Comparison of the Theologies of Prov 22:17-24:22

and Amenemope
Philip Pang
Introduction
While Israel’s wisdom tradition is closely tied to Solomon, the wisdom in the East and
particularly Egyptian wisdom tradition is clearly compared and contrasted to that of Solomon in
1 Kgs 4:30. As the Egyptian princess moved into Jerusalem to become Solomon’s wife, it is
inevitable for a direct interface of the two traditions. Since the discovery of the Rosette stone, the
ancient Egyptian world is made accessible to us. We now receive the benefits of two centuries
worth of knowledge to the Hieroglyphic Ancient Egyptian.
When the wisdom tradition of Solomon is properly compare and contrast with that of its
ANE parallel, it unlocks some of the difficult passages and provides valuable theological as well
as exegetical insights. First Kings 4:30 informs us that Solomon was well aware of “the wisdom
of all the sons of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt,” only his wisdom surpassed them all. The
wisdom of Egypt is singled out probably because of its wide influence in Israel and perhaps its
comparable quality with that of Solomon’s. Since the discovery of the striking similarity between
the “Instruction of Amenemope” and Prov 22:17-24:221 more than 80 years ago, there has been
enormous interest on various theories on the literary dependence of the two works.2
The dating of Amn is generally taken to be during the Ramesside period,3 which is earlier
than the Solomonic period. With regard to dependence theories, the direct dependence and
translation theories are to be rejected for the following reasons. 1) For the argument of similarity
in structure and form, such pattern is not exclusively unique to these works but a common
structural element. 2) While it is entirely possible that the reading “thirty” using the consonant
of the Qere ‫ שָלִישִים‬in Prov 22:20 is the original reading, 4 it provides little to argue for the
direct dependence theory. 3) Regarding the identification of the thirty units in Proverbs, Mercer
follows Grassmann and argues against Erman that the thirty units in the WB should include the
introduction and begin from 22:17.5 Murphy points out that there is a general lack of consensus
in the division of the thirty sayings.6 Soo Hoo takes up this task and performs a detail analysis in
proper section identification based upon linguistic cues.7 He identifies 31 units in addition to the
introductory unit of 22:17-21.8 The issue of exact division of subunits is actually not as bad as it
looks for there are only a few instances where division is unclear.9 4) If one were to consider
dependence on subject matter, only a few subjects correspond and their order differs.10 5) There
is no parallel between the two works after 23:11 and the remaining chapters of Amn finds
parallels outside WB. 6) The similarity in content can be explained as a general debt as Fox
explains that, “the relation between the similar proverbs may in fact be only that of the general
debt of Israelite to Egyptian wisdom.”11 In light of the above reasons, a more moderate and better
position would be an indirect dependence with adaptation of WB on Amn.12
The objective of this paper is to study the theological relationship between Amn and the
WB to see whether there is any theological dependence between the two. The first part of this
paper discusses the theology of Proverbs in general and that of the WB in particular. In a similar
 2

fashion, the study of the theology of Amn is conduced in light of the theology of Egyptian
Wisdom Literature in general. In the third part of this paper, theologies of parallel passages of the
two are compared and contrast to explore the common and unique theological themes of the two
works.
Theology of Proverbs
Theology of Wisdom literature is challenging in how it fits with the rest of the Canon.
The apparent incompatibility of Yahwehism and Wisdom has led some to the conclusion that
biblical wisdom is theologically irrelevant. Murhpy rejects such dichotomy and argues that
wisdom is “a basic attitude toward God and the world in which the people of Israel lived…
received without any hesitation as being part of the broader revelation to the people of God….
The most obvious area in which one might expect a theological contribution from Old Testament
wisdom, and from Proverbs in particular, is that of ethics… fear of the Lord; a biblical attitude
towards the created world; an evaluation of riches and poverty.”13 In addition to Murphy’s list of
theological contribution of Proverbs, one needs to include the concept of wisdom and folly in
Proverbs. The excursus below attempts to survey their basic ideas in Proverbs.
Introduction and Structure of WB
The introduction in Prov 22:17-21 states the objective of this section quite clearly – so
that the readers may gain knowledge (v.17, 21a) and benefit from it (v.18, 21b). The effect of
imparting wisdom (v. 17b, 18b) into one’s life is that his “trust may be in the Lord” (22:19a).
With regard to the structure, Garrett sees the first ten sayings as instructions dealing with the
desire for wealth through various means (22:22-23:11). From saying eleven to seventeen (23:12-
28), it follows the theme of parental instruction and the remaining sayings are miscellaneous in
nature.14
Theology of WB
The tetragrammaton appears five times (22:19, 23; 23:17; 24:18, 21) in this section where
two of them forms an inclusio to WB exhorting one to trust and fear Yahweh. In 22:23, Yahweh
is the protector and deliverer who plead for the oppressed. In 23:17, one is to fear Yahweh and
put his hope on him despite seeing the prosperity of sinners. In 24:18, it is a prohibition against
rejoicing over Yahweh’s judgment on the sinner lest Yahweh terminate his penalty. In the first
and third instances, Yahweh plays the role of maintaining justice of helping the poor and
punishing the wicked. There is a strong sense of omniscience in these texts. Yahweh is portrayed
as an omniscience observer who knows about the oppression (22:23) and takes initiative to
carryout the justice. In 24:18, God is the one who can see through the emotion of a person.
The advice in Prov 24:10-12 regarding the duty of rescuing those who are on the death
row is significant.15 This is more an ethical command than an advice for wisdom. This section is
relatively expanded, as in the case of 23:29-35, a series of rhetorical questions are used to make
the case (24:12). The primary issue here is the divine concern for judicial justice. This section
ends with a stern warning suggesting divine intervention and retribution will occur for when
judicial justice is not maintained. No excuse will be accepted (v. 12a) for failure to maintain
justice. From all these passages, God is portrayed as omniscience and cannot be cheated for He
knows the heart (human intention). He also guards life, both the accused and the accuser. He will
step in to uphold justice when the human system fails.
Wise and Fool in WB
 3

In Proverbs, the fool is primarily placed in a practical social context without connection
to any religious context.16 Unlike wisdom, the fool is not personified but is being referred to as a
real person. In WB, only three different terms for “fool” are used: 24:7,9) ‫ אֱוִיל‬,(23:9) ‫)כְסִיל‬,
and 24:9) ‫)לֵץ‬.17
WB seems to have a rather negative portrayal of the fool. There is no mention of the
terms (‫ פֶתִי‬,‫ )חֲסַר־לֵב‬used for a corrigible fool. The readers are advice against speaking in the
ears18 of the 23:9) ‫ )כְסִיל‬because it would be a waste of effort.19 The term ‫ כְסִיל‬for a marginally
corrigible fool is used only once in WB but in the sense that he is incorrigible. The 24:7,9) ‫)אֱוִיל‬
is placed in contrast with wisdom as done elsewhere in Proverbs. In v. 7, wisdom is unattainable
or too high for him.20 The problems with the ‫ אֱוִיל‬are his pride, his speeches, and his stirring up
contention. Nowhere else is the ‫ אֱוִיל‬directly associated with sin21 in Proverbs except for 24:9.
He is placed in parallel with the 24:9) ‫)לֵץ‬. In the previous verse, he is the one who devises evil.
There are a few instances where the description fits quite well with a fool yet there is no mention
of either of the two terms for a corrigible fool. In 23:13-14, one needs not be overly concerned
with being too severe when it comes to discipline. But such a rod is only fitting for a fool
described elsewhere in Prov 10:13; 14:3; 22:15; 26:3; 29:15. In 23:22b, “do not despise your
mother when she is old,” the child being referred to here is found in its parallel in 15:20, “a fool (
‫ )כְסִיל‬despises his mother” where the term fool is used.
Wine is identified with the mocker (‫ )לֵץ‬in 20:1a and “whoever is intoxicated by it is not
wise” (20:1b). Except for this definition and 21:17, elsewhere in Proverbs non-figurative use of
wine is basically positive (3:10; 9:2,5; 31:4-7). The primary passages where wine is extensively
discussed and prohibited in Proverbs are 23:19-21, 29-35; 31:4-7. In 23:19-21, the son is warned
against association with heavy drinkers but when the topic is revisited subsequently in vv. 29-35
the admonition has shifted to the heavy drinker himself.22 Again, one may expect an association
of the heavy drinker with some type of fool yet there is no mention of folly here.
It seems that the concept of a fool in this section is entirely negative with the emphasizing
his rejection and inability to acquire wisdom.

