Every once in a while you run across a verse or two that make you pause and scratch at your nose in bewilderment:
Give strong drink to the hapless
And wine to the embittered.
Let them drink and forget their poverty,
And put their troubles out of mind.Proverbs 31:6-7 (Tanakh Translation, JPS)
These verses are bookended by the admonishments for a king not to drink, “lest they forget what has been ordained, and infringe on the rights of the poor.” (31:5) and to “speak up for the dumb [mute], for the rights of all the unfortunate.” (31:8) Both of which sound like reasonable advice for a benevolent leader, but what about those middle verses?
The HCSB (among others) translates 31:6b as “And wine to one whose life is bitter.“† In the wording there is a faint echo of Naomi’s statements in Ruth 1 that her life has become bitter:
“No, my daughters, my life is much too bitter for you to share, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me.” (1:13b, HCSB)
“Don’t call me Naomi. Call me Mara,” she answered, “for the Almighty has made me very bitter. I left full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has pronounced judgment on me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?” (1:20-21, HCSB)
Especially interesting to me (and this blog) is that it is the latter verse where the Septuagint translators used the Greek word hikanos for the Hebrew Shaddai instead of the more common pantokrator. Hikanos, in this context, can mean “the Sufficient One” (see NETS). So Shaddai has withheld from the storehouses of his sufficiency to make Naomi’s life bitter… and what cure is suggested in Proverbs? Wine and strong drink. Perhaps this is the true reason that Naomi encouraged Ruth to glean some more barley!
The Jewish Study Bible claims that “this advice is unparalleled” in scripture and I would tend to agree. What do you think?
† In this passage, the HCSB is perhaps more well known for its choice of “beer” instead of “strong drink“, which leads to the inevitable “Give bitter to the bitter!” declarations.
11 Comments
Thanks for sharing the head-scratching questions.
I think the LXX translators’ word choice in Ruth absolutely has to do with their wanting to bring across word play. The sounds in the word for “bitter” are playing on the sound in the word for “Shaddai”:
μὴ δὴ καλεῖτέ με Νωεμιν καλέσατέ με Πικράν ὅτι ἐπικράνθη ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ ἱκανὸς σφόδρα
Πικράν p-IK-ran (the name “Bitter,” a Greek prepositional contraction)
ἐπικράνθη ep-IK-ranthe (the word for “bitter”)
ἱκανὸς h-IK-anos (the word for “Shaddai”)
Παντοκράτωρ or pantokrator would not have drawn the readers’ ears (or eyes) to the three words together. The implication is this:
The Better-Sufficient God has made me bitter so don’t call me Naomi–call me Bitter.
On pantokrator for shaddai, Suzanne McCarthy has written an interesting blog post.
On the implications of word choice in Ruth, Carolyn Custis James has published a fascinating new book on the relationships of Ruth with Boaz and others.
Aww, shucks–Kurk Gayle stole my thunder! Anyway, what he said about wordplay in the LXX Ruth.
Thanks guys; that really helps explain this particular translation choice. Hopefully Suzanne will see this, as I don’t think this angle was mentioned in her discussion of hikanos in the “Shaddai” series of posts.
It would be interesting to know if there was a tradition of hikanos as a name of God prior to the LXX, or if this was an inspired choice by the translators (also appearing several times in Job – see the link to Suzanne’s post in the previous paragraph).
There are parallels in what you and I consider Scripture, even if JPS doesn’t: John 2:9, 1 Timothy 5:23.
Yes, but do those verses explicitly condone finding emotional comfort in a bottle (or wineskin)? I get the physical comfort parallel in 1 Timothy, but it’s not exactly the same…
I’m wondering whether the verses aren’t shaming the potentially royal reader; something like “Drinking lots of alcohol isn’t for you. Leave it to the winos, to those whose lives are bitter. Wine may help them forget their troubles, but you’re called to something better.”
Whether or not you’d agree with my interpretation, the main question here doesn’t appear to be what the verses say, but what they mean in context. As a result, our problem in understanding them is probably not the fault of our translations, but of our spiritual insensitivity. (I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with my interpretation is insensitive; just that all of us, including me, are still at least slightly warped by sin.)
You may be right, Jim. I was looking at the NEB last night and instead of “Let them drink…”, the translators chose something along the lines of “Men such as these drink…” To my ears, that better contrasts the royal reader with the embittered drunkards in drawing the distinction between their approach to life.
Hi ElShaddai.
Yeah, I once heard a pastor try to interpret this verse in a speech against drunkenness. He said, “Drinking will make you forget your problems, but it won’t make them go away. Plus, you’ll have a hangover the next morning.” I thought he was adding his own stuff to the text there.
But I like what Jim Swindle said: Drinking is not for kings. Leave it to the winos.
Deut 14:26 (ESV) states,
“… and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”
The NASB, KJV, ASV, YLT uses “strong drink.”
The NKJV uses “similar drink” [to wine]
The Amplified uses “strong[er] drink.”
The NLT uses “alcoholic drink.”
The NIV uses “fermented drink.”
The Message, CEV, NCV, HCSB uses “beer.”
Mmmm … beer.
And the NET Bible uses “beer,” too. Being my favorite translation, I’ll go for “beer” as the most accurate translation.
Mmmm … beer.
Yeah, Mike, but you’ll notice that Deut 14:26 didn’t instruct anyone to get drunk, but to rejoice before the Lord – the two seem hardly compatible – whereas the remarkable thing about the Proverbs 31 passage is that it sounds like it is advocating getting wasted.
FWIW, I think there’s something to Jim Swindle’s explanation; it certainly appears, however, to segue from “Drunkenness is beneath kings, but not beneath the hapless,” to “In fact, as a king you should try to alleviate the pain of your suffering subjects however necessary,” (vv. 8-9) with handouts of booze falling under that provision. Interesting passage, that!