“Torn Between Two Lovers”: Uncovering the Real Fool of Proverbs 9:1–18

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The article presents an idealized view of post-exilic Judaism.
• The author could have devoted more space to the Greek sources presupposed by the discussion, which, however, are not directly and carefully analyzed.
• The historical-cultural framework might have been strengthened by a more rigorous examination of the Hebrew vocabulary of Proverbs 1–9.
• The relationship with secondary sources does not seem to have a direct impact on the argument of the article.
• The article possesses great symbolic power, but its weakness is methodological: the historical and linguistic complexity of the text remains in the background.
• The bibliography is not very up to date.

The argument revolves around a provocative reversal: the figure of the “foolish woman” does not represent universal female guilt but rather unmasks the folly of those who interpret the text through Hellenistic and patriarchal categories. In other words, the “true fool” is not the woman in the narrative, but the reader (or the exegetical tradition) that has transformed Wisdom into a symbol of purity opposed to female corruption. 
The perspective is twofold: on the one hand historical, since it attributes the emergence of the Wisdom/Folly binary to the influence of Greek culture and its misogynistic stereotypes; on the other, theological, since it calls for a rereading of the wisdom literature within the context of post-exilic Judaism, where “wise women” — counselors, prophetesses, mothers of tradition — still enjoyed religious and communal recognition. The hermeneutical reversal therefore has a liberating function: it restores to the biblical women their role as bearers of discernment and life, against the ideological use of the text that, in Christian centuries, fueled the condemnation of women up to the persecution of witches. In this light, the idealized “Wisdom” — turned into an abstract, sexless, and perfect figure — reveals itself to be “foolish,” for it has lost contact with the concrete reality of women and with the embodied dimension of knowledge. Although grounded in a philological and historical approach, the essay aligns with contemporary feminist theology, for which authentic wisdom arises from experience, embodiment, and relationship, not from their suppression. The question it poses is an important one; however, the argument offered in response appears more ideological and somewhat weak from a theological and historical-philological standpoint. The article presents an idealized view of post-exilic Judaism, paying little attention to the patriarchal tensions inherent in the Israelite tradition. The historical-cultural framework might have been strengthened by a more rigorous examination of the Hebrew vocabulary of Proverbs 1–9.

It is a good exercise in the combined use of historical-critical tools, biblical linguistics, and feminist theory, which nevertheless fails to avoid the impression of being an “ideological manifesto.” The author propose an inverted theological perspective, according to which the idea of the “Foolish Woman” does not stem from an originally misogynistic theology but from Hellenistic cultural filters that distorted post-exilic Judaism. I do not agree with these conclusions.

 

They should analyze and present the identified Hellenistic stereotypes more precisely, making greater use of primary sources, which are not adequately cited to support the arguments put forward.

The interpretive model seems to rely on a moralized dual temporality: a before, represented by Judaism as authentic and inclusive wisdom, and an after, represented by Hellenistic culture, which is held responsible for a misogynistic distortion. This appears to be a rigid framework that risks reproducing the same binary logic the essay aims to criticize. On the other hand, the tension between wisdom and power is already constitutive of the tradition and cannot be considered an external influence. 
In attempting to demonstrate that misogyny is not “internal” to the biblical texts — that is, that the true “fool” is Wisdom herself, deformed by patriarchy — the author places great emphasis on this interpretive outcome and on the theological-political dimension, while paying less attention to the historical and linguistic complexity of the text, which remains in the background.

In my opinion, they are not very up to date. Moreover, authors such as Camp, Newsom, Trible are mentioned, but it is not clear whether their theses are used to construct an overview of scholarship or whether they are meant to be surpassed or reinterpreted. For example, the contribution of Silvia Schroer is missing — she has convincingly shown that Wisdom and Folly belong to the same feminine archetype, and that their conflict originates in the patriarchal suppression of the wholeness of the feminine divine.

Author Response

Thank you for all the time you invested in reviewing my essay and offering your suggestions for improvement. I appreciate your time and expertise very much. 

Comment 1: The article presents an idealized view of post-exilic Judaism.

