understanding of the term from the context they are using it in.
Given the vast amount of literature and the limits of this chapter, a comprehensive investigation is impossible. This also means that my selection of texts is somewhat subjective. It is important to note that I do not even claim that my results are always representative of the whole work of the scholar I am quoting as many scholars use the word ‘secular’ with various different meanings throughout their works. I concentrate only on the concrete quotations themselves. Nevertheless, the excerpts are taken from a diverse collection of contributors to scholarly discussion, who often represent contradicting views on the subject, so, even if the range of quotations is far from being comprehensive, they hopefully cover most typical usages of the word ‘secular.’
All of the quotations in the table are taken from works written on Proverbs (or on biblical wisdom literature but referring to Proverbs). The words most relevant for our purposes are printed in bold. The right column does not summarise the meaning of the quotations but tries to capture the meaning and/or the connotations of the word ‘secular’ in the quotation regardless of whether the particular author thinks that the word describes Proverbs properly or not.
TABLE 9:THE USE OF THE WORD ‘SECULAR’ BY SCHOLARS OF WISDOM LITERATURE
Author Text Meaning of
‘secular’
Bossman, D. M. Although the modern age did not invent secularity, it did enable secularity to flourish. In turn, moderns were freed, by secularity, from
non-rational bonds that had too long restrained human endeavors through lack of accurate knowledge and the imposition of substitute fictions. The Bible's own brand of secularity may
be a distinguishing characteristic of some of the
Rationalisation, no fictions
186
Wisdom Literature that has frequently discomforted some religionists for its this-world realism.536
This world realism
Brueggemann, W.
Both Cox and van Leeuwen find in the central biblical symbols of Torah, creation, exodus, and
Sinai the handles by which we may understand
secularization and which in part has been an impetus to it. But it is equally clear that these symbols (with that of creation excepted) really
belong themselves to a sacral view of reality in which the intrusion and authority of the holy in the realm of human affairs causes the decisive turn…
I believe it is much more plausible to suggest that in the wisdom tradition of Israel we have a visible expression of secularization as it has been characterised in the current discussions. Wisdom
teaching is profoundly secular in that it presents life and history as a human enterprise... Thus,
wisdom is concerned with enabling potential leaders to manage responsibly, effectively, and successfully. It consistently places stress on
human freedom, accountability, the importance of making decisions, and using power prudently
and intelligently.537 No sacral view of reality Presents life as human enterprise Stress on human freedom and responsibility
Creation faith... While expressed in mythological
form it is secular because it is concerned with the
Concerned with the
536
Bossman 2001:2.
537
187
primacy and dominance of man over his world.
Though this tradition is cast in the form of myth, its drive and intent are linked to wisdom: it is
concerned with the freedom, power, and responsibility of man to manage his world. 538
freedom, power, and responsibility of man
Clements, R. E. Wisdom’s concepts and images of the physical world accord with a broader, more secular, and more universal portrayal of it than that which the cultus offered… For the cultus, Israel’s
existence as a nation, its occupation of a specific territory, and its ability to ward off the threatening powers of darkness and uncleanness, all formed part of one single continuum. This
belonged within a comprehensive mythological world-view which was focused on the institutions and rituals of the cultus.539
Universal No cultic world view
No mythological worldview
So wisdom has begun a process of systematizing
ideas on the themes of virtue and well being which had not previously formed part of any system. On the contrary, ideas of uncleanness, abomination, evil, violence and disease had all belonged to a very confused and ill-defined world of what threatened danger and harm to the unprincipled or unwary…
The very fact that such notions subsume and greatly modify earlier notions which were directly related to cultic activity fully bears out our main
No confused and ill-defined worldview 538 Brueggemann 1972:83. 539 Clements 1992:57.
