Biblioblog Top 50 for August

My fall to 86th place in July's ranking (and my apparent inability to think about biblical studies issues without also blogging about them) inspired me to end my blogging sabbatical early. As a result, I have re-entered the Top 50 at #29 for August, rising 57 places over last month.

I will, however, need to redouble my efforts studying for prelims starting with September (tomorrow). Since I work full-time in addition to trying to prep for exams, I was allowed to defer until the end of the semester. That gives me a little more time to read the huge stack of books and brush up on all my Semitic languages while attempting to write a dissertation proposal. It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't keep changing my mind about my potential topic.

The Tension Between Ideal and Real

The ideology reflected in biblical wisdom literature about retribution or the deed-consequence nexus is far too complex to neatly sweep it all into the tidy dogmatism of mechanical retribution (i.e., health, wealth, and power prove one is righteous, their lack proves one unrighteous). Even suggesting that the sages themselves likely believed in the doctrine of retribution (as I did in a previous post) now seems too simplistic. While Job's friends are unwavering in their commitment to retribution, a close reading of the book of Proverbs reveals that the sages were aware of the inequities of real life and held the conflict between faith and experience in unresolved tension. Ray Van Leeuwen explains:

[These contradictions in Proverbs] have come to express one broad worldview which acknowledges the conflict of dogma and experience, yet maintains both (1992, 26 n. 3; emphasis his).

Job is not a polemic against any so-called conventional wisdom that holds to a strictly mechanical worldview where the wicked are punished and the righteous are blessed. However, it is likely that the idea had currency among some groups, perhaps a common superstition as evidenced by Jesus' disciples in John 9.

John 9:1-3 (ESV): As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. [2] And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" [3] Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Jesus similarly refutes this simplistic theology of retribution in Luke 13.

Luke 13:1-5 (ESV):  There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. [2] And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? [3] No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. [4] Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? [5] No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Wisdom primarily involves proper behavior, navigating life successfully in relation to God and other people. The wisdom embodied in Proverbs provides instruction on navigating both our relation with God and our relation to one another. Righteous living is the utmost virtue. In a perfect world, it should bring blessings, but it may not. Yet, it should be sought more than riches or power. Reading individual proverbs in isolation from each other can lead to a dogmatic atomistic reading where the retributive sayings alone are incorrectly held to represent the view of the sages in general. The sages were aware that in real life the wicked prospered, the unrighteous ruled, and the righteous poor were oppressed.

Proverbs 11:16 (ESV)  
A gracious woman gets honor, and violent men get riches.

Proverbs 16:8 (ESV) 
Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice.

Proverbs 16:19 (ESV) 
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.

Proverbs 28:15-16 (ESV) 
Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people. [16] A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.

These examples (and many more could be added to them) reveal that the sages are implicitly aware of the injustices and inequities of life. Even as they teach that one should be righteous because it will lead to blessing, they affirm that one should remain righteous even in the midst of oppression. Ray Van Leeuwen summarizes thus:

In general, the sages clearly believed that wise and righteous behavior did make life better and richer, though virtue did not guarantee those consequences. Conversely, injustice, sloth, and the like generally have bad consequences (Van Leeuwen 1992, 32; emphasis his).

There are other options to explain this tension, but they seem motivated by our drive to resolve logical contradictions. For example, these contradictory sayings or opposing worldviews could reflect dissent and pluralism among the sages. This makes sense in light of the fact that Proverbs is a compilation of sayings, but the book as a whole seems to have undergone a deliberate shaping which suggests this tension was simply maintained unresolved. First teach the rules, then teach the exceptions to the rules (see Van Leeuwen 1992, 32). Proverbs is not an anthology of opinions similar to much rabbinic literature (though I am interested in how "wisdom" shifts in Judaism to equal Torah and wise living becomes equivalent to Torah piety).

The issue is still unresolved. The Bible maintains both an idealism about the value of righteous living and a realism about the injustices of life experience. Perhaps the bottom line is that the workings of God are mysterious and one cannot predict the outcome of life based on a formula.

Proverbs 16:4 (ESV)  
The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Suffering could be part of God's plan according to John 9:3.

Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

There is more that could be said about the issue of righteous suffering and the implications of the doctrine of transgenerational punishment as hinted at here in John's Gospel. But that will have to wait for a future post.

N.B. Much of my thinking reflected here is indebted to Ray Van Leeuwen's excellent article, “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs.” Hebrew Studies 33 (1992):25-36.

The Deed-Consequence Nexus

Continuing my exploration of the issue of reward and retribution in wisdom literature, here is a quote from Michael V. Fox on the so-called "deed-consequence nexus."

