Wisdom and Tradition by Donn F Morgan

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Wisdom and Tradition

by
Donn F. Morgan

ecent studies of biblical literature have provided new and exciting ways of

R discussing the relationships and development of virtually all biblical tradi­


tions. The purpose of this essay is to describe the nature of the wisdom
tradition in the Old Testament in light of these studies, especially as it relates to
other traditions. Until recently, any study of the subject “wisdom and tradition”
has encountered several problems. On the one hand, no agreement could be
reached concerning the definition of wisdom itself. To a certain extent that situa­
tion still holds true, for debate continues over the parameters within which
students of wisdom should stay.1 On the other hand, the relationship between
“wisdom” (whatever was meant by the term) and the rest of the Old Testament
traditions was also a problem for at least two reasons. First, not enough was
known about the wisdom tradition in terms of its history and social locus. That is,
no substantial evidence could be found for where it was taught and proclaimed or
for who preserved it. A number of theories were suggested, but the wisdom
literature itself, the primary deposit of the tradition, was mute about these vital
issues of transmission and history.2 Secondly, whatever the nature of the tradition
and wherever it circulated, theologians of the Old Testament had difficult prob­
lems when trying to fit the perspectives of the sages together with those of prophet
and priest. Regardless of the famous line in Jeremiah 18:18 “the law shall not
perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the
prophet,” the majority of Old Testament literature utilized different traditions
and emphasized different perspectives of revelation and authority. Wisdom
always seemed to be an appendage to the basic theological perspectives of Torah
and prophets, concerned much more with the living out of the message than with
the message itself.3
In the recent past, however, wisdom literature and the traditions associated
with it have been subjected to a great deal of careful scrutiny. Moreover, the rela­
tionship of the wisdom literature and its traditions to the rest of the Old and New
Testaments has also occupied much attention among biblical scholars. Many
things have motivated this research, not the least being a desire to move beyond
the uneasy consensus found in theological circles in the late 1940s and 50s with its
focus on the centrality of revelation in biblical traditions.4 Whatever the motiva-

Donn F. Morgan is Professor of Old Testament at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific and the
Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California—Editor’s Note.
'For an excellent history of recent wisdom scholarship, as well as a persuasive argument for a narrow
definition of wisdom, see James Crenshaw, “Prolegomenon,” in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom.,
edited by James Crenshaw (New York: KATV.* 1976), pp, 1-60.
2See, however, Robert Gordis, “The Social Background of Wisdom Literature,” Hebrew Union Col­
lege Annual, LVI1 (1943/44), 77-118; and Brian W. Kovacs, “Is There a Class Ethic in Proverbs?,” in
Essays in Old Testament Ethics, edited by J. Crenshaw and J. Willis (New York: KA TV 1974), pp.
174-189.
Tor a classic expression of this view of wisdom, see O. S. Rankin, IsraeTs Wisdom Literature (New
York: Shocken, 1969), first published in 1936.
Tor a discussion of one aspect of this situation, see Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), pp. 13-87.

189
190 HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

lions, the results of the study of wisdom in the past thirty years have produced
clearer pictures of the tradition and its ‘‘influence1 * in the rest of the Old Testa­
ment. With these results have also come some broader ways of conceiving how
wisdom can and should be related to the rest of the Old Testament. To deal with
these types of questions for the wisdom tradition in the Old Testament is also to
explore the overall message of the Old Testament and its relationship with the
New.5
The intense study of the wisdom tradition is one small part of a trend in biblical
studies to question the consensus of the past in many different areas. New
methods have been introduced (e.g. structuralism, sociologial analysis,
“canonical” criticism); old methods (e.g. form criticism, source criticism, et al.)
have been challenged, and in general there has been a call to reexamine the critical
syntheses and assumptions of the past. In many cases, biblical scholarship has not
been able to replace or reformulate the critical approaches or results in better
ways. With regard to the study of wisdom, however, our knowledge of and ability
to integrate this tradition into a larger picture of biblical history and the develop­
ment of biblical theology has grown enormously. The wisdom tradition alone is
not the richer for this, but all of biblical studies.

