JBL 107/2 (1988) 207-224
PROVERBIAL PAIRS:
COMPOSITIONAL UNITS IN PROVERBS 10-29
TED HILDEBRANDT
Grace College, Winona Lake, IN 46590
I. Willy-Nilly Advocates
One of the most common comments concerning the corpus of Proverbs
10-29 has been that these proverbs are perceived to be a chaotic
confusion--thrown together willy-nilly without any conceptual or literary
cohesion. The following remarks are representative of the majority who
reject any architectonic structure. W. O. E. Oesterley writes, "But generally
speaking, the proverbs are thrown together in a very haphazard fashion in
this collection."l R. Gordon explains that Proverbs is difficult to read because
"there is little continuity or progression:”2 G. von Rad also expresses his
annoyance at the "lack of order."3 W. McKane maintains that the sentences
are independent and atomistic; he labels all vincula between the proverbs as
1Oesterley, The Book of Proverbs (London: Methuen, 1929) 125, 73, 77. Other writers who
have expressed similar sentiments are W. C. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1981) 93; K. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Proverbs (repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1973) 208; R. N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition (New York: de Gruyter, 1974) 67; W. S.
LaSor, D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982)
552; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 1017;
B. H. Kelly, "The Book of Proverbs,. Int 2 (1948) 347; and J. L. McKenzie, "The Wisdom of the
Hebrews, in The Two-Edged Sword (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1959) 217. J. M. Thompson,
to the contrary, makes the following unfortunate statement: "As for our canonical proverbs in
particular, they fail to reach us, it would seem, for still a third reason: they are jumbled together
willy- nilly into collections. (The Form and Function of Proverbs [The Hague: Mouton, 1974] 15).
2Gordon, "Motivation in Proverbs," Biblical Theology 25 (1975) 49. J. Paterson (The Wisdom
of Israel [London: Lutterworth, 1961] 63) and P. C. Craigie (“Biblical Wisdom in the Modern
World: I. Proverbs,” Crux 15 [1979] 7) make similar comments in terms of the alienation of Pro-
verbs from modern readers because of its lack of topical/logical order. On the contrary, this
writer will maintain that the ordering of Proverbs, when properly understood, will be very
palatable to modern readers (see Barbara and Wolfgang Mieder, "Tradition and Innovation:
Proverbs in Advertising," in The Wisdom of Many: Essay on the Proverb [New York: Garland,
1981] 309-22). Furthermore, modern persons' expanding tolerance for farrago (e.g., television
commercials) should allow them to appreciate these proverbs more than their predecessors did.
The rebirth of wisdom studies reflects the modern concern for the ordering of the universe.
3Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 113.
207
208 Journal of Biblical Literature
"secondary" and nugatory for interpretation. This is further seen in his
method of analysis, which totally disregards the collectional features of the
canonical text.4 More recently, Bernard Lang opens his work on wisdom as
teacher, goddess, and lady with this statement: "The biblical book of Proverbs
is an almost random collection of brief didactic discourses, poems, learned
and pious sayings."5
Some interpreters have acknowledged that there are small proverbial
clusters, having detected some common theme, catchword, or letter; but they
quickly go on to minimize the importance of such a canonical collectional
phenomenon. J. C. Rylaarsdam comments, "Even when two or more succes-
sive proverbs deal more or less with the same subject (for example, 10:4-5),
the connection seems incidental rather than organic. There is no logical
continuity of thought."6 Thus, many emphasize the atomistic character of the
sentences. Each sentence is indeed a self-contained unit. One should not,
however, ignore collectional features that may give an indication of editorial
tendenz. This paper will attempt to identify the "proverbial pair" as a collec-
tional, architectonic unit above the sentence level.
II. Definition
The proverbial pair may be defined as two proverbial sentences that are
bonded together (whether by means of phonetics, semantics, syntax,
rhetorical device, pragmatic situation or theme) into a higher architectonic
unit. Hence, the "proverbial pair" is proposed to be a literary form which
evinces the literary and editorial craftsmanship of the proverbial collectors
(Prov 25:1).
III. Methodology
What methodology was used for isolating this unit? Initially the text was
read and many possible pairings were isolated. The pairings were then
4McKane, Proverbs (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 10, 413, 415.
5Lang, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redefined (New York: Pilgrim,
1986) 3. See also Claudia Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield:
Almond, 1985) 207.
6Rylaarsdam, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon (Layman's Bible Commentary;
Richmond: John Knox, 1964) 48. G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1965) 320; B. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979) 79, 555 (Childs says, "There is no significant ordering of the individual proverbs
into larger groups" [p. 555]); Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York:
Harper & Row, 1965) 473. B. W. Kovacs ("Sociological-Structural Constraints" [Ph.D. diss.,
Vanderbilt University, 1978] 289-90) notes McKane's rejection of collectional ideas proposed by
U. Skladny (Die altesten Spruchsammlungen in Israel [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1962] 7-10). J. L. Crenshaw comments that there is no principle of arrangement. Although he
is well aware of proverbial connections, he does not view these as significant (Old Testament
Wisdom [Atlanta: John Knox, 1981] 73). See also H. Ranston, The Old Testament Wisdom Books
and Their Teaching (London: Epworth, 1930) 32.
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 209
analyzed in three directions. First, the pair was examined to discover what
techniques were used to bind the two sentences. The levels used in estab-
lishing such cohesion may broadly be described as phonetic, syntactic,
semantic, rhetorical, pragmatic, and thematic. Second, once it was shown
that the two sentences were cohesive, then divergences or variational
features were noticed. Third, the adjoining verses, before and after the pair,
were scrutinized to see if the two bonded sayings were part of a larger cluster
or if the pair stood by itself as a separate unit.
It is hoped that, when the regularity of bonding features and the tight-
ness of the pairs are seen, it will be clear that such sentential pairing was not
just random but was editorially intentional. The pairs reveal how the collec-
tors worked with proverbial materials and reflect the theological tendenz and
literary sensitivity of the collectors. Such artistic canonical shaping should
not be ignored, for the regularity of linguistic form implies that meaning is
just around the corner.
