Text criticism (TC) is a discipline founded on a
hermeneutics of suspicion. TC of the Hebrew Bible looks for, and evaluates,
grounds for departing from a received text, on the basis of the inherent
ambiguities of the case, and/or other textual witnesses, and in conjunction
with clear lines of argument. The “inherent ambiguities of the case” are often
major, once the vocalization of the received text is stripped away. But TC must
also, if it is sound, look for, and evaluate, grounds for retaining the
received text. At journey’s end, the hermeneutical circle is set aside, and a
solution embraced. Prov 27:17 may illustrate.
MT Proverbs 27:17
The MT reads as follows.
בַּרְזֶל
בְּבַרְזֶל יָ֑חַד
וְאִישׁ
יַחַד פְּנֵי־רֵעֵהוּ
Iron
on iron, together;
a man, the face of his fellow, together.
More woodenly, so as to
approximate the syntax in translation:
Iron
on iron, in the same unit of time and place;
a man; in the same unit of time and place, the face of his fellow.
יחד means as a
unit, in the same unit of time and/or place. יחד precedes or follows the syntactic string it modifies.
From HALOT, examples of the former: Hos 11:8; Mic 2:12; Ps 41:8; Job 3:18;
examples of the latter: 1 Sam 11:11; Isa 27:4; Jer 48:7; Ps 40:15; Job 34:15;
Ezra 4:3. When it precedes, יחד modifies what follows, but is also
anaphoric to a preceding semantic whole. For example, Psalm 141:10 as construed
in the MT:
יִפְּלוּ
בְמַכְמֹרָיו רְשָׁעִים
יַחַד אָנֹכִי
עַד־אֶעֱבוֹר
Let
the wicked fall into their own nets,
with me, right there, until I pass by.
That is, Let the wicked . . . ; in
the same unit of time and place, (may) I (be),
until I . . . MT Prov 27:17 has an equivalent construction in miniature: ואיש
יחד פני־רעהוּ and (the case of) a man; in the same time and
place, the face of his fellow.
On this understanding, Prov 27:17 contains no verbs.
Perhaps that seems strange. But compare e.g. Prov 27:19.
An understanding of the text along these lines has found
scholarly support. Tur-Sinai, whom Fox essentially follows, provides an
interpretation of Prov 27:17 that fits the MT as analyzed above. To be sure,
Fox sets aside the Masoretic vocalization in favor of one of his own devising
(discussed below). Key graf (Fox 2009: 811):
Just as (magnetized) iron is attracted to iron, so is a
man attracted to his fellow’s face; he is drawn to look into it, for the sake
of fellowship and communication (Tur-Sinai, p. 24). [Prov 27:]17-19 share the
theme of fellowship.
The interpretation of the verse depends on two ambiguous
words, both spelled יחד consonantally. In the MT’s
vocalization they mean “together,” hence, “Iron on iron together, and a man
together (with) the face of his fellow.”
This was Ewald’s interpretation (1870, § 217h), though he
unnecessarily thought of יחד as a preposition in Prov 27:17b.
Fox’s diction suggests but does not require the same assumption.
Thus far MT Prov 27:17, and a plain sense reading
thereof, in harmony with 27:19. But that is not the Prov 27:17 Bible readers
know and love. KJV: Iron sharpeneth iron;/ So a man sharpeneth the countenance of his
fellow.
Alternative Construals
The traditional interpretation of Prov 27:17 is as old as
the LXX, Peshitta, Targum, and Jerome. Here are the versions:
σίδηρος σίδηρον ὀξύνει
ἀνὴρ δὲ παροξύνει πρόσωπον ἑταίρου
ܦܪܙܠܐ ܠܦܪܙܠܐ ܠܛܫ܂
ܘܓܒܪܐ ܠܛܫ ܦܪܨܘܦܐ ܕܚܒܪܗ܂
פרזלא בפרזלא לטיש
וגברא לטיש אפוי דחבריה׃
Ferrum ferro acuitur [other mss.:
exacuitur],
et homo exacuit faciem amici sui.
The common denominator: יחד in both occurrences is understood as a verbal form meaning sharpen. To arrive at the traditional interpretation, it is simplest
to revocalize MT. DBH (2007:275) notes without attribution the following proposal:
בַּרְזֶל
בְּבַרְזֶל יֻחַד
וְאִישׁ
יָחֵד פְּנֵי־רֵעֵהוּ
Iron
by means of iron is sharpened;
a man sharpens the face of his fellow.
On this analysis, the first
form is Hophal (a form attested in Ezek 21:14.15.16), the second Hiphil, from חדד sharpen. HALOT (2001:201) conjectures accordingly. Jerome also
seems to have understood the first יחד as a passive verb (acuitur).