Wisdom As Tradition

A complete definition of any tradition will include two different components: a


discussion of the substance {traditum) of the tradition and a discussion of the pro­
cess (traditio) by which the substance is carried.6 In beginning this task of defini­
tion, primary attention has been given to the wisdom literature. This focus had
yielded much productive discussion of the traditum or substance, of the tradition.
Unfortunately, however, study of the wisdom literature alone does not yield clear
evidence regarding its transmission history as effectively as study of other
literature in the Old Testament does (e.g. study of legends/sagas in Genesis;
discussions of cultic history and transmission, etc.). Despite these problems we
know much more about wisdom as a tradition than a generation ago, thanks to
careful studies of literary forms, ancient Near Eastern parallels, and the like.
The particular forms of speech used to express, “wisdom,” the structure of
thought presupposed by these forms, the functions of such thought forms in a
variety of different (usually theoretical) settings, all of these subjects have been il­
luminated by recent studies.7 As a result of these studies, sapiential thought is
more clearly recognizable and understandable. Operating with different
epistemological emphases (experiential, versus revelational, knowing) but often
with similar concerns (e.g., to maintain the order found within the status quo),
the thought of the wisdom tradition as found in the writings of its sages in
wisdom literatue becomes more easily identifiable, though not necessarily its
social matrix! That particular characteristic of this literature, namely its ability to

5Recent concerns to examine the message of the canon are pertinent here and will be discussed below.
‘For a discussion of these aspects of tradition see Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of
Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 9 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975),
pp. 5-20.
7See, for example, William McKane, Proverbs» The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1970), pp. 10ff.; James Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1981), pp. 66ff. See also Roland E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature. The Forms of the Old
Testament Literature, vol. XIII, Rolf Knierim and Gene M. Tucker, editors (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans, 1981).
WISDOM AND TRADITION 19!

elude social definition, has often led students of wisdom to suggest that wisdom is
not a tradition at all, but rather a common ingredient among all literate Israelites,
a common language and way of perceiving the world which is the property of no
one and everyone.8 Ironically, while one side of the study of wisdom suggests the
conclusion that wisdom is a part of a common lexical stock of the society, the
other side pushes for a fuller and more complete definition of the group/groups
responsible for the particular speech forms and thought in its literature.
There is a general consensus that the origin and center for the life and transmis­
sion of wisdom in ancient Israel are to be found in. two different places. Both of
these locales have ancient Near Eastern parallels and both are assumed to have
premonarchical roots, though these are often difficult to trace, especially in the
wisdom literature itself. The first locale where wisdom is presumed to have cir­
culated was the clan. With the family as primary and nuclear system, there
developed a paedeia which controlled the education of children and the running
of the clan itself, internally and externally.9 The leader of the clan was the “wise
one,” the one in charge of interpretation of existing rules and regulations in light
of the vast experiential base possessed. Usually, then, this model of authority also
placed special favor or position with the elders. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
identify and isolate this type of “wisdom” and its concerns in the wisdom
literature itself. Nevertheless, based on both ancient Near Eastern parallels as well
as some non-wisdom biblical texts, most scholars agree that this type of wisdom
existed and had some influence upon the writers and actors within the Old Testa­
ment period. In its early manifestations, i.e premonarchical Israel, this wisdom is
sometimes referred to as “folk wisdom.”10 It is important to note, however, that
this wisdom is distinguished from other types not primarily on the basis of literary
sophistication or lack thereof, but rather on the basis of a component of traditio,
namely the transmission center, the clan or tribe with the family as an important
model.
The second locale where wisdom is found is the court. Throughout the ancient
Near East, the figure of king as wise man, as repository of all knowledge, is com­
mon. The association of wisdom with a circle of advisors and literati, with its
center associated with the monarch or royal structures is also common. The tradi­
tional attribution of the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to Solomon is one
example that ancient Israel was heir to this placement of wisdom with the king.
Indeed, many prophetic judgments against the king and the court suggest that the
monarchy had taken this role and function too seriously and needed to remember
that the real source of wisdom was God (cf., for instance, Isa. 10:1-4, 11:1-3).
However, despite the stories about Solomon’s wisdom, about his importing of
advisors from Egypt (usually presumed to be wise men/sages of some variety),
until the post-exilic period there is no tangible evidence of “schools” where
wisdom was taught or passed on. This lack of textual evidence has not prevented
the appearance of many careful studies comparing royal (court) wisdom and the