How frequent are the pairs in Proverbs 10-29? Sixty-two examples were
discovered and analyzed, which account for 124 verses out of a total of 595
(21 % of the verses manifest this pairing feature).7 Many other bonded units
were also observed in the initial analysis: (1) triads [23:26-28; 24:10-12; et
aI.]; (2) detached pairs [10:8/10; 16:32/17:1; 17:26/18:5; 19:1/18:23; et al.];
(3) pair plus one detached [15:1-2, 4; 15:8-9, 11; 20:16-17, 20; 20:29-30, 27;
10:25-26,23; et al.]; (4) pairs plus one [10:16-17, 18; 15:16-17, 15; 15:31-32,
30; 18:6-7, 8; 23:20-21, 19; et al.]; and (5) strings [11:9-12; 15:29-33; et al.].
Such cohesive features, because of their frequency, must not be ignored as
semiotically insignificant.
IV. Model Pairs: Five Examples
Five examples will illustrate the isolation of pairs and will highlight the
fascinating relationships and interactions within the pairs. Each pair will be
examined for patterns of equivalence and difference within the fields of
semantics, syntax, and theme.
A Semantically Cohesive Pair: Proverbs 26:4-5
Perhaps the most frequently cited proverbial pair is Proverbs 26:4-5.
:hTAxA-Mga Ol.-hv,w;Ti-NP, OTl;UaxiK; lysiK; NfaT-lxa
VynAyfeB; MkAH: hy,h;yi-NP , OTl;UaxiK; lysik; hnefE
7The following is a list of all pairs isolated in this study: 10:2-3, 4-5, 15-16, 25-26, 31-32;
11:5-6, 16-17; 12:15-16, 18-19; 13:2-3, 7-8, 21-22; 14:20-21, 26-27; 15:1-2, 8-9, 13-14, 16-17,
20-21; 16:12-13, 18-19; 17:27-28; 18:10-11, 18-19, 20-21; 19:13-14,28-29; 20:16-17; 21:25-26,
30-31; 22:22-23, 24-25, 26-27; 23:13-14, 15-16, 17-18, 20-21, 24-25; 24:1-2, 3-4, 8-9, 13-14,
19-20,21-22,28-29; 25:2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, 16-17,21-22; 26:4- 5, 18-19,20-21;
27:1-2, 3-4, 15-16, 25-26; 28:25-26; 29:2-3.
210 Journal of Biblical Literature
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Although many refer to the contrary elements exhibited in this pair, few have
observed that this type of pairing is common; hence, they miss seeing this
as a molecular compositional unit.8 This particular example is also important
because all acknowledge that the relationship between these contrary juxta-
posed sentences results in a higher level of interpretation. It is beyond the
scope of this article to develop in detail how the pairing phenomenon affects
the interpretation of each of its sentential parts, although initial suggestions
will be made.
Cohesion
Semantically, how is this pair bound together? This is an example of a
multi-catchword cohesion. The repetitional combination of NfaTa + lysiK; +
OTl;UaxiK; cannot be accounted for by random probabilities, even given the high
frequency of the wisdom vocabulary (lysiK; and lyvix<). The verb hnAfA is not
overly frequent in Proverbs. NP, occurs in the initial position both times,
further featuring the connection. Even by the word repetitions alone one is
left with a strong feeling of equivalence constituting these two sentences as
a pair.
The equivalence is varied syntactically by the presence of the prohibi-
tional negative lxa (26:4a), plus a jussive verb (NfaTa). Verse 5a drops the
negative and substitutes a simple imperative of the same verb (hnAfA), thereby
making the necessary grammatical transformations to create the resultant
contrariness.9 Syntactically, in both cases, the second person is addressed in
the first colon. Because of the predominance of elements of equivalence, the
syntactic shift in the second colon of v 5 should not be overlooked. Colon
4b continues the second person address, exposing the consequences for the
one who answers the fool as a result of violating the prohibition (26:4a).
8Crawford Toy does group it as a quatrain (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Proverbs [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904] 473). McKane, Proverbs, 596; R. N. Whybray,
The Book of Proverbs (Cambridge: University Press, 1972) 152; Dermot Cox, Proverbs with an
Introduction to Sapiential Books (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982] 216; Derek Kidner,
The Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1964) 162.
R. B. Y. Scott does a nice job tying this pair into the contradictory proverbs phenomenon:
"Marry in haste and repent at leisure"; "Happy the wooing that is not long in doing" (Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes [AB 18; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965] 159). Cf. "Haste makes waste" and "He
who hesitates is lost."
9One should not overlook the brilliant work of Noam Chomsky on grammatical transforma-
tions (Syntactic Structures [The Hague: Mouton, 1957]; idem, Studies on Semantics in Generative
Grammar [The Hague: Mouton, 1972]). See also Jeanne Herndon, A Survey of Modern
Grammars [New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970]).
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 211
Colon 5b, however, shifts syntactically to the third person, thus revealing the
interpretational key to understanding the relationship between the two
contrary sentences. Verse 5b focuses on the reactions of the fool himself by
means of the third person pronominal suffix. Thus, v 5 states that if the fool
is answered, his arrogance will be exposed and he may be moved away from
it (third person focus). K. Hoglund's analysis is insightful-in pointing out
that being wise in one's own eyes is a "state worse than being a ksyl, since
one should undertake efforts to prevent the fool from being caught in such
self-evaluation."10 But v 4 cautions that you will face a personal risk and, very possibly, you will suffer damage by offering your rebuke to him (second
person focus). The elements of semantic equivalence heighten the focus on
syntactic difference demonstrating how the dynamic relationship between
the paired sentences unlocks the interpretation of this pair's contrariness.
The theme of the proverb closely flows from the semantic/syntactic
commonalities. The common theme addressed is the decision whether or
not one should answer a fool.
Separateness
Having examined the cohesive elements semantically, syntactically, and
thematically (highlighting elements of equivalence and difference), the
question that follows is: Is it a separate independent unit? We must look at
whether it is bonded to its context and, if it is linked to a neighboring
sentence whether that connection destroys the cohesive uniqueness and
independence of the pair itself.11
Proverbs 26:3 is also about the MyliysiK; (plural). However, the frequency
of this word does not diminish the unique tightness of 26:4-5. The dominant
use of metaphor (horse and bridle) is divergent from the nonmetaphorical
expression of 26:4-5. The thematic focus on answering a fool is also missing.