According to Fox (2009:1051), LXX = Syr [ = Targum] presupposes an analysis of יחד in both instances as [an anomalous?] Piel imperfect:
בַּרְזֶל
בְּבַרְזֶל יְחַד
וְאִישׁ
יְחַד פְּנֵי־רֵעֵהוּ
DBH on its part refrains from
conjectural revocalization, and construes the forms per their vocalization in
MT as from an otherwise unattested חדה
II sharpen, Qal in the first instance, Hiphil in the second.
That may sound fine, but the solution depends on positing
an otherwise unknown חדה II sharpen. Furthermore, the postulated
apocopated imperfects are enigmatic if not ungrammatical in context. The
construal of MT’s vocalization as G and H
forms, respectively, of a hypothetical lamed he verb, will be discussed
shortly.
The suggestion goes back to Kimchi (Michlol 126a)
and was taken up by Delitzsch, König (in his grammar, 1:373-4; in his
dictionary, 99a), BDB, and others (references in Delitzsch and BDB). The latest
supporter of this arduous hypothesis is de Waard (2008: 54*). BDB’s construal
of MT Prov 27:17 requires a separate discussion:
בַּרְזֶל
בְּבַרְזֶל יָ֑חַד
וְאִישׁ
יַחַד פְּנֵי־רֵעֵהוּ
Let
iron by means of iron grow sharp,
and let a man sharpen the countenance of his friend.
The solution has the advantage of offering a better
explanation than that of Delitzsch - “poetic license”- for the ex hypothesi
apocopated perfects. Its disadvantage: that it supposes two postpositive
jussives. That is unexpected and unjustified. If an otherwise unattested חדה II sharpen existed in ancient Hebrew, with a
G and H stem, and a proverb of the required meaning imagined that uses
it, one would expect the following:
יִחַד or) יַחַד( בַּרְזֶל בְּבַרְזֶל
וְאִישׁ
יַחַד פְּנֵי־רֵעֵהוּ
Let
iron by means of iron grow sharp,
and let a man sharpen the countenance of his fellow.
That is not what we have. Besides, jussives in an
aphorism are unlikely in the first place.
יַחַד, as Delitzsch
notes, fits the pattern of וַיַּחַץ Gen 32:8; Qal or Hiphil, per
וַיַעַל. יִחַד fits the
pattern of יִחַר
Fox rejects the traditional interpretation on the grounds
that “there is no evidence that ‘sharpen the face’ means to challenge and
sharpen one’s wits” (2009: 811). That is a fair objection, though not
necessarily a damning one. The verb חדד is poorly attested; the sense,
in any case, may be another. It is usual toחלה פני mollify the face of
a superior whose favor one seeks (Prov 19:6). But among fellows, as between
parent and child, rebuke is sometimes called for. The face of the chastised one
might be thought of as “sharpened” in the process. In Job 14:20, God is the one
who משנה פני alters the visage of the one he is to dispatch. A ghoulish prospect. Even so, it is also possible
to alter the visage of a friend with the intent of forcing a change of heart.
On this understanding, Prov 27:17 is bookended by 27:21: a sharp rebuke is
preferable to hollow praise.
A reformulation of Prov 27:17 is found in b. Ta‛anit
7a. In context, Piel חדד “sharpen someone”
seems to mean “sharpen one’s moral intelligence.”
אמר רבי חמא אמר רבי חנינא
מאי דכתיב ברזל בברזל יחד
לומר לך מה ברזל זה אחד מחדד את חבירו
אף שני תלמידי חכמים מחדדין זה את זה בהלכה
Rabbi Ḥama said: Rabbi Ḥanina
said:
how is it that it is written, “iron on iron yaḥad [together]”?1
To tell you, how an eḥad [single] iron meḥaded [sharpens]
his fellow.
How much more, two students of
the sages meḥadedin [sharpen]
each other with halacha.
But Prov 27:17bיחד פני רעהו means, ex hypothesi,
“sharpen the face = wits of his fellow.” Possible, but otherwise
unexampled.
Fox revocalizes the occurrences of יחד in MT Prov
27:17 to Qal imperfects of יחד be joined.
בַּרְזֶל
בְּבַרְזֶל יֵחָד
וְאִישׁ
יֵחַד פְּנֵי־רֵעֵהוּ
Iron
joins to iron,
and a man joins [with] the face of his fellow.
To be sure, a transitive use of the Qal is otherwise
unattested (the verb יחד only occurs twice in the corpus). Aside
from that, the proposal is unobjectionable. But then, MT, which conveys the
same sense, seems less objectionable.
