The King-Priest – Zechariah 6:9-15

Introduction

The oracle concerning a future king-priest apparently was addressed to leaders among the first returnees from Babylon, principally Yehosua ben-Yehozadak, the one then designated as high priest, and Zerubbabel, the heir to the Davidic throne.  At this point, evidently no part of the second temple had yet been built other than its foundation.  This Yehoshua serves as a symbolic representative for a future person called jm'x, (Sprout, Shoot) who would arise from his place at some unspecified future time.  This person would build the temple of YHWH, and he would become both king and priest over the people of Israel.

Analysis

.rmoale yl'ae hwhyArb'd“ yhiy“w"  9

Then the word of YHWH came to me saying:

µ/YB' hT;a' t;ab;W hy:[“d"y“ taemeW hY:bi/f taemeW yD"l]j,me hl;/Gh' taemeW j"/ql; 10

.lb,B;mi WaB;Arv,a} hyn“p'x]Aˆb, hY:viayO tyBe t;ab;W aWhh'

Take from the exiles, from Cheldai, Toviah, and Yedayah, and you shall go on that day to the house of Yoshiah ben-Tzephanyah, who have come from Babylon.

... taemeW j"/ql   This verse begins with Take even from the exiles followed by a list of three names, but the direct object is not mentioned until the beginning of the next verse.  The names of the individuals listed evidently were prominent leaders among the returnees from Babylon.

hl;/Gh'   This term literally means the captivity or the exiles.  This usage seems peculiar today, but it actually refers to the company who had been exiles but were then returnees to Jerusalem.  The form is singular, but it is evidently being used as a collective.

lb,B;mi WaB;Arv,a}   At first reading, this clause appears to apply to just to Yoshiah; however, the verb is a 3mp perfect form, so this clause apparently applies to the three individuals who had just arrived from Babylon.  Neither this book nor Ezra-Nehemiah provides any detail about these people, but evidently they were leaders among the first returnees.  

A more compact translation according to English usage would be 'Take gold and silver from the returned exiles Heldai, Toviah, and Yedayah who have come from Babylon, and go to the house of Yoshiah ben-Tzephanyah.'

ˆheKoh' qd:x;/hy“AˆB, ["vu/hy“ varoB] T;m]c'w“ t/rf;[} t;yci[;w“ bh;z:w“A5s,q, T;j]q'l;w“ 11

.l/dG:h'

And you shall take silver and gold and make crowns (or an ornate crown).  Then you shall place (them, it) on the head of Yehoshua ben-Yehotzadak, the high priest.

t/rf;[} t;yci[;w    The term t/rf;[} is plural, but nothing in this verse indicates whether he was to make one or two crowns.  If one crown, then the plural form would indicate that it was to be a majestic crown made from both gold and silver.  If two crowns, then presumably one would be for the king and one for the high priest.  Tr:f;[} (singular form) refers to something more like a garland rather than the heavy crowns of European kings.

["vu/hy“ varoB] T;m]c'w“   Again the direct object is missing from this clause and must be assumed from the previous clause.  As a result, the ambiguity for the meaning of t/rf;[} remains.  Zerubbabel was heir to the Davidic throne, but he never became king over the returned exiles; Yehoshua was designated as high priest, and he also never became a king, so this act, if it was ever carried out literally, would necessarily have been symbolic.

/mv] jm'x, vyaiAhN<hi rmoale t/ab;x] hwhy rm'a; hKo rmoale wyl;ae t;r“m'a;w“ 12

.hwhy lk'yheAta, hn:b;W jm;x]yI wyT;j]T'miW 

Then you will say to him, 'Thus YHWH of Hosts has said, "A man named Tzemach (Sprout) will sprout from his place (or instead of him), and he will build the temple of YHWH.

jm;x]yI … /mv] jm'x, vyaiAhN<hi  Behold a man, Sprout is his name, will sprout up….  Note the repetition of the root צמח.  This is one characteristic of ancient Semitic poetic style.

jm'x,I   The man called jm'x, appears twice in this book and nowhere else by this name.  Three other related names, evidently for the same individual, do appear in other locations of the later prophets:

·      חטר – branch -- Is 11:1

·      נצר -- sprout, shoot -- Is 11:1, 14:19, 60:21; Dan 11:7

·      יונק – tender shoot – Is 53:2

All of these terms have a similar symbolic significance.  They all refer to the characteristics of a root sprout, particularly one of an olive tree.  Such a root sprout is initially invisible developing below the ground, but after it appears it grows rapidly upward and generally straight rather than gnarled and twiggy, like most of the above ground growth of an olive tree.  As a result it is distinctively different from the rest of the growth produced by the tree.

The first mention of the man called jm'x, is in Zech 3:8.  There the verse states that Yehoshua the high priest and his associates constitute a symbol for which the man called jm'x, my servant as the literal fulfillment.  The present passage describes what the man called jm'x, will accomplish when he finally appears.

jm;x]yI wyT;j]T'miW    Literally, and from under him (or it) he will sprout up.  BDB lists this verse and Ex 10:23 as the two places where wyT;j]T'mi means from his place.  This translation seemed peculiar to me, and it is not obviously connected to the basic meaning of the preposition.  The renderings of this expression by the ancient translations may be illuminating.

·      Ex 10:23a

o   MT – A man could not see his brother, and no man arose wyT;j]T'mi (from his place) for three days… (Note: The term חשך (darkness) is masculine so wyT;j]T'mi could just as easily mean from under it – i.e., from under the darkness.)

o    LXX – And nobody could see his brother for three days, and nobody got up from his bed for three days.

o   Targum – A man could not see his brother, and a man did not rise up from his place (מתחותוהו) for three days…

o    Syriac – A man could not see his brother, and a man did not rise from his place (מן דוכתא) for three days.

Note that the Targum uses the Aramaic form of the same expression as the Hebrew text – literally from below him (it).  The range of uses for the base term are under, beneath, in place of, instead of.  The Syriac translation uses a different term: from his place, office.

·      Zech 6:12

o   MT – Behold, a man, Sprout (jm'x,) is his name, and he will sprout up wyT;j]T'mi…

o   LXX –  Behold, a man, the East (Sun-rising – Ανατολη) is his name, and he will arise (like the sun) from underneath him/it (υποκατωθεν αυτου ανατελη)… (Ανατολη is feminine and αυτου is masculine/neuter, so the pronoun cannot refer back to this name.)

o   Targum – Behold the man, the Messiah (משיחא) is his name, who will be revealed and anointed in the future (עתיד דיתגלי ויתרבי)…

o   Syriac – Behold, the man, his name is the Epiphany (דנחא), and he will rise up (like the sun) and from below he will shine (ומן לתחת נדנח)…

Interestingly, none of these ancient translations for this verse support the rendering for wyT;j]T'mi offered by BDB, and all of them are significantly more messianic in nature than the original Hebrew text.  Both the LXX and the Syriac texts use the imagery of the sun rising from below the eastern horizon to depict the appearance of this individual.  Targum Jonathan specifically calls this person the Messiah and states that he would be revealed and anointed at some time in the future.