Proverbs 26:6 again involves the lysiK;, although its positioning (last)
does not link well with the common first colon position in 26:4-5. The
double metaphor in 26:6a (cutting off one's feet and drinking violence) is
quite dissimilar from the nonmetaphorical pair (26:4-5) but very similar to
26:7, which also links a leg metaphor and a fool. Using the fool as a messenger is quite different thematically from answering him. The fool is the common topic of discussion, loosely linking 26:3-12 into a larger cluster of which this pair (26:4-5) is one component. Thus, syntactically, semantically,
10Hoglund, "The Fool and the Wise in Dialogue," in The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom
and the Psalms in honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. (ed. K. Hoglund et al.; JSOTSup 58;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 168.
11See R. van Leeuwen, “The Problem of Literary Context in Proverbs 25-27: Structures,
Poetics, and Semantics" (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael's College, Toronto, 1984) for a
brilliant treatment of cohesive features in Proverbs 25-27.
212 Journal of Biblical Literature
and thematically Proverbs 26:4-5 stands as a pair loosely linked into a
larger cluster.
A Syntactically Cohesive Pair: Proverbs 15:8-9
Proverbs 15:8-9 is a very tight pair with stimulating semantic and
syntactic features.
:OnOcr; MyriwAy; tl.apit;U hvAhy; tbafEOT MyfiwAr; Hbaz,
:bhAx<y, hqAdAc; FDeram;U fwArA j`r,D, hvAhy; tbafEOT
The LORD detests the sacrifice of the wicked,
but the prayer of the upright pleases him.
The LORD detests the way of the wicked,
but he loves those who pursue righteousness.
Cohesion
Semantically, this pair has a multi-catchword cohesion. Not only are
both sentences Yahweh sayings, but both also contain the noun phrase
hvAhy; tbafEOT, which is rare in this collection of Proverbs. Notice the positional variation of the noun phrase. In v 8a it is second, whereas in v 9a
it is in the initial position. The repetition of fwArA, in v 8a and v 9a results in three out of the four words in the first colon being shared. This is rare, even though fwArA, is a high-frequency word. Parallels are found also between the second cola. The winning of Yahweh's delight (v 8b: OnOcr;; + 3d masc. sg.
suffix) is parallel to the statement in which Yahweh's love is expressed to the one pursuing righteousness (v 9b: bhAx<y,, 3d masc. sg. V). The common word
pairs, NOcrA (v 8b) / bhAxA (v 9b) and rwAyA (v 8b) / hqAdAc; (v 9b), add to the sense of cohesion between the two verses. Thus, although the bond between the second cola is not as repetitionally tight as between the first cola, the second cola do manifest parallelistic bonding. The cumulative effect of the semantic component is a clear pairing.
The syntactic relationships further enhance the cohesion of this pair.
Both first cola are verbless clauses and have the shared noun phrase
hvAhy; tbafEOT as the subject complement. In both first cola, the subject is a
two-unit noun phrase that constructs an item with the character quality of
the one possessing it (v 8a: Hbz, [item] + MyfiwAr; [character]/v 9a j`r,d,
[item] + fwArA [character]). Whereas v 8a maintains isomorphic syntactical
relationships with its mate (v 8a/v 9a; verbless clause with 2 two-unit noun
phrases), v 8b is at variance with the syntax of v 9b. Looking deeper than the
surface syntax, however, one finds in both v 8b and v 9b a pronominalizing
of the subject--both having reference back to Yahweh in the first cola. The
predication takes place through the subject complement in v 8b, which
indicates God's pleasure over the prayers of the upright. In v 9b this same
type of approval (God's love) is predicated by means of an active verb. Thus,
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 213
the two proverbs are parallel on a deep level while the surface grammar
(noun versus verb) is different but transformationally related. Using M.
O'Connor's syntactic constraint analysis, both verses have the same 0 2 4//0
2 3 colonic movement, which is common in the proverbial sentences.12
Thematically both sentences address what pleases/displeases Yahweh.
This topic is rather rare in this collection. Verse 8 is varied by the addition
of cultic terms (sacrifice and prayer). Verse 9 employs the wisdom terms j`r,D,
and JDeram;. Though the two proverbs may come from quite different original
settings, they are beautifully mated on semantic, syntactic, and thematic
levels without losing the integrity and independence of the individual
sentences. Thus, this pair focuses one's attention on the depths of Yahweh's
evaluation, which looks beyond mere isolated cultic acts (sacrifice/prayer) to
the larger direction (wicked/righteous) of one's life. Thus, there may be an
apparent behavioral contradiction between a wicked one who offers a
sacrifice and the consistently evil way in which the wicked one goes through
life. In both cases, however, Yahweh's response is the same. Yahweh, the wise king, makes no mistakes; he is never fooled, so his evaluations of a person's actions (detests/loves) are to be feared and trusted.
Separateness
Now that it has been demonstrated that these two proverbs are clearly
and strongly bonded together, do they stand alone as a pair or are they part
of a larger string?
Prov 15:7 is loaded with high-frequency words characteristic of wisdom
(ytep;Wi/ ble, MymikAHE / MyliysiK;), yet none of these words occurs in this pair
(15:8-9). Similarly, the verbal syntax is dissimilar from the verbless clauses
in v 8a/b and v 9a. The theme (the spreading of knowledge by wise/fools)
obviously does not connect directly with the theme of pleasing Yahweh. The
pair 15:8-9 is not connected to 15:7.
This pair is also separate from 15:10. Although j`r,D, (v 9a) may be seen
as a parallel to Hraxo (v 10a), these are high-frequency words and are used in
quite different settings in the two verses. Similarly, hating (v 10b) and loving
(v 9b) are a normal pair but the use is so divergent that it does not disrupt
the unity of 15:8-9. Although vv 10b and 9b are syntactically similar, v 10a
is quite different. Thematically, 15:10 addresses the issues of the reception
of and the reaction to discipline in normal wisdom terms with no reference
to Yahweh. It is thematically divergent, although according to 15:11 Yahweh
is the one cognizant of persons' hearts and the stern consequences awaiting
those who leave the path. Thus, there may be a cause/effect relationship
between the 15:8-9 pair and 15:10-11. Prov 15:10 does not disturb the
uniqueness and ability of the 15:8-9 pair to stand as a unit of composition.
