2.1 Definition of a double-edged word
Israelite Wisdom Literature was notorious already in antiquity for offering con-tradictory advice.9A well-known example (notbased on double-edged word-ing) is Proverbs 26:4–5:
Do not respond to an idiot in accordance with his stupidity lest you, too, become just like him.
Respond to an idiot in accordance with his stupidity lest he consider himself wise.10
Double-edged wording arises when two such expressions, rather than appear-ing in two consecutive utterances, are combined in a sappear-ingle phonetic (or
graph-and Theological Commentary, Smyth graph-and Helwys, Macon, 2011; graph-and David Frankel, “The Image of God in the Book of Job,”Shnaton22 (2013): 27–65.
7See for example John Briggs Curtis, “On Job’s Response to Yahweh,” in:Journal of Biblical Literature98. 4 (Dec. 1979): 497–511; Jack Miles,God: A Biography, Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1995; and Frankel, “The Image of God in the Book of Job.”
8Contrathe approach advocated by Yair Hoffman, who claimed that “[w]hether this use of equivocal words was premeditated or accidental is of minor consequence.” See Yair Hoffman,
“The Use of Equivocal Words in the First Speech of Eliphaz,” in:Vetus Testamentum30 (1980):
114–118.
9See for exampleb Shab30b.
10Regardless of the various solutions offered for these verses (for example, Hurowitz, Prov-erbs,2.510), the example illustrates what constitutes “diametrically opposite” advice.
ic) sequence that is interpretable in two incompatible ways. Naturally, the two incompatible readings are rarely as neatly and completely diametrically op-posed as Proverbs 26:4–5. Double-edged wording is thus a subcategory of dou-ble entendre, and like otherdouble entendresit can be crafted by means of a variety of techniques, such as lexical homophony and homography, syntactic ambiguity, and Janus-faced parallelism. In the Book of Job, it also takes the form of rhetorical questions with two opposite implied answers.
2.2 Double-edged words in context: Proverbs and Ahikar
Let us turn to Proverbs 23:13, a verse that lends itself to two very different yet compatible readings.
Do not withhold chastisement from a boy; if you beat him with a sprig – he will not die(13a)
At first glance, this statement appears to imply that:
(1a) even ifone beats one’s son, the son shall not die (in other words, a good beating never killed anyone).
However, upon reading the second hemistich, “You should beat him with a sprig–and save his life from Sheol” (13b,
ל י צ ת ל ו א ש מ ו ש פ נ ו ו נ כ ת ט ב ש ב ה ת א
),one realizes that the first hemistich could actually imply quite the opposite of what was initially apparent:
(1b)only ifone beats one’s son, does one save him from (untimely) death.
That is, a father whofailsto chastise his son effectively leads the child to an untimely death, for in raising a rascal he will effectively set his son on the path of lawlessness and violence.11
The same duality is found in the Aramaic version of Ahikar from Elephan-tine:12
11 On “retrospective patterning” see Barbara Herrnstein, Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1968, especially 10–14, 212. Seow summarizes retrospective patterning as “retrospective readjustment of interpretation as one progresses through a [text].” See Seow, “Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job,” 76.
12 Ahikar 177 (Column 12 [J] l. 3). See Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni,Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1993, 48.
Whose Job Is This? Dramatic Irony anddouble entendrein the Book of Job 51
If I beat you, son, you will not die תומתאלירבךנאחמאןה
but if I leave you be [you shall not live]13 [ייחתאל]ךבבללעןקבשאןהו At first glance, the first hemistich appears to imply (1a) – “you will liveeven if I beat you” – however, upon reading the second hemistich it becomes evident that the first hemistich implies quite the opposite – (1b) “you will escape death only ifI beat you.”14
The fact that the very same duality is found in Ahikar and in Proverbs – though the duality is expressed by different syntactic means and in two differ-ent languages – coupled with the fact that Wisdom literature is notoriously diffusive15– suggests that the play on words is probably not mere coincidence and that we are dealing here with a shared technique, the analysis of which belongs to the realm of the study of literary conventions in antiquity.
Let us now consider Prov 19:18:
י
This verse, too, can be read as (1a)Chastise your son since there is [still] hope but do not strive to kill him!16; or as (1b):Do not seek to have your son killed– chastise him while there is still hope!17
In all three examples – two from Proverbs and one from Ahikar – readings (1a) and (1b), though quite different in nuance, do not offer opposite advice:
both encourage generous application of the rod as a proactive educational de-vice. However, Prov 19:18 also allows for a third, diametrically opposite read-ing:
(2) Beat your son while there is still hope, and pay no heed to his whining!
13“Leave you be” – literally, “leave you to your heart.” See also n. 14.
14The Armenian version spells out the logic of this verse: “Son, spare not the rod to thy son [...] if thou leave him to his own will, he becomes a thief; and they take him to the gallows and to death, and he becomes unto thee a reproach and breaking of heart.” See F. C. Conybeare et al.The Story of Ahikar,Cambridge University Press Warehouse, London 1898, 27.
15See James C. Vanderkam, “Ahikar/Ahiqar (Person),” in:The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol-ume 1, ed. David Noel Freedman, Doubleday, New York 1992, 113–115; and Vanderkam, “Ahi-qar, Book of,” in:The Anchor Bible Dictionary,119–120
16Fox, Michael V.,Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary,Yale University Press, New Haven 2009, 656–657. The progression from chastisement to (nearly) killing is also found at Ps 118:18. The text implies that a father may have the urge to do so.