Egyptian Religion
The Egyptian religion is marked by cultic rituals rather than creed, dogma or belief. This
is not to say that they are only concern with meaningless rituals. Rather, there is spirituality
lying behind mythic symbols as well as the experience in the cultic myth. Tobin states well that,
“Egyptian religion appears as a system or systems of cult and ritual constituting a mythic and
mystical experience which constantly re-affirmed and positively affected the power and
indestructibility of the life of the individual.”23 Pharaoh, the ruler, is the god incarnate and part of
the mythic system. The Nile and fertile land are the gifts of god to sustain life and the Sun is the
creative life power, standing in opposition to the desert – the opposite of life order.
Monotheism in Amn
With regard to the long standing debate of monotheism and polytheism of the Egyptian
religion, the predominant view in the nineteenth century was that of a monotheism, more or less
manifest or hidden. Rouge and Renouf proposed a henotheistic thesis that the unique deity was
chosen by the individual. By the end of the century, with the discovery of the totemistic
societies24 and the Pyramid Texts, it was revealed that the Old Kingdom had been polytheists.
 4

The pragmatic polytheism school championed by Adolf Erman maintains that the basic thought
of the Egyptian Religion was built upon the sentiment of fear in face of nature. The archaic
deities eventually evolved towards a monotheistic concept along with the civilization in the 18th
Dynasty. By the mid-twentieth century, Frankfort introduced the notions of deities as animating
forces of nature. This concept was then popularized by Erik Hornung and is now enjoying a
rather large consensus.25
Both the Pyramid text and the Coffin Texts show deities holding nets in their hands using
magic to protect the sungod. Egyptian magic is an energy, which does not require a medium to
transmit, that the gods use as a weapon to strike their enemies. Hornung argues that the most
powerful weapon is the creative energy of magic available only to the gods. It is through this
magic that the gods impose his will on the land.26 In Amn 19:16-17 it states, “The words men
say are one thing, the deeds of the god are another.”27 Based upon this passage, Hornung argues
that this magic later comes to be used by mankind, who acts independently and against the gods.
But only the will of the gods can produce lasting achievements.28 Despite the energy or magic of
a god, man is a created being and he is neither immortal nor omnipotent. There is always room
for human initiative. Since evil is inherent in the nonexistent,29 it is older than the gods and the
gods are not responsible for injustice. Though theodicy is not an issue, the power of the deities is
responsible for combating evil driving it out of the existent world.30
Primary purpose of the Egyptian religion is to live in accordance to with Maat – the
divine cosmos order. Maat is the goddess, the abstract principle and personification. Since Maat
is static and unchanging, perfect as introduced at creation, there is no Egyptian eschatology for a
final goal to human history – for the goal is to maintain that order – to renew and revitalize the
cultic ritual, which affirms such order. The universe was held together by such myth and cultic
expression.
The polytheistic nature of the Egyptian religion is certainly one of its primary
characteristics. Sauneron sees the most characteristic feature of the Egyptian religion as
polytheism. Hundred of gods and goddesses were worshipped from Memphis to Aswan taking
the forms of various animals such as cow, crocodiles, rams, dogs, lions, ibises, … etc., called by
different names in different locations.31 Since god is often mentioned in wisdom literature
without specification, this leads Sauneron to argue for monotheism in the Egyptian religion.32 He
sees monotheism always present itself alongside the polytheistic material cults in terms of the
concept of divine power applicable to all deities regardless of their limitation. The only
justification for any Egyptian “monotheism” is perhaps the Akhenaten movement. Such attempt
to force a foreign monotheistic concept to the Egyptian mentality has been proven to be a
failure.33
According to Lichtheim’s translation of Amn, “god(s)” is used 15 times without the
definite article34 and 20 times with it.35 There are occasions where a proper name of a particular
god, such as Amun, Osiris, Re …etc. is expected when there is none. This leads some to
conclude that Amn is monotheistic.
Mercer points out that the use with the definite article is a characteristic polytheistic
expression where examples are also found in other Egyptian literatures. The definite article only
suggests that a particular god is in mind.36 If Amn is monotheistic, it would be difficult to explain
the mentioning of a variety of deities by name from various Egyptian pantheons.37 In many
instances, “god” is used side by side with a named deity (3:1; 5:4,7; 11:2, 5…etc). Hornung
 5

writes, “Amn, whose Instruction has been dated to the Ramessid period by recent research,
makes clear and frequent allusions to Thoth, the god of writing and hence of literature and
wisdom, but names him only once; in the other cases he designates him indirectly by invoking
his manifestations, such as the ibis, baboon, or moon.”38 Tobin rejects both the terms,
‘monotheism’ and ‘polytheism’ maintaining that they are essentially irrelevant to the Egyptian
mind in the Old Kingdom.39 Hornung explains the mixed terminology saying, “[The mixed
terminology] does not permit one to speak of any properly defined ‘monotheism’ in their texts,
for there is never the exclusivity that must be part of any definition of monotheism.”40 In
conclusion he argues for a “wild card” concept meaning “whichever god you wish” for the
indefinite use of “god.” He writes, “Sometimes this is a particular god, such as Amun, Re, Ptah,
and so on, in which case a demonstrative pronoun is often added… In other cases ‘god’ is used
when the hearer or reader may himself choose to put a particular proper name in place.”41
Similarly, Frankfort takes the “god” to be one that fits the circumstances.42
Maat in Amn
In light of the Egyptian understanding of Maat,43 Egyptian Wisdom Literature can be
viewed as a sapiential attempt to provide essential guidelines to observe, evaluate and maintain
the cosmos order governed by Maat. Perdue suggests that Egyptian Wisdom is the means by
which one can avoid the disastrous pitfalls of Maat violation.44 He writes, “According to this
idea, a particular act or thought sets into motion a force which eventually will lead to a particular
result. Therefore, a wise/righteous act leads to a beneficial result, whereas a foolish/wicked
action leads to the punishment and possibly the destruction of the perpetrator… Yet retribution is
not a self-generative, self-perpetuating force, but rather is regulated and overseen by the Urgott
who blesses society and the individual for the maintenance and perpetuation of Ma’at.”45
The term “Maat” only appears once in chapter 20 of Amn saying, “As for Maat, a great
gift of god, he gives it to whom he wishes” (21:5). Based upon this text, Brunner argues that
god’s free will is unpredictable and Maat has been set aside.46 Assmann goes further and argues
for the disappearance of the concept of Maat due to its replacement by the wisdom piety.47
However, the context of 21:5 does not support such idea.48 Lichtheim rejects such interpretation
stating that, “thinking about Maat was linked to thinking about the will of the gods. That will
was not viewed as hidden, or unpredictable, or arbitrary; quite the contrary. The texts affirm over
and over that a man knew what the god wished him to do… Maat thinking – the core of Wisdom
– functioned in close alliance with piety. Wisdom and piety were partners in the endeavor to
formulate and teach the right kind of living.”49
Concept of Egyptian Wisdom
From the 6th dynasty text of Ptahhotep in the Old Kingdom, wisdom is acquired through
the ancestors who have listened to the gods (Ptahhotep 5:17). A few dynasties later, Merikare
seems to affirm that wisdom is born with rather than something that can be acquired. In the
Middle Kingdom text of the Story of Sinuhe (12th dynasty), the king / god seems to be the sole
possessor of wisdom and knowledge (Sinuhe 45-50). By the New Kingdom, Any 10:5 clearly
states that wisdom comes from god.
In later Egyptian Wisdom Literatures, wisdom belongs to the pious man who follows the
way of god and wins his rewards (Insinger 29:3-5). Lictcheim summarizes well, “In the teaching
of P. Insinger morality and piety have been completely fused and they are exemplified in the
character of the ‘wise man,’ who is capable of enduring reversals of fortune and remains
 6

