by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungbook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

28 December 2009

Berend Gemser was a Dutch scholar who chose to teach in South Africa during his lifetime and he is known to have taught at Pretoria University Seminary for the Dutch Reform Church. When I did my Honors BA and MA in Semitic Languages at the University of Stellenbosch in the Cape under prof. F. C. Fensham, who was a student of W. F. Albright, he talked many times about Berend Gemser. My interest was kindled today when I opened one of my offprints which is from a personal copy of a 1937 book by Berend Gemser, that prof. Fensham had in his library and parts of which I copied. Prof. Fensham's signature is also next to the name of Gemser. The book is his commentary on Proverbs translated in to German in 1937 (B. Gemser, Handbuch zum Alten Testament. R. 1. 16, Spruche Salomos  by Otto Eissfeldt; Hartmut Gese; Rudolf Smend; Berend Gemser [Tuebingen, Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr, 1937]). I decided that I will look at the commentary of Gemser on Proverbs 9.

A short biography of Gemser is available online and reads as follows:

"Gemser, B (1890 -1962)

Prof Berend Gemser or Be as he was fondly called by his friends, played a key role in the introduction of Semitic languages at the University of Pretoria. He was born in The Netherlands and enrolled as a student of  theology at Groningen University in 1913. In 1917 he was ordained as a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church in Lutjegast,  a small village in Groningen. Prof Gemser continued his studies and completed his PhD while teaching Hebrew at the Groningen Gymnasium. During this time he started work on his first book, entitled De betekenis van de persoonsnamen voor onze kennis van het leven en denken der oude Babylonis en Assyris. Prof Gemser received his DLitt degree (cum laude) in 1924 from the Groningen University. He had originally intended to do his doctorate in theology, but the subject of his thesis was deemed to belong more to the Faculty of Arts. Gemser applied historical and literary methods to the documents of the Bible and believed that the study of verything discovered among Israel neighbours might have some bearing on Biblical problems. He authored numerous books, including Hebreeuse Spraakkuns, the first and only grammar book of Biblical Hebrew in the Afrikaans language, Sprüche Salomos, Biblia Hebraica, Die komende Christus, De Spreuken van Salamo I and II, Psalmen II, Nieu-Hebreeuse Kortverhale, versamel en vertaal and Vragen rond de patriarchen religie. He also contributed four chapters to books  and more than 40 scientific articles.

In 1926 Prof Gemser accepted a double-posting at the then Transvaal University College (TUC) to teach Hebrew and Semitic languages in the Faculty of Arts and Old Testament Studies in the Reformed Church Faculty of Theology. Throughout his lifetime, Prof Gemser was offered numerous prestigious positions in his homeland, but  declined them all in favour of staying at the University. From 1944 onwards, Prof Gemser focused on the teaching of Old Testament Studies up until his retirement in 1955. He left South Africa shortly after he retired to take up an appointment in the Department of Semitic Languages at his Alma Mater."

http://web.up.ac.za/sitefiles/File/5035/commemorative_booklet_web.pdf

It is natural that when a Seventh Day Adventist scholar looks at Berend Gemser, a number of issues will emerge: how far and how much he is willing to play with parallelomania; to play with historical criticism; how willing he is to emend the Hebrew text with the help of the socalled LXX or byzantine Septuagint. These are just a few issues that will be relevant during the consideration of his translation and discussion of Proverbs 9.

Seventh Day Adventists do not follow conventional textual criticism that places all versions and translations of the Old Testament on an equal footing and with an eclectic method pick and choose readings from whatever seems sensus plenior to them or more grammatical puritanic.  Instead, the old view of one standard text that existed in the Second Temple Period and which was the canon and also existing in Hebrew no different than the consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition, is the modus operandi. Despite E. Tov's 1993 book that is loaded with axioms that are onesided and does not consider alternatives but presenting the populist views on these matters as if they are the only position on matters. A critical rewriting of Tov's book is crucial and in great need. The one-text theory or standard text theory, is the only sensible way to explain the origin and form of the variants in the translations. To merely list variants is useless, one must explain how the variants originated. That is when one needs a standard text from which to analyze the transformation of the variant. Textual theory may be one of the differences that we will have with Gemser in this investigation.

This is not an attack on the Dutch Reform Church. Gemser was a great scholar, a great Semitic scholar. We are simply going to get to know him through his academic work and will choose chapter 9 of Proverbs for that matter. 

