Chapter 14
To the extent that one may delineate distinct proverb-groupings in chapter 14, the following are to be considered: (1) vv. 1-11, (2) vv. 12-18 (which itself consists of two smaller groupings, vv. 12-14 and 15-18), (3) vv. 19-27, (4) vv. 28-35; cf. Schipper, p. 464. These groupings are defined more by their framing proverbs than by specific thematic or motivic emphases that cohere within each group.
Proverbs 14:1-11
This first grouping is framed by two proverbs (vv. 1 and 11) that involve the image of building (and maintaining) a house (ty]B^), cf. 12:7. The house-motif was used a number of times in the lectures and poems of chapters 1-9, particularly the image of the house that belongs to (and was built by) Wisdom and Folly, respectively—cf. 2:18; 5:8 (and 10); 7:8, 27; 9:1, 14. Since Wisdom and Folly are each personified as a woman, the image is that of a woman who builds and maintains her house (see below on v. 1).
There is relatively little else that binds together the proverbs of vv. 2-10, beyond the customary contrast between the wise and foolish (and/or the righteous and wicked) person. The introduction of the heart-motif in v. 10 anticipates the same motif in vv. 13-14; for this reason, many commentators (e.g., Heim, Schipper) treat vv. 10-14 as a distinct proverb-grouping, and this is entirely feasible.
“(The woman of) wisdom builds (up) her house,
but (the) foolish, with her (own) hands, tears it down.”
The overall sense of this proverb is quite clear, as a way of contrasting both the character/conduct and the fate of the wise and foolish, respectively (cf. verse 11; 11:29; 12:7; 15:25, etc.). However, the wording of the first line is awkward and highly problematic, both in terms of the redundant expression “(the) wise (one)s [fem.] of women” and the disagreement between the plural adjective+noun (<yv!n` tomk=j^) and the singular form of the verb hn`B* (“build”, ht*n+B*, “she builds”, or “she has built”). It seems likely that the noun <yv!n` (“women”) represents a secondary addition to the proverb, either because: (a) the author/editor misunderstood the singular sense (i.e., “wisdom”) of the plural twmkj, or (b) the intent was to clarify that twmkj was a true plural (“wise ones” [fem.], i.e., “wise women”).
Earlier, in 1:20 and 9:1 (cf. also 24:7; Ps 49:4[3]), a plural form of the feminine noun hm*k=j*, i.e., tomk=j*, functions as a singular, perhaps to be identified as an intensive plural (i.e., “most wise one”, as a designation for Wisdom personified); cf. the note on 1:20. Given the obvious parallel with 9:1 (cf. also 24:3), it may well be that the same plural form of the noun is being used here (in which case the vocalization should be tomk=j*); a clear and concise couplet is thus produced:
“Wisdom builds (up) her house,
but Folly tears it down with her (own) hands.”
Fox (p. 572; cf. Textual Commentary, p. 215) is among the commentators who advocates eliminating <yv!n` (as a secondary addition) and revocalizing twmkj; there is much to be said for this approach to the text.
On the other hand, <yv!n` might have been added for the express purpose of making clear that twmkj here differs from in 9:1, being a true plural (of the adjective <k*j*, “wise”) and meaning “wise women”, “women who are wise”. If so, then the singular form of the following verb could be explained in the manner suggested by Waltke (p. 576): “(As for the) wise of women, she builds her house”, or “…each (one) builds her house”.
In order to capture both possible lines of interpretation, I have translated v. 1a as “(The woman of) wisdom builds (up) her house”.
“(The man) walking in his straightness fears YHWH,
while (the one) crooked in his paths despises Him!”
The familiar path/walking idiom is again utilized here, along with the related motif of walking on a straight vs. crooked path. The use of the noun rv#y) (“straightness, that which is straight”) refers to the fundamental character of the individual (“his straightness”), which is demonstrated by the way that he walks—viz., according to the straight path of God/Wisdom. Such a person is wise, and, consequently is one who “fears YHWH” (cf. 1:7, etc.); the literal expression is hwhy ar@y+, “(one) fearing YHWH”, “fearer of YHWH”. By contrast, the foolish/wicked person is “crooked” and walks (i.e., acts/behaves) in a crooked manner, going down crooked paths that deviate from the straight/right path of Wisdom. This aspect of crookedness is expressed through a number of different words; here a verbal adjective (participle) of the verb zWl (“be crooked”) is used (cf. 2:15; 3:32), which can carry the contextual meaning of “turn aside, go astray”. The opposite of fearing YHWH (i.e., revering and honoring Him) is to treat Him with contempt (vb hz`B*).