confident of vindication. His counterpart is the ‘fool’ or ‘impious man’ whose disregard of the
divine commands makes him commit crimes which, inevitably, result in his punishment.”50
Shupak is of similar opinion seeing no distinction between the intellectuality and morality in
Egyptian concept of wisdom.51
Unlike Proverbs, wisdom in Egyptian Literature is never personified. Rather, “wisdom”
is represented by the “wise man” in Insinger. Egyptian wisdom is essentially descriptive.
Frequently, when the “wise man/woman” is discussed, the concern is the description of his
character (Insinger 2:23; 5:15-18; 7:10; 8:5) or his abilities / deeds (Insinger 3:19; 6:8; 10:1-3).
There is only one text in Ankhsheshonq that has a direct exhortation to acquire wisdom. It states,
“Do not say ‘I am learned’; set yourself to become wise. Do not do a thing that you have not first
examined. Examining makes your good fortune. If you examine three wise man about a matter it
is perfect; the outcome lies with the great god.” (Instruction of Ankhsheshonq 8:3-6).52
Apparently, the means to acquire wisdom is by examination and observation of how the wise
handles the matter.
To conclude, from the Old Kingdom there seems to be a shift of wisdom being acquired
from wise tradition to the acknowledgement that god bestows wisdom to selected individuals.
Subsequently, the ultimate source of wisdom is acknowledged to be from god. In later period,
along with the shift to personal piety, the means to acquire wisdom seems to have shifted back to
the observation of the “wise man.”
In Amn 22:5//23:8, “Indeed you do not know the plans of god,” wisdom of god is so high
that it is beyond the reach of human. From Shupak’s study of the Egyptian words in the semantic
field of wisdom, “know” (si3, know) in these verses is the only “wisdom” word that occurs in
Amn. Its basically meaning is “to know someone thoroughly.” Shupak sees a double sense, “of
an abstract quality – perception, sagacity – and that of endowed, charismatic wisdom, possessed
by gods and kings but never by ordinary mortals.”53 The focus here is on the incomprehensibility
of god or wisdom, which belongs to the realm of god beyond the reach of human. Perhaps Amn
lies in the transition between the ideas of the Old Kingdom of acquiring wisdom directly or
indirectly from the gods to that of getting wisdom through man. That man can no longer acquire
wisdom from gods in Amn may explain the shift to gaining wisdom through man.
Concept of Folly in Egyptian Literature
In her word study of Egyptian words in the semantic field “foolishness,” Shupak
identifies seven terms relating to the semantic field of foolishness in Egyptian wisdom literature
and classifies them into a scale with regard to social morality. Though all the words in the
semantic field of “foolishness” are related to the intellectual ability of various capacities,
foolishness in Egyptian wisdom is not merely a mental inability but also a moral deficiency.
When the wise son who listens is contrasted with the foolish son who does not listen, the issue is
not the lack of means for acquiring knowledge but the deliberate refusal to social norms. More
frequently are those who fail to listen and obey not because of their lack of intelligence but
because of their wicked nature. Less frequently are those who are ignorant because of intellectual
deficiency. She proposes four levels of intellect in the semantic field of foolishness in Egyptian
wisdom literature. In descending order of severity, they are: 1) intentional unwillingness to know
2) unwillingness to know 3) objective ignorance and 4) mental inability.54 In the conclusion, she
writes, “Wisdom does not distinguish between intellectual and the moral aspects. In the sage’s
view, the individual is part of the community, and his acts are evaluated in terms of good and ill
 7

they cause others. ‘Foolishness’ is therefore not merely a mental but also a moral deficiency.”55
Among all the related lexemes for the concept of foolishness, there is no mention of a
fool in Amn except for the term hm (‘to be ignorant’ or ‘not to know’) in the epilogue. This term
is classified as “good fool” in Shupak’s classification according to the moral criterion. The
Egyptian believer often presents himself as “an ignorant” before his god for the expressions of
his obedience and devotion.56 Apparently, the use of “ignorant” here is not intended for a
character trace but a general humbling reference for a pious believer. Thus, it is clear that the
prominent concept of “folly” is basically absent in Amn. This seems to be in drastic contrast with
WB, where a fool is cast under a rather negative light.
The Heated and Silence Man in Egyptian Literature
Chapter four of Amn is distinct from the rest of the book in that it does not open with an
admonition and it does not introduce a new subject matter.57 Perdue identifies a two strophes
contrasting between the “passionate man” of ch 1-3 with the “silent man” of ch 4-7.58 A few
observations regarding the tree illustrations are in place here. Though with a slightly different
order, the contrast between the two trees is shown in the table below.

Heated Man’s Tree Truly Silent Man’s Tree

a. Growing in the Temple59 a’. Keeps apart60… Growing in the meadow61

b. Its growth of shoots last for a moment b’. Double yield, Green

d. Floated far from it place c’. In front of its lord

e. Flame is its burial d’. Provides sweet fruit and shade

c. Its end in woodshed62 e’. Its end in the garden

In contrast with the heated man, silent man places himself outside and not pushes his way
to where he does not belong. The heated man is in the temple, out of place since trees are
normally not grown indoors and therefore not knowing what he is doing there. He dies
prematurely because he is cut off from both sunlight and water, factors key to its survival.63 On
the other hand, the silent tree is in the meadow, under the sun64 and where water is readily
available. The focus on the silent man is his inner calmness and state of being. He is doing the
right thing at the right place and time.65 Israeli makes an interesting suggestion that the heated
tree needs to shoot out long roots deep into the ground in order to reach the water source because
he is so remote and alone. As a result he bears no fruit because all his energy is spent on mere
survival.66 Alternately, Perdue offers his interpretation stating, “the sage is prescribing the
preferred behavior of the ‘silent man’ who in his decorum of discretion and his control of his
passions behaves in the same manner in the cultic sphere, while by contrast the ‘passionate man,’
whose demeanor lacks self-control even in cultic activities, falsely believes that it is proximity to
the divine that results in blessing, when actually, because of his overzealous and boisterous
behavior, he is quickly destroyed for disrupting the silence, order, and sanctity of the divine
sphere. The ‘silent man’ in his religious piety continues to be characterized by discretion and a
submissive faith.”67
 8