*See Crenshaw, “Prolegomenon,” Studies, pp. 20-22; and R. N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradi­
tion in the Old Testament, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 135, (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1974), pp. 6-54.
VSee especially J. P. Audet, “Origines comparers de la double tradition de la ioi et de la sagesse dans
la proche-orient anciens” in Acten Internationalen Orien talistenkongresses (Mosco, 19®), vol. 1,
352-357.
,0For a discussion of folk wisdom see R.B.Y. Scott, “Folk Proverbs of the Ancient Near East/* in
Studies, ed. Crenshaw, pp. 417-426. For studies of the influence of clan wisdom in later periods see, e.g.
H. W. 'Wolff, Amos the Prophet (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).
192 HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

school in Israel with it counterparts in Mesopotamia and Egypt,11 In this type of


wisdom the center is not the family but the court or school, and the central
authority figure is either the king or a sophisticated advisor skilled in ascertaining
the implications of political policies and paid to make sure the king acts ap­
propriately for the good of the state, its wealth, power, and continuance.
In the recent study of the wisdom literature and the traditioE(s) behind and
responsible for it, there has been a breakdown of long-held theories about the
growth and development of wisdom thought. Previously, in one form or another,
usually relying upon either clan/folk or royal wisdom circles as reflected in
wisdom literature, there had been a consensus that wisdom was sometimes to be
characterized as 4‘secular/5 with little or no concern for the more “religious” car­
riers of Old Testament tradition (eg,, cult), and sometimes to be characterized as
“ religious’ * or “Yahwistic.” While interpreters differ about when wisdom was
religious and when it was secular, there was no doubt that such designations ap­
propriately characterized the growth of the tradition. Usually the development
was seen to go from “secular” to “religious,” with various stages, leading to a
time when wisdom was equated with Torah (e.g., Sirach 24). Recently, however,
the dichotomy between reason and revelation which was at least partially respon­
sible for distinctions between religious and secular has been shown to be a ques­
tionable basis for explaining differences in ancient Israelite traditions.12 Often
borrowing on distinctions developed in the Enlightenment and fueled in natural
versus revealed religion debates, the dichotomy between wisdom and revealed
religion breaks down if the Old Testament itself is examined carefully. Israelite
society was from the beginning religious, as was its wisdom. Recent studies of Old
Testament traditions and their history presuppose a pluralistic religious society
with a variety of ways to speak of God acting within the people’s midst. While
surely traditions changed as they became closer to the power structures or became
more powerful, nevertheless there is no evidence that to be popular and influen­
tial, to be truly Israelite, was to be “religious.” That was already assumed.
Overall, then the results of recent wisdom study have produced a rich picture of
its thought and theology. Although evidence for clan or court centers remains
minimal, several studies have discussed these centers simply because the traditum
needed a traditio! At this point another development in wisdom studies helps to
resolve the dilemma of the nature of this tradition. Many different studies have
recently found evidence for the use of the wisdom tradition within the other tradi­
tions of the Old Testament. Simply put, the implications of these studies suggest
that the wisdom, tradition did not live in isolation from other traditions, any more
than, the prophets did from the priests (though at one point earlier in this century
such isolation was a common assumption). If wisdom, and its carriers, whatever
the nature of the tradition at any given point, are believed to have interrelated
with other carriers of tradition, within ancient Israel, then there ought to be
evidence of such interaction. The large number of recent studies “finding”
wisdom in the law and prophets are illustrative of several scholars discovering this
evidence. The implications of these studies for our picture of the wisdom tradi-

"Cf.» e.g., Hans-Jurgen Hermission, Studies zur israelitischen Spmehweisheit, Wissenschaftlkhe


Monographien zum Alien und Neuen Testament, 28 (Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neiikirchener, 1966). For a re­
cent critique of attempts to find wisdom in the early monarch see R. N. Whybray, “Wisdom Literature in
the Reigns of David and Solomon,** in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays,
edited by T. Ishida (Tokoyo; Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982), pp. 13-26.
'-See, e.g., Walter Brueggemann, The Creative Word (Philadelphia; Fortess, 1983), pp. 67 FF.; etc.
WISDOM AND TRADITION 193

lion are great. In fact, without evidence from other parts of the Old Testament,
our overall knowledge of wisdom would remain small.

