Egyptian Onomastica and Biblical Wisdom PDF

Egyptian Onomastica and Biblical Wisdom
Author(s): Michael V. Fox

Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 36, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 302-310
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1518411 .
Accessed: 26/11/2013 02:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 02:49:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VetusTestamentum
XXXVI, 3 (1986)
EGYPTIAN ONOMASTICA AND BIBLICAL WISDOM
by
MICHAEL V. FOX
Madison, Wisconsin
There is littledoubtthatIsraelitedidacticwisdom,knownto us
primarily fromthebook ofProverbs,derivedin formand content
froman international genreof didacticwisdom,well attestedin
Egypt and Mesopotamia.More disputableis whether othertypesof
foreign literature left
theirimpresson wisdom.
Israelite This study
will look into the theorythatEgyptianwordlistswere one such
sourceof influence.
Startingfroma recognitionof the Egyptianantecedentsof
Israelite wisdom, AlbrechtAlt' sought a foreignorigin for
Solomon'swisdomconcerning plantsand animals,whichis praised
in 1 Kgs v 10-14.Alt called thistypeofwisdomNaturweisheit and
its
placed origin in such
word-lists as are known from Egypt and
Mesopotamia. He describedthe creationof such textsas Listen-
wissenschaft, a "science of lists", whose purpose he said was
"encyclopedic".Alt gave particularattentionto theOnomasticon
of Amenope,2which constituted,he said, a "Versuch einer
Enzyklopaidie alles Wissens".3 Alt hypothesizedthat Solomon's
3000 proverbsand 1005 songs4werereformulations of itemsfrom
"encyclopediclists" ofthesortfoundin Egyptand Mesopotamia.
Beforewe considerparallelsbetweentheonomasticaand biblical
literature, we shouldunderstandclearlywhatthe onomasticaare
1 "Die Weisheit Salomos". ThLZ 76
(1951), cols 139-44; E. tr. in James L.
Crenshaw (ed.), Studiesin AncientIsraeliteWisdom(New York, 1976), pp. 102-12.
2 A. H.
Gardiner, AncientEgyptianOnomastica(London, 1947). There are also
more specialized lists-body parts, hieroglyphic signs, geographical lists, and
more. See the survey by H. Grapow and W. Westendorf in Handbuchder Orien-
(Leiden, 1970), ch. 37. For the Late Period see U.
talistikI, I, 2: Agyptologie/Literatur
Kaplony-Heckel, "Schiiler und Schulwesen in der agyptischenSpatzeit", Studien
zur altagyptischen Kultur2 (1974), pp. 228-46.
3
p. 141; E. tr., p. 105.
4 It should not be taken for
granted that the subjects mentioned in 1 Kgs v 14
were the subjects of the songs and proverbs mentioned in v. 13. Solomon's talk
about them might be an additional example of his wisdom.

EGYPTIAN ONOMASTICA AND BIBLICAL WISDOM 303
and (perhaps more importantly)what they are not.