12O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 138.
214 Journal of Biblical Literature
A Non-catchword Pair: Proverbs 10:15-16
When noting the structural connections between the sentences, many
have used solely the catchword phenomenon to indicate the rather loose and
meaningless way in which the proverbial patches are stitched together.13 Prov
10:15-16 is a good example of a non-catchword proverbial pair.
:MwAyre Myl.iD tTaHim; Oz.fu tyar;qi rywIfA NOh
:txF.AHl; fwArA txaUbT; Myy.iHl; qyDica tl.afuP;
The wealth of the rich is their fortified city,
but poverty is the ruin of the poor.
The wages of the righteous bring them life,
but the income of the wicked brings them punishment.
Cohesion
Semantically, there is not a single word that is repeated in the sentences
of this pair. This difference is heightened by the presence of high-frequency
words (qyDica; fwArA). Moreover, the abundance of economic terms could have
led to a natural repetition (NOh, rywifA, Myl.iDa, wyre, hl.AfuP;, haAUbT;). The
vocabulary seems to move from the realm of general economic status (10:15)
to more specific terms for wages/income (10:16), which then are modified by
moral terms (qyDica/ fwArA). Although there are no catchword repetitions, there
are strong economic word parallels.
Syntactically, both v 15a/b and v 16a/b are verbless clauses. In all four
cases the subjects are noun phrases composed of an item (wealth-related)
plus the one possessing it (NP = N:It + N[Adj]:Pos). In v 15 the possessors
are characterized by their economic status (rywifA / Myl.iDa), but in v 16 the
possessors are characterized by their moral character (fwArA / qyDica). In both
verses there are strong isomorphic syntactic relationships between the
members of the paralleled cola both on surface and deep structure levels.
The syntactic relationships of v 10:15a and v 10:15b are particularly interest-
ing in the crossover manner in which the pronominal suffixes are used. Verse
16 is a perfectly-formed syntactic isomorphism. The syntactic differences are
the use of pronominal suffixes in v 15 and the use of prepositional phrases
in v 16.
13R. E. Murphy has the best example of this method (Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth,
Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981)). Others have attempted a
more macroscopic structural unity of the whole of Proverbs 10-29 (see P. W. Skehan, Studies
in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom [CBQMS 1; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1971]
and a rather inane supporting article by Stephen Brown ["Structured Parallelism in the Compo-
sition and Formation of Canonical Books: A Rhetorical Critical Analysis of Proverbs 10:1-22:16,"
Paper presented at the Thirty-Fourth Annual National Meeting of the Evangelical Theological
Society, 1982)). G. Bostrom (Paronomasi I Den Aldre Hebreiska Maschallitteraturen: Med Sarskild Hansyn Till Proverbia [Lund: Gleerup, 1928)) and others have done better.
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 215
This is a case in which theme plays a major role. Both are clearly
economic in nature--which the semantic level established just by the rich
treasury of economic terms used. There is a very strong similarity in the
common theme of the benefits/problems of wealth. In both cases there is a
positive evaluation of some aspect of wealth followed by a negative evalua-
tion. Verse 15 comments on the inherent benefits of wealth's ability to bring
security to the wealthy and on the plight of being poor. Lest one weigh
economic matters too heavily, v 16 is juxtaposed to bring ones thinking about
wealth back into the moral realm. Wealth without morality is death. Because
of the nexus of these two verses, one can see the necessity of wealth's being
accompanied by righteousness if one is to secure one's existence. Thus,
recognizing the pair as a collectional literary unit that is hermeneutically
interactive leads to a higher lever of interpretation and recognition of
canonical intent.
Separateness
Verses 13 and 14 are about the use of the tongue. There is some vocab-
ulary overlap with 10:15-16 in hTAHim;. The verbal clauses in both v 13 and v 14 contrast with the verbless clauses in the 10:15-16 pair. Thus, there is a slight connection to the preceding verses.
Another catchword does occur in 10:17, as Murphy well notes.14 Clearly
one of the isomorphic syntactic structures that welds 10:16 together is the
prepositional phrase featuring l + noun of life/destruction. When 10:17 picks
up the exact prepositional phrase, surely it is not just coincidental. So 10:17
is linked to 10:16 through a catchword, whereas there is no such bond
between 10:15 and 10:16. Is this pair, then, really a triad or a string?15 The
real distance between the themes of 10:15-16 and 10:17 should be noticed.
Verse 17 employs instructional wisdom vocabulary regarding the benefits of
keeping rsAUm and the problems of forsaking tHakaOT. This is standard didactic language and has no direct connection to the economic considerations of the preceding pair. Thus, although there is a catchword linking the 10:15-16 pair to what follows, it does not disturb the closeness of the pair. Verse 17 itself appears to be a transitional verse back to the theme of speech (10:18-21; cf. 10:13-14).
A Positionally Cohesive Pair: Proverbs 13:21-22
Prov 13:21-22 provides an example of the importance of position in
sentential pairing.
14Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 64. Murphy's comments on Proverbs 10ff. beautifully
highlight many of these thematic and catchword connections (pp. 68ff.).
15The demonstration of how Prov 10:1-11:1 is crafted together as a literary unit has been
proved elsewhere; see Ted Hildebrandt, "Proverbial Poetry: Its Setting and Syntax" (Th.D. diss.,
Grace Theological Seminary, 1985).
216 Journal of Biblical Literature
:bOF-Ml.,way; MyqiyDica-tx,v; hfArA JDeraT; MyxiF.AAHa
:xFeOH lyHe qyDicala NUpcAv; MynibA-yneB; lyHin;ya bOF
Misfortune pursues sinners,
but prosperity is the reward of the righteous.
A good man leaves an inheritance for his children's children,
but a sinner's wealth is stored up for the righteous.
