finitum non capax infiniti

It has been noted by Biblical scholars of all stripes that Prov 22.17-24.34 (‘”words of the wise”) relates, or is dependent upon, the Instruction of Amenemope (or Amenemopet, ANET, 421-25). Even a cursory reading of both Prov 22.17-24.34 and Instruction of Amenemope will show the reader that there is a connection between the two.

The VERY evangelical ESV Study Bible, for instance, notes, “This section easily divides into 30 discrete teachings, as indicated in 22.20, and these reflect an awareness of the Egyptian wisdom text, The Instruction of Amenemope, dated about 1250 B.C. [sic]. Clearly 22.17-24.22 did not slavishly copy Amenemope, but there are many affinities in content (ESV Study Bible, 1173, bold mine).

Yet there are still those that, for one reason or another, want there to be no correlation or dependence between these two texts. They go to great lengths and argue in circles (most often illogical circles) in order to prove their point.

Dr. Benjamin Shaw, Associate Professor of Old Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, has recently made an attempt on his blog to distance Prov 22.17-24.34 from The Instruction of Amenemope. He has a six part mini-series giving his reflections on the issue:
Part I (intro)
Part II (list of parallels)
Part III (argument)
Part IV (thirty things?)
Part V (thirty chapters)
Part VI (literary dependence)

Dr. Shaw begins his exploration by giving (briefly) the reasons why scholars believe Prov to be dependent upon Amenemope. He the lists the parallels and then spends his time arguing that there is no dependence on Amenemope. I was not persuaded by his arguments for a number of reasons.
 
First, he does not give the full picture of the similarities between Proverbs and Amenemope. For instance, he lists the parallels, but does so in an incomplete manner. The sixth parallel he lists is as follows:

Sixth Parallel
Proverbs 23:4-5 Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist. When you eyes light on it, it is gone, for suddenly it sprouts wings, flying like an eagle toward heaven.

Amenemope (7th Chapter) p. 239, lines 17-18 They have made themselves wings like geese, and are flown away to the heavens.

He goes onto say that this explain is “strained” and “questionable.” Well, of course it seems “strained” and “questionable;” half quotations usually do!

Let’s see the full parallel and see if it is as “strained” or “questionable” as Dr. Shaw claims it is.

Do not wear yourself out to get rich;
do not trust your own cleverness.
Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone,
for they will surely sprout wings
and fly off to the sky like an eagle. (Prov 23.4-5)

Cast not thy heart in pursuit of riches.
Place not thy heart upon externals…
they [riches] have made themselves wings like geese
And are flown away to the heavens (Amenemope, 1-2, 15-16, bold mine).

By leaving out half of the quotation (in bold) from earlier in the chapter, Dr. Shaw presents the quotation as seemingly “strained” and “questionable.” But when the full quotation is seen the parallel becomes much clearer and more certain.

Second, Dr. Shaw notes that about 1/5 (give or take) of the material from this section of proverbs parallels Amenemope. Since there are no parallels after Prov 23.11, that would mean that 60% of the material from Prov 22.17-23.11 parallels Amenemope. Even after admitting this, Dr. Shaw states, “This does not make a strong case for literary dependence, or even necessarily familiarity.” How he can say this, I do not know. This type of logic does not seem to fly in other areas. For instance, if a student handed in a paper to Dr. Shaw and 60% of the paper paralleled Bruce Waltke’s Genesis Commentary, do you honestly think that Dr. Shaw’s response to the student would be, “Well, since only 60% of your work parallels Dr. Waltke’s commentary, I conclude that you were not dependent nor even familiar with his work. Well done. A+!” Absolutely not. The response, most likely, would be disciplinary action for plagiarism. Why do the rules change when it comes to Proverbs and Amenemope? I simply do not know and Dr. Shaw does not give an answer.

Third, Dr. Shaw goes on to write that in Pritchard’s text there are also 16 other cross references to Proverbs that are outside of this section. He then states that this is evidence that Proverbs was not literarily dependent upon Amenemope. That this might seem logical to someone completely confuses me. How does the argument that the author/redactor of Proverbs shows dependence or parallels (however you want to say it) on Amenemope in other places as well as Prov 22.17-24.34 lead to the conclusion that, “Therefore, there was no literary dependence.” Quite to the contrary of how Dr. Shaw argues, the evidence he presents actually adds weight to the argument that the author/redactor of proverbs was not only familiar, but most likely also literarily dependent on Amenemope.

Fourth, and finally, Dr. Shaw’s concluding remarks on his short study include this:

To anyone familiar with Proverbs, and with the proverbial literature of the Ancient [sic] Near East as a whole, these similarities are found throughout the whole gamut of proverbial literature. There is nothing in the content of Proverbs tying it to Amenemope that would not also tie it to a number of other collections of proverbial literature.

What are these other collections of proverbial literature in which a large section of Proverbs parallels closely (60% of the material)? I’m not quite sure and Dr. Shaw does not provide us with an example. To be sure, there are many examples of single proverbs in the Hebrew Bible that are parallel to other ancient Near Eastern texts. But there is no where (that I’m aware of) where Proverbs parallels another text so closely as does Prov 22.17-23.11 to Amenemope. If it’s out there then I will be happy to stand corrected, as it would be new news to me and give me something else to read and study. But if there isn’t, then Dr. Shaw’s statement is unsubstantiated.

Anybody have any thoughts on the issue?