They are not attempts to organize natural phenomena in
systematicencyclopedias, in which the orderof the itemsrepresents
a structurein reality. Gardiner's understandingof the onomastica
as the "first steps in the directionof an Encyclopaedia" (p. 1) is
open to doubt. It is based firstof all on the titleof On. Am., which
Gardiner himselfdescribes as "wordy and pretentious" and "bom-
bastic" (pp. 1 and 35). The title reads:
Beginningoftheteachingforclearingthemind,forinstruction ofthe
ignorantand for all
learning things that exist;whatPtah created,and
whatThothcopieddown,heavenwithitsaffairs, earthand whatis in
it, whatthemountainsbelchforth,whatis wateredby theflood,all
thingsupon whichRe' has shone,all thatis grownon the back of
earth,excogitatedby the scribeof the sacredbooksin theHouse of
Life,Amenope,son ofAmenope(Gardiner'stranslation, p. 2*).
However one understands the list, the claims in the title must be
taken with more than a grain of salt. The titleis certainlyan exag-
geration, somewhat along the lines of a book blurb, ratherthan a
careful declaration of purpose. At any rate, the title does not say
what the textteaches about things.The label sboyet,"instruction",
may refer to any kind of instruction,including the training of
animals. The other Egyptian onomastica make no such grandiose
claims. But we can compare the similarlyexaggerated claim in the
heading of the Rhind mathematicalpapyrus, which calls itself"the
guide for entering into knowledge of all that exists, all darkness
[and all] mysterieswhich are in things".5
The breadth of the title's assertions,although exaggerated, may
claim some justificationin the Egyptian concept of writing. The
Egyptians invested their writing system with great significance:
signs were considered to share in the qualities and powers of the
thingstheyrepresented.The inclusion of a large number of words
about many different typesof thingsmay help explain the claim in
the title to be a teaching about "all" things that exist. But this
claim would be based on the quantity of the words and their
referenceto many differentrealms of existence, not on the order
into which theywere put.
If the purpose of these lists were to reveal orders and hierarchies
5
A. Eisenlohr, Ein mathematisches
HandbuchderaltenAegypter
(Leipzig, 1877; repr.
Walluf bei Wiesbaden, 1972).

304 MICHAEL V. FOX
in the nature of all phenomena, theywould have to be judged com-

plete failures. They do group phenomena in categories, but "the
cohesion of the categoriesis oftenso questionable thatthe scribe [of
the GolenischeffPapyrus of On. Am.] may have founddifficulty in
deciding upon a suitable course of action" (in placing the rubrics)
(Gardiner, p. 36). The rubrics are oftenillogicallyand erratically
placed. While thereis some orderingin certaincategorieswhere an
associative ordering is natural (e.g., in the categories of types of
people and the south-northordering of Egyptian towns), most of
the categories show no internalstructureor hierarchy;nor is there
much attempt to show relations among the categories. Different
kinds of cake are each given as much attentionas the cityMemphis
or heaven itself,while some major towns and the earth itselfare
missing. Other items are repeated in differentwritings. It is
unnecessarilycondescending toward Egyptian learning to imagine
that thiswas the best that could be achieved in the way of ordering
natural phenomena, as if the gross distinctionbetween beverages
on the one hand and the towns of Egypt on the other was of such
interestthat it deserved to be writtendown, copied, and taught.
Far more likely,the primarypurpose of the onomastica was the
teachingof writing.This suppositioncan best explain the inclusion
of orthographicvariants (e.g., On. Am. no. 18 i3dt and no. 19
3wdt)and the inclusion of the same word in synonymousphrases as
separate entries(e.g., t3ty"vizier", no. 73) and t3tyimy-r niwtn T3
Mry "the vizier and overseer of the cities of Egypt", no. 86). If the
scribe were categorizingthings,he would have included Edfu only
once rather than treatingtwo of its names as two separate items
(nos. 318, 319). And one entry would sufficefor the s'wt-cake,
which now appears three times in differentwritings in the
Ramesseum Onomasticon (nos. 222, 227, 236). If the onomastica
were primarilyteaching-aidsin the study of writing,it is doubtful
that they would have been known in Israel, where the alphabet
created quite differentpedagogical needs.6
6
H. Brunner says that the lists were catalogues of things ("Sachverzeichnis")
intended to give a overview of the thingsof the world, but at the same time to teach
their names and the correct writingof the names. He regards this last purpose,
even if it was not the author's main goal, to have been the primary one for the
Erziehung[Wiesbaden; 1957], pp. 93-4). If that was indeed
schools (Altdgyptische
theirprimarypurpose forthe schools, that is the only concept of the liststhat could
have influenced scribes of later generations, for the original author's intention
would not have been known or transmitted.