It would perhaps be better to treat “(the one) fearing YHWH” and “(the one) despising Him” as the subject of each line (cf. Waltke, p. 576). However, this is rather awkward to translate into English. An approximation of the first line would be: “(He who) fears YHWH (is the one) walking in his straightness”. The suffixed noun orv=y`B= could conceivably mean “in His [i.e., God’s] straightness”, i.e., according to His righteousness and the straight path laid out by Him.
Given the possibility that women, specifically, are in view in v. 1 (see above), I have translated the masculine participle here as “(the man) walking” rather than generic “(the one) walking”.
“In (the) mouth of a fool (is) a branch of haughtiness,
but (the) lips of (the) wise (one)s guard them (well).”
As we have seen, numerous proverbs in the Collection utilize the mouth idiom (including lips, tongue, etc.), emphasizing the importance of how a person speaks, and how one’s speech reflects his/her fundamental character (viz., as wise/righteous vs. foolish/wicked).
The comparative predicate in the first line, “a branch [rf#j)] of haughtiness [hw`a&G^]” is a bit peculiar. The noun rf#j), in the sense of a “branch” (cf. Isa 11:1), presumably designates that which ‘comes forth’ out of a person’s mouth, but it may also allude to the punishment that may come as a result (i.e., being beaten with a rod, cf. the cognate denominative verb in Aramaic and Syriac). The noun hw`a&G^ essentially denotes a “high-mindedness” (verbal root hag, “be high”), i.e., “haughtiness” (arrogance, pride, etc.); cf. 29:3. There could well be some word-play here with the root hwg (and the noun wG@, “back”), particularly given the reference in 10:13 of “a rod [fb#v#] for (the) back [wG@] of (the one) lacking heart [i.e., lacking sense]”.
The verb rm^v* (“guard”, along with the parallel/synonymous rx^n`, “keep watch [over]”) occurs frequently in Proverbs, referring to the characteristic action of the wise/righteous person (who guards the teachings of Wisdom, and thus also guards his/her own life), but also to the Divine blessing/benefit that Wisdom brings (i.e., Divine protection over the righteous). Cf. earlier in 2:8, 11, 20; 3:26; 4:4, 6, 21; 5:2; 6:22, 24; 7:1-2, 5; 8:32, 34; 10:17; 13:3, 18.
The unusual form <r@Wmv=T! may be a scribal error (metathesis) for the suffixed plural <Wrm=v=T!; cf. Fox, p. 573; Meinhold, p. 229; Schipper, p. 462, etc.
“With there being no cattle, (the) grain-bin (is) clean,
but (there are) many (harvest)s coming with (the) might of an ox.”
Within the context of the proverb-grouping, this is a curious practical adage, seemingly banal in its surface meaning—viz., to the effect that the absence of cattle results in little grain for the farmer, while the presence of strong cattle (oxen) to work the land will facilitate a good yield. The double-meaning wordplay in the first line probably helps to explain the proverb’s inclusion—that is, as an illustration of the damaging consequences of foolish perceptions. The rare noun sWba@ is a loan-word (cf. Job 39:9; Isa 1:3), referring to a bin for holding/storing grain (cf. Akkadian ab’su), but also, specifically, to the stable and feeding-trough for animals (such as cattle). The word rB* could denote the noun rB^ (III, “grain”) and/or the adjective rB^ (II, “clean”); the latter can mean “empty”, but it can also be used in the ethical-religious sense of “pure”. The foolish person may think that there is value in a clean stable, not realizing that the absence of oxen means that no grain can be produced (as “income”, i.e., the “coming in” of the harvest); the feeding-trough that is empty of grain means that the storage bins will also be empty. Alternately, the foolish person may think that a trough full of grain is a good thing, failing to realize that it is only full because there are no cattle to eat the grain, which means that there are no oxen to do the work of producing grain for the household.
