PROVERBS, BOOK OF (֭מִשְׁלֵי שְׁלֹמֹ֣ה; LXX παροιμία, G4231, a comparison from the verbal root to be like, parallel, similar [cf. Gen 10:9; Prov 10:26]). The term מָשָׁל֒, H5442, was extended to cover other forms such as the oracle of Balaam (Num 24:15), taunt songs (Isa 14:4; Hab 2:6), and the allegory (an extended comparison, Ezek 17:2; 20:49; 24:3). Gemser (Spruche Salomos, p. 7) thinks מָשָׁל֒, H5442, comes from the root “to rule,” for the מָשָׁל֒, H5442, “actually creates a new situation.” Another suggestion is that the Heb. term comes from the Assyrian mishlu, “half,” and refers to the typical proverb that consists of two parallel halves. However, it is more likely that the more restricted term for a brief proverb of comparison came to be applied, by synecdoche, to various kinds of wisdom lit., such as those gathered together in the canonical book.

I. Background

Whether or not Solomonic authorship is accepted, one can agree that the background of Proverbs seems to be the royal court at Jerusalem. Although wisdom lit. in the ancient Near E antedates Proverbs by more than a thousand years, the particular form of instructions addressed to “my son” seems more like the Egyp. works The Instructions of Ptahhotep, The Instructions of Meri-ka-Re, The Instructions of Amen-en-het, and The Instructions of Ani. The marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh’s daughter may have led to his interest in such instruction.

Individual literary features such as the מָשָׁל֒, H5442, the X, X + 1 pattern, and the long, connected discourses, have parallels in earlier Sem. lit. The work appealed to readers already familiar with that literary form.

II. Unity

Since the book itself indicates that it is a collection, its unity is not bound up with its authorship. Rather, its unity is found in the general nature of its contents. The work belongs to the general category of wisdom lit.; it extols the virtues of wisdom and condemns the vices of folly.

III. Authorship

Traditionally, the bulk of Proverbs has been attributed to Solomon (cf. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). The book itself mentions two other authors: Agur (30:1) and Lemuel (31:1). There are two extreme positions: (1) Solomon wrote the entire work, or (2) he had no connection with it (except as the traditional “patron saint” of wisdom lit.). A third viewpoint, more in keeping with the Biblical testimony, is that Solomon wrote most of the book, and the work of others was added to his. Paterson’s statement, “Proverbs have no father” (Wisdom of Israel, p. 62) is only a partial truth. Whereas wisdom sayings often originate among ordinary folk, some one person must have been the first one to utter the epigrammatic statement.

One objection to Solomonic authorship has been that Solomon did not practice the virtues Proverbs inculcated (cf. Prov 7:6-23). The same objection, however, could be used against Franklin’s authorship of Poor Richard’s Almanac. Writing wisdom and living wisely are two different things.

The account of Solomon in 1 Kings 3; 4; and 10; esp. 4:30-34; and 2 Chronicles 9:1-24 indicates his traditional wisdom and versatility in composing wisdom sayings. Hence the assertion that the superscriptions (1:1; 10:1; 25:1) are merely honorific fails to do justice to Solomon. Also, one would expect to find the equivalent of “the men of Hezekiah” (25:1) at 1:1 and 10:1. Sheldon Blank’s argument that the doublets within a section or in two sections rule out a single authorship overlooks the fact that authors repeated themselves and editors of collections retained duplicate passages (cf. Ps 14:1 with Ps 53:1).

The question of the authorship of 22:17-24:34 is bound up with the problem of the section’s relationship to The Wisdom of Amenemope, which is discussed below. In the 1st cent. a.d. Jewish controversy over the canon, Proverbs was classed with Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon as “Solomonic,” according to Shabbat 30b. The book as it now exists must come after the time of Hezekiah (25:1). Fritsch (IB, IV, p. 775) thinks the final form may be later than 400 b.c. Others assert that the final collection was assembled sometime between the days of Hezekiah and the early postexilic period.

IV. Date

Two distinct questions are involved in the dating of Proverbs. The first concerns the date of the writing of each section. The second deals with the date of the collection or “editing” of the various sections into one book (scroll). Conservative scholars have followed the traditional view of Solomonic authorship of all except chs. 30, 31. Therefore they date the bulk of the book in the 10th cent. b.c., prob. from Solomon’s later years. The collection of the various sections usually is dated by conservatives between 700 b.c. and 400 b.c. (e.g., Hubbard, NBD, p. 1050, dates the collection in the 5th cent.).