It is also possible that some lists served as aids in instruction

about realia, and thattheywere accompanied by elucidation on the
teacher's part. Several later lists add brief explanations in a way
that suggests such a practice; forexample:
Further:mountains-
Roshat,mountainof turquoise,
Hahe, mountain of gold (CAmame).
Tefrore,mountainoflapis-lazuli.7
The focus of interesthere is not the order of the itemsbut informa-

tion about them. The explanations look like glosses that earlier
mighthave been communicatedorally. This typeoflist is apparent-
ly late (the above textcomes fromthe Roman period). As is the case
formuch Ptolemaic literature,thistextmay show an attemptto put
into writinga usage that was earlier taken forgranted.
Numerous listshave been preservedfromthe late period, mostly
in Demotic. Many Demotic lists reveal theirconcern forwritingor
grammar by their organization according to initial consonants,
determinatives,or "roots". Other lists are not organized by in-
disputablyorthographicor linguisticfeatures,but theytoo seem to
have been aids in the teaching of writing.One ostracon shows two
camels and adds, "these are two male camels". Another ostracon
shows a man holding two dogs on leash and the legend gives the
dogs' names or breeds and adds "a man, who holds them". Such
legends suggest that the students wrote down an oral glossing
meant to identifythe signs ratherthan the animals theyrepresent.
The objects picturedwere familiarand hardly needed explanation
in themselves.8
A hieroglyphic-hieraticsign-listfrom the second century C.E.
brings, in three columns, hieroglyphic signs, their hieratic
equivalents, and, apparently, the signs' names. The signs are
grouped in categories: men standing, women squatting, men
falling,animals, body parts, etc. But even here, where we do find
some organizationby meaning-category,the purpose is to elucidate
the writtensigns rather than what they representin the external
7 W.
J. Tait, "The mountains of lapis-lazuli", GottingerMiszellen
20 (1974), pp.
49-54. Tait says that there are numerous fragmentsof this sort in the papyrus col-
lection at the University of Copenhagen.
8 For informationon the lists discussed in this
paragraph see Kaplony-Heckel,
"Schiiler und Schulwesen" (above, n. 2). Kaplony-Heckel accepts the theorythat
the basic idea of the "Sachw6rterbiicher" is contentual ordering (p. 235).

306 MICHAEL V. FOX
world. First of all, the list is organized by individual signs, not

words, and signs are not in themselvesspecificenough to impartin-
formationabout things. Second, the third column identifiesthe
signs ratherthan givinginformationabout thingsin the world; for
example: "turning back", "a woman carrying", "mouth of a
human being".9 In its type of organization and formof glossing,
this list bears similarityto the sign-listin Gardiner's Grammar.
I am not claiming that no lists seek to teach about orders in the
world by means of schemata; schematicorganizationin accordance
with an external realityis undoubtedlyessential to the educational
purpose of some lists-geographical lists, for example.10 I would
not, however, view this quality as the basic feature of lists and
deduce fromit the existence of a "science of lists".
In the wake of Alt's article, it became widely taken for granted
that Israelite wisdom included a "science of lists". Not long after-
wards, G. von Rad published a study that derived the firsthalf of
God's answer to Job (chs xxxviii-xxxix)in part fromthis "science
of lists".11 The theorypresentedin that articlehas been influential
in the interpretationofJob in particular and wisdom literaturein
general. This theoryis stilla live issue and worthyof reassessment.
Von Rad sought the origin of the "spezifische Form" of God's
speech firstof all in Egyptian onomastica, giving particular atten-
tion to the longestof the extantlists,the Onomasticon ofAmenope,
which von Rad too considered to be "ein wissenschaftlichenzyklo-
padisches Werk" (p. 293). He claimed that, although this
onomasticon does not correspondexactly to Job xxxviii, there is a
close resemblancein the enumerationofmeteorologicalphenomena
(snow, hail, wind) and the stars. He granted that we cannot
suppose direct dependence of Job xxxviii upon this
onomasticon--"trotzdem muss doch wohl eine Beziehung
zwischen beiden Texten bestehen" (p. 294). Such lists may have
found their way to Israel, where they were reworked into poetic
compositions. Such lists, he said, also underlie the enumerationof
phenomena in Ben Sira xliii, Ps. cxxxviiiand Dan. iii 52-90 LXX.
9 F. LI. Griffith,"The Sign Payrus", in Griffithand W. M. F. Petrie, Two
Hieroglyphic PapyrifromTanis (London, 1899); discussed in Kaplony-Heckel (n. 2,
above), p. 235.
10
e.g., The "Geographical Papyrus" in Griffithand Petrie.
11 "Hiob xxxviii und die
altagyptischeWeisheit", SVT 3 (1955), pp. 293-301,
E. tr. in TheProblem oftheHexateuchand OtherEssays(Edinburgh and London, 1966),
pp. 281-91, and Crenshaw (n. 1 above), pp. 267-77.