188
contention that wisdom had begun a process of
‘de-sanctifying’ and ‘de-mystifying’ a number of basic areas of human understanding. These had
previously largely been the province of the priesthood and cultus. In the urgent necessity to
cater for the daily life of Jews which could no
longer rely on immediate and direct access to the sanctuary of the temple and the ministry of its priests a process of ‘secularising’ and isolating
from cultic activity had been set in train.540
No cultic activity De-sanctifying and de-mystifying
Catering for the daily life
Crenshaw J. L. Thus Hartmut Gese Writes: “It is well known that the wisdom literature constitutes an alien body in the world of the Old Testament.” This verdict is substantiated by reference to an absence of (1) a
covenant relationship with God, (2) any account of the revelation at Sinai, and (3) a concept of Israel’s special election and consequently of Yahweh’s saving deeds for his people. Instead, wisdom is said to be directed toward the individual, and consequently to break down all national limits. Gese concludes that “from the
point of view of Yahwism wisdom can only appear as wholly secular.”541 No covenant relationship with God No Sinai revelations No salvation history Focus on individuals, no national limits
Much early wisdom appears to have been remarkably “secular” in mood and content; its fundamental purpose was to encapsulate
540 Clements 1992:83‒84. 541
Crenshaw 1976b:2; Gese actually does not use the word ‘secular’ but uses ‘Profanität’ (profane) (Gese 1958:2). However, the two words do seem to be interchangeable in the context of his discussion, but even if they are not, the quotation represents how Crenshaw understood the word ‘secular.’
189
precious observations about reality for the benefit of posterity. The subject matter is largely domestic; agrarian interests and natural phenomena abound.542
Focus on domestic, agrarian, natural reality
Dell, K. J. I would argue, therefore, that the [Yahweh]
sayings already existed independently in an oral context before they were placed in their present context. This was not in the service of a Yahwehization process of otherwise ‘secular’ or even ‘foreign’ material; rather, they were placed
where they were to reinforce the messages of other Proverbs within a religious context and to give structure to the material as it was formed into literature.543
Not mentioning Yahweh
Parallel with ‘foreign’
While wisdom, at its roots, springs from an attempt to understand human experience of life,
much of its concern is with relationship with the divine, and there are serious questions whether the word ‘secular’ is at all appropriate when
referring to wisdom literature, which is grounded in experience of God and the created world.544
No relationship with the divine
Perdue, L. Efforts to view the early wise as secularistic humanists who functioned within an international setting devoid of doctrinaire theologies fail to take into consideration the fact
that the concepts of order as justice, God as
International No doctrinaire theology 542 Crenshaw 1976b:24. 543 Dell 2006:117. 544 Dell 2006:127‒128.
190
creator, and God as the overseer of the principle of retribution point to a religious, theological foundation to wisdom thinking, and that the wise
of the major cultures of the ancient Near East, at least with respect to cult, do engage in certain cultic ideas and practices which are unique to their own cultures.545
No cultic activity
von Rad, G. Thus, since the objects of this search for
knowledge were of a secular kind, questions about man’s daily life, systematic reflection on
them was held to be a secular occupation… If one
reads over these and other sentences, one sees at once that wisdom and the acquiring of it is here a human activity which is open to everyone… The intellectual curiosity of old
wisdom, its cultural impetus and the zeal with which it studied the corresponding cultural
achievements of other nations stands in
considerable contrast to the spirituality of the pre-monarchical period, even of the period of Saul. Whether we speak of a process of
secularization starting fairly suddenly, of the discovering of man, that is of a humanization, or
of the beginning of a rational search for knowledge, at any rate this strong, intellectual movement must have been preceded by an inner
decline, the disintegration of an understanding of
reality which we can describe, in a felicitous expression of M. Buber’s, as ‘pan-sacralism’… there are … narratives which stand wholly on the
Focus on the daily life Open to everyone, to other cultures, too Humanisation Decline of ‘pan- sacralism’ 545 Perdue 1977:227 n. 7.
191
earlier side of this great intellectual upheaval. We are afforded interesting insights by the
comprehensive narrative which depicts one stage of Saul’s military involvement with the Philistines (I Sam. 13f.). If one follows the fairly
complicated course of events, it becomes immediately clear that the narrator brings every
decisive event, military advantages and setbacks as well as all human conflicts, into association with the world of the sacral and the ritual…546
No focus on the sacral and the ritual
Westermann, C. [Writing about the supposedly older sayings of Proverbs.] The Creator has entrusted his creature, the human, with this gift [the book of Proverbs] because he reckons him capable of finding his
way through the world, using the special endowment given to him of understanding his own humanness. Proverbs ascribe the importance to the human intellect that it is due. They express an autonomy that is rooted in creatureliness, in contradistinction to a conception that places too great an emphasis on education and instruction...