Critical scholars reject the Solomonic authorship and therefore date each section separately, usually much later than the traditional date. This, in turn, leads to a dating of the entire collection in the late Pers. or Gr. period. Recent archeological and linguistic discoveries have caused some to retreat from the extreme late dates in vogue in the first half of this cent. One of the major factors leading to earlier dating has been the discovery of other Canaanite wisdom sayings and Canaanite linguistic patterns in the Ugaritic Lit.

A. Section I. This section has been dated quite late, since it was supposed to have been written as an introduction to the entire collection. Murphy (p. 11) thinks it is postexilic, whereas Paterson (p. 59) thinks the personification of Wisdom (ch. 8) makes a 3rd cent. date likely. Others, however, have shown that such personification, or more accurately, hypostatization, is a feature of Mesopotamian and Egyptian religion. The numerical formula of X, X + 1, found in 6:16-19, occurs in the Ugaritic texts (cf. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, pp. 34, 201) from the second millennium b.c. Albright (Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East) thinks this section antedates The Proverbs of Ahiqar, i.e. the 7th cent. b.c. Fritsch follows the trend toward early dating when he says there are strong Ugaritic and Phoenician influences in this section, and chs. 8 and 9 comprise “one of the oldest parts of the book.” One example of Ugaritic (hence early) linguistic usage is the term lahima, “to eat,” found only six times in the OT, four of them in Proverbs. When combined with Scott’s opinion (Anchor Bible, “Proverbs,” p. 9f.) that chs. 1-9 were written as the introduction to a preexisting unit (chs. 10-31), the probable early (at least preexilic) date for Section I makes a Solomonic date for the other sections attributed to him quite plausible. Scott, however, considers Section I the latest element in the book. The long discourse of this section (in contrast to the aphoristic style elsewhere) is paralleled in early Egyp. and Akkad. wisdom lit. The Aramaisms argue for an early date, rather than a late date as was formerly supposed.

B. Section II. This segment is regarded as Solomonic by conservatives, is viewed by critical scholars as a gradual collection, perhaps with a Solomonic nucleus, that reached its present state in the 5th or 4th cent. b.c. (Scott, p. 18). Paterson (p. 60) considers it the oldest part of the book.

C. Sections III and IV. These sections are involved with the question of literary indebtedness to The Wisdom of Amenemope, a question that will be discussed below. The view that the section borrows from the Egyp. work makes possible a date between 1,000 b.c. and 600 b.c., depending on the dating of the Egyp. work. Paterson (p. 61) thinks this part is preexilic, but later than 700.

D. Section V. According to its superscription, it comes from the times of Hezekiah. The actual authorship, however, would have been in the 10th cent. b.c.

E. Sections VI, VII, and VIII. These sections have different positions in the LXX than in the MT. Hence Paterson (p. 61f.) states that originally they were separate collections. On the basis of alleged artificiality he would date them late. The acrostic form, regarded by some moderns as artificial, was a favorite device of the ancient Hebrews. Scott (p. 20) says the acrostic appeared long before the 6th cent. exile. Since wisdom lit. transcends national boundaries, international political history offers little help in fixing a date for these sections.

V. Place of origin and destination

The book prob. originated in palace circles in Jerusalem. The Solomonic portions (except that section “copied by the men of Hezekiah”) may have been recorded by his scribes. To these Heb. collections, royal scribes added sections VI-VIII. The content indicates that the book was intended for the instruction of the sons of upper class families. Although this instruction is addressed frequently to “my son,” a much broader audience was intended. The wisdom of the sages was for “everyman” (Paterson, p. 54).

VI. Purpose

The author of Proverbs 1:2-4 clearly states his aim, namely, to impart wisdom and discretion to men, esp. the simple. This also may be the purpose of the entire collection. It is designed to guide men in practical everyday conduct. Such wisdom is needed for the formulation of sound character. The collection would be a useful sourcebook for public or private study. It inculcates personal morality and plain “horse sense.” Paterson aptly states its aim “to subtract from the number of fools and add to the number of the wise” (p. 54).