In particular,Ps. cxlviiifollowswhat he calls "dem herk6mmlichen

wissenschaftlichenSchema" (p. 296) by proceeding fromthe stars
to meteorologialphenomena to the earth.
In summary,von Rad says,
Wir sahen,dass Iob xxxviiif.hinsichtlich
derAbfolgederkosmologi-
schenundnaturkundlichen Phanomeneeinemvorgegebenen Schema
entlanggeht,das letztlichder agyptischenWissenschaftentstammt,
wie sie in den Onomastiken niedergelegtist.12
The strongest argument against connecting Job xxxviii-xxxix

withthe onomastica is the list von Rad himselfsupplies as evidence
12 p. 300. In thatarticlevon Rad also
arguedforan Egyptianparallelto the
"eigentiimliche(n)Stilform"of God's speech, which is composed mostlyof
rhetorical questions.Von Rad founda parallelin PapyrusAnastasiI, knownas
"A SatiricalLetter".Accordingto von Rad, in one sectionofthetext(18,9-28,1)
thescribeHori (accordingto von Rad) sarcastically asks his opponenta seriesof
rhetorical questionsmeanttoprovethelatter'signoranceofAsiaticgeography. But
this suggestedparalleltoo is irrelevant.Firstof all, the (misnamed)"Satirical
Letter" is not composedalmostentirelyof rhetoricalquestions.(See Gardiner's
remarksin Egyptian HieraticTexts,seriesI. LiteraryTextsoftheNewKingdom I [Leip-
zig, 1911],p. 20*, n. 11.) Von Rad was led astrayhereby Erman'smistranslation
of certainsentences,whichmakesmanyofthenegativeindicativesentencesinto
questions(A. Erman,Die Literatur derAgypter [Leipzig,1923],pp. 286-7;E. tr. The
LiteratureoftheAncient Egyptians [London, 1927], p. 228, reprintedas TheAncient
Egyptians: a Sourcebook oftheir Writings[NewYork, 1966],p. 228). SentencesErman
translatesas rhetoricalquestions,e.g. "Bist du nichtzum Chattilandgegangen
und hast du das land Upi nichtgesehen?",would requireaffirmative answers,
whilethe speakeris assertingthe opposite-the opponent'signoranceand inex-
perience. There is no grammaticalindicationof the interrogative in these
statements. They are to be translated,"You have notgoneto theland ofKhatti,
and you have not seen theland ofUpe". In fact,mostofthesectionin question
consistsof indicativeassertionsof the addressee'signorance.There are several
questionsthatchallengeknowlege,but theydo notpredominate.Since we do not
have anything like a catechismin P. AnastasiI, it is hardlyjustifiableto use this
workas evidenceforthe existenceof schoolcatechismsin Egypt-and thento
derive the form-category of God's speeches in Job xxxviii-xxxix fromthis
hypothetical genre.
In any case, thereis a fundamental difference betweenHori's questionsand
God's. Hori attemptsto demonstrate his opponent'signoranceby askinghim
questionsthathe cannotanswer,e.g., "What is theDjemerofSese like?On which
side ofit is thetownofCher...? Whatis itsstreamlike?", etc. (18,8-19,1).Hori's
questionsare difficult but not impossibleforan educatedscribe.They are not
essentially rhetorical, i.e., indicativestatements in interrogativeform.Hori's ques-
tionschallengehis opponentby askingforinformation. God's questions,in con-
trast,are (withtwoexceptions)trulyrhetorical. They are actuallydeclarationsof
God's powerin creatingand maintaining theworld.God is notattempting to con-
foundJob so muchas to remindhimofwhathe alreadyknowswell-divine power
and rule; see M. V. Fox, "Job 38 and God's Rhetoric", Semeia19 (1981),
pp. 53-61.