My response:
a) I do agree with you that, yes, post-exilic Jewish literature is entirely androcentric, written by men, for men, but this is true of all literature in antiquity. Yes, post-exilic Judaism is also patriarchal. Nowhere do I claim the contrary. But where do we find in post-exilic Jewish literature before Hellenism the pejorative stereotypes against women that we find consistently in Greco-Roman literature over centuries, or in Jewish writings from the Hellenistic period?  Thus, I make a distinction between androcentrism, patriarchy, and misogyny. I address the question of misogyny specifically in Endnote 52 where I define "misogyny" as "contempt and disdain for women generally, the belittling of women in general, or an ingrained bias against women." 

b) But don't take my word for it. See Silvia Schroer. Schroer herself argues that the exilic and postexilic periods in Israel witnessed the elevation in the status of women and that it is thus no surprise that it is in the post-exilic period that "the Priestly document produced the insight tht men and women are made in the image of God" (Schroer, Wisdom Has Built Her House, p. 31). Thank you for pointing me to Dr. Schroer. I am indebted to you for this marvelous resource you suggested. Dr. Schroer agrees with me that there is a marked distinction between how women were viewed in the post-exilic period and how they become viewed in Hellenistic Judaism. (Since she wrote before me, I should correct myself and write that I agree with her!) 

Comment 2: The author could have devoted more space to the Greek sources, analyzing and presenting the identified Hellenistic stereotypes more precisely.

My response:  While I devote an entire section, section 5, to discussing Greek sources and their influence, Greek misogyny is not the focus of my paper. Moreover, this idea is not my own, and so, in Endonte 48, I direct the reader to a number of other sources which discuss them at length in the manner you suggest. 

Comment 3: The author proposes an inverted theological perspective, according to which the idea of the "Foolish Woman" does not stem from an originally misogynistic theology but from Hellenistic cultural filters that distorted post-exilic Judaism. I do not agree with these conclusions.

. . . Moreover, authors such as Camp, Newsom, Trible are mentioned, but it is not clear whether their theses are used to construct and overview of scholarship or whether they are meant to be surpassed or reinterpreted.  

My response: Again, in Endnote 48, I direct the reader to other scholars whose position has influenced my own. I am not the first to argue that Hellenistic cultural filters are misogynist. Phipps' essay in 1988 was eye-opening for me. I direct the reader to his work, as well as Meyers' more recent work (2013), Parker (2013), and now, thanks to you, Schroer (2000). You need not agree with their conclusions, but I have found their observations compelling and have built my own work on theirs.

Clearly, since the scholars you mention are in my endnotes (Trible in Endnote 44), they are not cited as part of an overview of scholarship. I have cited them for the reader as support for my own work which builds on their arguments and insights. 

You needn't agree with me. But agreeing or disagreeing with an author is not the point of a review. I invite you, instead, to write an essay that contests my points in a more specific way. Beyond your comments listed here, your observations are more general and vague rather than offering any specific and constructive suggestions for improvement. 

Nonetheless, I respect your passion for this topic and thank you again for your time invested in my essay.  

In my essay, uploaded here, you can see that I have added Schoer's work from 2000. I have found it an invaluable resource. Thank you very much!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some minor corrections added on PDF markup.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful and fair reading of my essay. I appreciate so much your time and effort invested in improving my work. 

1) Regarding your correction of my spelling of "prolog" to "prologue," I'm using the American spelling. (Although in these days of Mr. Trump, for whom I DID NOT VOTE, I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm an American, I can't help that I was raised to spell some words differently from our friends in Britain and the lands of the British Commonwealth. The word "prolog" is among them, along with other words than end in -logue in British English, e.g., decalog, monolog, dialog.)

2) The long sentence on p. 12 that you highlighted in orange I have rewritten. (I hope it's clearer now.) 

Thank you once more. Again, I appreciate your expertise, scholarship, time and effort invested in my essay. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well written and, to me, balanced piece -- specifically, that it's pushing back on Yee's (1989) strong piece with a counter-direction that avoids (as far as I can see) overly-argumentative rhetoric.  The documentation is extensive and the footnoting (and biblio) are also, and with a moderate degree of theologically-diverse authors being consulted for assistance.  Its manner of reading is clear and easy to follow.  I commend the work - this is timely as well as wise. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your expertise, time, and effort invested in a fair assessment of my essay. I appreciate your recommendation very much. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really enjoyed this absolutely superb and long needed study .. I almost sense a monograph coming on!  

Author Response

Thank you so much for your expertise, time, and effort invested in my paper. I very much appreciate your affirmation of my work.