The fundamental ambiguity in the Hebrew text is the significance of wyT;j]T'mi and the antecedent of the pronominal suffix.  If the antecedent is the man called Sprout, then he comes from his place to build the temple of YHWH.  If the antecedent is Yehoshua, the high priest in this context, then this person, who is the manifestation of God, arises from Yehoshua's position to take the place of high priest and build the temple of YHWH.  From the standpoint of the Christian scriptures, both statements are true.  The distinctive thing about this passage is that the LXX and the Targum texts, both generated over a period of time from about 200 BCE onward, expected a man who would be the manifestation of YHWH.  He would appear suddenly from apparent obscurity, and he would build the temple of YHWH.  (Note: According to tradition, the Torah was translated into Greek all at one time, but the remaining books would have been translated over a more extended period.) The Syriac Peshitta was produced perhaps about 200 CE, and here it follows the interpretation of the LXX rather closely.

hwhy lk'yheAta, hn:b;W   This is a claim that Yeshua of Nazareth made about himself at least twice in the Gospels (Mat 16:18, Jn 2:19, 21), and Paul developed this theme by asserting that the corporate body of believers constituted the body of Messiah and so the temple of YHWH, the living God (1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).  Surely, Paul's understanding about this temple of YHWH was influenced by this verse.  However, surprisingly, this passage of Zechariah is never specifically cited in the Christian scriptures.

/as]KiAl[' lv'm;W bv'y:w“ d/h aC;yIAaWhw“ hwhy lk'yheAta, hn<b]yI aWhw“ 13

.µh,ynEv] ˆyBe hy<h]Ti µ/lv; tx'[}w" /as]KiAl[' ˆheko hy:h;w“

"When he builds the temple of YHWH, he will take up splendor and have dominion on his throne, and he will become a priest on his throne.  Then a counsel of peace will exist between the two (offices)."

hn<b]yI aWhw“  This construction is always emphatic because the third person pronoun is indicated by the form of the verb.  The implication is that though a physical structure called the temple of YHWH may already have existed, he will build a temple of YHWH that will supplant it in some way.

d/h aC;yIAaWhw“  Again emphatic, this clause asserts that when he arises, the man called Sprout will take up splendor, majesty, brightness and glory, attributes applied to YHWH as king.  This also is a theme present in the Gospels in at least two places: In the transfiguration of Yeshua, he manifested supernatural glory (Mt 17:2, Mk 9:2, 3, Lk 9:29), and in Jn 17:5 he requests that the Father restore to him the glory that he had before the foundation of the earth.

lv'm;W bv'y:w“  This is a pleonasm – two verbs that express a single verbal idea.  That is, he will sit upon his throne and have dominion…  The three parallel clauses in this verse assert that the man called Sprout will exhibit an attribute of God, rule as king, and function as priest.  Yeshua acknowledged before Pilate that he was born to be king of the Jews (Mt 15:11, Lk 23:3, Jn 18:36) but that his kingdom was separate from that present world.

µ/lv; tx'[}w"   This is a construct chain that is generally translated counsel of peace, but this translation avoids any attempt to determine exactly what is being expressed.  There are three reasonable possibilities:

·      Attributive – peaceful counsel.

·      Purpose – counsel in order to bring peace

·      Result – counsel that produces peace

In my opinion, the last option fits the context best.

/as]KiAl[' ˆheko hy:h;w  Yeshua never claimed to be a priest during his earthly ministry, but this is a major theme in the book of Hebrews (Heb chapters 5, 7 ff).  The major point in Hebrews is that Yeshua, being from the tribe of Judah could never function as a priest in the existing earthly temple, but rather he is the eternal high priest in the heavenly temple of which the tabernacle and later the temple in Jerusalem were only material copies.

ˆ/rK;zIl] hy:n“p'x]AˆB, ˆjel]W hy:[]d"yliW hy:bi/fl]W µl,jel] hy<h]Ti trof;[}h;w“ 14

.hwhy lk'yheB]

Now, the crown(s) will become a memorial for Chelem, Toviyah, Yedayah, and Chen ben-Tzephanyah in the temple of YHWH.

ˆ/rK;zIl] … hy<h]Ti trof;[}h;w  This clause indicates that the ornate crown (or crowns) were symbolic and that nobody would actually take up the crown of king-priest at the present time.  Note that the verb form is singular, indicating that the plural form of trof;[} should be understood as a plural of majesty.  Additionally, note that the list of names here is not quite the same as those in verse 10.  Since the crown was supposed to be placed in the temple, these individuals must have been priests and/or Levites.

µk,ylea} ynIj'l;v] t/ab;x] hwhyAyKi µT,[]d"ywI hwhy lk'yheB] Wnb;W Waboy: µyqi/jr“W 15

.µk,yheOla‘ hwhy l/qB] ˆW[m]v]Ti ["/mv;Aµai hy:h;w“

Then those far off will come, and they will build in the temple of YHWH.  Then you will know that YHWH of hosts has sent me to you.  It will come to be if you truly listen to the voice of YHWH your God.

Waboy: µyqi/jr“W   The term qi/jr“ iis an adjective being used as a noun.  It could refer to unspecified individuals separated in space or time from those presently being addressed.  It could be a reference to additional people to arrive from Babylon, or it could refer to people coming from far off after the appearance of the man called jm'x,,.  Interestingly, this is just the term used by Rav Shaul to refer to gentile believers in Ephesians 2:13.  If Yeshua is understood as the man called jm'x,,, then this is a reference to the gentile believers who would also became constituents of the temple of YHWH.

hwhy lk'yheB] Wnb;W  According to Zech 4:9, Zerubbabel had laid the foundation of the temple, and he would complete it.  Historically, this is just what happened in 515 BCE.  At that time the man called Sprout had not appeared; but if he is identified with Yeshua, then this occurred during his physical life from c. 4 BCE to 32 CE.  If those from far off are identified with the gentile followers of Yeshua, then this is a reference to the building up of the true gentile believers, who constitute part of the Body of Messiah here on earth up to the present time.  That is, they constitute a part of Messiah's body, but not its totality. 

µk,ylea} ynIj'l;v] t/ab;x] hwhyAyKi µT,[]d"ywI  This is a common formulaic expression accompanying futuristic prophesies: when the prophetic events actually take place, and you will know….  The second person plural forms could refer to the first returnees from Babylon (or the people alive at the time of fulfillment), and the first person pronoun refers to the spirit messenger speaking with Zechariah.  The verbal root ידע signifies know by experience rather than a mere awareness of information.  (In classical Hebrew this verb had a relatively broad range of uses, including sexual intercourse.   In modern Hebrew usage using this verb with a personal direct object implies sexual intercourse, and a different root is used to express acquaintance of a nonsexual nature.) 

ˆW[m]v]Ti ["/mv;Aµai hy:h;w“  This clause appears to make the oracle contingent on strict obedience to the word of YHWH.  Not until the time of Simon Hyrcanus did anyone take both the role of high priest and political rulership, but his son, Judah was the first to take the title of king in c. 104 BCE.  As a result the Hasmoneans were the first to claim the dual roles of priest and king, but they did not retain autonomous rule over the region for long.  After the Roman conquest under Pompey in 63 BCE, the region became tributaries to Rome, and the Hasmonean rule ended in 37 BCE.  From that time until the first Judean revolt, the region was ruled first by Roman client kings and then directly by Roman officials.

Summary

Up to this point, all of the oracles in this book were addressed primarily to the leaders of the first group of exiles to return to Jerusalem from Babylon.  The principal leaders were Zerubbabel, heir to the Davidic throne and Yehoshua the high priest.  Evidently, the occasion for the oracles was the discouragement of these leaders and their followers over the task of rebuilding the temple.  The sources for discouragement are never addressed directly, but based on the content of the first six chapters, it probably included the following factors:

·    YHWH had expelled the people and destroyed the temple because of the sin and covenant faithlessness of the people in general and the leaders in particular.  As a result there was doubt that YHWH would again favor the people and show mercy for Jerusalem.  (Ch 1, 2)

·      The pre-exilic priesthood had been hopelessly corrupt, and according to Torah, the guilt of the fathers affected the descendants up to the third and fourth generations.  (Ch 3)

·      Zerubbabel had laid the foundation for the second temple, but the people were disheartened because it seemed so much less that the glorious temple that had been built under Solomon. (Ch 4; Ezra 3:12)

·      Spiritual wickedness resided in the region of Babylon, from which authorization to rebuild the temple had come.  (Ch 5, 6:1-9)  

The apparent answer to these doubts and fears were presented by Zechariah's oracles and yet go beyond the prophets own time.