With regard to the virtue of the silent man, Shupak concludes her study stating, “In the
early period social behavior stood very much in the forefront, as is evident in the didactic
instruction and the pessimistic wisdom of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom.
During this period all the positive attributes of social morality were attached to the figure of the
ideal man, the ‘silent’ one. Later, when the emphasis shifted to the relationship between man and
his god and with the growth of personal piety – the first signs being evident in The Instruction of
Amenemope – the ‘silent man’ began to appear in religious context. The ‘silent man’ now bore
the sense of ‘pious man.’”68 In Amn 7:8-10, the silent man is the one who blesses Re in the
temple and anyone who clings to the silent man will find life.
Li sees the primary distinction between the heated and the silent man is one’s ability to
control his temper. When dealing with a specific situation, the ability for self-control becomes a
passive act to maintain Maat.69
Relationship of the Heated Man and the Fool
It is interesting to note that the central figure of Egyptian Wisdom literature, the heated
man, is not associated with the fool.70 Shupak sees the general absence of the more negative term
(wh3)71 from instructions in the New Kingdom. As a result of the pious motive to earn favor from
the deity, it is unlikely that one would present himself as a fool. Without further elaboration or
justification, she states that, “The wh3 is similar in his behavior and manners to the ‘heated’
man,’ the smm (and synonymous terms), who ‘play the role’ of the wh3 in The Instruction of
Amenemope.”72 Theologically, the heated man is the focus in Amn because of his potential
disturbance to the overall social morality and thus the Maat. It seems better to explain the
absence of “fool” in Amn through the nature of the problem caused by the heated man and the
fool. The fool primarily hurts himself and his family without jeopardizing the order of the society
and therefore not being discussed in Amn.
The wise believed that the cult was an important sphere of the world order, and therefore
cultic devotion should be of concern to the pious scribe. Perdue writes, “Once more we find a
sage who criticizes foolish, overly zealous cultic participation by the ‘heated man’ who regards
cultic participation as a guarantee of divine favor, regardless of the manner of life he leads both
inside and outside the cultic realm. In contrast, he depicts the discreet behavior of the ‘silent
man’ that characterizes his actions even within the sphere of the holy, and it is this behavior that
achieves beneficent blessings from the divine, both within the sphere of cultic religion and
without.”73
Comparison of Prov 22:17-24:12 and Amn
Among the numerous alleged parallels between Prov 22:17-24:12 and Amn, many of the
parallels are superficial resemblance of terminology where the contexts is clearly distinct.74 The
discussion below is selective and therefore limited to those which have genuinely parallels as
well as theological significance.
Comparison of the Prologues
In the prologue of Amn, the purposes for the instruction as stated are: well-being, good
relation and conduct towards the magistrates, wisdom in responding to authority, walking in the
right path of life, personal prosperity on earth, protection of evil by his god,75 protection from
slander of others, and honor from people. Obviously, the focus here is personal prosperity and
benefit. There is no statement regarding maintaining the Maat and there is no mention of any
 9

deity. It is clear that the orientation is purely humanistic, without any mention of any personal
relationship between man and God.76 Waltke writes well that, “It is instructive to note that in the
introduction to the “Thirty Sayings of the Wise,” which bears such a strong resemblance to
chapter one in the Instruction of Amen-em-Ope, the Israelite sage uniquely adds that his purpose
is that his readers’ ‘trust may be in the LORD’ (Prov 22:19, NIV). In that unique addition the
essential theological relevance and distinctiveness of the biblical book stands out. That demand
for faith informs the whole book (cf. Prov 3:5–6 and the recurrent expression, ‘Fear the LORD’
[1:7], which is the motto of the book).” In Amn, wisdom is the means for personal prosperity and
divine protection but in Proverbs it is the means to place one’s trust in God. The theology of WB,
the very core of the theology of Proverbs, stands in stark contrast with Amn.
Oppression to the Poor
In Prov 22:22-23, “Do not rob the poor because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the
gate; For the LORD will plead their case and take the life of those who rob them” (NET). The
snare to rob the poor is stated as, “because he is poor” and such oppression includes social
injustice and the perversion of the legal system.77 A fear tactic is used here to stop people from
committing this sin. The retribution is rather severe for two reasons. First, the penalty is capital
punishment. Second, Yahweh himself is the both the protector and the avenger.78 This is exactly
what the Mosaic Law demands in Exod 22:20-26 (Deut 24:14-15). In Exod 22:23, one condition
is required before Yahweh would intervene and carry out his judgment, it is when the oppressed
cries out to him.
In Amn 4:4-9, no disincentive is given to deter oppression and the oppressed is elaborated
and classified into three categories: the wretch, the cripple and the poor. Instead of fear tactic, the
solution is to avoid befriending with the oppressors, perhaps suggesting oppression is contagious.
The immediate section 4:10-11 prohibits the oppressed to raise an outcry or to take matters into
his hand (4:10). This is exactly opposite to what is expected in Exod 22:23, where the crying out
is the very means to receive deliverance from Yahweh. The reason behind the prohibition in Amn
is that natural disasters will befall the oppressor. The implied judgment here is also death.
Without any specific reference to any deity, it seems best to see Maat as the reason for
maintaining justice for the poor.
The Heated and Silent Man
The only command ever given in Proverbs in dealing with the heated man is to stay away
from them in Prov 22:24. This verse is also the only verse which provides a rationale for it - to
avoid being influence by him and become like him. All the remaining passages in Proverbs
reference to the angry man in a descriptive manner. The angry man in Proverbs is associated with
strive (15:18; 30:33) and sin (29:22) but not with a fool. The silent man, however, is associated
with the quality of the sage (11:12; 17:28). In Prov 26:20, “when there is no whispering,
contention quiet down,” quietness is referred to as antidote for strife. Similarly, quietness is
presented in contrast to strife in 17:1. Despite the association of the heated man with strife and
the silent man with subsiding strife, the heated man and the silent man are never placed
antithetically together as in the case of Amn. From the relatively few occurrences of these terms,
it is clear that neither the heated man nor the silent man occupies any central role in Proverbs.
Apparently, the Proverbs equivalent for the heated and silent man is the wise and the fool.
The heated man in Amn is also the “hot-mouthed” man (5:10) and there are severe
warnings against associations with him. One is to withdraw from him (5:15-16), not to befriend
 10

with him, not even to talk with him (11:13), not feel obligated even to greet him (13:11). Leaving
him alone is equivalent to leaving him to the hands of the god (5:4). The Moon will “declare his
crime” (4:19) and carry out the deserved sentence. Similarly, one is to withdraw from the hot-
mouthed man so that the god can answer him. Both the heated man and silent man in Amn are
placed in a temple. The heated man forces himself into it (6:1) while the other praises Re for his
blessings (7:8). To conclude, both Proverbs and Amn offer the same advice of staying away from
the heated man but with very different motivations. When comparing the heated man and
robbing the poor, the reasons seemed to have interchanged. The god-fearing motive used in
Proverbs for robbing the poor is used in the heated man in Amn and the “contagious” influence
of the heated man in Proverbs is used for robbing the poor in Amn.
Admonition Not to Seek Riches
In Prov 23:4-5, the warning is against seeking wealth. Verse 4b, ‫ מִ‍בִינָתְךָ חֲדָל‬is
literally, “from your understanding, cease.” The term ָ‫ מִ‍בִינָתְך‬can be understood as “from your
plan, purpose”79 or “from your wisdom / sense.”80 Gressmann’s emendation of the Hebrew
to read (from your unlawful gain) without any textual evidence is clearly an
attempt to harmonize Proverbs with Amn and such attempt should be rejected.81 The context
seems to suggest that one should be wise enough to stop wearing oneself to again wealth. Unlike
the Amn counterpart (ch 7), the issue of gaining wealth is not the means of acquisition since
there is no elaboration of how one becomes rich. The reason given is plain – wealth is fleeting
and no one is able to hold on to it (v. 5). Also, the lost of wealth is not viewed as divine
judgment, rather it merely points out the nature of wealth acquisition.
It has frequently been pointed out the use of the Egyptian “geese” in Amn 10:4 were
changed into an eagle” in Prov 23:5 for cultural adaptation.82 Theologically, they seem to be
independent of each other without any sign of adaptation. The theology of Amn ch 7 needs to be
read in light of ch 6, which starts with warning against greed, such as moving landmark.83 The
rest of ch 6 discusses legitimate means of gaining wealth. In 8:13 it states, “Desire, then, to make
yourself prosper”84 and a few lines later, “Plow your fields and you’ll find what you need, You’ll
receive bread from your threshing-floor. Better is a bushel given you by the god, than five
thousand through wrongdoing. They stay not a day in bin and barn” (8:17-20). It is quite clear
that gaining wealth with legitimate means is not an issue in Amn. The issue is the means as states
clearly in 9:16, “If riches come to you by theft, They will not stay the night with you” and again
in 10:6, 10, “Do not rejoice in wealth from theft… The boat of the greedy is left in the mud.”
Theologically, wealth is in the hand of Aten and one should only pray to him for the needs of his
life as given in 10:12-14, “You shall pray to the Aten when he rises, Saying: ‘Grant me well-
being and health’; He will give you your needs for this life.” Likewise, the lost of wealth is seen
as a judgment by nature as states in 9:20-10:4, “Earth opened its mouth, leveled them, swallowed
them, And made them sink into dat. They made a hole as big as their size, And sank into the
netherworld.”
Issues with Landmarks
The issue of ancient boundary was addressed in both Prov 22:28 and 23:10. In 22:28, the
command is an isolated straight forward command without elaboration or explanation. It is
essentially the same prohibition as in Deut 19:14; 27:17. In 23:10b, the condition of 22:28 is
narrowed to boundary of widows and the motivation for not committing the offense is the
pleading of the redeemer on her behalf (v.11). Here, the reader is assumed understanding of the
 11