Wisdom and Other Traditions


The presence of “wisdom” has been found throughout the entire Old Testa­
ment. The means of identifying the tradition within non-wisdom material varies
with the particular scholar and several of the claims for wisdom “influence” have
met with strong methodological criticism. Nevertheless, the evidence is too
widespread and some of the argumentation too persuasive for all but the most
sceptical to assume no outside influence from some carrier of the wisdom tradi­
tion to be present in Old Testament literature. As virtually all have maintained,
our knowledge of “wisdom” (here referring primarily to traditum) must always
be centered in the body of literature produced by the “wise.” Nevertheless, recent
studies suggest that some of the problems associated with the study of wisdom
literature, especially our inability to determine the social setting and history of the
wisdom movement, may be at least partially solved by examining closely the
evidence of the tradition in other» non-wisdom literature. In other words, we may
be able to trace the life and the history of the tradition more completely by ex­
amining the tracks left by its interaction with other social and literary loci in an­
cient Israel, eg., the cult, the prophets, etc.13 It may be that those who suggest
that wisdom has no center are at least partially right. Perhaps instead of searching
for a center responsible for transmitting the unique message of “wisdom,” we
should instead examine other more easily definable centers of tradition which
have used something which we call wisdom rhetoric, wisdom literary forms,
wisdom theology. Whatever is ultimately decided about the nature of wisdom,
however, we will learn more about the process of interrelating different literary,
historical, and theological perspectives found within the Old Testament message.
Hopefully, we may also provide a more complete picture of the traditio of the
wisdom tradition, which, together with the picture of traditum found in the
wisdom literature, will create a fairly coherent, complete, picture of a tradition in
ancient Israel.
A study of the interrelationship of wisdom and the non-wisdom traditions in
the Old Testament yields many different and important conclusions.14 For the
purposes of this essay, two particular observations are in order. First, even a cur­
sory examination of the “evidence” for the presence of the wisdom tradition
(vocabulary, themes, forms, theology, etc.) suggests that the use of aphorism, of
experientially based forms and rationales, of natural versus historical motivation
clauses, of appeals to common sense rather then the “law,” all of these and
others, as they are found in non-wisdom literature, witness to the interrelatedness
of wisdom and other traditions. Often, it is not possible to separate what is found
in non-wisdom texts and labeled wisdom from the broader, literary context in
which it is found (“cultic,” or whatever). One cannot, for example, take the
rhetorical questions of Jeremiah and simply label them as “later addition” (e.g.,
2:14). They are too much a part of the overall literary structure and message to be
separated, as, also for example, are the appeals to an experientially based wisdom
which Amos uses in validating his own prophetic call (3:3-6)! The implications of
this first point about the interrelationship between wisdom and the remainder of

‘•’This is what 1 attempted to do in Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta; John Knox,
1981).
‘See my Wisdom, pp. 137ff.
194 HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

the Old Testament may be restated or reaffirmed in the following way. While
surely there is evidence of later scribal editing (cf., for instance, the last verse of
Hosea), nevertheless a great deal of the wisdom material found in the Old Testa­
ment is integral to the overall message of the book and not easily or appropriately
dismissed as later addition. As a result, the very least this observations would sug­
gest is the presence of wisdom vocabulary, themes, and other elements of its
traditum, actively used, in the midst of the cult, of the palace, etc. Even if we are
unable to point to a particular 1‘carrier** of the tradition, we can suggest that at
some point, in some specific locus, all these elements come together. In light of
claims earlier in this century that the scribes and wise men and their particular
perspectives were totally separate from the “mainline*5 traditions, this is an im­
portant conclusion and one which suggests a different picture of the development
of Israelite religion.
The second observation to be noted from examining the presence of “wisdom”
in non-wisdom literature concerns the nature and function of the tradition.
Wisdom was both a carrier of and a catalyst for other traditions, a means by
which critical issues about the nature of God and the community of early Israel
were debated. To perceive the development of wisdom in the Old Testament as
proceeding from “secular” to “religious,*’ has already been seen as a reading in­
to the Old Testament of much later biases. We must rather seek to understand the
phenomenon of wisdom thought on the basis of an organic or holistic model
which utilizes all Old Testament literature. For example, a careful examination of
the use and meaning of “wisdom” in Proverbs is complemented by a study of the
critique of the prophets, especially in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Careful study of the
attacks on wisdom by the prophets, in conjunction with study of the wisdom
literature, suggests that wisdom did change in response to these critiques and that
those subsequent changes are found within the wisdom literature itself. Whether
a royal school, a group of advisors to the king, a guild of scribes, or other carriers
of wise sayings, those ultimately responsible for the formulation of the wisdom
literature have been immersed in debates involving all the major traditions of
Israel. The thesis that suggests the book of Job is responding to a simplistic ap­
plication of the theology of the Deuteronomic movement reflects a similar view of
the interrelationship and development of biblical tradition.
Through both of these observations the study of wisdom gains clearer defini­
tion of its traditio by means of a careful study of the interrelationship of wisdom
and non-wisdom literature. Through the literary forms and the intentions
associated with them, through the experiential grounding of God’s presence and
the appeals to nature, through a variety of other themes and concerns, the
wisdom tradition is to be found in a great deal of the Old Testament literature and
not just simply in Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and a few psalms. As a result, it
becomes apparent that wisdom is not a tangential phenomenon in ancient Israel,
but integral to much of its thought and its affirmations about God and his people.
On the basis of finding evidence of the traditio in non-wisdom literature and the
traditum in wisdom literature, and of finding a dynamic interrelationship with the
rest of the Old Testament traditions, we are forced to rethink earlier conclusions
about the nature of ancient Israel and the place of this tradition within it.