308 MICHAEL V. FOX
fora "scientificschema" common to both. Von Rad lists the first

50 items of On. Am. next to the 39 items mentioned in Job xxxviii
12 (the verse he takes as the startingpoint of the comparison)
throughxxxix 26. Of these 39, onlynine have some correspondence
in the onomasticon, and there is no similaritywhatsoever in the
sequence of items. The otherworksthat von Rad compares to On.
Am. proceed from the heaven, to the sun, moon and stars, to
meteorologicalphenomena, as does On. Am. But thisgeneral order
is so natural and predictablethat its presence in different composi-
tions does not prove genetic connection.
Certainly, we must hesitate to speak of a "scientific schema"
representedin the onomastica. There is scarcely a schema in On.
Am. itself.There is no schema common to the numerous Egyptian
lists of various sorts, and there is certainlyno schema common to
On. Am. and Job xxxviii, as von Rad suggested.
Anotherscholar inspiredby Alt to detectthe "science oflists" in
biblical literature was S. Herrmann,13 who suggested that the
author of the firstcreation storyused onomastica as the basis of his
descriptionof the creation of the human sphere of life,the thirdto
sixth days of creation. But there is nothing in common between
them other than the mention of thingsthat are in the world.
On. Am. is so comprehensivethat any mention of thingsof any
sortis likelyto have some items in common withit; it will certainly
have some categories in common with it. We could justify a
hypothesis of dependence only if we could find a fairly strict,
specific schema maintained in both, preferablyone whose order
was not quite predictable.
As for Mesopotamian lists such as the harra-hubbulu series, it is
significantthat von Rad explicitlyrejects a connection between
them and Job xxxviii (p. 301). Those lists are apparently even
fartherremoved fromthe assumed scientificschema. I expect that
similar arguments could be broughtagainst an attemptto draw a
connection between them and the presumed nature wisdom in the
Bible.
There is no evidence for a "science of lists" in ancient Israel.
What is more, thereis no science of lists in Egypt in any significant
sense. There are onlylists,listsof all sorts,withvaried contentsand
principles of organization-medical, zoological, religious, geo-
13 "Die Naturlehre des Sch6pfungsberichtes", ThLZ 86 (1961), cols 413-24.