·      YHWH's favor would again rest on Jerusalem.

·      Generational guilt was symbolically removed from Yehoshua the high priest.

·      Zerubbabel had laid foundations for the new temple, and he would complete it.

·      YHWH's wrath against the land of the north – presumably Babylon – had been appeased.

·    A man called Sprout would arise, build the temple of YHWH that would supersede the one presently under construction, and he would assume the roles of both king and priest.

·    Men from far off (in distance or in time) would come and build within the temple established by the man called Sprout.

Moreover, Yehoshua and his associates constituted a living symbol for the man who would arise, seemingly from nowhere.  He would build the temple of YHWH, which would either supplant the one built physically in Jerusalem or be completely different in nature, and he would rule as both king and priest.  This man is designated as My Servant in Zech 3:8, and this undoubtedly connects him with the servant oracles of Isaiah.

The Name of God

Much ink has been spilled over the name of God (as opposed to the various titles people gave him following dramatic experiences).  Among Jews there is only one Name – יהוה, YHWH – unpronounceable and never enunciated.  The faith of the Jews is most specifically summarized in the Shema (Deut 6:4):

שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד

Hear O Israel YHWH our God is one YHWH.

Because no reliable pronunciation for the name has been preserved, the Jews use various substitutes for both liturgy and daily reference – Adonai and haShem among are most common – as well as a variety of unpronounceable abbreviations in their prayer books and other literature.  This practice is based on the desire to sanctify The Name – that is, to set God's name apart from common use and thereby avoid transgressing the commandment against misusing the name YHWH (Ex 20:7).

Christians are much freer in their usage and references.  To them references to God include Jesus as God, just God, or God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  Other than Jesus (for English speakers) there is no special name, and so sanctification of the name is not quite the concern that it is for Jews.  As a result, 'Jesus!' has become among the most common curse words in English for believers and nonbelievers alike.  As one of my linguistics professors mentioned, vulgarities for those from western cultures consists primarily of sexual, biological (particularly references to excrement), or theological references.  

Islam is a little different.  According to the Shahadah, their creedal statement with regard to their God is:

La ilah ila-llah, muhammadur-rasulu-ilah.

There is no God but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of God.  

From a linguistic standpoint, the terms ilah and allah are different forms of the same word, and that word is the common Semitic term for god.  Consequently, a truly literal translation of the first sentence is 'There is no God but God'. The terms אל ,אלוה ,אלה are attested in various forms in every known Semitic language of antiquity.  (Etheopic, which is classified as a Hamo-Semitic language, uses the term Egsiabher for God, but it is the only exception I know of.)  The first sentence in the Islamic creed amounts to a tautology.  While a tautology is always true, it conveys no information. The second sentence identifies who is being identified as God by Islam – the one spoken of by Muhammad.

In the ancient world a multitude of gods were known and recognized by every people group, even if they restricted special devotion to a particular god.  References in both the bible and secular records indicate that the ancient peoples tended to be extremely inclusive with respect to the elim, the gods.  If the biblical narrative is taken at face value, then the human story began with direct experience and certain knowledge of the one and only God, but this knowledge rapidly became corrupted by the human desire to be like god.   After that monotheism did not reappear until Abraham, and this was described more like henotheism – i.e., their devotion to YHWH was exclusive, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob recognized that the peoples among whom they lived had other gods whose existence they never overtly denied. 

The narrative in Gen 31 is instructive with respect to this topic.  In this passage, Jacob states that a messenger of God came to him in a dream.  This messenger identified himself as the God he had seen at Bethel and told him that it was time for him to return to the land of his birth.  When he departed with his wives, children, and possessions, Rachel stole Laban's household god(s) without Jacob's knowledge (Gen 31:19).   At that time, the people believed that the presence of the household gods provided protection and blessing.  As a minimum, this act symbolized the departure of blessing and prosperity from Laban to Jacob and his household.  There is no mention of Laban's gods after this chapter, so they evidently had no hold on Jacob's mind; but their loss had major impact on Laban -- to the point that he was willing to kill to get them back.  As such it constituted his excuse for following after Jacob in wrath.  After Laban failed to find his gods among Jacob’s possessions, the two made a covenant that neither would again cross that point (a pile of stones) to the other’s location.

Now, as previously mentioned, the actual vocalization of the name יהוה has not been preserved from antiquity, but that has not stopped people from attempting to generate a vocalization today.  Printed Hebrew bibles present God’s name in two different ways:

·      hw:hy]

·      hwIhy‘

Neither of these vocalizations represent the pronunciation of the name.  Rather, when the first form appears, a reader is intended to say Adonai – my (majestic) Lord; when the second form appears, the reader is intended to say Elohim – God.  The purpose of this difference is to prevent repetition of the same divine title during the reading of the text. 

In the late 1870’s Charles Taze Russel, who knew nothing of the Jewish cantillation traditions, used the first of the above vocalizations to come up with the pronunciation Jehovah.  This pronunciation is not remotely possible for the sound system of ancient Hebrew or any other ancient Semitic language.  However, the Hebrew bible does preserve two shorten forms of God’s name within personal names – Yah and Yahu – and these forms continue in use to this day.  In my opinion, the divine name is based on the hiphil (causative form) imperfect of the verb root הוה, which is a rare synonym of the verb to be.  Taking the sense of the form to be gnomic in force, the name would mean He causes being.  This is just how the God of the bible is presented throughout its text.  (Identifying YHWH as a 3ms imperfect causative form is the current scholarly consensus.)

ARE THERE PROVERBS IN THE TORAH?

INTRODUCTION

The Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy, also called the Pentateuch) consists of the revelation delivered to the descendants of Israel through Moses during the 40-year exodus from Egypt.  The date assigned for this event by conservative scholars ranges from mid 1500 BC to mid 1200 BC.¹  Liberal scholars deny that the events described in the Pentateuch ever occurred as described and assert that the extant narratives were assembled as a conflation from multiple source documents, none of which were reliable or historically accurate.²  This theory asserts that the Pentateuch took its present form during the Babylonian captivity or later.  The present article assumes the conservative point of view concerning the text and historicity of the narratives in the Pentateuch without argument.  In addition, the first manuscript of the Torah is assumed to have been completed before the start of the conquest described in the book of Joshua.³  The antiquity and unified authorship of the Pentateuch is essential to the thesis of this article but not its exact date of completion.

Further, this article assumes that the original manuscript of the Pentateuch was written using the linguistic forms, vocabulary, and modes of expression then current among the Israelites c. 1300 BCE, or before.  From that time to the date of the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript currently extant (c. 900 AD)⁴ certain changes were incorporated into the text:

·   Following the Babylonian exile, the orthography of all Jewish Scriptures was changed progressively from paleo-Hebraic script to Aramaic square script.  However, the Samaritan Pentateuch continued to be written in paleo-Hebraic script, and this distinction remains to this day.  No Jewish text of the Pentateuch now exists in paleo-Hebraic script, and the traditions of the kabbalah imply that the very existence of the paleo-Hebraic script had been largely forgotten within Jewish communities by 700 AD⁵ or before.

·      While Classical Hebrew was a living language, scribes may periodically have replaced archaic vocabulary with the currently equivalent terms.  Evidence for this practice is preserved in various parallel passages of the Hebrew Bible.⁶  Such activity is not significant to this article, except in that it indicates scribal awareness of linguistic change over the course of time.

