Proverbs: Prose or poetry?

Page 1 of 5 Original Research Proverbs: Prose or poetry? Author: Anneke Viljoen1 Affiliation: 1 Department of Old Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria, South Africa Note: This article is based on the author’s PhD thesis entitled ‘An exploration of the symbolic world of Proverbs 10:1−15:33 with specific reference to ‘the fear of the Lord’”, prepared under the supervision of Prof. Pieter M. Venter in the Department of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Correspondence to: Anneke Viljoen Email: Postal address: PostNet 129, Private Bag X504, Northway 4065, South Africa Dates: Received: 15 Jan. 2015 Accepted: 07 June 2015 Published: 31 Aug. 2015 How to cite this article: Viljoen, A., 2015, ‘Proverbs: Prose or poetry?’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 71(3), Art. #2882, 5 pages. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts. v71i3.2882 Copyright: © 2015. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS OpenJournals. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Read online: Scan this QR code with your smart phone or mobile device to read online. Should Proverbs be read as prose or poetry? Considering the language craft is of essential significance for a hermeneutical enquiry into the biblical book of Proverbs. Five suppositions to support the presupposition that Proverbs is best read as poetry were considered. Introduction On reading the biblical book of Proverbs one instinctively tends to regard the proverbs as a language craft.1 But should the book be read as prose or poetry, considering that the form of the language craft is vital in a hermeneutical inquiry into the biblical book of Proverbs?2 In his hermeneutical thoughts, Ricoeur (1977:15) cautioned against the separation of the form and content of a discourse. It became apparent to him that the form in which a message was encoded and the content that the message communicated were inextricably interwoven. McKane ([1979] 1990:167) stated that ‘what is said’ could not be detached from ‘how it is said’ since the force of any discourse arises out of a blending of form and content; separating the two would neutralise that force. Alter (1985:4) perceives the necessity of the question as to the kind of language craft one encounters in a text for the heuristic process. He notes the importance of understanding the linguistic system used in a text in order to appreciate what kinds of meaning and representations of human and divine reality were made possible by the particular rhetorical vehicle (cf. Berlin [1985] 1992:17). Indeed, the form of a discourse can be regarded as a means by which the writer utilises the available resources of literary expression to allow a fuller understanding of the message (Alter 1985:183–184; Burden 1986:40; Potgieter 2002:1372). The author employs the dynamics of the various literary genres or modes of discourse as the ‘means of production’ (Ricoeur in Reese [1979] 1990:385). It is important to recognise the linguistic system of a text since the form of a text, as its encoding, becomes an important key to interpreting and appreciating the text itself (Burden 1986:40; Human 1999:357; Loader 1986:112). Parallelism as stereotypical communication pattern in biblical literature According to Deist (1986:23–24), a text may be described according to at least two aspects, namely how the text is organised and how the text functions. Specific situations and/or contexts require specific ways in which a message may be coded; in this way, set patterns of communication (whether oral or written) develop within a community or culture that in time become stereotyped. Identifying such stereotypical communication patterns may help the listener or reader to understand the communicated message better. Robert Lowth identified parallelism as a stereotypical communication pattern in the biblical text and promoted it to a place of prominence in biblical studies (Lowth in Berlin [1985] 1992:1; Burden 1986:49; Gottwald [1985] 1987:522), establishing it as the major organising principle or key distinguishing characteristic of Hebrew verse (Alter 1985:204; Byargeon 2002:281; Landy 1984:62; Nel 1992:135; Petersen & Richards 1992:2). However, the prevalence of semantic parallelism has been questioned (Alter 1985:3–4; Burden 1986:51; Petersen & Richards 1992:1–2). Kugel questioned the equation of poetry and parallelism and raised reservations about whether one could actually 1.I prefer the term language craft to other alternatives such as language communication or discourse strategy. This is in accordance with Ricoeur’s understanding (and Reese’s) of the author as an ‘artisan at work in discourse’ (Ricoeur in Reese [1979] 1990:391). The author of a biblical text very purposefully crafts its language into a work of art that calls for the reader’s response. In his book The art of Biblical poetry Alter (1985) also illustrated how the crafting of a text shapes the heuristic possibilities of the text. 2.Here I draw on and develop insights concerning the second pole (of four) of a Ricoeurian hermeneutic. For a summary of the structuring considerations of a Ricoeurian hermeneutic and to determine where the second pole fits into Ricoeur’s hermeneutic approach, see Viljoen (2014). http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2882 Page 2 of 5 differentiate between prose and poetry in biblical literature and again brought up the question as to what the formal elements of scriptural writings were (cf. Alter 1985:4; Berlin [1985] 1992:4–7). Alter (1985:4) disagrees with Kugel and, distinguishing between prose and poetry, chooses to read Proverbs as poetry. He states that, in purely formal terms, the poetic character of the text is nowhere more evident than in the book of Proverbs (Alter 1985:163). Landy (1984:66–68), however, sides with Kugel in stating that ‘there is no absolute dividing line between poetry and prose in the Bible.’ He prefers speaking of the poetic and prosaic ends of a continuum: ‘“[P]oetry” and “prose” are on a continuum whose extremes are not “high” and “low”, nor “form” and “content”, but two linguistic relations to reality’ (Landy 1984:68). In a summary of her viewpoint, Berlin ([1985] 1992:16) concludes that ‘[p]oetry uses parallelism as its constitutive or constructive device, while non-poetry, though it contains parallelism, does not structure its message on a systematic use of parallelism.’ Referring specifically to the wisdom corpus, Loader (1986:107) distinguishes between poetic wisdom texts and prosaic wisdom texts. The lack of consensus among scholars is evident.3 Most scholars nevertheless seem to agree with Davis (2009:266) in recognising that ‘biblical proverbs represent language in its most condensed form.’ From what follows, it should be clear that my own presupposition is that poetry is indeed discernible from prose and that Proverbs (the cited proverbs in particular) may be read as poetry. Suppositions My presupposition is grounded in five supp (...truncated)