VII. Canonicity

In Shabbat 30b, Proverbs is listed as a disputed book at the close of the 1st cent. a.d. along with Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. Its association with other reputedly Solomonic works in this statement would argue that the book was canonical. Also in M. Yadaim, iii. 5, where the different opinions are recorded regarding the canonicity (i.e. the books that render the hands unclean) of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon there is no debate about Proverbs. The LXX and Eng. VSS agree in placing together all the books attributed to Solomon. According to the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 146), Proverbs is placed after Psalms and Job, or according to Berakoth 57b it should be placed between Psalms and Job. This order is followed by the Eng. tr. of the JPS. The modern Eng. order may be based on a rabbinical tradition that said that Moses wrote Job, David wrote Psalms, and Hezekiah compiled Proverbs (Baba Bathra, 14b-15a).

James 4:6 refers to Proverbs 3:34 in such a way as to show that it was considered as canonical in the 1st cent. a.d. In addition, the NT frequently refers to the section of the OT containing Proverbs (kethubim, “writings”) as “Scripture” (graphē). Its inclusion in the LXX favors an early acceptance of Proverbs as Holy Writ.

VIII. Text

Proverbs, for the most part, is written in clear, classical Heb. There are a few difficult places in the text in most of the major sections. Fritsch lists as words that have caused problems for the trs. ’amon (8:30); yathen (12:20); hibbel (23:34); manon (29:21), ’aluqah (30:15), zarzir, and ’alqum (30:31). Most emendations proposed to solve textual problems are conjectural. Recent linguistic discoveries have shown the value of awaiting further information rather than resorting to conjectural emendations.

The LXX is a loose, almost paraphrastic tr., showing marks of the tr’s. viewpoint. In places it is clearly corrupt. It includes nearly one hundred doublets of words, phrases, lines, and verses that appear once only in the MT. It omits sections and adds sections. In the LXX, Prov. 30:1-14 comes after Heb. 24:22, then Heb. 24:23, 24 follows; then LXX has 30:15-31:9, then chs. 25-29 of Heb., and finally 31:10-31. These anomalies lead some to believe the text was still fluid at the time the LXX was tr.

IX. Special problems

Two items deserving special attention are (1) the figure of Wisdom in ch. 8, and (2) the relationship of Proverbs to the Egyp. Wisdom of Amenemope (Prov 22:17-24:34). Both items relate directly to critical approaches to the authorship and date of Proverbs.

A. The figure of wisdom. Whereas wisdom is extolled as a virtue throughout the opening section and elsewhere in the book, ch. 8 stands out in its treatment of “wisdom” as a hypostatization. It would seem that a divine characteristic—wisdom—has been elevated to a being who interacts with men. In 1:20-33; 8:1-3b; 9:1-6, 13-18, “Wisdom” is opposed to a similar being, “Dame Folly.” Wisdom is likened to a prophet crying in the street (cf. Jer 11:6; 17:19f.).

There is no trace of polytheism in Proverbs. Hence any attempts to trace the background of Wisdom to Ma’at, Ishtar, or Siduri Sabatu are not convincing. The question remains whether “Wisdom” is a true hypostatization, i.e. an attribute or activity of deity that has been given a personal identity. Some have felt that Proverbs 8 simply presents a vivid personification.

The close correspondence between the activities of “Wisdom” in Proverbs and those of Yahweh in the rest of the OT is striking. Wisdom pours forth the spirit (Prov 1:23; cf. Isa 44:3). God calls but Israel does not answer (Prov 1:24-26; cf. Isa 65:1, 2, 12, 13; 66:4). God’s Spirit is Wisdom (Prov 8:14; cf. Isa 11:2). Wisdom promotes justice (Prov 8:15f.; cf. Isa 11:3-5). Just as wisdom prepares her banquet (Prov 9:5 [as opposed to the foolish woman’s feast, Prov 9:13-18]), so does Yahweh (Isa 25:6; 55:1-3; 65:11-13).

Later Jewish and Christian writings speak of the role of “Wisdom” in creation—a role closely paralleled by hypostatized wisdom in Proverbs. Wisdom of Solomon identifies “Wisdom” as “the fashioner of all things” (7:22), “an associate in his works” (8:4), and “fashioner of all that exists” (8:6). Philo (De Sacerdota, 5) says “Wisdom” was the fabricator of the universe. Some have sought to trace the “Logos” of John 1 and the Gnostic “Sophia” back to the hypostatized “Wisdom” of Proverbs, but their conclusions have not won any general agreement.

If Scott (p. 71f.) is correct in his vocalization of אמן (8:30) as ’omen rather than ’amon (meaning “master workman” or “little child”). then “Wisdom” is viewed as the hypostatized force that binds all things together (cf. Ecclus 43:28; Wisd Sol 1:7; Col 1:17; Heb 1:3).