17While reading (1b) may seem somewhat strained (the order of the hemistichs is inverted in English for the sake of clarity), it is allowed by the grammar of the verse, and is accepted by many ancient and modern commentators, perhaps because it dovetails with Proverbs 23:13–
14 (and Ahikar).
Since the ancient manuscripts were unvocalized,
ו ת י מ ה
is a homograph, which may be read either asוֹ ת י
“the killing of him” – an infinitive construct of thehiph‘il ofת " ו מ
, with a 3.m.sg. objective pronominal suffix, as in readings (1a) and (1b) – or asוֹ ת
, the substantiveה
with a possessive pronominal suffix, “his [pleading] voice” (see Ps 55:18).18This alternative reading is pos-sible also in the vocalized Masoretic text if we considerת י
to be a noun derived fromי " מ ה
and equivalent toה
(“[pleading] voice”) precisely after the manner ofת י
(=ה
,י
, fromי " ב ש
) andת י
(=י
, fromי " כ ב
), forms that are attested in Biblical Hebrew.19It is essential to recognize that readings (1) and (2) are both grammatically unlikely. Reading (1) is grammatically awkward, since infinitive constructs are never preceded by the preposition
ל
.20Had the author wished to convey read-ing (1) alone, one would have expected him to use eitherא ש ת ל א ו ת י מ ה ל ו
נ פ ש
ך
(with an infinitive construct),21 orך ש פ נ א ש ת ל א ו ת ו מ ל א ו
(withת ו מ
perceived as a substantive,
ת
, not as aqalinfinitive) – but not the hybridל א ה
מ י ת
ו
. Reading (2), on the other hand, is problematic, sinceל שׁ א
does not denote “take heed of,” but rather “long for.”22Had the author wished to convey this reading alone, one would have expected some other phrase, usingש מ
ע
orן י ז א ה
withה ע ו ש
orם י נ ו נ ח ת
(cf. Ps 28:2, 31:23, 143:1 et passim). How-ever, the more natural grammar for (1) would spoil reading (2); and a more natural formulation of (2) would lead to the loss of readings (1a) and (1b).2.3 Identifying a double-edged word
The fact that both readings are grammatically awkward (yet acceptable, with a stretch of the grammar)23suggests that certain constraints were at play. The
18 Several commentators – modern as well as medieval – follow this reading (see Jäger, Baumgartner, Ralbag and Nahmias cited in Fox,Proverbs 10–31, 657).
19 See Yehudah Ḳil,Sefer Mishlei.Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem 1983, 128–129.
20 The only exception of which I am aware isםיהלאהןוראחקלהלא(twice – in 1 Sam 4:19, 21), which is altogether different.לאthere is either used in the sense ofלע, or is a scribal error forלע.
21 Assuming thatשפנ אשנcan be used in this manner – it is attested only with common nouns, not with infinitives. Alternatively, a different idiom altogether, suchץפחתלאותימהלו, orותימהשקבתלאו(cf. Exod 4:24, Jer 26:21, orותימהל, as at Ps 37:32) would have been used.
22 This reading is rejected by Fox on these grounds.
23 On the one hand, while the grammar ofותימהלאis highly unusual and unparalleled, the phrase could be considered technically grammatical on the assumption thatתיhad come to be perceived as a common noun rather an infinitive. However, the construction with לא
would still be awkward for, a form derived from the infinitive. On the other hand, it is
pos-Whose Job Is This? Dramatic Irony anddouble entendrein the Book of Job 53 usage of a double-edged word depends to a great extent on the dexterity of the author, who is often forced to resort to rare or awkward grammatical construc-tions in order to retain the desired duality. We will return to this formal tool for the identification of double-edged words in our treatment of Job, the chas-tised son who is struck time and again, his complaint unheeded, but not killed (Job 2:6; see also Eliphaz’s words in 5:17–19).
It is difficult to prove that authors were trained in a particular technique such as double-edged wording, or were even consciously aware of its availabil-ity, since there is no surviving Ancient Israelite literature comparable to Aris-totle’sPoeticsor Demetrius’On Style. Even the most striking examples of the use of a literary technique, after all, may be a figment of the interpreter’s imagi-nation – and may provide valuable literary insight into the text but not any historical information about the scribal circles in which it was produced.
This example supplies us with two criteria that may assist in recognizing that double-edged wording was a generative technique in Israelite Wisdom cir-cles: multiple attestation in diverse syntactic constructions, and irregular grammar. In this case, thedouble entendreupon which the double-edged word is a further elaboration is found in more than one Biblical tradition and in one non-Biblical text (the double-edged word, however, is unique to Prov 19:18).
And the rough grammar of Prov. 19:18 gives the author away. One cannot ex-pect the two criteria – multiple attestation in different languages and grammat-ical irregularity – to both be present very often. The likelihood of finding the same pun three times is particularly slight, and irregular grammar is likely to be found only where the authorfailsto execute thedouble entendreperfectly.
In other words, the better the crime, the fewer the fingerprints.
However, even a small number of examples suffice to demonstrate that the study of double-edged wording in Israelite Wisdom literature belongs not only to the realm of reader response, but that such wording was an available tech-nique in ancient Israelite Wisdom circles.