Torah: Deuteronomy’s Version of Wisdom for Israel

The book’s superscription (Prov. 1:1) identifies the author as King Solomon, which became the traditional view of Judaism. Modern critical scholars, however, are essentially unanimous in dating the anthology’s composition to a period later than the time of Solomon on the basis of linguistic and literary evidence. As with other books that were likely originally anonymous, the superscription seems to be a pious later addition that vouched for a work’s importance by linking it with a respected Israelite persona. This is also seen with many of the Psalms, the Song of Songs, and Kohelet, for example.

The word “Wisdom” in this context is written with a capital “W” to clarify that it refers to a specific genre or concept.

Proverbs (1:2) makes its focus on Wisdom clear:

לָדַ֣עַת חָכְמָ֣ה וּמוּסָ֑ר
לְ֝הָבִ֗ין אִמְרֵ֥י בִינָֽה:

For knowledge of wisdom and discipline;
For understanding words of discernment.

For a comprehensive yet accessible introduction to Wisdom literature, see the entry in theAnchor Yale Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Wisdom in the OT.”

In this sense, the English word “Wisdom,” which has a more abstract meaning, is misleading.

Among the most famous non-biblical examples of establishment Wisdom literature is an Aramaic text known as the Words of Ahiqar, a celebrated Assyrian sage. Its parallels to Proverbs are striking. It can be found online at: http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/ahikar.htm.

As noted in an earlier note, this is almost certainly a late editorial addition.

Consider the famous midrash in Genesis Rabbah 1:1 (cited by Rashi in his commentary to the Torah’s first verse). It reads:

כך היה הקדוש ברוך הוא מביט בתורה, ובורא את העולם, והתורה אמרה בראשית ברא אלהים, ואין ראשית אלא תורה, היאך מה דאת אמר ה’ קנני ראשית דרכו.

Thus did the Holy Blessed One consult the Torah and create the world, for the Torah said, “In the beginning God created,” [or, “By means of the beginning God created,”] and there is no beginning other than Torah, as it is said (Prov. 8:22), “YHWH created me at the beginning of His course.”

God uses Wisdom to design the world, as stated explicitly in the Targum Yerushalmi to this verse (בְּחוּכְמָא בְּרָא יְיָ), and according the midrash in Genesis Rabbah, this world-creating Wisdom was in fact the Torah itself. An important non-canonical example of this phenomenon is the Wisdom of Ben Sira, also known as Ecclesiasticus or Sirach, which is usually dated to the second century BCE. It can be found online at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/sir.htm.

This is addressed most thoroughly in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraus, 1992).

Cf. Deut. 6:20-25, which instructs parents how they are to teach their children about the covenant. It is longer and more developed than its parallels elsewhere in the Torah, such as Exod. 13:14-15.

On this point, see Weinfeld, “The Origin of the Humanism in Deuteronomy,” Journal of Biblical Literature 80 (1961): 241-247. These laws are always social or ethical in orientation. Throughout his work, Weinfeld insists that Deuteronomy is characterized not only by a kind of “humanism” but even by a kind of “secularism.” This argument is among his most innovative and controversial contributions to the field.

Deuteronomy’s account of the revelation at Sinai/Horeb (ch. 5) assigns a greater role to direct divine speech than does its parallel in Exodus. However, most of its divine speech is actually quoted as part of what is explicitly identified as an act of creative human interpretation (cf. Deut. 1:5). Furthermore, Deut. 5:5 suggests that Moses mediated God’s words. This is a central topic in Benjamin D. Sommer’s recent, important theological study,Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015). 

On this similarity, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 307-316. For more on Deuteronomy as a Wisdom text, see the discussion in James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now (New York: Free Press, 2007), 310-313.

Deuteronomy’s command to eradicate the Canaanite peoples and their altars (see chapters 7, 12, and 20) is a striking exception to this outlook. The assumption seems to be that the practice of illicit worship right in Israel’s midst will inevitably lead Israel astray. Still, it remains puzzling and disturbing that a book so concerned with justice and human compassion could sanction genocide.

Indeed, Bernard M. Levinson observes more generally, “Deuteronomy makes paradox central to its structure.” Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” in The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition, eds. Adele Berlin et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 343.

Stephen A. Geller, “Fiery Wisdom: Logos and Lexis in Deuteronomy 4,” Prooftexts 14 (1994). Most critical scholarship dates at least part of it to the exilic period, reflected in its themes of exile and repentance. For a discussion of the reasons for the late dating of this chapter, see Marc Brettler, “A Literary Sermon in Deuteronomy 4,” in A Wise and Discerning Mind: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (Saul M. Olyan and Robert O. Culley eds.; Brown Judaica Series 325; University of Michigan, 2000), 34-50. Jews encounter the chapter in the synagogue as part of Parashat Va’etchanan. It is also the source of the Torah reading for Tisha B’Av, a further testament to its preoccupation with exile.

The covenantal preference for the ear is reflected powerfully in the Jewish practice of covering the eyes when reciting Deut. 6:4, as if to say that sight is not necessary for affirming the covenant. This is further emphasized in the passage from Numbers that concludes the Shema, which attempts to “domesticate” the faculty of sight by means of the fringe (tzitzit) attached to clothing: “It will be a fringe for you; you will see it and remember all the commandments of YHWH and do them, and you will not seek after your heart or after your eyes, after which you lust” (Num. 15:39).

Geller, “Fiery Wisdom,” 119.

For more on this, see David Glatt-Gilad’s TABS essay, “Deuteronomy: The First Torah,”and Itamar Kislev’s TABS essay, “Understanding Deuteronomy on its own Terms.”  

[20] Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 163.

Note that the pairing of “ḥokhma” and “bina” echoes Prov. 1:2, cited above.

Jon D. Levenson makes a similar argument about the Bible’s comparison of YHWH to other gods whom later Jews would prefer to imagine as nonexistent: “The emphasis in [Psalm 29] is … upon the awesomeness of YHWH’s mastery and the corollary obligation of the lesser gods to render him homage. Were those gods nonexistent or that homage never in doubt, Psalm 29 would have no point.” Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 133.

This view is understandable given that Deuteronomy 4 was likely composed in the exile or soon thereafter: surrounded by foreigners, outside appraisal of Torah was a serious matter.