Trinity
Journal 3 (Spring 1974) 1-13.
Copyright © 1974
by Trinity Journal, cited with permission.
WISDOM LITERATURE AND
THE PROMISE DOCTRINE
DAVID
BURDETT
The difficulty of
developing a theology of the Old Testament Wisdom
Literature and of finding its place in the whole of Old Testament
theology would
be considerably less
complex if, instead of those wisdom books which we find in
the Old Testament canon, we
had those which are found in the Apocrypha,
particularly the
books of Ben Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. It
seems that
the tensions which the
modem biblical theologian faces in dealing with the
canonical
wisdom corpus were realized by the authors of these later books, for
they appear to have modified
their views in order to avoid such problems.
The particular areas of tension are two in number: the aspect of
the source of
wisdom,
whether it is human, divine, or some tertium quid,
and then the aspect of
its universal perspective,
for the writings are in no way as Judaeo-centric as
those
preceding
them.
Before dealing with these two
difficulties, however, several other
preliminary
matters ought to be considered. The most basic of these is the extent
of the canonical wisdom:
in this category would class Proverbs,
Song of Songs
and Job. Although there are
further examples of wisdom forms scattered
throughout the
Old Testament, it is these books which fall entirely within that
category. A
second consideration has reference to critical matters: i.e., date and
authorship. In
a paper of this scope it is it impossible to give full reign to the
discussion of
criticism and thus certain presuppositions will have .to be made in
that area. The major assumption is that where a title,
occurs it is to be
treated as
accurate. Consequently, three of the four books will be, to a great
degree,
dependent upon the work of King Solomon.1 This is not to say that
there
were no later: additions or
perhaps even redaction, for we read of the work of
"Hezekiah's men" in collecting and publishing Solomonic material (Prov. 25:1)
which is a redactional function. Nevertheless, for our purposes the
bulk of the
literature
derives from Solomon. Lastly, the schema of Heilsgeschichte
into which
the theology of wisdom will
hopefully be fitted is generally that given in W. J.
Promise."
Having aired the data to be presupposed, it is hoped that the
conclusions,
particularly those which lie heavily on the aspect of chronology, will
be more easily acceptable.
1 Even
excepting the proverbs attributed to Agur and Lemuel, this is an
assumption
which is, at the least, hotly debated. Cf. R.B.Y. Scott, "Solomon and the
Beginnings
of Wisdom in
M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1969), for a typical negative point
of view
on th is matter.
TRINITY
JOURNAL 2
Contemporary thought has come to regard Heilsgesehichte as the story of
God's disclosure of himself and his salvation, on our view
particularly through the
Promise.
Likewise we have come to think of this disclosure or revelation as a bi-
partite
complex, usually termed a Deed-Word event.2 However, in the Wisdom
Literature we find a strange one-sidedness, for there is no action
of God depicted
there; there is only the
Word, the teaching. Thus we are led to look for the divine
movement to
which to attach this teaching. Because of the problems in the
theology of
the Wisdom Literature, those regarding revelation and universalism
referred to
above, some are wont to attach it to creation.3 That is, this Wisdom
Literature is a sort of Old Testament natural theology: without
direct revelation
and (apparently) without
any direct relationship to God's working in
Wisdom Literature is a collection of observations on the
"satisfying life" and the
problems
encountered in obtaining it. The emphasis here is upon God's common
grace and what it can achieve
in man. Thus while generalizing and forming a
theology of
Old Testament wisdom, this view has despaired of correlating it with
God's work in
Heilsgeschichte rather than a part of it.
It is just at this last point, however,
that the view can be criticized, simply
by taking the history of
wisdom into account. We can see in this
regard that
although the
Wisdom Literature had its predecessors, it has, as a body of literature,
derived
almost wholly from the Solomonic era. The forebearers of wisdom in
Samuel 20: 18), fables (Judges 9:8-15), riddles (Judges 14:
12-19), and.. parables
(2 Samuel 12: 1-4). But what is to explain the sudden outburst of
wisdom with the
arrival of
Solomon if it is creation and God as creator who is the subject of that
thought? A
seemingly good answer is that as the monarchy
2G. E.
Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (
I 1967). See
the first chapter entitled "How is the Bible the Word of God." The
concept
expressed in
the phrase "Deed-Word Event" does not parallel the thought of the
Myth
and
salvific works of God, but 'is itself the work of
God. Likewise, the Word is not the
accompanying story behind the ritual, but the divine commentary on and
explanation
of the
divine act of salvation. Together these two aspects of Word and Deed form
revelation.