procedure of land redemption by the nearest kinsman (Lev 25:25ff; Num 5:8). The implication
here is that when no human redeemer is available, Yahweh himself will be the strong redeemer.85
The command seems to be motivated by concern for the defenseless widow. This is consistence
with the special concern for the property of the widows (Prov 15:25b).
In Amn, the widow is also singled out as the primary victim (7:15). With more details in
the context of Amn, the focus is clearly on the offender. Not only the motivation for the crime is
given, the process is also described with specific details, “Do not be greedy for a cubit of land,
Nor encroach on the boundaries of a widow. The trodden furrow worn down by time, He who
disguises it in the fields, When he has snared (it) by false oaths” (7:14-16). Rather severe fear
tactic is used here. The Moon will certainly discover the crime and will avenge the life of the
offender with graphic description that, “his wealth will be seized from his children’s hands; his
possessions will be given to another” (8:7-8).
Eating before Nobles
The warnings of Prov 23:1-3 for proper table manner when dinning with a ruler are
threefold. First, one must eat with conscious awareness of the social status of the diner (v. 1b).
Second, one must control one’s appetite (v2).86 Third, watch out for the intention behind the free
meal (v. 3).87 As these warnings are given, no reason or explanation is provided. In Amn 23:13-
18, instead of a warning it is a prohibition, “Do not eat” (23:13). Instead, one is to pretend
chewing and satisfy oneself with the looking at the bowl (lines 15-18). Without details or reasons
for such prohibition, little theological significance can be attributed to either passage. The
contrast between the two passages, however, is obvious. Proverbs deals with deceptive food but
Amn teaches deceptive eating.
Conclusions
The theology of Amn is clearly the maintenance of Maat. The fundamental purpose of
Amn is prosperity and good life. Whybray writes, “good life is something which can be taught,
communicated by one man to another without any need for divine revelation. It is basically no
more than common sense.”88 The frequent claim for monotheism based upon the frequent use of
“god” or “gods” in Amn is not justified for the book is clearly polytheistic with a variety of
named Egyptian deities. Theologically, Amn is fully compatible with other Egyptian Wisdom
Literatures.
Despite of its brevity, the theology of Proverbs 22:17-24:12 is demonstrably consistent
with the rest of Proverbs and particularly so with the theology of the wise and the fool. In this
section, knowledge of the Mosaic Law in the Pentateuch is assumed. This section starts out with
a clear purpose of assisting the reader to trust Yahweh for a godly and wise living. When its
theology is compared with that of Amn, it is quite clear the two are incompatible despite their
similarities in various sayings.
Mercer writes, “Hebrew writer did not copy mechanically but changed the form and
content to suite his purpose”89 If Proverbs is theologically dependent upon Amn, one would
expect that the named Egyptian deities in Amn would either be adapted to “Yahweh” or “god”
accordingly. However, “god” never appears in Prov 22:17-24:12 and none of the five
occurrences of the divine name finds any parallel to Amn. From all the Amn and WB parallels,
none of them make any mention of “god.”90 From the thirty plus passages where “god” or “gods”
 12

are mentioned, many of them are theologically compatible with Yahwehism in Israel but none of
them is used in WB.91
In light of the above discussion of the passages from the two works, their theology seems
to contrast each other even in their parallels passages. Theologically speaking, instead of
adaptation, it is possible that the author/collector of Proverbs intentionally avoids the Amn
passages whenever “god” or the name of a deity is present. Regardless whether the Egyptian
theology is intentionally rejected, it is clear that there is no substitution of Yahweh for the
Egyptian deity, named or unnamed. Regardless of whether the dependence of WB is direct or
indirect, there seems to be no direct or indirect theological relationship between the two works.
With regard to the temple cult, Keimer writes, “the Jewish author completely eliminates the
frequent references in Amen-em-ope to the temple-cultus (chaps. 4, 5, 8) as well as the echoes of
a reward after death (chaps. 8, 25) because in the pre-Exilic period there was no belief in a
judgment of the dead nor in a life after death. Herein is seen constantly a conscious rejection of
that which did not correspond to the religion of the Jewish proverb-writer.”92
 13