Wisdom and the Canon

Though the search for wisdom, its traditum and traditio, is fraught with dif­
ficult methodological and historical questions, the opinions of scholarship con­
WISDOM AND TRADITION 195

cerning the wisdom literature itself, its origins and its meaning, have not changed
dramatically as some of the other subjects discussed above. It is still usually
agreed that the temporal locus of the final composition of wisdom literature is to
be found in the post-exilic period, though surely the traditions found within the
literature have earlier antecedents and represent part of a long oral, if not literary,
history. Most studies of wisdom literature, however, do not aid us in trying to
understand the relationship of the tradition to the rest of the biblical literature.
As noted above, the epistemological differences between sapiential and cultic
perspectives need to be recognized, but do not necessarily help in our attempt to
find an organic model for Old Testament theology. Studies of particular wisdom
forms and their intentions help us to understand the function of the literature and
the structure of wisdom thought, but do not provide a theological thread with
which to tie different pieces of the Old Testament cloth together.
At this point, another development in recent biblical studies, namely the study
of canonical form and function, offers some potential assistance.15 The wisdom
literature of the Old Testament is found within the third section of the Hebrew
canon known as “Writings.” In two recent studies of the canon, Brueggemann
and Sanders have emphasized the message and perspectives of wisdom when
discussing this third part of the Hebrew canon.16 Though recognizing that there
are many different types of literature found within the Writings, the distinctive
nature of the wisdom literature, its different and timely message, often make it
the focus of attention. The Psalms also receive special attention.
However, a canonical study of wisdom literature must take seriously the
structure, the context, of its canonical placement within a diverse literary collec­
tion. Most scholars agree that the overall structure of the Writings is not par­
ticularly significant, since that structure varies within different communities
transmitting the Scripture.17 But the “mix” which is represented by the Writings
is significant, for previous developments within the canon make such a “mix”
both logical and essential. With the formation of Torah and Prophets, the
Writings takes on a special function, namely to explicate, to comment upon, to
attempt to “live” the Torah and Prophets and the tension inherent between
them.18 The reflective, experientlaJly oriented mode represented by the sages is
surely not the only or best way to deal with all the problems arising in a communi­
ty which must understand its past and search for God’s will in the present. But it
is one way, and a good one at that.” The liturgical context represented by the
psalms, the establishment focus found in the Chronicles, the eschatological con­
cerns found in Daniel, all of these and others are appropriate responses to the
Torah and Prophets, they provide important parameters for understanding how

,sPor an introduction to this way of viewing the biblical text, see Brevard S. Childs, “The Exegetical
Significance of Canon for the Study of The Old Testament,” Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
(Leiden: Brill, 1978), vol. 29, 66-80. For a recent critique of this approach, see James Barr, Holy Scrip­
ture, Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), especially pp. 130-171.
,6W. Brueggemann, Creative Word, especially pp. 67-90; James Sanders, Torah and Canon
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), especially, pp. 91-116.
“See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978),
pp. 501-503.
“For explication of this tension between Torah and Prophets, if not the function of the Writings pro­
posed here, see Jospeh Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (South Bend, Indiana: Notre Dame University
Press, 1977).
“Brueggemann recognizes the limitations of focusing primarily upon wisdom when discussing the
Writings, but the approach is so important to an overall view of the biblical message that it is done
anyway.
196 HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