·      As long as Classical Hebrew remained a living language, its grammar, syntax, word usage, and forms of expression changed.  This phenomenon, called linguistic change or drift, is common to all living languages and always exists from one generation to the next.⁷  Linguistic drift certainly existed in Classical Hebrew during the nearly 1000-year interval from Moses to the Babylonian exile.  However, direct records (i.e., ostraca and monumental inscriptions) of linguistic forms from this period are too limited to produce any detailed mapping of changes.  The cumulative changes to the spoken language eventually created the need for translations and interpretation.  As time progressed, the average Jew (or descendant of Israel) simply could no longer understand the meaning of the words as they were read in Classical Hebrew without commentary.

Changes in the meaning of words, grammar, syntax, literary forms, and culture all create the potential for misunderstanding the intent of an ancient text. This article will examine particular expressions in the Torah that may have been proverbs at the time the text was written but have been consistently interpreted as regular prose by traditional Judaism.  For the purpose of this article, ‘traditional Judaism’ refers to the forms and expressions of Judaism preserved in the Talmud and dating from approximately 300 CE and later.⁸   If this thesis is correct, misinterpretations of various passages in the Torah have resulted in various traditions that markedly deviate from the original intent of the Biblical revelation.  Two challenges exist:

1.      Produce a reliable, objective test for identifying potential proverbs embedded within the Torah.  To be useful, this test must rely on factors that are recoverable from the Hebrew text as it presently exists.

2.      Provide a reasonable and justifiable method for determining the intended semantic content of any proverbs that are thus identified.

Neither of these objectives can be accomplished with absolute certainty.  The original culture of the Hebrew people died with their captivity: Israel first and then Judah 150 years later.  Some of those who returned with Ezra barely understood the Hebrew language, or at least what was expressed in the Torah without commentary (cf Neh 8:2-8).  Common use of a dialect of the Hebrew language was restored shortly after the return from the first exile, but the grammar, vocabulary, and style of that dialect differed in many ways from those of the pre-exilic form of the Hebrew language.⁹  Following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, common use of Hebrew as the native language of the Jews apparently diminished until it became largely a religious and an academic language among scholars.  Consequently, rabbinic interpretations of passages from the Torah will necessarily reflect their mindset, not one from 1000 years earlier.   As a result, the best that can be produced at the present time is a reasonable plausibility that particular passages originally were understood as proverbs, and that will be the quest of this examination.

TO SPEAK PROVERBIALLY

What is a proverb?  Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary¹⁰ defines a proverb as a ‘brief popular epigram or maxim.’  The corresponding Hebrew term, lv;m;,¹¹ is given primary  English meanings of either ‘proverb’ or ‘parable’ depending on context; its basic root meaning is ‘represent, be like.’  In either case, a proverb would inherently be tied to a particular language, culture, and historical setting. As previously noted, every language and every culture changes over the course of time.  Consequently, a saying that was recognized as a proverb by a particular culture at one time in its history would not necessarily be recognized as such by a later generation, even if that later generation still spoke some form of the same language.  When both the spoken language and the culture change, the potential for misunderstanding increases markedly.  These factors necessarily exacerbate the task of an interpreter who shares neither the culture nor direct verbal facility with Classical Hebrew, as is the case for all modern interpreters, including modern Israelis.

Examples of Modern English Proverbs

The English language and culture are not noted for their use of proverbs, and yet proverbs both exist and are used with regularity as a shortcut for expression.  The following examples list a few English proverbs that have been used in various contexts over the past 60 years.

·      Kilroy was here.  This statement became something of a proverb during World War II.  Following the invasion of Normandy, this statement was seen scrawled on walls and fences throughout Europe.  It came to signify something like the following: ‘No matter who you are or where you go, somebody else got here first.’

·     Murphy’s Law.  Whenever anything goes wrong, somebody will attach this phrase to the experience.  Almost everybody who speaks English today will know exactly what is implied:  ‘Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.’

·      What goes around comes around.  This saying has been in common usage for the past fifteen years at least, though it is now starting to drop out of common use.  It was frequently cited when an experience – usually an unpleasant or unfortunate experience - that is endemic to a particular area befalls a particular individual.

·      How about that?  This saying was popularized in the 1960’s by an American comedian, but it has now largely faded away.  In itself, it has no coherent meaning; however, it was generally used as an ejaculation of surprise over any unexpected circumstance.

Each of these examples has two common features.  First, they are verbally inflexible.  Exactly the same expression is used regardless of the specific context to which it is applied.  The speaker selects a particular saying based on its applicability to a specific experience and presents that saying without verbal alteration.  Second, the original circumstance that produced the saying is either unknown to the speaker or irrelevant to its use.  In short, the expression has come to have a life of its own that is detached from its original context. 

Examples of Proverbs in Classical Hebrew

Unlike the modern English culture, that of ancient Israel held proverbs and proverbial reasoning as central to their mode of expression.  An entire book of the Hebrew Bible is devoted to the proverbial sayings of that culture.  The book of Proverbs is a compilation of proverbs that existed at a particular point time in the history of ancient Israel, but this book does not give any clue about the way that the contemporary people actually used those proverbs.  To fill this void, a few examples will be adduced from other portions of the Hebrew scriptures.

Ecclesiastes 1:15

Ecclesiastes 1:15 contains the first clear example of two proverbs embedded into the general context of this book.  The preceding two verses are presented below to provide some indication of the general context.¹²

μyim;V;h' tj'T' hc,[}n' rv,a}AlK; l[' hm;k]j;B' rWtl;w“ v/rd“li yBiliAta, yTit'n:w“ 13

./B t/n[}l' μd:a;h; yneb]li μyhi/la‘ ˆt'n; [r: ˆyn}[i aWh

And I applied my heart to examine intently with wisdom all that is done under the sun:  God has given a profoundly unpleasant task to mankind to be occupied with.

.j"Wr tW[r“W lb,h, lKoh' hNEhiw“ vm,V;h' tj'T' Wc[}N"v, μyci[}M'h'AlK;Ata, ytiyair: 14

I have seen all of the deeds that are done under the sun, and everything is an illusion¹³ and a longing¹⁴ for wind:

.t/nM;hil] lk'WyAal ˆ/rs]j,w“ ˆqot]li lk'WyAal tW:[um] 15

What is bent cannot be straightened, and what is missing cannot be counted.¹⁵

The overall context preceding the two proverbs indicate that man’s lot under the sun is not exactly a happy one.  Life is hard, and the circumstances of life do not add up to anything substantial or enduring.  Then the author inserts the two proverbial statements of verse 15, which do not have verbal continuity with any part of the context.¹⁶ The remainder of the Hebrew scriptures provide no hint that these two clauses were fixed verbal formulas that could be applied to widely different circumstances, but their semantic content fits the preceding context.  In short, these two clauses are used as proverbs.

From an interpretive standpoint, both clauses are tied as a unit to the preceding verse, and j"Wr tW[r“W lb,h, lKoh' hNEhiw“ serves as a climactic refrain throughout the book.  The essential key to the author’s intended meaning is in verse 13B: ‘God has given a profoundly unpleasant task to mankind (the sons of Adam) to be occupied with.’  Adam’s original job assignment was not an unpleasant task: tend and keep the garden that God made for him (Gen 2:15).  This was subsequently changed by judicial pronouncement: ‘Cursed is the ground (earth) because of you.  With toil you will eat from it all the days of your life’ (Gen 3:17).  Thus, the essential significance of these two proverbs in this context appears to be:

What is bent cannot be straightened       All of the earth was bent (adversely impacted) by God’s judicial curse, and nothing man can do will alter that fact.

What is missing cannot be counted           The native innocence that man had at his creation has been lost, and nothing man does can recover that innocence.

These become the constraints that govern both the investigations and the proverbial wisdom that make up the rest of this book.