3 W. Baumgartner, "The Wisdom literature:'
in The' Old Testament and Modern
Study, ed.
by H. H. Rowley (
Proverbs; an
Introduction and Commentary (
19641, p.
17. O. S. Rankin,
the
History of Religion (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1954), pp. 10, 35f. Harry Ranston,
The Old 7;estament Wisdom Books and their Teaching (
23. Walther Zimmerli, "The Place and Limit of the Wisdom in the
Framework of the
Old
Testament Theology," Scottish Journal of Theology, 17 (March, 1964), pp.
148,
151.
3 WISDOM
LITERATURE
actually
became a monarchy under Solomon it partook of the character of the
courts of
the surrounding powers, particularly
as part of the court life.5
Now, as we shall see~ the relationship to the monarchy is
the key, but not for the
lock in which it is here used. R. E. Murphy, in almost all of
his writings on the Wisdom
Literature,6 has pointed out that viewing the court
training of
the royal officials and courtiers as the Sitz im Leben and the source for.
all the wisdom material is
inadequate in that there are some parts of the
literature
which just cannot be forced to fit into that situation. Even if Murphy's
objection is
to be over-ruled, the creation-centered alternative is still weak due to
the fact that it leaves a
very important question unanswered: why is there a
parenthesis in
the Heilsgeschichte? Or rather, why is there a recorded
parenthesis
in the Heilsgeschichte?
We have parenthesis elsewhere in that story, not the least
of which is the era
between the Testaments. In contrast, however, nowhere else do
we find such a full and
well-packed void. In reality such a void is a wrench in the
mechanism of
the concept of Heilsgeschichte. But rather than
abandon the plan
and action of God in the
process of salvation, the choice of another alternative
should be
made.
This better option is based upon the
historical context which we have
accepted
above: the reign of Solomon. As is indicated above, there seemed to be a
particular
correlation between wisdom and royalty.7 N. W. Porteous8
has probably
best shown the association
of wisdom and royalty in the Ancient Near East.
Beyond the general background of "secular" history,
however, we have the
particular
context of the Promise D1ctririe, for Solomon came to the throne as the
"offspring" of David.
4We
ought to be well aware of the ties which Solomon had with E~Pt.
Cf. I
Kings 3: 1.
5Roland
E. Murphy, "The Concept of Wisdom Literature:' in
The Bible in
Current
Catholic Thought, ed. by John L. McKenzie (
1962), p.
47. Ibid., "Introduction to the Wisdom
Literature:' The Jerome Biblical
Commentary,
ed. by Raymond E. Brown et al. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pr~ntice-Hall,
I 1968), p.
487. Zimmerli, p. 146. Cf. N. W. Porteous,
"Royal Wisdom:' in Wisdom in
J. Brill,
1969).
6R. E.
Murphy, "Assumptions and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom
Research:'
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 27 (1967), pp. 408f, 412. Ibid.,
"Introduc-
tion:' p. 488f and especially "Concept:'
p. 50f. Part of Murphy's objection is based on
chronology, for
he views much of the material as being post-exilic. If that were true,
since
there was no king nor court, some of it must derive from a non-courtly setting.
Cf. S. H.
Blank, "Wisdom," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, IV, p.
856.
7See that attribution of wisdom to David in 2 Samuel 14:20.
8Porteous, passim. Cf. Blank, p. 854. Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old
Testament,
trans. by David E. Arneed (New York: Abingdon, 1968
ET), p. 308.
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology,
Vol. I, Trans.
by D. M. G. Stalker, (New
TRINITY
JOURNAL 5
This is a most significant factor, for one cannot help but think
that the
development of
the Promise in the messianic sense found in 2 Samuel? was
a
constantly
recurring thought in Solomon's mind.9 How, though, does this help us
to understand the Wisdom
Literature as a part of this development? Above, we
saw that revelation is
generally of two aspects. Thus, might it not be that
the Wisdom Literature is to
be co-related not with the creation per se but with the
Promise of the kingdom? On
the basis of the general attribution of wisdom to
royalty, as
well as the situation of Solomon in relation to the promise made to his
father
David, could it not be that the Wisdom Literature is actually compilations of
Solomon's guides for the satisfying life in the kingdom, a
"messianic rule" in
which he has tried to
actualize his royal and messianic potential?10 The "why
not"
is easily seen, for the
two problems we began with argue very heavily against this
view. If, however, we can
overcome these objections, there seems to be good
reason to
explain the Wisdom Literature in this way: not only because it provides
us with an action of God
more closely tied to the historical context of its authors
than is the creation, but
even more so because it frees us from having to postulate
and explain the full void
in a parenthesis in the Heilsgeschichte.