Cohesion
Semantically, how are these two verses related? Verse 21 starts with the
same root word with which v 22 ends (MyxiF.AHa / xFeOH). Because of the
frequency of this root, the repetition by itself would not indicate any strong
sense of cohesion. However, when the end of v 21 (bOF) and the beginning
of v 22 have exactly the same word, a very interesting repetitional chiasm
occurs (MyxiFAHa + bOF // bOF + xFeOH). It appears that the beginnings and
endings are key positions for such pairing.
Though the word roots themselves are repeated, they are varied mor-
phologically (MyxiF.AHa / xFeOH). Likewise, bOF in v 2lb refers to prosperity,
while in v 22a it means one's good character. This semantic difference--using
repetition as a means of variation--calls the reader to sharper discernment.16
That the repetition is accompanied by morphological variation (plural/singu-
lar) should not be overlooked.
The theme of prosperity/misfortune pursuing the righteous/sinner is
very frequent in this collection. Verse 22 has the righteous attaining material
benefits and even dispossessing the sinner.
Syntactically, v 21a contains an object noun which is an experiencer +
an active verb + a subject abstract noun which is the agent (Obj:N:Experi-
encer + V:Active + Subj:N:Agent). Isomorphically, v 21b also has the same
basic syntactic structure in the same order. In v 22a there is a subject noun
which is the agent + an active verb + an object noun phrase which
experiences the action of the verb (Subj:N:Agent + V:Active + Obj:NP:
Experiencer). Notice that the reversal of syntactic ordering, however, gives
bOF its initial position. Verse 22b begins with a predicating passive participle + a prepositional phrase which has the experiencer (qyDica) + a subject noun phrase which is the patient. Placing the subject last makes the inclusio with the xFH root in v 21a. Prov 13:21-22 is a pair that highlights the features of the first and last positions and the interactive relationships and variations semantically which can take place even in repetitional catchwords.
Separateness
The preceding verse (13:20) thematically focuses on the character-
shaping impact of those one associates with. It is dominated by wisdom
16Susan R. Suleiman, "Redundancy and the 'Readable' Text," Poetics Today 1.3 (1980) 119-42.
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 217
terms, with no real connection to the character/consequence theme of the
following pair. Syntactically it is diverse and semantically there are no
catchwords or parallels.
Although 13:23 is about economics, which could link it to 13:22, the
differences demonstrate that it does not weaken the tightness of the 13:21-22
pair. There are no common catchwords, and the images of eating and a field
are distant from the more economically oriented terms used in v 22. Syntac-
cally they are also diverse.
Thus, 13:21-22 is a pair that is connected by means of significant
catchwords. The nexus, however, is due more to positional significance than
shared semantic meaning of the repeated words.
A Thematically/Syntactically Tight Pair: Proverbs 15:1-2
This final example, which will be commented on briefly, was picked
largely because of the absence of a catchword or direct semantic parallels
between word units. The connection takes place on the levels of syntax and
message/theme.
:JxA-hl,fEya bc,f,-rbad;U hmAHe bywiyA j`r.a-hn,fEma
:tl,U,x, fayBiya Myliysik; ypiU tfaDA byFyTe MymikAHE NOwl;
A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge,
but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
Cohesion
Clearly in 15:1-2 there are no shared catchwords, even with the
presence of high-frequency words (MymiKAHE, MyliysiK;, ypi, NOwl;, dbad;, hmAHe).
Obviously there are semantic relationships, but the point here is that they
are not directly on the word level.
Thematically, these two verses stand as a unit. Both address the power
of speech. The first focuses on the ability of speech to diffuse/stir up anger
and the second on its ability to distribute wisdom/folly. The tremendous
impact of words is the shared theme. The second verse fronts the speech
organ (ypi / NOwl;), while the first verse links the verbal expression (hn,fEma /
rbad;) to character qualities (j`ra. / bc,f,), which determine the impact and
direction which that powerful oral expression will take.
Syntactically, it is interesting that the two sentences are isomorphic.
Recent discussions on parallelism have shown that restricting parallelism to
semantic categories (synonymous, antithetic, synthetic, emblematic) is
myopic. Parallelism also is syntactic in nature and interesting plays may be
seen when deep and surface grammatical variations and equivalences are
218 Journal of Biblical Literature
discovered.17 The question is: Are there syntactical parallels that bind the two
sentences together? Both can be classified by O'Connor's constraint system
as 1 3 4, which occurs in 20.9 percent of the cola in Proverbs 10-15. It should
be observed, however, that the 1 3 4 configuration in the "b" colon is quite
rare (18 times in Proverbs 10-15 as opposed to 59 times in the frontal
position). Thus, to have both verses with the 1 3 4 configuration in both "a"
and "b" cola is rare. The syntactic linkage manifests the same formulas that
isomorphically bind the cola of each sentence together and are shared
between the verses (Subj:NP [N + Qual] + Verb + Obj:N). One should not
fail to notice the repetition of hiphil imperfect in all four cola. These features all add to the feeling of sameness due to a shared syntactic architecture.
Separateness
The preceding verse (14:35) is about a servant's relationship to the king
(delight/wrath). There are no catchwords in common, and the theme and
syntax are diverse. Similarly, the following verse (15:3) is a Yahweh-saying
addressing the issue of his omniscience. There are no repetitional words, and
the theme and syntax (nonverbal versus verbal) are divergent.
Thus, 15:1-2 stands as a non-catchword pair. Nevertheless, it is bound
because of theme and syntax. It stands by itself and shows that bonding takes
place through a wider variety of means than is normally acknowledged. Even
the categories of semantics, syntax, and theme may be expanded
profitably--looking at phonetic linking patterns and structural bonding using
proverbial forms (e.g., 15:16-17).
Summary
These five examples have been chosen from many others in an attempt
to demonstrate a possible technique for isolating such pairs and for showing
the interactive categories used by the editors in building their collections.
What such categories of construction mean for interpretation is a subject
open for exploration. The goal of this study is simply to establish that binding
of individual sentences into pairs is a discrete level of composition that
should not be ignored in analysis.
17Perhaps the most insightful and comprehensive treatment yet produced is O'Connor's
Hebrew Verse Structure. The most concise and comprehensible has been Adele Berlin's The
Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Other excellent
works include Stephen Geller, Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry (HSM 20; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1979); Wilfred Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques
(Sheffield: JSOT: 1984); E. Greenstein, "How Does Parallelism Mean?" in A Sense of Text
JQRSup; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982). Also see the writer's dissertation, which
correlated syntactic deep and surface structural relationships in the context of bi-colonic
parallelism (Hildebrandt, "Proverbial Poetry: Its Setting and Syntax").