Wisdom literature does tend to formulate retribution as an automatic process of cause and effect. Warnings thus formulated are more believable One need not feel God's immediate presence to get the point: Bad deeds hurt you. Rather than excluding divine judgment, the formulation of retribution as a causal connection, which I would call "intrinsic retribution," emphasizes the omnipresence and immediacy of God's justice in human affairs. Since God created a just world and rules it constantly, any deserved consequence can be regarded as divine judgment (thus in Pss 7:11-14; 9:16-17). In other words, God's judgment subsumes natural causality rather than the other way around.
A favorite means of encapsulating the idea of intrinsic retribution is the "pit" topos: "He who digs a pit will fall into it" (Prov 26:27; cf. Pss 7:16, 17; 9:16; Sir 27:25-27). Various images are used to elucidate this principle, such as the net catching the one who spread it (Ps 9:16) and a stone falling down on the head of the one who threw it up (Sir 27:25).

Reference: M.V. Fox. 2000. Proverbs 1-9. Anchor 18A. New York: Doubleday, 91-92.

Wisdom and Reality

The book of Proverbs makes it sound so simple-the righteous will prosper and the wicked will be punished (Prov 10:3). But life doesn’t really work that way, does it? Biblical wisdom literature should be read as educational rhetoric. It says the righteous will succeed in life because the goal is to persuade the pupil to be righteous. It says the wicked will be punished because the goal is to scare encourage the pupil away from wickedness.

Proverbs can’t be universal truths because some proverbs show up in alternate versions saying contradictory things (Prov 26:4-5). Proverbs are situationally-appropriate, not universally applicable. One of the qualities of wisdom is the ability to discern the proper behavior for any given situation. Depending on the circumstances, a different response may be in order.

Unfortunately, that explanation doesn’t work for the issue of reward and retribution. There’s no context-appropriate shift in applicability. The world of wisdom literature seems to present a black and white contrast. Yes, it’s idealistic rhetoric, but what did the sages really believe?

Looking at the book of Job, I’m tempted to say that conventional wisdom held that this retribution formula (or the deeds-consequence nexus, see Fox 2000, 91) was true to reality. The book of Job is fundamentally an extended polemic against mechanical retribution. Job and his friends go round and round arguing over what evil Job must have done to deserve his suffering while he continually protests his innocence. Why compose such an argument against the retribution formula if everyone knew it was only idealistic rhetoric anyway? I suppose one could say that Job’s friends are deliberately presented as caricatures of different aspects of conventional wisdom, but then, what’s the point of the book?

Deuteronomy also presents a similar deeds-consequences nexus when it lays out the blessings that will accompany obedience to the Torah and the curses that will follow disobedience. Deuteronomy and likely much of Proverbs was collected and written with the exile of the Northern Kingdom still in recent memory, making future punishment look all but inevitable if Judah did not repent. Perhaps Job with its more overt representation of God as the agent of this retribution is more of a polemic against the theology of Deuteronomy.

This seems to be to be an as-yet unsolved (and perhaps unsolvable) theological problem. Many people in communities of faith take comfort in these idealistic platitudes in Psalms and Proverbs that tell them everything’s going to be okay if they’re good. Many preachers even take them at face value and teach that God wants you to be wealthy and prosperous. If you’re not wealthy or prosperous, it’s because you don’t have enough faith. If you only had enough faith, God would make you rich.

And yet, we seem to have developed a theology of explaining why the righteous suffer. I’ve heard song lyrics like “sometimes he calms the storm, other times he calms the child.” Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

This issue is getting more complex, too complex for one post. I need to finish re-reading Ray Van Leeuwen’s article “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs.” Hebrew Studies 33 (1992):25-36.

Reference: M.V. Fox. 2000. Proverbs 1-9. Anchor 18A. New York: Doubleday.

Random Verse: Sirach 33:1

Yes, it is completely random and unrelated to my last post that I happened to land in Sirach for the random verse. My paperback NRSV with Apocrypha was the closest Bible at hand on my nightstand (of course, I also have 2 ESVs within an arm’s length). I thought it might look suspect so I flipped again, but my conscience demanded that I return and post the very first verse that I’d landed on. No “best of three” allowed.

Sirach 33:1 (NRSV)

No evil will befall the one who fears the Lord, but in trials such a one will be rescued again and again.

While this is a potentially comforting verse and vague enough to be relevant, I’m awarding the point to Randomness because I don’t think this verse is true-to-life. It’s not realistic and could give someone a false hope. There are plenty of examples of evil befalling those who fear the Lord with no rescue in sight. I can say Ben Sira is wrong because he’s only in the Apocrypha, not the “real” Bible.

On the other hand, is this any different than the idealistic platitudes of Proverbs? Take Prov 10:3, for example:

The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked. (NRSV)

What should we do with these types of statements in wisdom literature? Obviously they shouldn’t be taken as absolute truths, so what’s the point? More anon. In the meantime, any comments or suggestions?