The first charge against the Wisdom
Literature is that of humanism. This in
turn revolves to the
theological accusation of a lack of divine inspiration, and is
made on the grounds that the
character of the Wisdom Literature is patently
anthropocentric.11 On
the basis of this concern for man some have understood
wisdom to
be just philosophizing about the good life.12 This type of thinking,
however,
utterly avoids the religious aspects of wisdom, particularly in the
concept
"the fear of the Lord." In addition, there is absolutely no cause to
see
9 Note in particular Isaiah 11:2 where the
messianic king is said to be granted a
spirit of
wisdom.
10 Because of the Sitz
im Leben which we have
constructed and the comments
of
Murphy (see note 6), we do not intend to limit this wisdom to the training of
courtiers.
11
Rankin. p. 12.
12 Baumgartner, p. 212: Murphy,
"Concept:' p. 414. cf. "Introduction," p. 488.
Kidner
seems to be unsure about his feelings on this, for on p. 17 he states that the
Wisdom
Literature indicates that Old Testament affirms that man can think validly and
wisely
without special revelation. On p. 38, however, he indicates that wisdom comes
by
revelation. A distinction in the Wisdom Literature is sometimes made on 13
chronological basis, with the human and experiential wisdom being pre-exilic
and the
religious,
which includes the concept of the fear of the Lord, coming from after the
exile. See
William A. Irwin, "The Wisdom Literature:' The
Interpreter's Bible, ed. by
Nolan B. Harmon, et al. (New York: Abingdon, 1952), I, p. 215f. But this seems to be
based on
an evolutionary reconstruction of history: the more religious aspects occur in
the more
complex passages and the complex follows the simple; therefore, the purely
human
wisdom was the earlier. This reconstruction, however, is more imaginary than
real.
5 WISDOM
LITERATURE
was associated with their
particular gods and religion.13
A more
realistic
attitude14 able to perceive the influence of religion in the literature: as
Proverbs 1:7 indicates, wisdom is not
purely human. prudence but is founded upon
Yahwistic
piety; although the content of the wisdom is man-centered, the basis is
the presupposition of God.
G. von Rad, though, and those who follow him,15 limit
the inspiration of wisdom to
this basic level and thus wisdom is still just human
experience
meditating on the fact of God and the implications of that fact for man
in the world. The real
problem, however, still remains: we have seen a religious
origin for
wisdom, but how are we to view wisdom as revelation? As it is pointed
out,16 we do not find an
equivalent of the prophetic messenger formula, "thus says
Yahweh," in the Wisdom Literature. Is
it, however, while in some sense inspired,
a Jesus direct revelation17
or a second class inspiration?18 If that were the case, we
would again be capitulating
to the idea of a parenthesis, something below the level
of that which is on either
side of it in the Heilsgeschichte.
13Cf. Ma'at in the Egyptian wisdom.
14J. B.
Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (
Zondervan, 1962), pp. 56, 176. Ranston, p. 28.
Henry Wheeler Robinson, Inspiration
and
Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), pp. 239, 245. John
C. Rylaarsdam, Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature (
Testament Theology, Vol, II, trans. by
J. A. Paterson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1892), p.84.
15von Rad, Pp. 418ff. Cf. Irwin, p. 215.
Murphy, "Introduction," p. 493. Ranston, pp. 23, 29.
16C. H.
Toy, "Wisdom Literature:' Encyclopedia Biblica
ed. by t. K. Cheyne
and J.
Sutherland (London; Adam & Chas. Black, 1907), IV, p. 5329. This is Toy's
idea
although not his phraseology.
17Robinson,
pp. 231, 246f,
18Ranston,
p. 28. There is a statement made in 2 Samuel 16:23 which describes
the
counsel of Ahithophel in the words ''as if one had
consulted the Oracle of God."