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 219
V. Pairing Cohesional Principles
Having analyzed 124 verses that are bound into 62 pairs, what principles
of cohesion were discovered? What interesting patterns emerge on the levels
of semantics, syntax, and theme?
Semantic Cohesion
Several principles of semantic cohesion were observed. First, and
perhaps the most frequent and easily recognized, were catchword repeti-
tions. Such repetitions were often of high-frequency words.18 More significant
for this study was the occurrence of lower-frequency catchwords, making
coincidence a rather unlikely explanation.19 In Prov 26:20-21, for example,
there is a shared use of the low-frequency words Mycife and wxe.
Multi-catchword parallels were perhaps the strongest argument for the
pairing phenomenon. This category of semantic identity virtually eliminates
the possibility of collectional coincidence. Numerous cases of multi-
catchwords were found (e.g., 14:26-27; 15:8-9; 23:13-14; 23:24-25; 26:4-5;
26:20-21).
Besides these obvious repetitions, cohesion in sentential pairs may also
take the form of parallel words from common word pairs characterized by
large areas of semantic overlap or by frequent pairing in the poetic corpus.20
Broader parallels may also exist, such as the use of Elohim in 25:2 and MyimawA
in 25:3, which is normally associated with Elohim (e.g., 24:3-4; 25:6-7).
So far the discussion has centered on the element of semantic sameness
linking the pairs together. How are those cohesional, semantically shared
elements varied? What processes of variation of the catchwords may be
18Examples of wisdom vocabulary and their use/misuse in attempts to find wisdom influence
outside of the wisdom corpus can be found in Whybray, Intellectual Tradition, 124-42, or in
R. B. Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom (New York: Macmillan, 1971) 121-22. H. Deusberg and I.
Fransen offer an obese list with 200 words, which includes words that cannot be said to be
characteristic of wisdom (e.g., dabar;’ elohim, et al.) (Les scribes inspires: Introduction aux livres
Sapientiaux de la Bible [Belgium: Editions de Maredsous, 1966] 934-35). In the pairs, the follow-
ing catchwords were found: righteous (10:2-3), wicked (10:2-3), sinner (13:21-22), fool (12:15-
16), friend (14:20-21), king (16:12-13), woman (19:13-14), mouth (10:31-32), heart (15:13-14),
desire (21:25-26), Yahweh (21:30; 15:8-9), happy (23:24-25; 29:2-3; 15:20-21), and strife
(18:18-19). Murphy's Wisdom Literature beautifully exposes this feature in the proverbial
sentence literature.
19E.g., abomination (15:8-9), strong (18:10-11), imbibe (23:20-21), separate (25:4-5), gold
(25:11-12), wood (26:20-21), trust (28:25-26), searching (25:2-3), and fruit (18:20-21).
20 E.g., wealth/wages/income (10:15-16), tongue/lips/mouth (10:31-32), grace/lovingkindness
(11:16-17), hatred/despise (14:20-21), love/kindness (14:20-21), love/delight (15:8-9), lacking
judgment/fool (15:20-21), pride/haughty (16:18-19, from the same root), happy/rejoice (23:15-16),
heart/inner parts (23:15-16), no (lxa) / no (xlo) (23:17-18), house/rooms (24:3-4), wisdom/under-
standing/knowledge (24:3-4), or kings/nobles (25:6-7).
220 Journal of Biblical Literature
detected? Simple morphological variation may occur (fwAr, [sg. ]/[Pl.] 10:2-3).
Linking words may be contrasted by constructing them with opposites.
Notice 10:31-32, where hp, is constructed with the qyDica in 10:31a, but in
10:32b it is constructed with the MyfiwAr; (cf. 11:5-6 although less contrastive;
27:1-2; 12:18-19; 15:13-14). Another variational technique is the use of the
same word but with different components of its meaning (see the discussion
above on 13:21-22). The paralleling of words, rather than catchword repeti-
tion, is another variational technique. In 17:27-28, for instance, one sentence
uses a mouth part, whereas the other sentence uses the product of the mouth
(vyrAmAxE). Paralleled words may come from an equivalent root word but be
varied syntactically. For example, the noun form of a word may parallel the
verbal form of the same word root (16:18-19; 15:20-21; 13:7-8; 10:31-32).
Finally, the deep syntactic role of catchwords in the sentences may be very
diverse. The role of the bxA in 19:13-14 is quite diverse. In 19:13 he partici-
pates in receiving the brunt of his son's folly, whereas in 19:14 he is the agent
who gives an inheritance to his children. Similarly, in 19:28 the reference is
to the false witness who CyliyA at justice (verb) and in v 29 the Mycile (noun)
receives the punishment of justice.
In some cases the semantic parallels on the word level may be quite
weak or nonexistent (15:1-2; 17:27-28; 21:30-31; 22:22-23; 22:24-25;
24:13-14, 17-18, 21-22, 28-29; 26:18-19; 27:3-4, 15-16). Sometimes the
linking may take place through a larger rhetorical device or wisdom form, as
in the frequent cases of admonitional pairs, which are marked by the formula
lxa + prohibition, yKi + explanation (e.g., 24:1-2, 15-16, 19-20; 22:24-25;
23:18-19, 20-21, et al.). Two better-than proverbs are linked in 15:16-17 and
two simile proverbs in 10:25-26. Phonetic features seldom come into play
but may be present in 14:26-27 (also 14:20-21). Finally, there may be seman-
tically/syntactically mixed links. The repeated negative xlo + hiphil verb is
a semantic/syntactic link in the 10:2-3 pair (see 24:28-29).
The placement of repeated terms is also significant in several pairs.