1. One of the first problems that we encounter is Gemser's attempt to treat the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint on the same basis. What is the problem with that modus operandi? Many problems. Gemser suggests that we must read in Proverbs 9:1 with the Septuagint or LXX another word rather than the Masoretic text reading. Also later he explained that the LXX has three more verses after 9:12 e.g. 12a, 12b, and 12c. He considered it as proof that in the Masoretic Text 9:7-12 is secondary. This kind of reasoning is done on the basis that the Septuagint is on an equal basis as the Masoretic Text and that one can pick and choose your "better readings" ad hoc. Is there a problem with this methodology? Enormous problems. a. None of the manuscripts of the Septuagint predates the time of Origen or 250 CE although it was claimed that it was originally composed in 287 BCE; b. None of the Greek manuscripts at Qumran compares 100% or even 60% to that of the byzantine LXX; c. A corruption took place of Homer's texts after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 BCE and one can only wonder what problems originated with the LXX in the same library of Alexandria? d. The Greek manuscripts from Cave 4 at Qumran compares more with the Masoretic Text than with the LXX; e. Thus, if there is not a consistency over the 500 years of Greek manuscripts between 287 BCE and 250 CE, with pre-Christian era Greek texts [Qumran] more Masoretic aligned and post-Christian era Greek texts more current LXX aligned, then how can this text be placed on the equal footing with the Masoretic text of Daniel from Cave 4 at Qumran that corresponds in the pre-Christian era 100% over a period of more than a millennium! That is when we compare Codex Alleppo with 4QDana? 

2. Gemser's methodology is to read the text of the Hebrew, consult other scholars renderings of certain words, consult the Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius and use it as a proof of support for his own decision. This method is a proper one for doing exegesis. The backing of a good grammar for one's interpretation of the text or reading is a good principle for getting as close as possible to the proper understanding. It does not always safeguard that the understanding is going to be watertight correct, but it is a great advancement towards such a correct understanding. The correct understanding can still be elusive, even if one uses the Grammar of Gesenius for this reason: many syntax phrases can be derived from one verbal form. Sometimes the same particles can have a causal, or temporal, or resultative meaning, so that a decision the one direction cannot exclude a decision in the other direction.

Proverbs 9:1

Wisdom has built her house

She has hewn out her seven pillars

Gemser said that one can read "hewn out" but one can also read with the socalled LXX "set up =ausgerichtet". The consonants are the same and it is only the vowels that are different. In Adventism, such a change in reading is permissible as long as one does not change the consonants. The reason is that the original texts around the time of Christ and before did not have any vowel systems attached to the text. They slipped in sometimes with the matres lectionis like waw and yod that were used in the place of the vowels [see Qumran Isaiah from cave one] but we are not sure that happened further back in time. For those who do not understand Hebrew, what it means is that say the word is dog, the original will write only dg but still say dog. Then at Qumran what happened is that the vowel slipped in by using a consonant waw or yod to represent it and will read d[waw]g. The waw is a consonant but is used to represent the vowel.

Proverbs 9:2

She has slaughtered her slaughtered [animal]

She has mixed her wine

also has she set her table.

The reading of Gemser is very close to the translation we also favor here. Gemser read it very literally and had in the first stiche "Sie hat ihre Vieh geschlachtet". This is a very close rendering of the Hebrew text and better than the NASB rendering of "she has prepared her food". Our translation is even more literal than Gemser by making the animal "slaughtered" since the root slaughter is repeated in the original without food [NASB] or animal [Gemser] explicitly mentioned. Only implicitly. The translation of Gemser in this verse is excellent and it is very encouraging to see how he keeps here close to the original.

Proverbs 9:3

She has sent our her maidens,

she calls upon the tops of the heights of the city.

In this verse, our reading is very close to the original. Gemser's reading reads as follows: "her call goes out over the heights of the city [der Stadt]". What Gemser did here is to take the consonants qrt and see in it a Hebrew and Aramaic cognate qryh, which means city. Gemser can be right if one can find another occurrence in the book of Proverbs or any other book of Solomon that also used the root without the yod. If not, we have to look within the same sentence for the clue, namely the root call = qr'. We stick to the reading of Gemser although it seems as if the Syriac has taken it to mean a verb for call. The construct form of heights pleading for a noun to follow, made us decide for a noun [Gemser and NASB] instead of another verb [Syriac].

What is very exciting about Gemser, is that he saw in this action of the maidens the actions of Matthew 22:9 "Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast" (Gemser 1937: 40).

Proverbs 9:4

Who is simple let him turn in here

who is lacking understanding [heart],

she will speak to him.

Here the translation which we also favor here is the same as that which Gemser had. What she will speak to them is not clear but Gemser made it clear that it is not words of invitation.

Proverbs 9:5

Come, eat with my bread and drink with the wine that I have mixed.

Gemser had the same reading.

Proverbs 9:6

Forsake the follies and live

and follow in the way of understanding.

Gemser has basically the same.

Proverbs 9:7

He who corrects a scoffer

receives to himself dishonor

and who reproves to the wicked insults for himself.

Gemser has basically the same.

Proverbs 9:8

Do not reprove a scoffer

lest he hates you.

reproves to the wise man and he will loves you.

Gemser has basically the same.

Proverbs 9:9

Give to the wise and he will be more wise

teach to the righteous and he will increase learning.

Gemser has basically the same.

Proverbs 9:10

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

and knowledge of the Holy One [sanctuary? Holies = Holy of Holies, thus Most Holy place or function in the Sanctuary] understanding.

Gemser rendered it here "und den heiligen erkennen ist Einsicht". The word godeshim is here taken by Gemser probably to mean people, but some have interpreted it to mean God Himself and it is furthermore possible that it refers to some important function in the Most Holy of the Sanctuary.