graphical, and more.14 There is nothingto suggestthatthe creation

of lists was considered a single enterprise,as if geographical lists
and listsof body parts were in some way intendedto contributeto a
common purpose of expanding and organizing the body of shared
knowledge.
Alt's and von Rad's articles suggested that biblical wisdom
literature derives in part from observational sciences. Alt
hypothesized that one link in this derivation was the Egyptian
onomastica. Von Rad argued that one literaryend product of the
process was Job xxxviii-xxxix.This picture of the development of
wisdom literature reinforces the common idea that it was a
humanistic, fundamentallyempirical, enterprise.This idea, which
I consider doubtful,requires furtherdiscussion. Here, however, I
wish only to consider the notion thatGod's answer to Job is depen-
dent on the observationsof science, whetheror not these observa-
tions were mediated by lists.15
There were, of course, natural sciences in Egypt, so faras obser-
vations of nature were used in medicine, astrology,geography,and
the like. There may well have been similar activities in Israel.
Wisdom literature,however, shows no relationto any sortof scien-
tificenterprise,even understanding "science" in the broad, non-
technical sense that "Wissenschaft" can have. Wisdom literature
shows no attempt to derive knowledge about human or divine
behavior fromobservations of the natural world. Some proverbs,
such as the one about the ant (Prov. vi 6-8), mention animals as
examples reinforcinga teaching about human behavior, but the
content of the teaching never originates in observation of animal
life. Three passages in Proverbs-xxx 18-19, 24-8, 29-31-do show
curiosityabout the natural world, but this curiositytoo is static
admiration, implyingno attemptto extend the range of knowledge
by observationof the natural world. Rather, these proverbsseek to
14
See the survey by Grapow and Westendorf (above, n. 2).
15
As Von Rad described the process, Job xxxviii-xxxix(and Ben Sira xliii 1 ff.)
were not directlydependent on onomastica: yet:
... dies kann immerhin behauptet werden, dass solche enzyklopadischen
Werke auch nach Israel gekommen sind und dass man es auch in Israel ge-
lernt hat, die kosmischen und meteorologischenPhanomene, aber auch die
Tierwelt derart wissenschaftlichaufzureihen. Die Weisen, wohlbewandert in
aller gelehrtenLiteratur, standen dann vor der nichtallzuschweren Aufgabe,
bei der Herstellung ihrerLehrdichtungendiesem von der damaligen Wissen-
schaft langst sanktioniertenSchema entlang zu gehen und die niichternen
Reihen in Dichtungen umzusetzen (p. 296).

310 MICHAEL V. FOX
arouse a sense of wonder in the commonplace. In general, descrip-

tion of nature in the Bible is intended eitherto exemplifyteachings
about human nature and behavior or to testifyto God's power and
mystery.
The referencesto natural phenomena inJob xxxviii-xxxixdo not
derive froman intellectualactivityanalogous to science. Afterall,
"science" (and "Wissenschaft") minimally implies the under-
takingof observationsand the extensionof knowledgebeyond facts
that everybodycan readily see and know, whereas the point ofJob
xxxviii-xxxixis that God's power and providence are immediately
manifestin the mysteriesand wonders of nature. As for the facts
Job does not know-such as where light dwells or when the rock-
gazelle gives birth-the message of God's speech assumes thatthese
are hidden fromall people (and this would include "natural scien-
tists"). If anything,the author assumes that human knowledge is,
in its fundamentals,definedin advance. There is nothingthat God
says Job knows that anyone else could not know, and there is
nothing that God says Job does not know that anyone else could
know. In these chapters we get no sense that human intellectis
capable of pushing back the frontiersof knowledge through its
powers of observation. Human intellectis sufficient to comprehend
what is most important: divine power and providence. And it is
capable of realizing its own boundaries. True wisdom consists in
recognizing in those boundaries evidence for divine power (Job
xxxviii).
Clearly, we must be more restrained in explaining forms of
biblical literatureby presumptionof foreigninfluence.At the very
least, our comparisonsshould be restrictedto exemplarsofthe same
genre,except in the case of localized comparisons between specific
motifs, concepts, or linguistic usages. The "comparative
method"--undoubtedly legitimate when applied to wisdom
literature-can workeffectively only when the termsof comparison
are well defined. Gattungsforschung must be allowed to work two
ways, not only bringing literaryexemplars together in order to
disclose a Gattung,but also holding apart worksof typesthatare not
properlycomparable.16
16
I wish to thank ProfessorsJ. L. Crenshaw and M. Tsevat for reading and
commenting on earlier draftsof this essay.


Egyptian Onomastica and Biblical Wisdom PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Egyptian Onomastica and Biblical Wisdom PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Egyptian Onomastica and Biblical Wisdom

Author(s): Michael V. Fox

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 02:49:00 AM