Note the chiastic alliteration at the joining of the lines: br*w+ rB* (bār werāb); cf. Schipper, p. 468.
“A witness of (complete) firmness will not tell a lie.
while a witness of falsehood blows out (many) lies!”
An important example of a person’s speech (v. 3) is his/her conduct as a witness (du@), giving testimony in a wide range of situations; cf. verse 25; 13:17; 19:5, 9; 20:6; 21:8. The nouns /Wma@ (“firmness”, in the connotative sense of “faithfulness, trustworthiness, truthfulness”) and rq#v# (“falsehood”) reflect the fundamental character of the righteous and wicked person, respectively. This character is manifested by their regular/habitual behavior, include how they behave as a witness. The righteous person who is “firm” (i.e., reliable, trustworthy) will not tell a lie; by contrast, the wicked person, who is characteristically “false”, will spout many a lie. The verb jWP can mean (I, “blow/breathe out”) but also (II, “act as a witness”, cf. Ugaritic ypḥ); there is almost certainly some double-meaning wordplay here, as also in the earlier 6:19 (the first line of which closely resembles line 2 here).
The plural form of /Wma@, <yn]Wma$, could mean “(of) firm words/ways”, i.e., a person who is firm (trustworthy/reliable) in his words and actions; it can also be understood as an intensive or comprehensive plural, i.e., “completely firm”, that is, someone who is completely reliable, totally trustworthy—characteristic of the righteous person. Cf. 13:17; 20:6.
There is a chiastic structure to the couplet (also noted by other commentators, e.g., Meinhold, p. 232; Waltke, p. 586; Schipper, p. 469):
-
- “A witness of firmness
- will not tell a lie,
- but blows out lies
- a witness of falsehood”
“A scoffer may seek wisdom, but there is none (for him),
while knowledge for a discerning (man) is a small (matter)!”
The foolish/wicked person may, in his/her own way, seek after wisdom, but there is none to be found. This is expressed by the negative particle of absence/non-existence, /y]a^. As elsewhere in Proverbs (cf. 1:22; 3:34; 9:7-8; 13:1), the verbal root Jyl! (“boast, scoff, mock”, Jl@) designates the foolish person who, through his/her neglect or rejection of Wisdom, is proceeding down paths of wickedness. To the extent that such a person may seek out wisdom—likely not for the right or noble reasons—it will not be found, no matter how hard one searches (cf. 24:7; also 17:16, where it is suggested that a fool might try to buy wisdom). By contrast, it is easy for a wise person (characterized by understanding and discernment, vb /yB!) to find wisdom and knowledge (cf. 15:14; 17:24, etc.). The verb ll^q* means “be small/little/light”; it often carries a strong negative connotation (e.g., to “make light” of something, treat disparagingly, etc.), but here the sense is neutral, i.e., “is a small/easy (matter)”.
The LXX gives a more orthodox ethical rendering of this proverb: “(If) you seek wisdom alongside bad (men) [i.e., the wicked], you will not find (it)…”; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 216.
“Go from in front of a man (who is) a fool,
when you have not known lips of knowledge!”
This proverb combines the mouth– and knowledge-motifs from vv. 3 and 6 (see above), emphasizing that a foolish person will be known by his speech (cf. 12:23; Qoh 10:3). The contrast between the wise and foolish person is expressed rather differently here; instead of the usual parallelistic contrast, we find described a (potential) relationship between the two. The proverb is framed as a warning (imperative of the verb El^h*, “walk, go”), telling the wise person (i.e., the one who would heed the teachings of wisdom) to “walk/go away from (being) in front of [i.e., facing]” a foolish man. To be “in front of” (dg#n# + the preposition l=) a person means having a certain relationship with him/her, or, at least, an encounter of some significance (and duration).