Excursus 1: Wisdom and Folly in Proverbs

Folly in Proverbs
The discussions on wisdom and folly in Proverbs are substantially more frequent than the
remaining wisdom literature added together. There are 7 different roots in Semantic field of
foolishness used in Proverbs.93 The nuances of each of the other five major terms are discussed
below. The term ‫( חֲסַר־לֵב‬one who lacks sense) is used about 10 times and mostly refer to a
youth being vulnerable to social evil because of his lack of experience or education. He is
tempted by “strange woman” (Prov 6:32; 7:7), gullible (17:18) and poor because of his laziness
(24:30). His words are offensive (11:12) and he goes after worthless pursuits (12:11).
The ‫( פֶתִי‬simple man) is used 14 times and derives from the root ‫ פתה‬meaning “open.”94
The basic idea is “be open, spacious, or wide.” It is frequently referred to the naive and immature
youth unable to resist enticement. He is unaware of danger (22:3) and ended up destroying
themselves by their own folly (1:32). It stands in synonymous parallel to the 7:7) ‫)חֲסַר־לֵב‬. He
is the primary candidate to receive instruction for wisdom (1:4; 19:25). Apparently, both ‫חֲסַר־‬
‫ לֵב‬and ‫ פֶתִי‬are corrigible. Shupak classifies them as the first two candidates at the beginning of
her spectrum labeled as “positive fool.”95
The term ‫ כְסִיל‬is the most frequent term for a “fool” in Proverbs. It is only used three
times in Psalms (49, 92, 94) outside Proverbs and Qohelet. This term refers not to mental
deficiency but to the dull and obstinate person with the propensity to make wrong choices.96 He
is often portrayed as a youth still within the family framework (10:1; 15:20; 17:21; 19:13). He is
not the worse kind of fool but is certainly a step further than the previous categories. On the
positive side, there is still hope for him for Lady Wisdom still calls out to him for wisdom and
understanding (8:5). He has more hope than those who are wise in their own eyes (26:12). He is
marginally corrigible, teachable only through the hard way by means of severe discipline (17:10;
19:29; 26:3). Naturally, he has no desire to learn wisdom (17:16; 18:2), incapable of learning
wisdom (26:7,9), hates knowledge (1:22; 23:9), lacks concentration (17:24) and self-control
(29:11), repeats his follies (26:11) and his mouth publicizes his follies (12:23; 15:2; 26:4-5). On
the negative side, he sins with his speeches (10:18; 18:6-7; 19:1); he is arrogant and over
confident (14:16; 28:26); he enjoys doing evil (10:23; 13:19) and has no fear for the Lord (1:29).
The suggested approach to deal with the ‫ כְסִיל‬in Proverbs is to avoid them because they are
prone to cause harm or damages (13:20; 14:7; 17:12; 23:9).
The term ‫ אֱוִיל‬is found 19 times in Proverbs and it is probably derived from the root ‫אול‬,
which means “to congeal” or “to thicken.”97 This may suggest the stupidity is caused by the
“thick-brain.” This type of fool is not corrigible (27:22) and therefore a stronger term for the
description of a fool. This term stands in antithetic parallel with ‫ חָכָם‬98 A ‫ אֱוִיל‬despises wisdom
and instruction (1:7; 15:5) and therefore he makes wisdom unattainable to him (24:7). His mouth
brings destruction (10:14) and he often suffers consequences of his own folly (7:22; 10:8, 10, 21;
16:22). He sins with his mouth (10:14; 17:28). He is right in his own eyes (12:15), prideful
(14:3) and stir up contention and vexation (12:16; 20:3; 27:3). In Prov 24:9, his scheme is sinful
(taking the ‫ זִמַת אִוֶלֶת‬as the genitive of source meaning the plan coming out of a fool). It is
impossible to remove his folly (27:22) and there is no hope to settle matters with him (29:9).
The term ‫( לֵץ‬Qal ptcp, ‫ )ליץ‬appears 14 times in Proverbs and two times (1:22; 29:8) as
noun (‫)לָצון‬. A ‫ לָצון‬/ ‫ לֵץ‬is “a mocker or a man of scorning” and the basic meaning of the root
 14

‫ לוץ‬is “to speak boastfully.”99 He is worst than the ‫ אֱוִיל‬because not only is he incorrigible
(15:12) one gets humiliated in attempt to correct him (9:7-8). Proverbs 19:25a, “Flog a mocker,
and the simple will learn prudence,” informs us that the mocker should be flog not that he will be
corrected as a result, rather the ‫פֶתִי‬, the simple and easily persuaded fool may benefit from him.
The same idea is expressed in 21:11. A mocker will receive the penalties prepared for him
(19:29). His primary characteristic seems to be his delight in his mockery (1:22) and his rejection
and resentment to any effort to point out or correct his follies (9:7-8; 13:1; 15:12). Perhaps the
root cause to his follies is his excessive pride (21:24). He is placed in antithetic parallel with the
humble (3:34).100 (Naturally, it is impossible for such a person to find any wisdom or knowledge
(14:6). He is abominable to all (24:9) and his influence is analogous to wine (20:1), leading
others astray. Since there is no hope to change them nor any remedy to undo the effect of their
destruction, the drastic measure of expelling him from the community is recommended (22:10).
To conclude, Proverbs seems to outline a spectrum of folly with the corrigible ones on
one end and the incorrigible ones on the other end. These terms are discussed above in the order
of increasing severity of foolishness. As the spectrum moves further down to the incorrigible
end, there seems to be an accumulating effect with additional features of folly. The
characteristics of the fool are frequently illustrated in contrast to the wise. For the corrigible fool,
there is no statement regarding wisdom in dealing with them because there is still hope for them.
From the marginally corrigible fool to the incorrigible fool, the measure against them increases
according to their follies. We are told to avoid the ‫ כְסִיל‬for our own benefit and there is no hope
to settle disputes with the ‫אֱוִיל‬. For the ‫לֵץ‬, the only solution is to expel them from the
community.
Wisdom in Proverbs
With regard to the lexemes belonging to the field of wisdom, there are 9 key terms.101
Apparently, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these terms in details. Their
theological significances of the terms that appear in Proverbs 22:17-24:22 are summarized
below. The term ‫חכְמָה‬ ָ (wisdom) is the most generic and common term for wisdom. It is a
polysemic word referring to practical wisdom, cleverness / wit, and divine wisdom.102 The
adjective ‫( חָכָם‬wise) is someone who has acquired knowledge in everyday life and is ready to
impart to others.103 The wise is often contrasted with the fool both in terms of intellectual
faculties (21:20; 14:24) and morality (3:35; 9:8; 14:8; 15:20). Such contrast is applied in the area
of self control in emotion (29:9,11).
The term ‫עת‬ַ ‫ד‬
ַ (knowledge) refers to the knowledge imparted by the teacher. Wisdom
plays the role of the teacher to educate the fool who rejects knowledge (1:22-23, 29). The fear of
the Lord is not only the beginning of 1:7) ‫עת‬ ַ ‫ד‬
ַ ) but is also the means which the ‫עת‬ַ ‫ד‬
ַ of God can
be obtained. This term is used in synonymous parallel with 30:3 ;10 ,2:6) ‫חכְמָה‬ ָ ) and used
interchangeably with it (1:7 and 9:10). Knowledge is to be sought (15:14; 18:15) and gained
through learning (21:11; 22:17, 20-21; 23:12). It is analogous to choice gold or treasures (8:9-12;
20:15; 24:4) and is in possession by the wise and prudence (12:1; 12:23; 13:15; 14:6, 18; 15:2, 7;
). It has the power (24:5) to deliver the righteous (11:9).
The term ‫( בִינָה‬understanding) occurs 13 times in Proverbs refer primarily to the very
human faculty and mental ability to understand.104 On one hand people are encouraged to seek
such understanding (2:3; 4:1, 5, 7) yet on the other hand one is not to rely on such understanding
(3:5). On the positive side, such understanding can protect us from “strange woman” (7:4-5) and
 15