Proverbs 9:11

For through me your days increase

and years of life will be increased to you.

All versions had problems in this verse with the preposition by. It is the direct address form here instead of indirect. The first person singular pronominal affix is attached to the preposition and it can be translated only as "through me". There is no way of escape from this rendering. However, the Syriac seems to read "through her" and that is also the way Gemser chose to express it. He follows here the advise of Kuhn but recognize that the original actually reads "through me" (Gemser 1937: 40). The Targum also read it as "through her" but that is not what the original Hebrew is reading. It is reading "through me". There is no problem if God is taking over the conversation here in the poets poem. From descriptive God "switched on" in the verse and spoke Himself. He is the Wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the Wisdom. He is the embodiment of Wisdom. There is thus no necessity to correct the Hebrew text just because we feel we have to be grammatically puritannic and create consistencies for what we feel uncomfortable with. Emendation of the text is absolutely forbidden in Seventh Day Adventist exegesis. You have to live with the text as is or die with it as is. You cannot emend it to fit your own syntactical or grammatical comfort. The NASB also reads "by me" as we have chosen to keep it.

Proverbs 9:12

If you are wise, you are wise to youself

and scoff, you alone shall carry.

We have here individual responsibility that is stressed. Ezechiel 16 theology is here spelled out clearly.

We must point out here that between verses 7-12, Gemser felt that it is not original but a later attachment. There is nothing in the text giving us a hint that it is not original. Gemser is unfamiliar with the way the ancients composed their works. They did not have footnotes or endnotes like us to say this section was copied from a poem they have read somewhere and now they continue with another hymn or poem or sermon, or their own commentary. The switching in styles of writing is very common and before chapter divisions were made, even the chapters were not clearly demarcated. So we must be very careful of such suggestions that this or that section was not in the original. We do not endorse his conclusion here. Gemser came to the conclusion that because the LXX had after verse 12 three more verses called 12a, 12b, and 12c, therefore this section is secondary. But, that is not true. There is also a 10a which is not in the original and besides also in verse 18 there are extras in the LXX as 18a, 18b, 18c, 18d. The argument of Gemser does not hold water (see Gemser 1937: 40).

It was not an omission in the Masoretic Text or Codex Alleppo, but an addission done around the time of Antiochus Ephiphanes [after 164 BCE] when the librarians of Alexandria were involved with major additions also to the works of Homer (see M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, especially the endnotes volume). They would create new hymns for example on the basis of the old corpus.

The Septuagint or socalled LXX that we now have is very likely not the original LXX translated in 289 BCE, for various reasons: a. Qumran Greek texts from cave four or 4QLXX texts are conforming more to the Masoretic text than to the byzantine LXX that we now possess. b. Justin the Martyr was complaining about the additions and omission in the Old Testament Greek. c. Origen was complaining about the state of the Greek text. d. Jerome was not satisfied with the reading of the Greek of Daniel and suggested that Theodotion is better. e. Constantine in 350 CE ordered that 50 copies of the Septuagint be made "very quickly" and this is where we have the origin of so many variants in the Old Testament texts. What is preserved for us currently as the LXX is actually the corrupt version of it that was transformed in the library of Alexandria during and after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, as we have pointed out above.

Proverbs 9:13

The woman of folly is enticing

She is simple and nothing [Phoenician and Ugaritic negative particle bl] what she knows.

Proverbs 9:14

and she sits to the door of her house

upon a throne/chair of the heights of the city.

Proverbs 9:15

To call to the passers of the way.

who are making straight their paths.

Proverbs 9:16

Who is simple let him turn in here

who is lacking understanding [heart],

she will speak to him.

Proverbs 9:17

"Waters of theft are sweet

and secret bread is pleasant."

Proverbs 9:18

And not does he know that death is there

in the depths of Sheol her guests.

Concluding remarks:

We have in Proverbs 9:1-6 an prelude and Wisdom of the Lord as a woman calling people to a banquet. In Proverbs 9:13-18 we have the postlude with the bad woman or Satan calling everyone to His demise and to death. The interlude is in Proverbs 9:7-12 which is considered by Gemser to be secondary but that is not correct.

Gemser discussed the poem and especially the Ancient Near Eastern aspects of comparison and also the New Testament culture of weddings (see Gemser 1937: 41). The role of personal freedom and responsibility is strongly suggested by Gemser when he cited Ezechiel 16:22 and Ezechiel 18.

Gemser summarized the poem as follows:

"Two influences work in the world, two callings are made, two tables are prepared: the one is Wisdom and the one is Folly and between them there is the need to distinguish" (Gemser 1937: 41 with references to Romans 12:21 and 14:23; 2 Corinthians 6:14ff, and Titus 1:15).

If you follow folly, Gemser said, you are lost, for the house of Folly is not only the door to Hades but Hades itself (Gemser 1937: 41).

To banquet in the house of Folly is to enjoy a Death-meal, not Life food or Life drinks but a deadly gift (Gemser).

We may differ with Gemser on his methodology here and there and on his emendation of the text but one thing is clear, he wish to see the context of the exegesis biblically, theologically and responsibly.

End item