Although some critics have dated Proverbs in the Hel. period because of the hypostatization of wisdom (on the grounds that the tendency toward hypostatization was strong in the Gr. period), many parallels exist from the ancient Near Eastern world of the second millennium b.c. or earlier. Among them may be cited the following: (1) The Egyp. deity Ptah of Memphis, created by his word and thought. (2) In Thoth of Hermapolis, divine wisdom and the creator god were personified. (3) The Sumer. Ea-Enki was called “the very knowing one.” (4) The Babylonian god, Marduk, entitled “the wisest of the gods” conquered Tiamat and created earth and man. (5) The high god, El, of the Ugaritic pantheon is described as one whose “wisdom is eternal.” These and other pre-Hebraic examples (Pss 74:13, 14; 82:1; Isa 14:12-14; 27:1) clearly demonstrate that hypostatization occurred earlier than the time of Solomon.

To summarize the discussion of “Wisdom,” one can refer to Paterson’s statement (p. 70) that Proverbs 8:22f. is a bold restating of the doctrine of Genesis 1; 2. God’s creation is not a chaos (cf. Gen 1 and 2) but a cosmos. Wisdom is the essence of the being of God. The universe did not just happen, nor does it stand alone. The world has a teleology because there is a theology (Prov 3:19; 20:12).

B. Relationship of Proverbs and the Wisdom of Amenemope. Ever since Adolph Erman pointed out the similarities between the Wisdom of Amenemope (or Amenemapet) and Proverbs 22:17-23:14 there has been a general tendency to view the Biblical passage as directly indebted to the Egyp. work. This has been the conclusion of S. Blank, R. J. Williams, D. C. Simpson, A. Erman, L. Keimar, W. O. E. Oesterly, and others. Defenders of the independence (or even priority) of the Biblical book, however, have not been lacking. Among them are E. Drioton, C. Fritsch, and R. O. Kevin. Although the preponderance of scholarship views Proverbs as in some way dependent upon Amenemope, enough solid arguments have been advanced against such dependency that serious students need to pause to examine all the evidence.

1. The Egyptian document. The Wisdom of Amenemope was first made known in 1922 by Sir E. Wallis Budge, in an article in Recuil d’Études Egyptologique...Champollion. In 1923, he published the full text with photos and tr. Other scholars, including Lange, Erman, Griffith, and Wilson (in ANET) followed with variant trs. It was Erman who first suggested that the KJV “excellent things” (Prov 22:20) might be tr. “thirty” on the basis of the division of Amenemope into thirty chapters. This tr. involves no textual change, only a corrected vocalization from shalishim to sheloshim. The inference is that the Biblical writer had before him the thirty chapters of Amenemope and selected from them thirty sayings to incorporate into his own book of wisdom. Whereas Oesterly and others see at least twenty-three of the thirty sayings in the Proverbs passage as being derived from Amenemope, Scott says only nine are from that source. The preamble of Proverbs 22:17-21 seems to be a recasting of the conclusion of Amenemope.

The Egyp. work is by Amen-em-apet, a native of Panopolis in Akhmim. He was a land superintendent, evidently an important position. He was also a sage and a scribe. Due to this occupational status, some date his work to the postexilic period (cf. Ezra and Ben Sirach). The scribe and the wisdom lit. genre, however, were both well-established ancient Near Eastern institutions much earlier than the time of Solomon.

Amenemope has been assigned various dates, ranging from 1300 b.c. (Plumley) or 1200 b.c. (Albright) to dates in the 7th cent. (Griffith, Oesterly) or the Pers.-Gr. period (Lange). The early date is based on an ostracon containing an extract of Amenemope. If accepted, this dating would make the borrowing of Proverbs from Amenemope almost a certainty. The possibility exists that the ostracon represents a common source used by both Amenemope and Proverbs. In any event, it does not affect the inspiration of Proverbs, for inspiration extends to the selection of materials as well as composition of original materials.