Ecclesiastes 4:5-6

Wh[erEme vyaiAta'n“qi ayhi yKi hc,[}M'h' ˆ/rv]KiAlK; taew“ lm;[;AlK;Ata, ynIa} yTiyair:w“  4

.j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, hz<AμG"

And I saw all the toil and all the strife that happens, for it comes from rivalry of a man with his neighbor.  This too is an illusion and a longing for wind.

./rc;B]Ata, lkeaow“ wyd:y:Ata, qbejo lysiK]h'  5

The fool folds his hands and consumes his own substance (or eats his meat).

.j'Wr tW[r“W lm;[; μyIn"p]j; aloM]mi tj'n: 5k' aloom] b/f  6

One hand full of rest is better than two hands full of toil and longing for wind.

This is a second example of two proverbs embedded into the context of Ecclesiastes.  Within the context, the author is talking about rivalries that exist between people.  The two proverbs present a stark contrast with the previous verse.  Rabbinic commentators all recognize this stark contrast, but no general consensus exists on the specific interpretation of the proverbs.¹⁷ The overall argument of Ecclesiastes is not particularly significant to this study.  What is significant is that the above examples illustrate three major characteristics for the identification and interpretation of a proverb embedded within a composition:

·      The verbal content of the proverb may be completely unrelated to that of the overall context.

·      The proverb encapsulates a semantic concept that constitutes an integral part of the argument or point the author is trying to express.

·      The grammatical and syntactic structure of the proverb may permit multiple interpretations, so the specific meaning intended must be obtained from the immediate context.

I Sam 10:12

aB;nI μyaibin“Aμ[i hNEhiw“ WarYIw" μ/vl]vi l/mT]aime /[d/yAlK; yhiy“w"  11

.μyaiybiN“B' lWav; μg"h} vyqiAˆb,l] hy:h; hZ<Ahm' Wh[erEAla, vyai μ[;h; rm,aYOw" 

And all of those who had known him previously saw him prophesying among the prophets, and the people said to one another, “What is this?  Is Saul the son of Kish also among the prophets?”

.μyaibiN“B' lWav; μg"h} lv;m;l] ht;y“h; ˆKeAl[' μh,ybiaÄ ymiW rm,aYOw" μV;mi vyai ˆ['Y"w"  12

And a man from there asked, ‘So who are their fathers?’¹⁸ Therefore the saying ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ became a proverb.¹⁹

In this context, Saul the son of Kish, who had not previously exhibited any prophetic gift, suddenly began acting like one of the charismatic prophets of early Israel.  Those witnesses who knew him expressed surprise at this sudden change.  However, the change in Saul’s conduct is not the most surprising aspect of the narrative for an interpreter who lives more than 3000 years after the events described.  Rather, the surprising aspect of the narrative is that the question ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ became a proverb to these people.  What kind of proverb could this possibly be, and how could it have been used?  There is no example of its use in scripture other than this one reference.  However, based on the surprise that was expressed by the witnesses, the question could have become a formulaic expression that was applied to any surprising or unexpected situation.  The significant aspect of this example is that a proverb in Classical Hebrew does not follow any particular verbal formula.  Usage makes an expression a proverb.

Possible Proverbs In Torah

Use of lv;m; in the Torah

The nominal form lv;m; occurs a total of 40 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, 10 of which are in the Torah.²⁰  In eight of these occurrences, the term is used to introduce each of the Balaam oracles (Nu 23:7-24:25), and in one occurrence the term introduces a poem about the destruction of Heshbon the city of Sihon (Nu 21:27-30).  In all of these nine instances the term lv;m; seems almost synonymous with aC;m', the prophetic burden.  Deuteronomy 28:37 contains the final occurrence of this term in the Torah.  This passage describes the judicial consequences for Israel’s infidelity to the terms of God’s covenant with them: they themselves would become a proverb to the peoples among whom God would drive them.  This final instance alone corresponds to the type of usage that will be the object of this examination, but it does not provide any verbal example of a proverb.

Deut 25:4 -- You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.

This passage is cited twice by Paul (1 Cor 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18), and both times he interprets the passage proverbially. The Massoretic text of Deuteronomy marks this one verse as a stand-alone paragraph; however, consider this passage with its immediately preceding context.

QyDIX'h'Ata, WqyDIx]hiw“ μWfp;v]W fP;v]Mih'Ala, WvG“nIw“ μyvin:a} ˆyBe byrI hy<h]yIAyKi   1

.[v;r:h;Ata, W[yvir“hiw“

When a dispute exists between men, and they draw near for judgement, they will judge them and vindicate the righteous one and condemn as guilty the wicked one.

.rP;S]MiB] /T[;V]rI ydEK] wyn:p;l] WhK;hiw“ fpevoh' /lyPihiw“ [v;r:h; t/Kh' ˆBiAμai hy:h;w“  2

And if the wicked one deserves a beating, the judge shall cause him to lie prostrate, and he (the guilty one) will be flogged before him (the judge) with the number of strokes appropriate for his wickedness.

.Úyn<y[el] Úyjia; hl;q]nIw“ hB;r" hK;m' hL,aeAl[' /tKoh'l] 5ysiyÕAˆP, 5ysiyÕ alo WNK,y" μy[iB;r“a'  3

They shall not strike him more than 40 times, lest his beating increase to many more stripes than these, and your brother becomes degraded before your eyes.

./vydIB] r/v μsoj]t'Aalo  4

You do not (shall not) muzzle an ox while it is threshing.²¹

The purpose of verses 1-3 is to limit the scope of punishment for a non-capital offense in order to prevent degradation of a fellow Israelite.  This is one of several commandments in this immediate context, all of which mandate merciful and equitable treatment of a person who is in a position of weakness.  If verse 4 is interpreted as an absolute commandment, then it constitutes a singular disruption in this overall context.  However, if it is understood as a proverb that describes the characteristic treatment of domestic animals by the Israelites, then it provides an essential rationale for accepting all of the other commands in this section:

You do not treat the animals that are subjected to you in a harsh or degrading manner; do not do so with your brothers.

Lev 19:14

./tymi[}B' vyai WrQ]v't]Aalow“ Wvj}k't]Aalow“ WbnOg“Ti alo 11

You shall not steal, deceive, or deal falsely with one another.

.hwhy ynIa}  Úyh,loa‘ μveAta, T;l]L'jiw“ rq,V;l' ymiv]bi W[b]V;tiAalow“ 12

And you shall not swear falsely by My name and so profane the name of your God – I, YHWH.

.rq,BoAd[' ÚT]ai rykic; tL'[uP] ˆylit;Aalo lzÕg“ti alow“ Ú[}rEAta, qvo[}t'Aalo 13

You shall not oppress or rob your neighbor; you shall not keep a workman’s pay with you until morning.²²

.hwhy ynIa} Úyh,loa‘Me t;arEy:w“ lvok]mi ˆTeti alo rWE[i ynEp]liw“ vrEje lLeq't]Aaloo 14

You do not belittle a deaf person, and you do not put a stumbling block in front of a blind person.²³ Rather, you shall fear before your God – I, YHWH.

The characteristics of verse 14 are similar to those of the previous example, except that these two clauses maintain verbal continuity with the overall context.  They are normally translated and understood in the same way as the preceding commandments, yet one can hardly imagine that the specific prohibitions expressed in verse 14 should be necessary for any civil society.  The alternative is to interpret the clauses in verse 14 as a statement of expected cultural norms, which may be understood as proverbial in force.  By implica­tion, violating any of the other commandments expressed in verses 11 through 18 would be equivalent to a violation of these cultural norms and thus repugnant to the people of that society.