27:20: “As Hades and the abyss are never satisfied, neither are the eyes of man.”
...One initially marvels that such a “worldly” appearing statement is found in the Bible... We can only conclude that these people thought and spoke in a much worldlier fashion than it appears to the interpreters and readers of the Old
Human autonomy
546
192
Testament. It is a bold comparison that is being ventured here—“Hades and the abyss”—truly insatiable when we consider the huge number of those who are deceased!... Even more conspicuous... is the seeming absence of any
indication of condemnation that might appear in the Christian ethic of many; rather, this phenomenon is viewed as something that is inherently human, whether one perceives it as good or not. Such an observation applies to all the proverbial statements, especially those about humanity. They intend to express, not condemn, the nature of being human.547
No ethical condemnation of human nature Pure, human centred observation
None of the important dates of this history is mentioned—neither the flight from Egypt nor the
revelation at Sinai nor the covenant; neither the migration into the land nor the law. Very little is spoken of worship to God, while priests and the sanctuary are never mentioned. Perhaps even
more important is that God never speaks in the
proverbs… Furthermore, nothing is ever spoken to God (a prayer appears only in a later
supplement, 30:7‒9)… The reason for this can only be that the proverbs employ a language of
the workaday world, the context of which is to be found only in people relating to one another…
…the proverbs as such have a universal
character. Proverbs can surface anywhere among
humankind, just like accounts of creation or the
No salvation history No cultus
God never speaks Humans do not speak to God Focus on human relationships Universal 547
The word ‘secular’ is not used in this quotation but Westermann uses the word ‘worldly.’ Westermann 1995:8‒9.
193 flood…
[Proverbs mentioning God] have no specifically theological function in an explicitly theological context. Rather, they speak of God in such a
manner as would any person without stepping outside of everyday, secular discourse.548
Focus on everyday
Wisdom has no place within this basic framework of an Old Testament theology, since it originally
and in reality does not have as its object an occurrence between God and man; in its earlier stages wisdom is overwhelmingly secular. A
theological wisdom develops at a later stage… The theological home of wisdom can be found within the context of human creation; the creator gives
humanity the ability to understand its world and to become oriented within it.549
Not about the relationship between God and humanity Human independence, ability to comprehend the world
Zimmerli, W. Differentiation of the purely secular rule of utility, the moral rule and the religious rule does
not depend upon the essence of wisdom; rather, what is significant for it is that it sets all three groups of rules equal and only quantitatively establishes gradations among them.550
Measures
everything on the basis of utility
For the sake of clarity I list the keywords from the right column of the above table: Bossman,
D. M.: Rationalisation, no fictions, This world realism, Brueggemann, W.: No sacral view of
reality, Presents life as human enterprise, Stress on human freedom and responsibility, Concerned with the freedom, power, and responsibility of man, Clements, R. E.: Universal, No 548 Westermann 1995:129‒130. 549 Westermann 1998:11. 550 Zimmerli 1976a:204 n. 27.
194
cultic worldview, No mythological worldview, No confused and ill-defined worldview, No cultic activity, De-sanctifying and de-mystifying, Catering for the daily life, Crenshaw J. L.: No covenant relationship with God, No Sinai revelations, No salvation history, Focus on individuals, no national limits, Focus on domestic, agrarian, natural reality, Dell, K. J.: Not mentioning Yahweh, Parallel with ‘foreign’, No relationship with the divine, Perdue, L.: International, No doctrinaire theology, No cultic activity, von Rad, G.: Focus on the daily life, Open to everyone, to other cultures, too, Humanisation, Decline of ‘pan-sacralism’, No focus on the sacral and the ritual, Westermann, C.: Human autonomy, No ethical condemnation of human nature, Pure, human centred observation, No salvation history, No cultus, God never speaks, Humans do not speak to God, Focus on Human relationships, Universal, Focus on everyday, Not about the relationship between God and humanity, Human independence, ability to comprehend the world, Zimmerli, W.: Measures everything on the basis of utility. The different items listed above can be ordered into six groups as I have indicated by the underlining:
1. universal, not nationalistic; 2. human autonomy;
3. focusing on the everyday, ordinary side of life; 4. human centred;
5. not about the relationship between God and humanity ; 6. rational, as opposed to cultic/mythic thinking.