This seems
to distinguish the counsel of the wise from any full and true revelation. But
here we
need to distinguish in turn the Wisdom Literature, which derives from
Solomon and several others, from any class of wise men. The fact is that we have no
such
class of men. attested in
canonical
wisdom.. for the references of Jeremiah and Ezekiel
date from the sixth
'century B.C. and Solomon was the tenth. The example of Ahithophel himself does not
prove such
an existent class or tradition of wisdom at that time either, (In contrast,
however,
note the apparent class of f8T1alesagesat Abel before and/or during the time
of
David: 2 Samuel 20: 16-22.) Nor do we have references attesting such a class in
the
surrounding
nations for that specific time. Thus we cannot say "Ahithophel
was a wise
man in
the technical sense as was Solomon. Therefore just as Ahithophel's
wisdom was
less than
revelation, so was Solomon's Proverbs 22:17 should be mentioned here, for
in that
verse we find the phrase dibre chakamim..
It is possible that this refers to such a
class,
although it does not do so necessarily, for just as the Proverbs were collected
some time
after they had been written so this could possibly an editorial insertion
referring to
Solomon and those others included in the special burst of wisdom at his
time, To
insist upon such an explanation, however, would be a case of special pleading
and we
must recognize what potential difficulty the phrase presents to our theory of
limiting
wisdom to the Solomonic era, if it can be shown that
the phrase does refer to a
specific
class and its traditions. Note, too, in this regard the possible implicit
reference
to such
a class in I Kings 4:29ff.
TRINITY
JOURNAL 6
Going back to Solomon's' historical
situation may again be the clue to the
problem. According. to 1 Kings 3 the wisdom
of Solomon was a gift from God.
This ability does not seem to be just a form, a framework of
presuppositions into
which Solomon put the content
which he derived from experience; rather it is in
itself
content. This is a rather bold assertion, but the use of the term chakam
throughout the
Old Testament supports it, particularly where the word means
"skilled." The artisans who
worked on the tabernacle for example (cf. Exodus
36:2) are not only possessors of the presuppositions for talent, a
creative brain,
well-controlled
muscles and the like, but the talent itself. This interpretation of
chakam is
substantiated by the reference in Proverbs 2:6 which states that the Lord
gives wisdom19 and
by parallelism equates this wisdom to the content-filled
categories of
"knowledge" and "understanding." If this wisdom is then at
least
in some sense
content-oriented, what is the difference between it and the
inspiration or
revelation granted to other authors in the Bible?20 Obviously, there
is none save in the lack
of direct claim to inspiration.
Even if we are to accept this solution to
the difficulty of seeing legitimate
revelation in
the writings of Solomon, it does not solve the problem for the whole
of the wisdom corpus due
to the fact that there are other writers beside Solomon,
notably Agur, Lemuel and the author of
Job. How are we to account for
their work in this regard?
One possible answer which might suffice for the first
two is the parallel we find
in the New Testament. Just as Solomon prefigured
Jesus as the Messiah (a theme to be developed below) he likewise
might as well
have attracted disciples
(cf. 1 Kings 10:22 and the parallel in Chronicles). Jesus
was renowned for his wisdom
and a corresponding wisdom seems to have been
granted to
his disciples, for we notice particularly the Synoptic parallel in
Matthew 23:34ff and Luke 11:49 where the former reads
"prophets and wise men"
while the latter has
"prophets and apostles"; thus the equation of apostles and wise
men. Might it be, then,
that Agur and Lemuel were
disciples, in a sense, of
Solomon, and by virtue of their relationship with him were granted
wisdom? It is
obvious that
the answer to the problem here suggested is very tenuous and
possibly
unsatisfactory. Moreover it completely lacks the ability to deal with Job
because of
the lack of any ostensible
19This
might be corroborated if we knew how soon I Kings 3:16ff followed
upon I
Kings 3 :3ff, for in verse 7 Solomon claims to be a young and immature person.
If it was
only the presupposition for wisdom that was granted to him, and if the second
pericope followed immediately after the incidents
of the first, there would have been
no time
for Solomon to fill in the framework with content, and thus the initial gift
would have
to have included content. However, since we do not know the exact
temporal
inter-relationships of these two incidents this argument is of no value.
20Cf. I
Kings 10:24. We might also insert here an appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 as
support for
the conclusion.
7 WISDOM
LITERATURE
relationship with
Solomon.21 Nevertheless, having referred to the 2 Timothy
passage, in
note 20, we can assert that although we do not know the reason or
method of
this inspiration, we must support its existence.