Lev 19:19

l/dg: ynEP] rD"h]t, alow“ ld:AynEp] aC;tiAalo fP;v]MiB' lw<[; Wc[}t'Aalo 15

.Út,ymi[} fPov]Ti qd<x,B]

You shall not practice unrighteousness in judgement: you shall not give preference to (lift the face of) the poor nor show favoritism to the great.  You shall judge your people with righteousness.

.hwhy ynIa} Ú[,rE μD"Al[' dmo[}t' alo ÚyM,['B] lykir: ËlEteAalo 16

You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people.  You shall not seek the life (stand against the blood) of your neighbor – I, YHWH.

.af]je wyl;[; aC;tiAalow“ Út,ymi[}Ata, j"yki/T j"ke/h Úb,b;l]Bi Úyjia;Ata, an:c]tiAaloo 17

You shall not hate your brother in your heart.   You may surely reprove your associate, but you shall not incur sin because of him (or impute sin upon him).

.hwhy ynIa}  Ú/mK; Ú[}rEl“ T;b]h'a;w“ ÚM,[' ynEB]Ata, rFotiAalow“ µQotiAaloo 18

You shall not take vengeance nor keep (anger) with the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself – I, YHWH.

µyIa'l]Ki [r"z“tiAalo Úd“c; µyIa'l]Ki ["yBir“t'Aalo ÚT]m]h,B] WrmoV]Ti yt'QojuAta, 19

.Úyl,[; hl,[}y" alo znEf]['v' µyIa'l]Ki dg<b,W

You shall keep My statutes: You do not breed two kinds of your animals; you do not sow your field with two kinds of seed; and you do not wear a garment made of two kinds of material.

The preceding context continues the exposition of how one person should interact with others in their society.   All of the individual commands are then summarized by Lev 19:19A – You shall keep My statutes.  The three clauses in Lev 19:19B are presented as if they subsume what is meant by ‘keeping the Lord’s statutes.’  These clauses introduce a sharp verbal discontinuity into the text, and they bear no relationship to any statute or commandment previously mentioned either in Leviticus or in all of Exodus.  This marks them out as a possible instance of proverbial argumentation.  The first interpretive problem is the meaning of the statements themselves.

µyIa'l]Ki ["yBir“t'Aalo The verb is a 2ms hiphil imperfect of [Br (stretch out, lie down) that BDB interprets to signify breeding activity.²⁴  The term µyIa'l]Ki is a dual form that occurs three times here and once in Deut 22:9.  BDB interprets this term to mean ‘two different kinds.’²⁵  However, this clause does not necessarily refer to the forced breeding of different kinds of animals.  The LXX interpretation of this passage – ouj katoceuvseiı eJterozuvgw/ - you shall not bind with different yokes - has nothing to do with breeding.  Either interpretation could readily be understood as a proverb among an agrarian people.

The proverbial significance of the second statement is less difficult to assess.  The ancient Israelites cultivated wheat, barley, onions, garlic grapes, olives, figs, and pomegranates.  Literally, the action described by the verb [rz applies only to wheat and barley – the other crops either grow on perennial plants or are most successfully cultivated by means of transplants, not broadcast sowing of seed.  If one is foolish enough to grow wheat and barley together, he will lose both crops.  Because they are wind pollinated, a mixed stand will produce a low yield to begin with, but they also have different growing intervals.  Harvesting the barley, which matures first (cf. Ruth 2:23), would destroy the wheat; waiting for the wheat would result in total loss of the barley.

znEf]['v' µyIa'l]Ki dg<b,W   The meaning of znEf]['v' is unknown.  BDB suggests the translation ‘mixed stuff’ and offers a Coptic root as a possible parallel.²⁶  The LXX translation – ejk duvo uJfasmevnon kivbdhlon - spurious, woven from two – is an equally obscure expression.  As a suggestion, the intent may have been a reference to one garment made from two different kinds of cloth (e.g., a linen shirt with wool sleeves).  Such a garment would start to fall apart the first time it was washed because the two types of cloth age differently.  A prudent person simply would not make or wear such a garment.

If these clauses are understood as proverbs, then what is their significance to the overall context?  The clause in Lev 19:19A provides a general summary for the preceding string of commands, and these clauses are appended to that summary.  Each clause forbids an action that is obviously both foolish and self-defeating.  The implication is that failing to keep the Lord’s statutes, particularly those in the immediately preceding context, is equally foolish and self-defeating.

Deut 21:10-22:1-11

Deuteronomy chapters 21 through 25 are similar to Leviticus chapters 18 through 22 in that both contain a series of short commands that have been generally organized thematically.  Some of the specific commands in the two sections are duplicated either thematically or verbally.  As previously noted, a possible indication of proverbial argumentation is a verse that deviates completely from the overall thematic context.  The sequence of commands in this section is as follows:

·      (Dt 21:10-14) A woman that an Israelite soldier takes captive in war and then marries cannot subsequently be sold as a slave or treated harshly, because she has been humbled.

·      (Dt 21:15-17) A man must give first-born status to the son actually born first regardless of his personal preferences.

·      (Dt 21:18-21) A man who has a rebellious son shall bring him before the elders of his city for judgment, and if the allegations are verified the entire city will stone that child to death.

·      (Dt 21:22-23) A condemned person who is executed and hung on a tree shall be buried before sundown because such a person is cursed by God.

·      (Dt 22:1-3) A man who finds a strayed animal or other property must return that property to its owner.

·      (Dt 22:4)  A man who finds a domestic animal in distress must aid that animal.

·      (Dt 22:5)  A person shall not wear the garment appropriate for the opposite sex.

·      (Dt 22:6, 7)  You do not take two generations of an animal for food.

·      (Dt 22:8)  You do take preventive measures to avoid accidents.

·      (Dt 22:9)  You do not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed lest the totality of the seed that you sow and the produce of the vineyard be set aside.

·      (Dt 22:10)  You do not plow with an ox and an ass together.

·      (Dt 22:11)  You do not wear a mixed garment (made) of wool and linen together.

At first sight this collection of verses appears to have no obvious relation one to another.  Rashi connected the first two or three of these passages,²⁷ and the two passages about lost property are clearly related; yet all of them are set within successive verses of Deuteronomy.  As a suggestion, all of these passages relate to nominal conduct within a well-ordered society, as did the passages previously cited from Leviticus 19:

·      The first three commands clearly forbid random or unrestrained conduct of a man over his own family in response to immediate circumstances or preferences – that is, Torah establishes limits over a man's authority even with his own family.

·      Verse 21:23 states that leaving a corpse of an executed criminal hanging in the open overnight renders the land טמה (unclean) because קללת אלהים תלוי (accursed by God is one who is hanged).

·      Verses 22:1, 3, and 4 contain a hithpael form of עלם, meaning hide oneself,²⁸ and thereby ignore or remain unresponsive to an observed need.

·      Verse 22:5 states that dressing in the garment of the opposite sex is תועבה – an abomination, something abhorred by the Lord.  The reason for abhorrence is not stated, but one might surmise that by doing so the person is attempting to hide his/her true identity for some personal motive.

·      The last five statements (Dt 22:6 – 11) could be understood as either direct commands or as proverbs.  If the latter was the case, then they identify cultural expectations as the normative basis for keeping the preceding set of commands.

 Tx,b,ro μaeh;w“ μyxiybe /a μyjiropa, 6r<a;h;Al[' /a 6[eAlk;B] Ër<D<B' Úyn<p]l] r/PxiAˆq' arEQ;yI yKi  6

.μynIB;h' l[' μaeh; jQ'TiAalo μyxiyBeh'Al[' /a μyjirop]a,h;Al['

.μymiy: T;k]r"a}h'w“ Ël; bf'yyi ˆ['m'l] Ël;AjQ'Ti μynIB;h'Ata,w“ μaeh;Ata, jL'v'T] j"Lev'  7

When you encounter a bird's nest before you on the road, whether in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you do not take the mother with the young.  You surely will chase the mother away and take the young for yourself so that it will go well with you, and you will lengthen your days.