2. Lexical relations. Various studies of the lexicography of Amenemope tend to indicate the Egypto-Semitic vocabulary belongs to the late stage of the Egyp. language. There are some indications that Amenemope is closer to the LXX than to the MT. Although debated by some, the use of Sem. idioms could also indicate the precedence of Proverbs. The section 22:17-23:14 has vv. that have close affinities to other vv. in other sections. If Proverbs seems to collect vv. scattered in Amenemope, some scattered passages in Proverbs seem to be collected in Amenemope. Thus the arguments pro and con seem about evenly balanced. A mediating position—that the Egyp. work and Proverbs both used a common ancient Near Eastern oral tradition or perhaps even a common Vorlage—is a possibility. Father Murphy’s view (p. 21) that the Heb. passage may simply be using the Egyp. “thirty chapters” as a model rather than a direct source also merits consideration. Scott (p. 20) expresses a similar view.

X. Content and outline

The content of Proverbs can be classified by literary genres, by subject matter, by authorship, and by theological motifs. Fortunately, divisions by the first three types overlap to a large extent.

A. Content

1. Literary genres. The two most prevalent literary forms in Proverbs are: (1) the short, pithy sayings used to impart wisdom (the true “proverb”) and (2) the long didactic discourse, of which section I (chs. 1-9) and sections VII and VIII (chs. 30-31) are examples. Practically all of the rest of the book falls into the category of “proverbs.” A proverb has been defined as “a short, pithy saying in common use.” Typically a proverb is anonymous, traditional, and epigrammatic. A proverb is characterized by “shortness, sense, and salt.” In the words of Lord John Russell, a proverb contains “the wisdom of many and the wit of one.” In section II there are 375 such sayings. Of 139 vv. in chs. 25-29, 128 are proverbs. Frequently the proverb takes the form of a graphic simile (cf. chs. 25, 26).

Most of Proverbs, excepting sections I, VII, and VIII (chs. 1-9, 30, 31), was written in balanced couplets, or distichs. This parallelism—a typical feature of Heb. poetry—occurs in a variety of forms. The synonymous parallelism, wherein the second line repeats or reinforces the first, is the form usually found in 16:1-22:15 (cf. 20:13). The antithetic parallelism, wherein the second line represents a contrast to or reversal of the idea of the first, is the form usually found in chs. 10-15 (cf. 15:1). Occasionally Proverbs uses the form of parallelism in which the second (or third) line adds to the thought of the first line. This synthetic parallelism is found at 10:22. The subsection, chs. 25; 26, is replete with this type of parallelism.

2. Subject matter. Three broad categories of materials are present in Proverbs: (1) instruction to leave folly and pursue wisdom (chs. 1-9); (2) specific examples of wise or foolish conduct (the gnomic sayings of sections II-V, chs. 10-29); and (3) the vivid description of a virtuous woman (ch. 31; perhaps as counterbalance to the motif of a wise son of chs. 1-9).

Additionally, the content of Proverbs can be grouped according to topics discussed such as sayings dealing with social evils (Prov 22:28; 23:10; 30:14); social obligations (18:24; 22:24, 25; 23:1f.; 25:6f., 17; 27:6, 10); poverty (17:5; 18:23; 19:4, 7, 17); concern for the poor (14:31; 17:5, 19; 18:23; 19:7, 17; 21:13; 22:2, 28; 23:10; 30:14); laziness (12:27; 20:13; 26:14f.); wealth as secondary (11:4; 15:16; 16:8, 16; 19:1; 22:1), but important (10:22; 13:11; 19:4).

Domestic life is a frequent topic (18:22; 21:9, 19; 27:15f.; 31:30); relationships between parents and children are discussed (10:1; 17:21, 25; 19:1, 26; 20:7; 23:24f.); the importance of friendship is stressed (18:24; 22:24f.; 25:17).

The subject of wisdom has been discussed above. In contrast to the wise man is “the fool.” No less than four types of fools can be discerned in Proverbs: (1) The simple fool who is still teachable (1:4, 22; 7:7f.; 21:11). He is Shakespeare’s “Lackbrain.” (2) The hardened fool (1:7; 10:23; 12:23; 17:10; 20:3; 27:22) who is obstinate. (3) The arrogant fool, the scoffer who rejects all attempts to enlighten him. As Kidner observes, it is his “mental attitude, not mental capacity,” that is at fault (3:34; 21:24; 22:10; 29:8). (4) The brutish fool who is “a churl dead to all decency and order” (17:21; 26:3; 30:22; cf. Ps 14:1).