Consequently, the only reason for not
allowing inspiration derives from the
argument that
the writings do not claim revelation or direct inspiration. Proverbs
2:6, mentioned above as stating that wisdom is the gift of God,
might be
disregarded due
to the fact that rain and sunshine are likewise gifts of God: i.e.,
that that reference does not
show a distinction between what has been termed the
common
grace of God and his special grace in the act of inspiration, the latter
being what we are seeking to
demonstrate. In contrast, however, there is a final
fact which we must consider,
and that is that the negative viewpoint here rests
upon an argument from
silence: inspiration is not claimed, therefore it does not
exist. This logical device,
though commonly used in the reconstruction of biblical
history, is
quite prone to fallacy. In consequence, it should be reckoned to be at
least as tenuous as the
arguments advanced for the full inspiration of the
literature,
especially in light of 2 Timothy.
A transitional theme is that of the
existence in the ancient Near East of a
common
tradition of wisdom we find wisdom both in
Solomon is even compared with other wise men,23
which would indicate a
quantitative
rather than a qualitative distinction between them. In fact, recent
study seems. to show that Proverbs 22: 17-24:23 is dependent upon an
Egyptian
work, the Wisdom of Amen-em-ope, which is almost surely from an earlier date
than the biblical text.24
In light of this whole aspect of universality, how can
wisdom be
regarded as divinely inspired? The first thing to note is that the
21cf. pp. 12f of this article.
22Irwin,
p. 212. Murphy, "Assumptions:' p. 416f. Ibid..
"Introduction:'. p.
488.
Robinson, p. 90.
23 1
Kings 4:29ff. Cf. in particular the Supplements to Vetus
Testament Vol. III
from
which tWo articles have been cited above.
24
Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (
Moody,
1964), p. 457f, has reacted against the concept of borrowing by following
Kevin and
deriving, on linguistic arguments, the Egyptian wisdom work from
Solomon's writings. One of his basic contentions was that the Wisdom of Amen-em-ope
was to
be dated from the Persian or Greek period and was thus unavailable for
Solomon to
borrow in the tenth century B. C. R. K,
Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 1014f, however,
refers to some ostraca
evidence
which would push the date back significantly before Solomon. Both authors
rightly show
that the conjectural emendation of Proverbs 22:20 shalishim
to
shalushim, referring to the thirty chapters of
Amen-em-ope is unjustified. Both as well
point out
that only about 30% of Proverbs 22-24 corresponds to Amen-em-ope.
The
situation
remains, however, that even if (without granting the point) there is borrowing
on the.
part of the canonical wisdom, this borrowing is not
done without significant
modification of the material borrowed. Cf. note 26 below.
TRINITY
JOURNAL 8
wise man, be it Solomon or
another, never borrowed without modification. This is
even true for the section of
Proverbs just mentioned.25 In fact, the character of
Scripture as a whole lies in just such a tendency: it is never
divorced from its
environment, but
correspondingly, it is never completely molded by it either.
We should also recognize that some of Jesus' sayings might not
have been original
to him.26 Thus
if this partial dependence on the setting is a problem for the
Wisdom Literature, it is a problem for the whole of Scripture, for
rarely does the
dictation
theory of inspiration explain the nature of the inspiration process.
In spite of the fact, however, that universalism is no
threat to a view on the
inspiration of
the wisdom literature, it is a grave hazard on the path towards fitting
this literature into the Heilsgeschichte of epangelicalism.27 The character of the
Wisdom Literature is so universal that it seems at first glance to
bear no
resemblance to
this tradition of the Promise in at least three areas: 1) the lack of
reference to
or association with the chosen nation of
ignoring of
the Law and the cult; and 3) the lack of any messianic content. It is
apparent that
the ubiquitous argument from silence is the major factor in
the discussion again, and
so we must be warned at the outset of its inherent
weakness,
especially in light of some not-so-silent passages.
The contrast which has been found between
the Israel-centered viewpoint
of the Promise theology
immediately preceding the time of Solomon and the
universal or
gnomic outlook of the Wisdom Literature has been a major factor in
causing it
to be shunted aside in the progress of revelation.28 But a look at
the
historical
context will hopefully weaken if not destroy this contrast. Again we
must look to the promise
made to David in 2 Samuel 7. There, in the use of the
phrase 'ad
'olam which is I found there in verses 13, 24,
etc., I think a beginning
has been made towards a
universal outlook by means of the temporal extension of
the promise, even though
this view is still highly ethnocentric.29 The temporal
aspect is
extended to a true universal view in Psalm 72: in verses 5-7, the concept
is temporal
25 Fohrer, p.
308. Rankin, p. 8. Robinson, p. 237.
26 See
the discussion of Jesus and wisdom in William Barclay, The First Three
Gospels (
treatment,
however, is dependent upon Bultmannian radical form
criticism and thus