Scholars have long noticed the many similarities between the book of Proverbs, specifically chapters 22:17-24:22, and the Egyptian book The Instruction of Amenemope. While there have been different proposals as to who borrowed from whom, the general consensus seems to be that the Hebrew author(s) borrowed from Amenemope. As there are also many other possible instances of the existing culture of Mesopotamia influencing Hebrew literature it will be assumed in this post that the primary flow of influence between Proverbs and Amenemope is from the Egyptian material to the Hebrew writer. This assumption leads to three concerns: What similarities in the two documents lead one to believe on such reliance? What can be learned from not only the similarities, but in the differences, e.g., what minor or major changes does the borrowing author make that reveals different belief systems? And finally, if Proverbs did borrow from a non-biblical source what are the implications to that admission?
The discussion for the similarities between Proverbs and Amenemope begin with Adolf Erman, who first argued the received text of Proverbs 22:20 should be altered (by substituting selosim for silsom);[1] thereby reading, “Have I not written for you thirty sayings of admonition and knowledge.”[2] This would reflect the thirty chapters in Amenemope, and ever since Erman pointed this out there has been a consensus among scholars on a literary relationship,[3] though as stated above that exact relation is debated by some. And while Proverbs is not a literal word-for-word copying of Amenemope there are many other examples of parallelisms between the two texts.
Both texts begin with an exhortation to listen; hear the sayings and keep them inside of the listener (Pro 22:17-18; Amen III, 9-10), and they both assure benefits for listening to the words (Pro 18-19, 21; Amen III, 11-16). Likewise, there is parallel material teaching to not rob the poor (Pro 22:22-23; Amen IV, 4-5), to not make friends with hotheads (Pro 22:24; Amen XI, 13-14), to not remove a boundary marker (Pro 22:28, 23:10-11; Amen VII, 12-19, VIII, 9-10), to not chase wealth (Pro 23:4-5; Amen IX, 14-X,5), for how to behave when eating with a king or official (Pro 23:1-3; Amen XIII, 13-18), and to not talk to fools (Pro 23:9; Amen XXII, 11-12). When these parallels are closely examined, along with others that exist in both texts, literary or ideological dependence appears the most likely solution. Most likely, the primary concern for many is: what are the implications of such similarities?
Firstly, after such an examination it would seem obvious that these two works are very closely related; however, there does exist differences, and these variations reveal that, while on the one hand, it may be true that some wisdom was parallel between the two cultures, on the other, their worldviews were sufficiently different enough that the lens they viewed wisdom through led to some disparate understandings. The first example of this can be found in their respective introductions. In Amenemope the instructions are to be put in your heart so that you will find success and “Your being will prosper upon earth (Amen IV, 2).[4] However, for Proverbs, the words are to be treasured so that, “It will be pleasant if you keep them within you…So that your trust may be in the LORD.” The telos of the Hebrew wisdom has a much different target than for the Egyptian.
This theological, ideological interpretive viewpoint can be found in other instances as well. Proverbs warns, “Do not rob the poor because they are poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate; for the LORD pleads their cause” (Pro 22:22-23). Amenemope suggests not robbing a wretch because if you do, “He who does evil, the shore rejects him, Its floodwaters carry him away” (Amen IV, 12-13). This interpretive lens for life, God, and wisdom can be seen in Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” So while both Proverbs and Amenemope can assert that destroying the borders of a field are bad, and both posit that a god or God will intervene if one does so, it is the unique worldview of the Hebrew mindset that understands their God’s role in all the different aspects of wisdom and life, and not just some.
For many who are first exposed to the possibility that biblical books may have been influenced by the language and thought world of their ancient contemporaries the question often becomes: If Proverbs borrowed or copied wisdom from a “secular” source then what does that mean for how we understand the Bible? At a simple level it may just be that some elements of wisdom are wisdom whether you are a follower of Yahweh or not; however, things are usually more complex. A major distinctive of wisdom literature, in contrast with much of the biblical teaching, is that it speaks of man not in his particularity, but as a human.[5] Perhaps, this is the first key in understanding biblical wisdom literature. God is not only concerned about our souls, or an afterlife destination, but for us as humans here and now. To set up a straw man with a point: If an understanding of the Bible is as the literal word of God, and it is God’s instruction manual to his followers, would it not follow the logical course of reasoning that an intelligent God would include both spiritual and human manners since a human is a fusion of both?
Secondly, it seems there is a general exclusivism in some approaches to Yahweh and “his people” that should be untenable coming from the minds and mouths of modern gentiles. For many, it appears that it is quite easy to lose sight of the fact that while God may have abhorred the practices of the non-Yahwist nations, he was/is still God, which has many implications on how he acts through the world, and on and with people, even those that are not serving him. D.A. Carson points out, “The openness to learning from the wisdom of other peoples reflects the theological conviction that the God of Israel is God of all nations and of all of life. It is not therefore surprising when other peoples perceive truths about life which the people of God can also profit from.”[6] The value of the Hebrew material is not in the fact that they were the only ones ever told “The Secret,” or to comprehend some truth, but in the fact that they perceived the religious value of wisdom literature beyond other contemporary cultures, and credited the moral authority of that wisdom to a source different than their neighbors. As Wood notes, “Israel took the whole idea of Wisdom further than any of its predecessors, and used it…to enable man to come to a deeper understanding of God’s way with His world.”[7]
Finally, God or a Hebrew writer using common language and parallel ideas to convey the truth of God and his world should not come as a surprise to people for one reason: persons—even God—must use categories that exist to communicate; not categories that are meaningless or do not exist. The purpose of communication is to convey an idea, image, or whatever to another person; for this to happen it must fit into a framework that has relevance. To communicate wisdom to ancient Hebrews it would have been fruitless to use modern English, or maxims that were nonsensical; however, using a framework that they were familiar with, and then adding the religious element accomplishes the task of actually communicating. This pattern should be expected, and is found throughout the entire Bible. When the biblical author wrote of creation he did not talk about galaxies, the universe, the big bang, gravity, the earth’s rotation, or it sitting at a 23.5 degree on its axis. He did, however, talk of tohu vavohu; categories that made sense to the ancient Hebrew mind. In the New Testament when its authors tried to convey the significance of Christ to a Greek audience, once again, we find them using categories that exist; not categories that do not exist, e.g., logos, Philo’s first Adam and second Adam. The wisdom of Amenemope is “true” and hiding it in your heart is a good thing, but it is in the theological “baptism” of that wisdom that the Hebrew literature becomes unique.
—————————————————————-
[1] Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1999), 3:311.
[2] Unless otherwise indicated all Scripture verses are taken from The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).
[3] William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, The Context of Scripture (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997), 115.
[4] Unless otherwise noted all references from Amenemope will be from: Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume II: The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).
[5] Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 3:305-306.
[6] D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition (Rev. ed. of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970.;, 4th ed.; Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), Pr 22:1.
[7] James Wood, Wisdom Literature: An Introduction (London: T & A Constable Ltd., 1967), 8.
Filed under: Scotteriology | Leave a Comment »