The prefixed preposition /m! (-m) on dg#n# means “from in front of”, which suggests movement away from being in front of (i.e., facing) a person (cf. Psalms 38:12[11]). The only other occurrence of dg#N#m! + l= is in Judges 20:34 (cf. also Numbers 2:2), where the preposition l properly means “to(ward)”—that is, moving from a position in front toward the person, indicating opposition and an act of hostility. Some commentators (e.g., Ringgren, Heim [p. 174]) would adopt such a sense here as well, so that the proverb urges the person to oppose a fool. More generally, the approach to the fool might be for the purpose of conversing with him, whereupon one will come to realize the man’s foolishness (cf. Toy [p. 284], Plöger [p. 167], and others). Fox (p. 574f) adopts much the same view, translating the command as “Go before…”. Most commentators, however, accept the more natural meaning—viz., that the individual is urged to go away from having any dealings with (i.e., in front of, facing) a foolish man, once the man’s foolishness is made known (by his speech). Cf. the comments by Scherer (p. 141), Fuhs (p. 221), Schipper (p. 470), etc. The idea of the foolish man’s lack of knowledge being made known is expressed through a negation of the verb: “when you have not known lips of knowledge”, i.e., when you realize that he does not possess lips of knowledge.
The LXX has a very different version of this proverb, though it tends to support the interpretation of the first line as advocating opposition to the foolish man: “All (thing)s are in opposition [e)nanti/a] to a man without sense, but wise lips (are) weapons of sensibility”; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 216f.
“(The) wisdom of (the) clever (is) to understand his path,
while (the) thoughtlessness of (the) foolish (is) deceit.”
In this proverb, apparently, the contrast between the wise and foolish person is described in terms of self-understanding. The wise person is able to have/gain understanding regarding “his path” (i.e., his regular behavior/conduct)—that is, he understands how and why he acts. By contrast, the foolish person, who is characterized fundamentally by deceit (hm*r=m!, cf. the use of rq#v# [“falsehood”] in v. 5), ends up deceiving himself as well. Such a person may convince himself that he is acting in a right and sensible manner, but this it not the case; rather, he acts thoughtlessly, often bringing harm and damage, both to others and to himself.
The “deceit” of the foolish/wicked person certainly involves deceiving others (cf. Meinhold, p. 233; Fuhs, p. 229), but, in this instance, self-deceit seems to be more in view (cf. Plöger, p. 170; Fox, p. 575). Clearly, the parallelism of the couplet is better served if self-deception is the main point of reference; however, the general and somewhat ambiguous wording allows for both aspects of meaning to be present (cf. Waltke, p. 589; Schipper, p. 471).
As throughout Proverbs, the adjective <Wru* (“clever, shrewd”), while elsewhere often having a negative meaning (i.e., “crafty, cunning, scheme”), is viewed positively as a characteristic of the wise/understanding person.
“(The one who is) truly foolish scoffs at (his own) guilt,
but among (the) straight (there is God’s) pleasure!”
The wise/righteous and foolish/wicked are again contrasted, using the regular terms lyw]a$ (“fool, foolish [one]”) and rv*y* (“straight”, cf. verse 2, above). Both are in the plural here, except, in line 1 there is a disagreement between the plural subject and the singular form of the verb (Jyl!y`, “he scoffs/mocks”); for a similar disagreement, cf. on verse 1 (above). Waltke (p. 578) translates in a partitive manner, i.e., “(As for) fools, (each one) scoffs…”. I am inclined to translate the plural form (<yl!w]a$) here as an intensive or comprehensive plural—viz., “(one who is) truly foolish”; cf. above on the plural <yn]Wma$ in verse 5. The disagreement goes away if one treats <v*a* (“guilt”) as the subject of the verb (i.e., “Guilt scoffs at [the] foolish [one]s”, cf. Schipper, p. 471f), but this seems most unlikely.
Fox (p. 575f; cf. Textual Commentary, p. 217f) considers the first line in the MT to be “meaningless” and takes the rather drastic step of suggesting a conjectural emendation based (in part) on the LXX (“[The] houses of [those] crossing over the law will owe [i.e., require] cleansing”). His emended text reads: <v*a* <yx!l@ yl@h(a*B=, “In (the) tents of scoffers (there is) guilt”. It is an appealing proposal, not least because it produces a framing occurrence of the house-motif (i.e., “tents”, LXX oi)ki/ai, “houses”) here in v. 9 (cf. verse 1, and v. 11 below), which then allows for a more secure delineation of vv. 1-9 as a distinct proverb-grouping. A few fragments of chapter 14 survive in the Qumran manuscript 4QProvb; what little is preserved supports the MT, but unfortunately nothing of verse 9 (nor verse 1 for that matter, cf. above) survives, so it can provide no help toward establishing or confirming the text.