This passages is either a direct command to forbid the killing of mother and young at the same time or a proverb asserting the practical wisdom in observing this practice.  For an agrarian populace composed primarily of subsistence farmers and herdsmen, the wisdom of this practice is self-evident.  Any herdsman who regularly killed both mother and young for food would soon have no herd.  Any population that did so with wild animals fit for food would eventually drive those animals into extinction.

.WNM,mi lpeNOh' lPoyIAyKii Út,ybeB] μymiD: μycit;Aalw“ ÚG<g"l] hq,[}m' t;yci[;w“ vd:j; tyIB' hn<b]ti yKi  8

When you build a new house, you place a parapet for your roof so you do not bring blood-guilt on your house because somebody fell from it.

This verse also could be read as either a direct command or as a proverb concerning normal precautions taken to prevent possible misfortunes in the future. 

.μr<K;h' ta'Wbt]W [r:z“Ti rv,a} [r"Z<h' ha;lem]h' vD"q]TiAˆP, μyIa;l]K' Úm]r“K' [r"z“TiAalo  9

You do not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed lest the totality of the seed that you sow and the produce of the vineyard be set aside.²⁹

.wD:j]y" rmoj}b'WAr/vB] vroj}t'Aalooo 10

You do not plow with an ox and an ass together.

. wD:j]y" µyTiv]piW rm,x, znEf]['v' vB'l]ti alo 11

You do not wear a mixed garment (made) of wool and linen together.

Verses 9, 10, and 11 have an obvious verbal similarity to those in Lev 19:19B; but they are not identical.  This lack of verbal identity with the previous passage does not automatically disqualify them from having been proverbs, but they do deviate from the pattern previously assumed.  Nevertheless, all five of these statements embody conduct that would have been common sense for any agrarian society.  So what would be the significance of proverbs in this section?  If these five verses are understood as cultural norms within the society, then the implication is that the preceding set of commands have at least the same level of importance for that society as these proverbial norms.

You shall not boil the kid in its mother’s milk.

This passage occurs in three different locations of the Torah: Ex 23:19, Ex 34.26, and Dt 14:21.  Historically, it has always been interpreted as an absolute law in rabbinic Judaism, and it was the basis for the kashrut separation of all meat dishes from all dairy foods.

.rq,BoAd[' yGIj'Abl,je ˆyliy:Aalw“ yjib]zIAμD" 6mej;Al[' jB'z“tiAal 18

./Mai blej'}B ydIG“ lVeb't]Aal Úyh,la‘ hwhy tyBe aybiT; Út]m;d“a' yrEWKBi tyviarE 19

You shall not present the blood of my sacrifice upon leaven, and you shall not leave the fat from my festival until morning.  The first fruit of your land you shall bring (to) the house of YHWH your God.  You do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

. js'P;h' gj' jb'z< rq,Bol' ˆyliy:Aalw“ yjib]zIAμD" 6mej;Al[' fj'v]tiAal 25

./Mai ble,j}B' ydIG“ lVeb't]Aal Úyh,la‘ hwhy tyBe aybiT; Út]m;d“a' yrEWKBi tyviarE 26

You shall not present the blood of my sacrifice upon leaven, and you shall not leave the passover sacrifice until morning.  The first fruit of your land you shall bring (to) the house of YHWH your God.  You do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

yrIk]n:l] rkom; /a Hl;k;a}w" hN:n<T]Ti Úyr<[;v]BiArv,a rGEl' hl;ben“Alk; Wlk]ato al 21

./Mai blej}B] ydIG“ lVeb't]Aal Úyh,la‘ hwhy hT;a' v/dq; μ[' yKi

You shall not eat any carrion.  You may give it to the sojourner who is in your gates, and he may eat it; or you may sell it to a stranger, for you are a people set apart for YHWH your God.  You do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

The first thing to note in these three passages is that the context differs.  The first two deal with improprieties with cultic sacrifices; the third deals with meat in a completely non-cultic situation.  Yet, the clause in question is verbally identical in each case.  The second truly remarkable thing is that the content of the sentence ‘You do not boil a kid in it mother’s milk’ has absolutely nothing to do with either the preceding sentences or the following context.  If this is interpreted as an absolute prohibition, then it appears to have been imported into its present locations from some other context as the result of a scribal error.  Such a conclusion would be more plausible if it existed in just one location and the source of the phrase could be identified.  If one rejects such a scribal error, then at least three other alternatives remain according to an article by Sasson:³⁰

·       Rashi: The term ydG is interpreted as a reference to any animal appropriate for food, and the verb lVbt is interpreted as any method for cooking.  This serves as the basis for the rabbinic kashrut rules for absolute separation of meat from dairy foods.

·      Maimonides:  This is an injunction against a Canaanite fertility rite.  According to Sasson's article, modern scholars initially thought that this view was supported by a Ugaritic text, but subsequent analysis of that text proved the initial interpretation to be incorrect.

·       Sasson's own suggestion is that the phrase /Mai blej} (milk of its mother) is a scribal error for /Mai bl,je (fat of its mother).  This would forbid taking two generations at the same time for food.  This assertion is consistent with the direct command in Lev 22:28, which forbids taking both the young and its mother for a sacrifice to YHWH.  (As previously noted, such an injunction could be proverbial in force.)

In my opinion, all of these suggested interpretations have the same flaw: none of them have any explanation for the lack of contextual relevance of this clause to the passages in which it is found.  This difficulty would be eliminated if the clause was originally a proverb in the culture of the target audience.  In each case, the contexts describe a circumstance that renders meat lWGyPi – refuse, repulsive to YHWH.  If this last clause was a proverb describing a practice that was repulsive within the target culture, then these passages would be additional examples of proverbial argumentation.  

CONCLUSIONS

This study has hardly been comprehensive.  The few examples that have been examined did illustrate the characteristics of proverbial argumentation and showed that such constructions are present in the Torah.  Three general keys were used for identifying and interpreting possible proverbs within the text:

·      The verbal content of a proverb may be totally unrelated to that of the overall context.

·      A proverb encapsulates a semantic concept that constitutes an integral part of the argument or point the author is trying to express.

·      The grammatical and syntactic structure of the proverb may permit more than one interpretation, so the specific meaning intended must be obtained from the immediate context.

When a passage was found having these characteristics, a proverbial interpretation of that clause or passage usually served to unify and amplify the overall thrust of the pericope.  This does not prove that the passages in question were originally understood as proverbs, but it does make this understanding both reasonable and plausible, particularly since the ancient Israelis held such high esteem for proverbial wisdom.

Comparison of Dt 22:9-11 with Lev 19:19B indicates that passages that appear to have been used proverbially do not always have verbal inflexibility as was initially assumed.  Possibly, passages that are used with proverbial force in one context may be used as specific commandments in a different context.  Perhaps the problem exists merely because most modern interpreters are not automatically attuned with the practice of proverbial reasoning.  Various passages of the Proverbs read like direct and specific commandments, and various passages of Torah or the prophets read like proverbs.  Perhaps the ancient Israelis viewed proverbs with such a high regard that the conceptual boundary between proverbs, commandments, statutes, and judgements were somewhat blurred from the outset.