There is a strong tendency to place catchwords in initial positions of the first
cola of each sentence (10:2-3, 25-26; 11:5-6; 15:13-14; 16:12; 23:24; 25:4;
27:1). There may be linking in the initial positions of both second cola (15:16;
25:16-17). Occasionally the catchword is in the initial position of the first
colon of the first sentence and in the first word in the second colon of the
second sentence (18:19-20; 10:31-32). Other times there may be linking of
the initial position in the second colon of the first sentence and the first colon
of the second sentence (28:25-26). In 14:26-27, hvAhy; txar;yi is put in the
initial position both times although varied in v 26 by the addition of the
preposition. More complex positional relationships can be seen in Prov
23:17-18; 13:21-22; 18:20-21; 24:8-9; and 25:6-7. An inclusio occurs when
the beginning initial position (MyxiF.AHa, 13:21a) links to the end of the second
sentence second colon (xFeOH, 13:22b). A similar chiastic effect is seen in
23:17-18, where the initial position links tail (v 17b) to head (v 18a) and head
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 221
23:17-18; 13:21-22; 18:20-21; 24:8-9; and 25:6-7. An inclusio occurs when
the beginning initial position (MyxiF.AHa, 13:21a) links to the end of the second
sentence second colon (xFeOH, 13:22b). A similar chiastic effect is seen in
23:17-18, where the initial position links tail (v 17b) to head (v 18a) and head
(v 17a) to the final position of the tail (v 18b). Last, the final position is
sometimes used to link the sentences (head to tail, both final, 25:6-7). Thus,
colonic endings and especially the initial positions are significant in the com-
positional process of linking paired sentences.
Syntactic Cohesion
Syntactically, how may sentences be bound into pairs? It should be
acknowledged that the syntactic linking is not as conclusive as the semantic
and thematic aspects. Nevertheless, it has been proved that syntactic linking
was utilized by the sage as he constructed the syntactically parallelistic bi-
colon as well as when he juxtaposed the sentences into pairs (see Prov 15:1f.;
26:4f.; 15:8f. above). Numerous pairs showed little or no syntactic paralleling
(e.g., 15:20-21; 18:20-21; 21:30-31; 22:22-23; 23:17-18; 25:2-3; 26:18-19;
27:1-2; 28:25-26; 29:2-3). Even though there may be surface syntactic
variation, there may be deep grammatical relationships which are transfor-
mationally related (see above on 26:4-5). In the second cola of Prov 15:8 and
9, for example, there is shared deep pronominal back-referencing to Yahweh,
but it is accomplished by means of two different surface syntactic means. In
v 8b it is through a pronominal suffix attached to a noun (OnOcr;), whereas in
v 9b the back-referencing takes place through the third person of the verb
(bhAx<y,).
The two strongest means of syntactic bonding are direct dependence
and linking particles (e.g., NP, in 24:17-18; NKe 24:13-14; and U 24:3-4). In Prov
22:24-25, the 3d masc. sg. pronominal suffix on vtAHor;xo in v 25a points back
to the JxA lfaBa man of v 24. Thus, these sentences are dependent syntactically and must be taken as a pair because the second verse cannot stand by itself. This dependence phenomenon occurs in many of the paired admonitions (see 22:26-27; 23:13-14; 24:1-2, 21-22; 25:6-7, although not exclusively, e.g., 21:25-26). The back-referencing to the previous verse may occur by a pronominal suffix (22:27; 23:14; 24:22), by the person of the verb (22:27; 25:7), or by both methods (24:2).
Shared syntactic units are quite common and add to the feeling of
cohesion without demanding it. The shared medial waw in the first colon is
rather rare in these collections and the fact that two juxtaposed sentences
exhibit this same feature strongly suggests intentional pairing (10:25a/26a;
27:3a/4a; and 15:16b/17a). The heavy use of prepositions (26:20-21) and a
common preposition in conjunction with a verb (23:13-14) also give the
feeling of sameness.
Perhaps the most frequent syntactic unit that is shared as a result of the
high frequency of its usage is the two-unit noun phrase. Prov 12:18-19 has a
rather normal, thrice-repeated, parallel noun phrase construction composed
of a mouth part (tongue/lips/tongue) + a character quality (wise/true/false).
Here, as in 16:12-13, the shared noun phrase may repeat one catchword and
222 Journal of Biblical Literature
link it to another that is antithetical (delight of kings/abomination of kings;
10:31-32). In 16:12-13 the morphological repetition of the plural MykilAm;
should not be overlooked (cf. 11:5-6; 15:13- 14). Antithesis is achieved in
Prov 10:31-32 by constructing shared words with antithetical mates in
parallel noun phrases (qyDica-yPi / MyfiwAr;-ypi). In 15:8-9, however, the com-
mon noun phrases are varied morphologically (MyfiwAr; Hbaz, [pl.]/; fwArA j`r,D,,
[sg.]). There need not be a word repetition to link the two similarly con-
structed noun phrases. In Prov 15:1-2, the j`r.a-hn,fEma and MymikAHE NOwl are
parallel noun phrases without a repeated catchword (cf. 10:15-16). Because
of the prevalence of NP forms in the sentential collections, such phenomena
bind, but may not be used as conclusive proof.
Syntactic bonding on the clause level strengthens the feeling of
coherence where multiple syntactical relationships are held in common.
Perhaps the most interesting example is in Prov 24:3-4. Not only are the
semantic parallels and developments related, but the isomorphic syntactic
structure between the two sentences is both rare and remarkably close. Verse
3a has the following syntactic formula Mod:PrepP (Prep + N) + V:Niphal
+ S:N. Several things are rather rare in this colon. First, there are no noun
phrases in this first colon verbal clause. Second, the use of the Niphal verb
with the subject trailing and prepositional phrase fronted is unusual. It is
interesting that v 4a has the exact same formula, even to the point of having
a niphal verb and the lack of two-unit noun phrases. Other examples of
isomorphic/homomorphic syntactic bonding between paired sentences may
be seen in Prov 15:1-2; 10:31-32; 13:21a/22a; and 25:16b/17b. Sometimes the connection may be simpler, as in 10:2-3 where the initial xlo + verb:hiphil
links the two sentences. Quite often there are pairs with matching verbless
clauses (14:26-27; 10:15-16; 15:8-9; 18:10-11) where the two-unit noun
phrases appear paralleled. Because of the frequency of nonverbal clauses in
these collections, too much should not be made of this point; but, again, it
should not be ignored.
