Proverbs 1-9 as a Solomonic composition

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2000 by Steinmann, Andrew E

I. INTRODUCTION

Some of these attributions of authorship have been challenged, not only by critical scholars, but even by more conservative, evangelical scholars.1 The rejection of the book's apparent notices of authorship is especially true of the first section of the book (1-9). It contains lengthy discourses rather than the short sayings that characterize the other two sections attributed to Solomon (10:1-22:16 and 25-29).

Though admitting some conceptual connections between chapters 1-9 and the two other sections attributed to Solomon, critical scholars uniformly regard chapters 1-9 as composed later than Solomon's time (usually in the early Persian period).2 They believe that these chapters were composed later as an introduction to the book as a whole. Critical scholars often argue that these longer discourses represent a more developed Israelite wisdom with greater theological reflection than the short sayings of the other sections attributed to Solomon. Behind this approach is an evolutionary assumption regarding both wisdom in ancient Israel and Israelite theology: both moved from shorter, less coherent forms to longer, more integrated forms.

Even evangelical scholars, who tend to dispute this evolutionary model of Israelite wisdom and theology, often reject Solomon's authorship of chapters 1-9. These scholars understand 1:1, "The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel," as a general heading for the entire book and not an indication of the authorship of chapters 1-9.(3) Kidner admits that 1:1 could be read either as indicating the authorship of chapters 1-9 or as a general heading for the entire book. He opts for the latter, contending that the heading at 10:1 should read, "These are also the proverbs of Solomon," if the heading at 1:1 were intended to indicate that 1-9 was authored by Solomon.4

The Solomonic authorship of 1-9 does have its defenders among evangelical scholars. Garrett views 1-9 as a Solomonic composition.5 He bases his analysis on the work of Kitchen, who studied the formal structure of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. Kitchen divided instructional wisdom texts into two types. Type A begins with a title and then moves directly to the subject matter of the text. Type B begins with a title and a prologue and then moves to the text's subject matter. The prologues of Type B texts were short or medium length in the third and second millennium BC, but around 1000 Bc (about Solomon's time) they tended to become longer. Type B literature also contains what Kitchen labeled Subtitles and Titular interjections. Subtitles occur within the body of a work and name the author of subsections. Titular interjections are breaks in the narrative in which the author directly addresses the reader. They are less formal than subtitles but still delineate subsections. In addition, Type B works, especially in the third and second millennium, often had epilogues, but these epilogues began to disappear in the first millennium.

This analysis would also answer the objection of Kidner that 10:1 implies that chapters 1-9 are not from Solomon. According to Kitchen's analysis, 10:1 is a typical subtitle and not the titular interjection that Kidner prefers. Either is acceptable in this type of literature, and Solomon used both.

Yet, this analysis implies something else. It implies that Main Texts 3 and 4 were compiled by Solomon from other wise men and were included by him as commendable wisdom.7 The remainder of the book, the proverbs of Solomon copied by Hezekiah's men (24-29), the sayings of Agar (30) and of Lemuel (31:1-9) and the acrostic poem (31:10-31), would be later additions.

How are we to choose between these two views of the Solomonic nature of 1-9? 1 would propose a test that would involve comparing these sections. The Solomonic sections should contain indicators of Solomon's vocabulary, thought, and modes of expression despite the fact that 1-9 differs in its style and intent from the other Solomonic sections. Different works in differing styles and with differing concerns by the same author should not be expected to match each other completely. However, since they come from the same author, the vocabulary, thought, and expressions should be somewhat similar, especially in works included in Proverbs that are all wisdom literature.

The sections included by Solomon but attributed to others should not be as close to Solomon's style, but since he would have included material that he had himself studied, they should have influenced his writing to some degree. Therefore, we should find less correspondence between these sections and 19 than with Solomon's writings in 10:1-22:16 and 25-29, but we should find some influence. One example of such correspondence might be 24:34, which is used verbatim at 6:11.

The sections at the end of the book that were not authored by Solomon or included by him should find even less correspondence with 1-9. There should be some correspondence, since these are also wisdom texts, but there also should be some indications that these texts are not as close as the previous two types.