its value is compared with silver (16:16). Never should one let it go easily (23:23). Negatively,
one is warned against using such understanding/wisdom as a means to gain wealth (23:4). It is
personified (8:14) in the same way wisdom is personified. The personified wisdom exhorts one
to live on such understanding (9:6), which is equated to the knowledge of Yahweh (9:10). Similar
to the above terms, there is an emphasis on acquiring ‫בִינָה‬. The new element here is that such
wisdom could potentially be dangerous and subject to misuse.
The term ‫( שֵכֶל‬prudence, insight) occurs six times in Proverbs. This term can be used
both in the positive (prudence) or negative sense (cunning) but is never used negatively in
Proverbs.105 It is the foundation of life to the wise (16:22) but utterly rejected by the fool (23:9).
The possessor of ‫ שֵכֶל‬is able to control his anger (19:11) and will receive praises (12:8). It is
gained through close attention to the instruction of the father and such success is recognized by
both human and divine (3:4). Similar to ‫בִינָה‬, this term is not for purely human wisdom. Unlike
‫בִינָה‬, it is not related to the fear of Yahweh and it seems to describe the positive effects of
gaining wisdom.
Based upon the above analysis, wisdom is something to be acquired through receiving
instructions (often from the parents) as well as from the fear of Yahweh. The emphasis lies more
on the moral and spiritual aspect than the intellectual aspect. The results of living a life by
wisdom is often contrasted with the fool. Some terms of wisdom are limited to human wisdom
only.
Excursus 2: Brief History of Development of the Egyptian Concept of Maat
The earliest statement about Maat is found in tomb inscriptions by the end of 5th dynasty.
Lichtheim suggests a standard autobiographical tripartite declaration with 1) the introductory
formula, “I come from my town,” 2) I have spoken or done Maat and 3) specification of what
doing Maat is – a list of good deeds such as not hurting others and doing good.106 In its earliest
stage, Maat is virtues performed by doing or speaking needed to stand well with the gods and his
virtues are evaluated in retrospect from the burial. Lichtheim defines Maat as, “loving the good,
hating wrongdoing, and obtaining a state of honor with the king and with the god.”107 The
motivation for doing Maat is to do what the gods desire – men, as incumbent on earth, must live
the principle of right order by which the gods lived.108
In later period, the second element in the tripartite declaration is absent because Maat has
become associated with public service and with rank thus becoming weighty and solemn. By the
11th dynasty, with the discovery of the sources of selfhood and the inner directedness of the heart
and the character, the second element is replaced by “having done what people love and gods
praise” or “am one who made his character, one beloved of people each day.”109 Lichtheim
writes, “Inner-directness left room for divine or human guidance, even though a hardy soul might
attribute all his competence to his own good natural endowment, unaided by parental teaching, as
did the minor Abydene priest Mentuhotep.”110
During the New Kingdom, the connection between Maat on earth and a blessing in the
afterlife as its reward is clearly established. Rather than a blanket term for good behavior, Maat
refers specifically to truth and fair dealing. Along with the realization that the moral qualities and
evil inclination are both born with (as opposed to a matter of education), the paradigm of
“foolish and evil son” and “the wise and the virtuous son” is developed. Subsequently, Maat is
applied to kingship referring to truth telling of honest administrators when carrying out the laws
justice and benevolence for all. 111
 16

The major innovation in the 18th Dynasty autobiographies is that men and women are
depicted as worshipping gods. When gods are invoked more directly and frequently the realm of
personal afterlife is also expanded to the celestial regions where gods dwells. The statements
from Paheri that, “I knew there is a god in man” (Urk. IV. 119.15) and “whoever will bend the
hand will be in the condition of Maat” (121.12) suggests an increasing sense of divine presence
along with the piety development. The essence of Maat now encompasses in doing what people
love and gods praise, which is essentially loyal service to the king and god.112 The individual
focus is seen from the asking for a blessed afterlife as a reward for the earthly righteousness in
the prayer to Osiris. Near the end of the 18th dynasty, Amenhotep declared that there is none
beside the sudgod Re. Lichtheim writes, “Akhenaten’s revolutionary disavowal of all gods
except the sungod drastically reduced the scope of autobiographical inscriptions of royal
officials. They now consist of adulations of Akhenaten, hymns to the sundisk, and self-
presentations limited to assertions of efficiency and kindness, and above all, loyalty to the king
and to his teaching. That teaching declared that on earth Akhenaten alone was the fount and
dispenser of Maat. The courtiers possessed Maat by virtue of having been taught by the king.”113
Tobin summarizes the Amarna concept of Maat writing, “because of this peculiar Egyptian
concept the universe was seen as essentially benevolent to man. It was ordered, regular and
dependable, under the rule of the divine… the concept of a perfect universe which could not be
totally destroyed.”114
After the death of Akhenaten, the great upheaval and the rejection of his teaching resulted
in all the gods restored to their seats. Maat was returned to the traditional Maat thinking, the
principle of right-truth-justice but with the added nuance of personification.115 In the litany of
Neferhotep, the chief scribe of Amun, hails Re as the maker of Maat.
At the beginning of the Ramesside period, man’s declarations of their own Maat doing
takes on greater scope and urgency. Personal piety is seen from their appeal to the gods more
directly and intimately asking them to be witnesses of their Maat doing. The privilege to pray for
health, happiness and personal needs in this life and rewards in the afterlife is now extended to
an average person. Lichtheim sees the statement, “I know the god acts for the rightminded,” as
the credo of Maat in the New Kingdom and thereafter.116
 17

Bibliography
1
Proverbs 22:17-24:22 is subsequently referred to as “Wisdom Book” and abbreviated as WB in this paper. Amenemope is
abbreviated to Amn and references are made not by chapter but by the convention of section and line number. The
translation of Amenemope follows Lichtheim unless otherwise stated.
2
With regard to the direction of dependence, there are three major positions. There are few followers to Kevin’s suggestion
of Amenemope’s dependence on Proverbs. The common source theory of Oesterley has been greatly challenged and
Erman’s proposal for the dependence of Proverbs on Amenemope is being referred to as “the Erman consensus” by Black,
who designates an entire chapter in his dissertation for a thorough survey on the history of major works done in the study of
these two works.
3
4
One must realize that the Qere reading basically lacks external support because it is only partially supported by the LXX,
Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate. The LXX reading of “threefold” was followed by the Syriac, Targum and Vulgate. The
external evidence is considered weak here for two reasons. First, the LXX reading is not “thirty” but “threefold.” Second,
strictly speaking LXX is the only support because of the dependence.
5

6
He identifies 30 units including the introduction. Since the discovery of Amenemope, it is possible that scholars are biased
to subdivide this section into thirty units one way or another. The fact that commentators before Amenemope, such as Toy
and Delitzsch, do not agree on the subdivision may suggest that subunit boundaries are at time ambiguous.
7
He identifies boundaries of sections by observing markers such as la plus jussive for admonitions and introductory
markers such as ,  …etc.
8
His identification is in agreement with Murphy except that Murhpy includes 24:10 as belonging to 25:11-12. Soo Hoo
concludes his study that there is no literary dependence of Wisdom Book on Amenemope.
9
There are generally four occasions where it is uncertain whether that verse should stand alone or included in the previous
or following section. They are 23:19, 26; 24:7, 10.
10
Overland manages to list 17 parallels between the two because he fragments one saying in Proverbs into multiple units
and finds parallels from different places. He has four parallels in the introduction. Some of his parallels are forced. For
example, Prov 22:23a, “For the LORD shall argue their case” parallels Amen 4:19, “Thou Moon, bring forward his crime!”
This parallel is problematic for two reasons. First, the content bears resemblance only remotely at best. Second, Amen 4:19
is no longer addressing the one who robs the poor because the subject has already switched to the “heated man” in 4:17.
11
12
Ruffle’s proposal of the memory theory is entirely plausible.
13
14
Mercer sees the break between the second and third section at 23:18.
15
This passage is difficult in the text of v.10, which is literally, “If you slack in the day of distress, narrow is your strength.”
Both Toy and Murphy suggests a textual corruption here but it is better to see ‫( צַר‬narrow) as a paronomasia to underscore
the point of the distress (‫)צָרָה‬, as the NET Bible Prov 24:10 tn. 16 suggests. Scholars are not in agreement whether v. 10
stands alone () or introduces vv. 11-12 Regarding the identification of those who are destined to death in v. 11, there are a
few suggestions. Toy suggests that they may be the POW’s or innocent men wrongfully condemned to death. Garrett
suggests that they are those stumbling toward death because of their moral and spiritual blindness. Murphy argues
convincingly that those who are condemned must be unjust otherwise there is no reason for the command to deliver them
out of the death row. It seems that the wrongfully accused view is more probable.
16
In Shupak’s more extensive and thorough study including the entire wisdom corpus in the Hebrew Bible, she concludes
that there are two levels a fool is being described – the social and the religious level. She identifies two frameworks – the
familial (in the context of the father and the mother) and the community. And she sees two major character flaws of a fool –
refusal to accept education / instruction and sin in speech.
17
Please refer to the excursus for the discussion of these terms and arguments for their use for corrigible and incorrigible
fools.
18
This expression probably means conscious effort to draw attention of the listener so to ensure that the words spoken are
being heard. Prov 23:8, sn. 17 (NET).
19
A similar advice is given with a different reason in 26:4. One is not to answer a fool less we become like a fool.
20
The meaning of this verse is unchanged whether one make the emendation of the MT (corals) to ‫( רָמרֹת‬high).
21
Toy translates this phrase as, “Sin is folly’s intrigue.” He states, “the plan of folly is sin, in which plan may be taken as
subject, and folly will then be defined as sin.”
22
This is by far the most lengthly discussion on a single topic within 22:17-24:22. The literary structure is unmistakable. It
begins with 6 rhetorical questions (23:29), pointing out the negative side effects of wine and closes with six more negative
effects (23:33-35) to form a nice inclusio. In both descriptions, there is a movement from the mental towards the physical.
The introduction moves from the psychological and emotional problems (sorrow, contention and complaints) to the physical
problems (wounds and redness of eyes). The conclusion moves from the mental illusions (seeing strange things) to the
physical harm (beaten). The final statement of the section sums up the alcoholic problem quite nicely. There is no end and
no solution to it. The concluding remark informs us that the sober moment is short because of indulgence. The central
section (vv. 30-32) points out the reality of wine, as deceptive and damaging as a serpent.
23
24
The nomes were ancient clans, each with its totem.
25
This is a summary of Traunecker’s brief survey to the development of the monotheism and polytheism discussion
regarding the Egyptian Religion.
26
27
The concept of the “will of god” appears in Amn 19:16-17; 21:14; 22:5//23:8; 24:16. In 21:14; 22:5//23, the idea is that
the will (or plan) of God is beyond reach by human and 24:16 suggests that the will of god is not only sovereign but also
arbitrary. No attempt for human reasoning is seen from these texts.
28
29
For the Egyptian concept of non-existence, please consult
30
31