one is to live out the scriptural proclamations found in these first two canonical
divisions.
A canonical approach to the wisdom literature will look, therefore, not simply
at the message of the books or only at the “final form” of the literature. Rather,
a canonical reading of wisdom must also place it within the Writings and see that
wisdom’s message is meant to be reviewed as one among many, all of which are
needed in ascertaining what it means to be Torah people, to be people caught be­
tween concerns and needs for stability and the spontaneous, sometimes unpredict­
able future, found so often in the prophetic literature.20 When wisdom is viewed
in this manner, then its different approaches and perspectives are seen to be
precisely what the Old Testament, canon wants to emphasize. Far from de­
emphasizing the differences between wisdom and other sacred literature, the
Writings sets out to see the uniqueness, the particularity of wisdom, but as one of
many, and all in response to a shared scripture of Torah and Prophets. Such a
view of the Writings leads naturally to the New Testament, which are themselves
more “writings.” This position has been maintained recently by Gese in a
historical treatment of biblical traditions.21 Rather than focus upon the historical
relationship resulting from or related to formal canonization actions, however,
we wish to emphasize the function of the Writings as response to Torah and Pro­
phets. Although there can be no doubt that these two issues are to be related, at
this point our focus is upon canonical function as it relates to a received text,
regardless of when or how that text may have been received. In any case, the rela­
tionships often seen between different wisdom perspectives in the Old Testament,
intertestamental literature, and the New Testament might be explored productive­
ly by utilizing the canonical function of wisdom literature as one of the exegetical
parameters.22
Finally, it is important to note that a canonical view of the wisdom literature
yields a picture of the relationships between wisdom and the rest of the Writings
very similar to the one we found when wisdom and non-wisdom traditions were
examined. That is, wisdom’s place in the Writings may be seen as a “canonical”
microcosm of wisdom and its relationship to the rest of the Old Testament
theological traditions. On the one hand, wisdom sticks out like a sore thumb, it
cannot be argued away. It is present, whether we like it or not. On the other hand,
wisdom must be related to the rest of the Writings, the nature of the canon
demands this. So also, the nature of the Torah and Prophets, when and where
evidence of “wisdom” is also found, demands that we relate it to the whole,
regardless of its particularity.
Though such conclusions may seem simplex and to rely upon later authoritative
doctrines of scripture, the presence of wisdom throughout the Old Testament,
within- and without the Writings, would suggest this is not the case. Rather,
wisdom was from the beginning an important component of the ancient world in
which the Old Testament was written, theologically, literarily, epistemologically,
socially, politically, etc. It was, as many have suggested, part of a common
worldview and was shared by several different loci within the ancient Israelite
world. Its thought, its speech forms, its concept of God, these were not foreign to

“See Blenkinsopp, Prophecy* pp. 96ff.


21Hartmut Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology, translated by Keith Crim (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1981), p. 30.
“See G. Sheppard, Wisdom as a hermeneutical Construct, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alt-
testamentliche Wissmsehoft, 151 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980).
WISDOM AND TRADITION 197

literate Israelites.23 As I have suggested elsewhere, one of the appeals and uses of
the wisdom tradition by those who cannot be labeled as “sages, ” was its ability
to stabilize, to affirm order, even the status quo, through its focus on creation.24
But wisdom was and is also able to critique the present, and was used in this way
by both prophet and sage (cf., for instance, the prophets' critique of wisdom by
using wisdom; similarly, Ecclesiastes).
So the wisdom tradition, in aphorism and admonition, in long poem, in
dialogue, is to be found in the books of Job and Proverbs. But it may also be
found in the midst of Torah and Prophets, mixed among legal regulations or pro­
phetic oracles. Wisdom can be a catalyst and medium for future change and
development, it can also be a place and way to affirm that which is stable and en­
during. While any Old Testament theology will have difficulty “placing*1
wisdom, determining exactly where it should be found, exactly how it should be
described, that very difficulty witnesses to an important part of the Old Testa­
ment, indeed of the biblical, message. The difficulty of finding wisdom, of identi­
fying it, of holding onto it, is not a new one, as indicated by the words of Job 28:
“Where is wisdom to be found?” But the quest to follow the path of this tradi­
tion, the glimpses of it we gain along the way, the things we learn God is and is
not as a result, all of this makes the study of this tradition an all important one.
This testifies to an interrelationship of traditions which makes our studies com­
plex and sometimes difficult, but our Scripture rich and multifaceted. Surely the
church historian, epitomized by Samuel Garrett, is the heir of this richness and
diversity manifested in the church’s continual appropriation and utilization of the
“mixture,” God’s wisdom and our foolishness.

“See Whybray, Intellectual Tradition, pp. 6-54,


14 Wisdom, pp. 146ff.
License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy