There is an interesting blog
post by James Bradford Pate about there being a possibility of an elitist
mentality by the authors of biblical wisdom literature (such as the book of
Proverbs and the Book of Wisdom by Ben Sira). In his blog post, James
postulates how an elitist milieu behind the authorship of the biblical wisdom
literature plays a role in how the biblical wisdom literature addresses evil.
Another example given is how the biblical wisdom literature addresses certain
social practices, such as Proverbs and Ben Sira saying that people shouldn’t
provide surety for someone’s else’s debt. Indeed, one verse that puzzled me
when I read the book of proverbs is the repeated advice by the author not to
pledge security for the debts of another (see Proverbs 6:1, Proverbs 17:8, Proverbs 22:26). It
is an advice which does not seem to be characterized as an instruction on
morality but more of an advice on practical dealings. But does the author
intend for his words to be an blanket exhortation against engaging in the practice
of suretyship, and is this a view that culminates from elitist mentality? For
instance, I do know that the provision of certain scholarship or training bonds
requires the signee to obtain the signatures of guarantors who risk having to
pay the cost if the signee forfeits in his contract. I suppose this will help
ensure that the signee is of reputable character and to further hold him to his
obligation to stay in a programme. But according to the proverbial advice,
should one stay out of being a guarantor under all circumstances?
Matthew Henry’s commentary on Proverbs 22:26-27 seems to
have curtailed the wide-stroke nature of those Proverb Passages. He interprets
the passage as conditional on whether the pledger first knows whether he is
able to pay for the debts, and that the one who is being pledged for is not
trying to take advantage by getting to pledge for his broken fortune. An
excerpt of his commentary below.
“We must not associate ourselves, nor contract an
intimacy, with men of broken fortunes, and reputations, who need and will urge
their friends to be bound for them, that they may cheat their neighbours to
feed their lusts, and by keeping up a little longer may do the more damage at
last to those that give them credit…For,
if a man appeared to be so poor that he had nothing else to give for security,
he ought to be relieved, and it was honestly done to own it; but, for the
recovery of a debt, it seems it might be taken by the summum jus—the strict
operation of law. 3. We must not ruin our own estates and families. Every man
ought to be just to himself and to his wife and children; those are not so who
live above what they have, who by the mismanagement of their own affairs, or by
encumbering themselves with debts of others, waste what they have and bring
themselves to poverty. We may take joyfully the spoiling of our goods if it be
for the testimony of a good conscience; but, if be for our own rashness and
folly, we cannot but take it heavily.”
I found the post by James interesting because I don’t
usually consider biblical authorship or agendas when I read the bible. My
current take on the bible is that it is the inspired word of God, although I
have read that this is a matter of dispute amongst the theological circles. And
there are probably differing views on how biblical divine authorship works. Do
the bible authors write with their own personal style and inclinations featured
into the texts? And what about their personal prejudices, such as this
allegation of elitism of the biblical authors of the wisdom literature? And
does it remain divinely inspired even under such subjective authorship?