One more solution might be mentioned, that of Meinhold:
וְאִישׁ
יְחַד פְּנֵי־רֵעֵהוּ
but
a man, let him gladden the face of his fellow.
On this understanding, חדה פני רעהו gladden the face of one’s
fellow would be an idiom not that
distant from היטיב פנים improve the face
(Prov 16:13). The idiom is not otherwise attested, but compare Piel חדה gladden, with a person as a direct
object (Ps 21:7).
The result, to be sure, is a bit incongruous. One might
adopt Fox’s proposal for 27:17a and Meinhold’s proposal for 27:17b. The result
would still be disjointed, but some proverbs are such. A plausible unstated
premise is reconstructible without too much strain: iron joins with iron; let a
man [join with his fellow and] gladden his face. On disjointed proverbs and
their place within sentence literature, see Fox 2009: 494-498.
Conclusion
It is not that unusual for a plain sense reading of the
MT to yield a sense at odds with all or many of the ancient versions. It is not
that unusual, once MT’s vocalization is set aside, for a host of alternative
and more or less unobjectionable construals to present themselves. Prov 27:17
is a case in point.
MT Prov 27:17 makes unobjectionable sense. I see no
reason to set it aside.
On the other hand, MT Prov 27:17 revocalized per
HALAT/HALOT, presupposed in its entirety, it appears, by Jerome, is also
unobjectionable.
I see no way of adjudicating between the two options. I
am tempted to think the traditional non-MT understanding of the text is
older than MT’s construal, which nonetheless is very old, as old as the
consonantal text it vocalizes. Otherwise, one might have expected a
disambiguating יוחד in Prov 27:17a.
The other proposals discussed above are not without
merit, but have the disadvantage that they require the postulation of a
relatively high number of unknown or poorly attested forms and/or constructions.
It would be helpful if a translation of the Tanakh that
is always faithful to MT and disinclined to harmonize with traditional
understandings were prepared. Not once has such a translation seen the light of
day. If it were to see the light of day, MT Prov 27:17 might well be translated
as suggested above. On the other hand, it would be helpful if that same
translation of the Tanakh footnoted every important differentiated
understanding of specific biblical passages to which the ancient versions
attest.
An unhealthy assumption undergirds the classical approach
to text criticism falsely so-called: one text, the earliest text we can
reconstruct based on available evidence, is authentic, whereas subsequent
reformulations of said text are regarded as corruptions. Not so. Reformulations
are not corruptions. They are reformulations. Furthermore, even textual
variation caused by mechanical error becomes a reformulation when the error is
established as an ineludible component of a received text. In a sense, it is
oxymoronic to speak of any textual detail in a traditional text as if it
were a corruption.
How then shall one translate? Most translations, like
KJV, follow in the footsteps of the ancient versions. In that case, however, it
would be honest to add a footnote: “Gk Syr Tg; compare Vg: meaning of Heb
uncertain.”
1 Assuming a
double play on words:אחד and מחדד
on יחד, in its usual sense.
Bibliography
Walter Baumgartner,
Ludwig Koehler, and Johann Jakob Stamm, eds., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten
Testament [HALAT] (5 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1967-1997) Francis Brown,
Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English
Lexicon [BDB] (repr. of 1906 edition; Peabody: Hendrickson,
2004); Friedrich Delitzsch, Jan de
Waard, ed., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Proverbs (BHQ 17: Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008); Heinrich Ewald, Ausführliches
Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes (8th ed.;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1870); Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (AYB
18B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009); Menachem Zevi Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Alef-Taw). [DBH] [The letters
Alef-Zayin were written by Samuel A. Loewenstamm and Joshua Blau]
(Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007); Carl Friedrich Keil und
Franz Delitzsch Biblischer Commentar über das alte Testament
Theil 4: Poetische Bücher. Bd. 3., Das salomonische Spruchbuch, 1873 (repr. Giessen:
Brunnen, 1985); David Kimḥi, ספר מכלול (ed. Isaac ben Aharon Rittenberg;
Lyck: Zvi Hirsch Pettsal, 1842, repr. Jerusalem, 1966); Eduard König, Historisch-kritisches
Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache (2 vols. in 3; Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1881-1897; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1986); idem, Hebräisches
und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (7th ed.;
Leipzig, 1936; repr. Vaduz/Leichtenstein: Sändig Reprint Verlag, 1986); Arndt Meinhold, Die
Sprüche (2 vols; ZB 16; Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag 1991); M. E. J. Richardson, ed., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament:Study Edition. Vols. 1-2 [HALOT; translation and revision of
HALAT] (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002 [1994-1999]); Naphtali Herz Tur-Sinai
[Harry Torczyner], פשוטו של מקרא 4/1
(Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1967)
Comments