In light of the previous v. 8 (see above), the guilt that the foolish person scoffs at should be understood as his own. This implies that the foolish person has committed sin or has otherwise violated the covenant (viz., the Torah regulations); not only does he neglect the guilt that comes from such actions, he scoffs at it, demonstrating that he is already well on the pathway to wickedness. By contrast, the righteous (who are also wise) experience God’s pleasure (/oxr*, cf. 8:35; 11:27; 12:2, 22), because they do what is pleasing to Him (10:32; 11:1, 20). It is to be inferred that any guilt they acquire (through sin, etc.) is dealt with in the proper manner, through repentance and according to the ritual means of cleansing/atonement laid out in the Torah.
“(One’s) heart (alone) knows (the) bitterness of his soul,
and a stranger does not mix with his gladness (either).”
This particular proverb has a general (anthropological-psychological) orientation, and does not directly utilize the wise/righteous vs. foolish/wicked contrast. However, there may be an allusion to this contrast in the second line with the use of the adjective rz`, which, though it is customarily translated “strange(r)”, properly denotes one who has (or is) “turned aside”. In the ethical-religious context of the path/walking idiom in Proverbs (esp. in chapters 1-9), rz` refers to a (foolish/wicked) person who has “turned aside” from the right/straight path of Wisdom. If the proverb as a whole is addressed to the wise/righteous (or, at least, to the one who would learn Wisdom), then the second line may serve as a subtle warning not to share joy/gladness with a foolish/wicked person (cf. verse 7, above).
This proverb continues the theme of self-understanding and awareness that was introduced in verse 8 (and continued in v. 9). The heart of the wise person understands its emotions and its experience of both bitterness and gladness (cf. 12:25)—the reasons for it, etc. A mark of wisdom and prudence is to keep the details of such things, as they are experienced in the innermost ‘heart’, to oneself. One should be cautious about revealing one’s heart, even to another wise person; cf. the saying from the Egyptian Instruction of Khasheshonqi (cited by Schipper, p. 472): “If you become the companion of a wise man whose heart you do not know, do not open your heart to him” (14, x + 8; cf. Lichtheim, III.170).
The LXX of verse 10 is peculiar, probably as the result of trying to make sense of the Hebrew syntax: “(As for the) sensible heart of a man, his soul is sad, but when it/he is of a good mind, it/he is not mixed up with arrogance”; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 218.
“(The) house of (the) wicked shall be destroyed,
but (the) tent of (the) straight shall (ever) flourish!”
The house-motif here creates an inclusio with verse 1 that frames the sayings in vv. 1-9 as a distinct proverb-grouping. In that earlier proverb, the image was of building-up vs. tearing-down a house, emphasizing the role of a person’s conduct in that process. Here, the focus is on the ultimate fate of the righteous and wicked ones, respectively, implying punishment by God (for the wicked), and blessing (for the righteous); cf. 3:33; 15:25. The verb dm^v* has the basic meaning “destroy”, sometimes in the specific context of the extermination of a people or family line. For the verb jr^P* (“blossom”, i.e., flourish) in this context of Divine blessings on a person’s house and his family/descendants, cf. 11:28; also Ps 72:7; 92:13-14 [12-13]. On the righteous as a flourishing tree, cf. 11:30, also Psalm 1:3, etc.
The nouns ty]B^ (“house”) and lh#a) (“tent”) are essentially synonymous, though Fox (p. 576; cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen) raises the possibility of a distinction—i.e., the modest “tent” of the righteous in contrast to the more lavish “house” of the wicked.
As in vv. 2 and 9, the adjective rv*y` (“straight”) is used to designate the righteous. Both rv*y` and the contrasting uv*r* (“wicked”) are in the plural.
-
- References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
- References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
- References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
- Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
- Those marked “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
- Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
- Those marked “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
- Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
- Those marked “Toy” are to Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (1989).
- Those marked “Lichtheim, III” are to Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume III: The Late Period (University of California Press: 1980).