Items 2‒5 seem to be contractible for me. This way we get three broad definitions of secular: A. Secular universalistic, not national and particularistic thinking (item 1);
B. Secular human centred thinking with an emphasis on human autonomy (items 2‒5); C. Secular rational, non-sacral, disenchanted thinking (item 6)
There are some parallels between this classification of the definitions of ‘secular’ and the classification of social scientific definitions delineated earlier. Category C. is parallel with ג: ‘the declining of “mythical,” “enchanted,” “sacral” human thinking.’ Category B. is at least partially parallel with ב: ‘the declining of the divine in private life.’ The parallel between category A. and א: ‘the declining of the divine in public space’ might be less obvious at the first sight, nevertheless it will be argued shortly that the parallels are not less significant than in the other two cases.
195
Turning from the classification of definitions to the evaluation of them, category A. seems to be the most fitting for describing Proverbs’ ‘secularity.’ After all, such national institutions like ‘temple,’ ‘law,’ or ‘covenant’ are hardly mentioned in it which gives it a universalistic flavour despite the use of the Tetragrammaton.
At this point it is important to note that I am not arguing that the authors of Proverbs had ‘universalistic’ thinking or that Proverbs was originally interpreted in a ‘universalistic’ way. I am simply claiming that it can appear as such. It is another question if this appearance is historically misleading or not (which I think it is). My questions are however not about the historical reality behind the text but about possible theological utilisations of the received form of the text.
I will argue in the next section of the dissertation that the universalistic, ‘secular’ appearance does not mean that Proverbs stands in opposition to the rest of the Old Testament. It can easily be read ‘canonically’ because it fits well into the context of the more national, more ‘Jewishly religious’ parts of the Old Testament. Read this way it can provide important theological insights for the ‘secularised’ Christian and Jewish reader in the 21st century.
Categories B. and C. seem to be a bit more problematic as descriptions of Proverbs. Can we really call Proverbs ‘disenchanted’ when it contains such ‘enchanted’ verses like Prov. 3:7‒8 which sees a connection between ethics and health: ‘Do not be wise in your own eyes, fear the Lord, and depart from evil. It will be healing to your navel and refreshment to your bones’;551 or consider 26:2 which allows for the effectiveness of ‘right’ curses: ‘As a sparrow for wandering and a swallow for flying, so a gratuitous curse will not alight’? Or, to foreshadow a little bit the later discussion, can we really speak about ‘human autonomy’ when one of the key teachings of Proverbs is about having a humble, obedient, listening heart?
Of course, the refutation or modification of categories B. and C. would require much more than a few dismissive sentences. Unfortunately space restrictions prevent a comprehensive discussion of these secular interpretations.552 Instead I am going to discuss a more recent
551
See Whybray’s comment: ‘Nowhere in the book of Proverbs are health, sickness and longevity attributed to what we should call “natural causes”, nor is there any suggestion of medical skill that can give relief to the sick: only God can give life and only God can heal.’ Whybray 2002:170.
552
Such a discussion, besides providing a careful reading of some biblical texts, should also include a thoroughgoing interaction with influential scholars representing these different views of a ‘secular
196
theological reading of Proverbs which, though developed from a ‘secular’ interpretation of Proverbs which was originally built on these understandings of the ‘secular,’ also leaves the category ‘secular’ behind and applies new theological categories to describe the apparently secular features of Proverbs. This theological reading is Walter Brueggemann’s treatment of Proverbs in his Theology of the Old Testament.
So, first I will discuss the ‘secular’ as universalistic (category A.), then I will have a closer look at Brueggemann’s interpretation of Proverbs that developed from his earlier ‘secular interpretation’ which originally emphasised mainly the definitions B. and C.
wisdom,’ like, for example, Zimmerli for B. (human autonomy) or R. E. Clements for category C. (non- sacral thinking).
197