucial, agreements between Proverbs and Thomistic thinking. Thomas goes further than this. He can accept self-interest as a motivation because it does not focus solely on material issues and because it is subordinated to higher aims. Can we find parallels to these aspects of Thomistic thinking in Proverbs, too? Let us have a look first at the former issue: is Proverbs predominantly about material gains?
126