Syntax plays a unique role in giving the reader a feeling of sameness even
when the words are diverse. Because of the recent discovery and develop-
ment of the role of syntactic parallelism in bonding the poetic bi-colon
together, it is not unreasonable to have found that this method is also
employed to a limited extent in bonding sentential pairs.
Thematic Cohesion
Theme will be explored briefly using the categories that Alan Dundes
has made in attempting to define a proverb in modern folklore studies.21 A
21Dundes, "On the Structure of the Proverb," Proverbium 25 (1975) 961-73, reprinted in
Wolfgang Mieder and Alan Dundes, The Wisdom of Many: Essays on the Proverb (New York:
Garland, 1981) 43-64. This volume on paremiology is indispensable to anyone attempting to
unlock the nature and meaning of proverbial material. See also Wolfgang Mieder, International
Hildebrandt: Proverbial Pairs 223
proverbial sentence is composed of a topic and comment. It also has a
message, and often an image is used. Thus, theme will be looked at from
these four perspectives (topic/comment/message/image).
The topics of sentential pairs may be very close (11:5-6, MymiTA tqad;ci /
MyriwAy; tqad;ci [cf. 21:25-26, where the topics are identical]) or more distant
(15:1-2, j`r.a-hn,fEma / MymikAHE NOwl; cf. 12:18). Sometimes the topics may be
antithetically related (16:12-13, MykilAm; tbafEOT/MikilAm; NOcr;) or developmen-
tal (13:21-22, bOF / xFeOH lyHe). Sometimes there may be no relationship
between the topics (10:2-3, 31 fwar, tOrc;Ox / hvAhy;, cf. 15:8-9).
The comments within the pairs may also be parallel. Likewise, they vary
in closeness from repetitional equivalence (15:8-9, hvAhy; tbafEOT) to metaphor/
literal (10:15-16, Oz.fu tvar;qi/ Myy.Ha), to a broader relationship (13:2-3, bOF/
Owp;na rmewo). As with the topics, sometimes paired comments may use anti-
thetical relationships (16:12-13, MykilAm; tbafEOT / MykilAm; NOcr;). The topics may be very similar while the comments are diverse (12:18-19, Topics: speech/speech; Comments: hurt/healing//longevity/vanishing) or the comments may be close with the topics somewhat diverse (15:8-9, Comments: abomination to Yahweh/abomination to Yahweh; Topics: wicked's sacrifice/wicked's way).
The images used in the pairs are seldom paralleled (10:15-16; 12:18-19;
13:2-3, although there are rare exceptions, 18:10-11, 20-21). Sometimes,
however, simply the fact that both juxtaposed proverbs use a metaphor/simile
binds them together (10:25-26; 14:26-27; 27:15-16) even though the images
are diverse. In one instance a metaphor was used in the pair, but in a
developmental manner (24:3-4, build house/fill room). When images are
used, quite frequently there is a movement from a metaphorical image to the
reality or application being discussed (25:4-5; 24:13-14; 25:16-17, not eating
too much honey/not visiting friends too long).
The message, or the deep movement between the topic and comment,
is often related in the proverbial pairs. Proverbs 11:5-6 shares the common
message that righteousness leads to success and wickedness to destruction.
The message relationship may be developmental, as in 10:15-16. Verse 15
states that wealth is better than poverty, and v 16 develops the idea by
showing that righteousness is better than wealth-thereby highlighting the
character of the one possessing the wealth as the key factor. Much more
could be done in terms of how the actual message is linguistically developed,
but these examples demonstrate that theme (topic/comment/image/message)
is used to tie proverbial pairs together.
VI. Conclusion
The sage attempted to order his world into poetically constructed
proverbial sentences by isolating and pulling the momentary threads of
Proverb Scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography (New York: Garland. 1982) for a 527-page
annotated bibliography on international paremiological studies.
224 Journal of Biblical Literature
existence from the tapestry of Israelite society and framing them in
Yahwistically embroidered formal wisdom structures. He attempted to clarify
the complex confusion of the particulars of experience by highlighting life's
order through patterned universals. He crafted his perceptions and diverse
experiences into linguistic paradigms--the very literary form of which
reflected how he perceived the essential elements of life. Great linguistic/
poetic care was taken as he crafted his words into atomic proverbial bi-cola.
The sages then, with the same care, gathered those individual sentences into
collections. It is the crafting of the collectional level that may well reflect how
the sage moved from the unitary, digital elements of his existence into the
complex, analog flow of life. It has been suggested that as the transition is
made from the atomistic, proverbial sentence to the proverbial collection, the
proverbial pair stands as one molecular element at the collectional level. To
ignore higher levels of formal composition is to ignore meaning on that level.
It has been shown that the relationships between paired sentences are
complex and fascinating. Five examples out of 62 pairs (Prov 26:4-5; 15:8-9;
10:16-17; 13:21-22; 15:1-2) were proffered, as proof both that such a pairing
phenomenon exists and that the pairs are as beautifully crafted as the
individual sentences themselves. Such artistry goes far beyond the simple
catchword technique. It has been shown also that the pairs stand by
themselves as discrete units of composition.
The principles employed by the collectors were exposed under the
categories of semantics, syntax, and theme. Semantically, numerous exam-
ples of high frequency, low frequency and multiple catchwording eliminated
the disclaimer that such connections were just coincidental or unintentional.
Parallel words, with morphological or semantic variation, and positional
significance disclosed the intricate beauty of the pairs. Syntax was another
method by which a feeling of cohesion in the paired sentences was achieved.
While many pairs showed no syntactic cohesion, many did through the
bonding of syntactic dependence or linking particles. Shared syntactic units
--especially the two-unit noun phrase, medial waw, and heavy use of prepo-
sitions--added to the feeling of sameness. On the clause level, frequently
there were homomorphic/isomorphic syntactic parallels between the respec-
tive paired cola. Thematic bonding was briefly analyzed and interrelation-
ships explored from the perspectives of common topics, comments, images,
and message.
This paper has demonstrated that the proverbial pair is a unit of com-
position by which the proverbial collectors welded the atomistic proverbial
sentences into larger units. The fact that such compositional units were used
suggests that the proverbial sentences should be examined from collectional
as well as sentential perspectives.