32
Sauneron cited these examples to support his argument, ‘It is not the will of man which is realized by the plan of god’
(Ptahhotep, Old Kingdom), and ‘God knows who is working for him’ (Marikare, 11th Dynasty).
33
34
3:1, 8:11; 11:2, 5; 14:2; 18:2, 5; 19:14; 21:5, 14, 15; 22:5; 23:8; 24:4; 26:13.
35
2:3; 5:5, 7, 17; 6:16; 8:19; 9:5; 13:16; 14:1; 15:21; 18:11; 19:17, 20, 22; 22:7; 23:10; 24:11, 14, 20; 26:20.
36
37
The names of the gods mentioned are Re, Thoth, Shu, Tefnut, Khnum, Shai, Reneit, Iahw, Min, Horus, Min-Kamephis,
Apophis, Uraeus and Nebertcher.
38
39
40
41

42
43
Please refer to the excursus for the development of the concept of Maat.
44
45
46
47

48
In light of the context in 20:10-21:4, warning against favoritism to the wealthy and bribery in the law court, “Maat, a great
gift of god” is best taken as referent to the fact that not everyone is able to judge fairly and honestly according to the
principle of Maat.
49

50
51

52
Shupak dates the composition of this text to about 4th century BC.
53

54
55
56
57
Chapter 8 is only other chapter that does not begin with an admonition.
58
59
Israeli points out nine different translations for hnti, 1) fore-court of temple 2) outside 3) in the open 4) indoors 5) an
enclosed space 6) forest 7) orchard 8) prematurely 9) frontier, front, southern part.
60
Holding oneself apart is not a rejection to cultic duties, but rather the opposite of boisterous behavior of the fool who
wrongly believes that proximity to the temple alone would negate retribution and bring blessings.
61
Various translations for this are: 1)plantation 2) meadow 3) garden 4) a pit with a raised rim to retain water 5) area
exposed to sunlight 6) canal.
62
This seems to indicate a kind of useful end but the point is not whether he is useful or not but that his life is cut short by
taking away from his natural surrounding.
63

64
The silent tree prosper because he is outside under the sun, that is under the care of the sungod.
65

66
67
68
69
Li uses the situation in chapter 21 to argue his case. When confronted by an oppressor, one is not to ask for help from his
god because one does not know the plan of god. Rather he is to stay in his harmony with god and overcome the adversary
with his silent.
70
In Shupak’s extensive word study of lexemes related to “foolishness” in Egyptian wisdom literature, none of the examples
used are related to the heated man.
71
This is a more neutral term for “fool” with the nuance of rejection of social norm and failure to distinguish between good
and evil. He does not endanger social order or abuses other people. The primary victim is himself or his family.
72
73

74
For example, Prov 23:6-7, “Do not eat bread with a selfish man, or desire his delicacies” and Amenemope 14:5-6, “Do not
covet a poor man’s goods, nor hunger for his bread” the warning against eating in Proverbs is that the person is stingy but in
Amenemope the problem is the covetousness of the food of the poor.
75
Lichtheim points out that the heart is to be viewed as the god who dwells in man. Therefore the statement, “To let his
heart enter its shrine, steering clear of evil” probably refers to the protection by the deity of the shrine.
76

77
The crushing of the afflicted at the gate in v. 22b is taken as corruption of legal system because the gate is the law court
equivalent of our day.
78
Yahweh himself is the avenger probably because the crime of oppression is not tangible and very difficult to concretely
define even by the case laws. Suppose the owner oppresses his worker by underpaying them, it is very difficult to draw the
line to what point it is oppression. Here, Yahweh himself protects those who are beyond the protection of the Mosaic Law,
thus reveal his care for the underprivileged. The best example is found before this law was given, the killing of the first born
of the Egyptians in respond to the crying out of Israel against their oppressors.
79
80
NET.
81
Mercer follows Grassmann and translate 4b as, “and cease from thy dishonest gain.”
82
83
There is an inclusio in ch 6 (7:12//8:9, line 1 and 20), “borders of the fields,” enclosed within is the warning against
illegitimate greed.
84
This is Simpson’s translation.
85
86
The metaphor, “put a knife to your throat” can be taken either as self-restraint in eating or eating that may endanger one’s
life. The former is to be preferred since it is an idiom meaning curbing one’s appetite and is a common ANE admonition
regarding table manner. NET Prov 23:2 n. 3.
87
Both Oesterley and Toy see v. 3 as misplaced because the deceptive food does not seem to fit the context of controlling
one’s appetite. This difficulty is resolved by Murphy’s suggestion that the purpose of the free meal is to test the character of
the person.
88

89
90

91
For example, the Egyptian theology regarding the plan of god is unknowable (22:5; 23:8), security in god (11:2, 5; 14:1;
22:7; 23:10; 24:20), divine retribution (5:4) and passages about god’s objection to falsehood (13:16; 14:2; 15:21).
92
93
They are ‫ נָבָל‬,‫ לֵץ‬,‫ אֱוִיל‬,‫ כְסִיל‬,‫ פֶתִי‬,‫חֲסַר־לֵב‬, and ‫בָעַר‬, where the last two terms only occurs five times in total.
94
95
She defines “positive fool” as those who are corrigible.
96
97

98
99

100
The LXX renders “mocker” here as “proud,” apparently identifying the mocker according to his primary characteristic.
101
They are ‫שרֹון‬
ְ ִ ‫ כ‬,‫שי ָה‬
ִ ‫ תו‬,‫ערְמָה‬
ָ ,‫ מְזִמָה‬,‫ שֵכֶל‬,‫ תְבונָה‬,‫ בִינָה‬,‫חכְמָה‬
ָ ,‫עת‬
ַ ‫ד‬
ַ .
102

103
104

105
106

107
108
109
110
111

112
113

114
115

116