Royal conduct is a topic (16:12-14; 19:6; 21:1; 25:5; 28:15; 29:14). Cheerfulness is enjoined (15:13-15; 17:22; 18:14). The use of the tongue is discussed (10:20; 15:1; 16:28; 21:23; 26:4, 23). Other personal habits or characteristics are mentioned (11:22; 13:7; 22:3; 25:14; 26:12; 30:33). Finally, some aspects of the concept of “life” are discussed—its fountain (10:11; 13:14; 14:27; 16:22); its path (6:23; 10:17; 15:24); and the concept of life itself (11:30; 12:28; 13:4, 12).

B. Outline. Most outlines of Proverbs contain from four to ten major sections. The natural divisions of the book would seem to indicate an eight point outline on the basis of probable authorship and stages of collection of separate units that were later collected into one Heb. scroll.

I. A Father’s instruction: wisdom vs. folly (chs. 1-9)

II. The proverbs of Solomon: first collection (10:1-22:16)

III. Sayings of the wise: first collection (22:17-24:22)

IV. Sayings of the wise: second collection (24:23-24)

V. The proverbs of Solomon: second collection by Hezekiah’s men (chs. 25-29)

VI. The words of Agur (ch. 30)

VII. The words of Lemuel (31:1-9)

VIII. The virtuous wife (31:10-31)

Some of these sections may be subdivided. Scott, for example (p. 9f.), sees ten admonitory discourses and two poems, plus some gnomic sayings in the first section, whereas Kitchen divides it into fourteen sections. In section II, the difference in parallelism between chs. 10-15 and 16:1-22:16 may indicate a natural division. Section II as far as 23:14 seems to be closely related to Amenemope, but the rest of that section does not have this relationship, which may indicate a natural division. In section V, perhaps (with Scott, p. 21), one should note a difference between chs. 25-27, mainly precepts and similes, and chs. 28, 29, chiefly gnomic sayings like 10:1-22:16. Most of the doublets in the book are in section II and chs. 28, 29. Again, Scott subdivides section VI into a “Dialogue with a Skeptic” (presumably Agur) (Prov 30:1-9), and “Warnings and Numerical Proverbs” (30:10-33), whereas Murphy divides the section after v. 14.

XI. Theology

Although some regard Proverbs as a book of worldly wisdom, a careful examination of its content reveals it is very theological. The sovereignty of God is stressed (16:4, 9; 19:21; 22:2). God’s omniscience is set forth (15:3, 11; 21:2). God is seen as the Creator (14:31; 17:5; 20:12). He rules over the moral order (10:27, 29; 12:2). Man’s actions are judged by God (15:11; 16:2; 17:3; 20:27). Even in this life virtue is rewarded (11:4; 12:11; 14:23; 17:13; 22:4). Moral judgment is more important than prudence (17:23).

The Hebrews had no generic term for religion. However, Proverbs expresses the idea in the phrase “the fear of Yahweh” (1:7; 9:10; 15:33; 16:6; 22:4), and in the phrase also found in the prophets, “the knowledge of God.” The two ideas are synonymously parallel (2:5; 9:10). The book almost completely ignores the Temple and cultus (a telling argument against late authorship) except for several oblique references (3:9, 10). Proverbs 16:6 and 21:3 seem to deny the necessity for Levitical sacrifices (but cf. 15:8; 21:27). Revealed truth is vital (28:4; 29:18).

Although the word “covenant” occurs only once (2:16f.), the concept definitely is present. Trust, the basis of all covenant relationships, is a sine qua non (3:5, 7, cf. 22:19; 29:25). Most frequently, God is mentioned by His covenant name of Yahweh. The father-son relationship typical of the covenant (cf. Hos 11:1) is evident in Proverbs 3:12.

Bibliography C. H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, ICC (1902); D. C. Simpson, “The Hebrew Book of Proverbs and the Teaching of Amenemophis,” JEA XII (1926), 232-239; D. Hubbard, “Proverbs,” NBD (1953), 1048-1050; C. T. Fritsch, “The Book of Proverbs, Introduction and Exegesis,” IB, IV (1955), 767-779; W. F. Albright, “Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas (1955); E. Drioton, Melanges Biblique (1957), 254-280; R. E. Murphy, Seven Books of Wisdom (1960), 8-27; R. B. Y. Scott, “Wisdom in Creation: the ’amon of Proverbs viii. 30,” Vet Test, X (1960), 213-223; J. Paterson, The Wisdom of Israel (1961), 53-96; R. J. Williams, JEA XLVII (1961), 100-106; S. H. Blank, “Proverbs, Book of,” IDB, III (1962), 936-940; D. Kidner, Proverbs (1964); R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs...Ecclesiastes (Anchor Bible) (1965).