If this is the case, then how should one deal with such a passage when it is clearly being used with proverbial force?  The knee-jerk reaction of readers from a modern American-English perspective would likely be: No details of any ancient proverb is specifically binding or relevant today.  This is exactly the wrong reaction.  The whole force of proverbial argumentation is the expectation that the audience accepts validity of the proverb cited and on that basis will accept as valid the entire argument.  To be sure, the details of a proverb aimed at an ancient agrarian culture will have little directly in common with most people living in an industrialized culture today; however, the basic principles of such a proverb remain as valid today as they did 3000 years ago.  Thus, one should seek to identify the basic meaning underlying the overall context and apply that to a specific circumstance.  The result of such an approach would be an individual application, and as such it may not be relevant on anyone but the person making the application.  The trap to be avoided is falling into the presumption that ‘my application is universally valid’ and then despising anyone who does not accept that understanding.

NOTES

¹ Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), pp 175 –177.

² Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis, translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrams (Jerusalem: Hebrew University at the Magnes Press, 1961), p. 6.

³  An early date of the Hebrew Pentateuch is supported by the very existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch, whose original source document may have existed before the separation of the Northern Kingdom from Judah.  Alternatively, the Samaritans might have obtained a copy shortly after the initial return of Jews from Babylonia.  One can hardly imagine that the Samaritans would have or could have obtained a copy of the Torah from the Jews following the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

⁴  Biblia Hebraica, Foreward to the 3^rd edition by Paul Khale, (Suttgart: Württemburgische Bibelanstalt, 7^th edition, 1951), pp. xxix f.  The Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex are generally accepted to be the two earliest Massoretic Hebrew manuscripts that are now extant.

⁵  Richard Seidman, The Oracle of the Kabbalah, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001).  All of the mystical speculations about the shape of the letters assume the Aramaic square script.

⁶  James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 191-194.  Verbal variation in parallel passage of the text can originate from one of three causes: 1) Intentional scribal alteration, 2) Unintentional scribal errors, or 3) Fluidity of oral traditions.  If we reject the idea that the content of the Hebrew scriptures circulated as oral traditions for many generations before being transcribed, then the first two sources must be the primary sources for the existing textual variants.  Intentional scribal alterations to update vocabulary probably came to an end as Hebrew ceased to be a living language, and the Massoretic traditions provided a mechanism for eliminating unintentional errors.

⁷  Ibid., pp. 134-155.  See also E. H. Sturtevant, Linguistic Change, (University of Chicago Press, 1917).

⁸  Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, (New York: Athenium, 1976), pp. 26 ff.  Oral traditions were intentionally kept in oral form for many centuries but were sporadically written down and collected into the corpus that became the Talmud.

⁹  The form of Hebrew spoken during the period from c. 400 BC to 400 AD is now called Mishanic Hebrew and has a number of substantial differences with the earlier Classical Hebrew.  Cf. M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), pp. 1-2, 5.

¹⁰ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, (G. & C. Merriam Company, 1975), s.v. ‘proverb.’

¹¹ A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, reprinted 1974), s.v.  ‘lv;m;,’ p. 605.  (Identified hereafter as BDB.) The article distinguishes six different uses of lv;m; in the Hebrew scriptures, several of which do not correspond to the English idea of either ‘proverb’ or ‘parable.’

¹² All translations on the following pages are mine.

¹³ BDB, s.v. ‘lb,h,,’ p.  210.  The basic meaning of lb,h, is ‘breath, vapor.’  Throughout the context of Ecclesiastes, the term is used to describe something having the appearance of substance but no substantial reality, hence my rendering of ‘illusion.’  The English translation ‘vanity, futility’ comes from mataiovthı in the LXX translation.  This translation fits the context of some passages in Ecclesiastes but not every occurrence.

¹⁴ BDB, s.v. ‘h[r,’ pp. 944 ff., lists three roots.  Roots II and III are possible in this context.  The form under root II has the basic meaning ‘close friend;’ that under root III means ‘longing, striving.’

¹⁵ Literally, ‘A bent (thing) cannot be straightened, and a missing (thing) cannot be numbered.’

¹⁶ Robert Gordis, Koheleth – The Man and His World, (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), p. 211.  Rabbinic interpretations do not differ materially with my translation, but they provide no information on what the proverbs might mean within the context of the book as a whole.

¹⁷  Ibid., pp. 240 f.

¹⁸  The text as preserved in the MT presents a rhetorical question, the point of which is: Nobody comments about the other prophets' fathers, so the question about Saul's father is irrelevant.  The text as preserved in the LXX reads, ‘And one among them asked, “Who is his father?”’  This question is evidently not asking about the name of Saul’s father but his standing in the society.  The LXX reading either is the translator’s attempt to make sense of a difficult passage or reflects an alternate Hebrew textual tradition.

¹⁹  The LXX translation for this passage renders lv;m;l] by eijı parabolhvn  not eijı paroimivan.

²⁰ Gerhard Lisowsky, Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament, (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1958), s.v. ‘lv;m;,’ p. 875.

²¹  This expression is normally interpreted as an absolute negative commandment.  However, al with the imperfect form of the verb can also be used to express habitual or customary action.  Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. by E. Kautzsch, translated by A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), § 107.2(a), p. 315.  See Prov 4:16, 6:30, 8:29, and 8:33 as examples of this usage.

²²  This verse is clearly presented as an absolute commandment.  Yet, consider Prov 3:29:  Do not say to your neighbor, ‘Go and return, and tomorrow I will give what belongs to you.’

²³  Ibid.

²⁴  BDB, s.v. ‘[B'r: ’ II, p. 918.

²⁵  BDB, s.v. ‘µyIa'l]Ki,’ p. 476.  This term occurs in rabbinic discussions about forbidden combinations but not in any other context.  Hebrew, Aramaic, English Dictionary, Vol. 1, compiled by Marcus Jastrow  (Brooklyn: P. Shalom Publishing Co., 1967), pp. 638, f.

²⁶  BDB, s.v. ‘znEf]['v',’ p. 1043.

²⁷  The TANACH, Stone Edition, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1996, p. 476 note to verse Dt 21:11.

²⁸  BDB, s.v. עלם, p. 761.

²⁹ BDB, s.v., ‘vdq,’ pp. 871-874.  The root meaning of vdq and all of its various forms is ‘set apart.’  Something could be set apart for cultic use or for destruction.  In either case, what was thus set apart would no longer be available for common use.  More likely, any attempt to grow an additional crop within a vineyard would result in poor pollination and also prevent effective harvesting of both crops.

³⁰ Jack M. Sasson, "Should Cheeseburgers be Kosher?" Bible Review, 19:06, Dec 2003. This article provides a detailed summary of the interpretations for this clause over the past 2000 years.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Articles

Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Cassuto, Umberto.  The Documentary Hypothesis.  Translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrams.   Jerusalem: Hebrew University at the Magnes Press, 1961.

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. by E. Kautzsch, translated by A. E. Cowley.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Gordis, Robert.  Koheleth – The Man and His World. New York: Schocken Books, 1968.

Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.

Sasson, Jack M.  "Should Cheeseburgers be Kosher?" Bible Review, 19:06, Dec 2003

Segal, M. H.  A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Seidman, Richard. The Oracle of the Kabbalah.  New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.

Strack, Hermann L. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. New York: Athenium, 1976.

Sturtevant, E. H. Linguistic Change. University of Chicago Press, 1917.

Biblical Texts and Resources

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, reprinted 1974.

Biblia Hebraica.  Suttgart: Württemburgische Bibelanstalt, 7^th edition, 1951.

Exodus et Leviticus, Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia, edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf. . Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1973.

Hebrew, Aramaic, English Dictionary, compiled by Marcus Jastrow.  Brooklyn: P. Shalom Publishing Co., 1967.

Lisowsky, Gerhard. Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, second edition 1958.

Numeri et Deuteronomium, Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia, edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf. . Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1972.

Septuaginta, two volumes.  Edited by Alfred Rhalfs. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.  Reprinted, 1971.