Wednesday Bible Study: Yet more drivel

I'm sorry to inflict this on you, but it just keeps going. The two-liners of Chapter 12 are either tautological, obviously false, or nonsensical. Again, the "just world" fallacy is largely pervasive, but a lot of this just says "it's good to be good, it's bad to be bad." There isn't a single useful idea in here that I can see. However, it is again noteworthy that there is an intimation of an afterlife for the righteous in the final verse. Whether this is intended metaphorically -- you'll be remembered well -- or literally is not clear. There is no explicit idea in Judaism of a reward for the righteous in the afterlife, but maybe the idea had snuck in to the culture and seeded Christian theology.

12 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
    but whoever hates correction is stupid.

² Good people obtain favor from the Lord,
    but he condemns those who devise wicked schemes.

³ No one can be established through wickedness,
    but the righteous cannot be uprooted.

⁴ A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown,
    but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.

⁵ The plans of the righteous are just,
    but the advice of the wicked is deceitful.

⁶ The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood,
    but the speech of the upright rescues them.

⁷ The wicked are overthrown and are no more,
    but the house of the righteous stands firm.

⁸ A person is praised according to their prudence,
    and one with a warped mind is despised.

⁹ Better to be a nobody and yet have a servant
    than pretend to be somebody and have no food.

¹⁰ The righteous care for the needs of their animals,
    but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

¹¹ Those who work their land will have abundant food,
    but those who chase fantasies have no sense.

¹² The wicked desire the stronghold of evildoers,
    but the root of the righteous endures.

¹³ Evildoers are trapped by their sinful talk,
    and so the innocent escape trouble.

¹⁴ From the fruit of their lips people are filled with good things,
    and the work of their hands brings them reward.

¹⁵ The way of fools seems right to them,
    but the wise listen to advice.

¹⁶ Fools show their annoyance at once,
    but the prudent overlook an insult.

¹⁷ An honest witness tells the truth,
    but a false witness tells lies.

¹⁸ The words of the reckless pierce like swords,
    but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

¹⁹ Truthful lips endure forever,
    but a lying tongue lasts only a moment.

²⁰ Deceit is in the hearts of those who plot evil,
    but those who promote peace have joy.

²¹ No harm overtakes the righteous,
    but the wicked have their fill of trouble.

²² The Lord detests lying lips,
    but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

²³ The prudent keep their knowledge to themselves,
    but a fool’s heart blurts out folly.

²⁴ Diligent hands will rule,
    but laziness ends in forced labor.

²⁵ Anxiety weighs down the heart,
    but a kind word cheers it up.

²⁶ The righteous choose their friends carefully,
    but the way of the wicked leads them astray.

²⁷ The lazy do not roast^[a] any game,
    but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt.

²⁸ In the way of righteousness there is life;
    along that path is immortality.

Footnotes

1. Proverbs 12:27 The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain.

Let me repeat myself . . .

and make this perfectly clear. A few days ago I wrote the following:

 

There are actually slightly more firearm related deaths in a given year than traffic related deaths, but most of them -- about 56% -- are suicides. The corporate media, and the public, pay little attention to this. Good data on the question is hard to come by, but based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, guns are used defensively by civilians about 70,000 times a year. That's mostly defending against property crimes, and assaults that would otherwise not likely be fatal. 

 This is a complicated question and I don't want to be glib about it, but even though I can't put a solid number on it if you have a firearm in the house it's vastly more likely to end up being used in a suicide than defending against potentially serious or fatal violence. But people don't perceive it that way because again, they're in control of the weapon. It's a bit more likely that you might use it to scare off a burglar but whether you think that's worth it for the risk of suicide is up to you. And as you know if you've been reading the news lately, there have been a lot of killings of innocent people who a homeowner perceived as a threat. That turns out to be murder and people have paid the price for it.

 

I did not make this up, it is not stupid or crazy, it is simply a fact. There are nearly 50,000 people killed by firearms each year in the United States, and more than half of them are suicides. Suicide is frequently an impulsive act and the thing about guns is that unlike other methods of attempted suicide, which often fail, they are highly effective. The reason I'm telling you this is because I'm smart, and it's true. It's true even if you don't like it. It's true even if you believe you have a constitutional right to keep a gun in your house. It's just what's called a fact. It's the truth,

 

The Doomsday technology?

John Loeffler is having a serious freakout over so-called Artificial Intelligence (a serious misnomer), but it's not just about the possible disruptive effects of the technology per se, or even mostly about that. 

I don't think Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is a bad guy, or that he has nefarious plans for Nvidia, but the most consequential villains in history are rarely evil. They just go down a terribly wrong path, and end up leaving totally forseeable, but ultimately inevitable ruin in their wake.

While the star of the show might have been Nvidia Blackwell, Nvidia's latest data center processor that will likely be bought up far faster than they can ever be produced, there were a host of other AI technologies that Nvidia is working on that will be supercharged by its new hardware. All of it will likely generate enormous profits for Nvidia and its shareholders, and while I don't give financial advice, I can say that if you're an Nvidia shareholder, you were likely thilled by Sunday's keynote presentation.

For everyone else, however, all I saw was the end of the last few glaciers on Earth and the mass displacement of people that will result from the lack of drinking water; the absolutely massive disruption to the global workforce that 'digital humans' are likely to produce; and ultimately a vision for the future that centers capital-T Technology as the ultimate end goal of human civilization rather than the 8 billion humans and counting who will have to live — and a great many will die before the end — in the world these technologies will ultimately produce with absolutely no input from any of us.

 

It turns out that Nvidia's new product, a cluster of processors called Blackwell, draws 15 Kilowatts of power, and Huang expects to sell millions of them. That would certainly make his shareholders rich, but, as Loeffler writes:

I always feared that the AI data center boom was likely going to make the looming climate catastrophe inevitable, but there was something about seeing it all presented on a platter with a smile and an excited presentation that struck me as more than just tone-deaf. It was damn near revolting.  

 

Yep. They don't care.

Sunday Sermonette: Pure Drivel

Honestly, I wouldn't inflict this on any of you or on myself but I made a pledge in the beginning to read the whole thing so that's what I'm doing. I would be willing to classify one or two of these as bon mots, or at least something that might be worth saying on just the right occasion. But it's mostly either banal or ridiculous. No, the righteous are not always rewarded and the wicked punished. (Verse 21) In fact, we learn in verse 16 that "Ruthless men gain only wealth." Well, that's what they want! 

Verse 4 is interesting. The "day of wrath" in Christian usage is judgment day. But Judaism does not generally conceive of an afterlife. If this refers to some worldly catastrophe, of course wealth is indeed often very useful. In any case, as I say, if you sort through these you will find innumerable contradictions. I expect that whoever compiled these kept a notebook and wrote down whatever he heard people say, or whatever came to mind. Possibly he asked people to offer pithy sayings. Anyway they're in no particular order and they don't cohere into any sort of consistent philosophy or narrative. Very few of these have made it into common usage.

1 The Lord detests dishonest scales,
    but accurate weights find favor with him.

² When pride comes, then comes disgrace,
    but with humility comes wisdom.

³ The integrity of the upright guides them,
    but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.

⁴ Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath,
    but righteousness delivers from death.

⁵ The righteousness of the blameless makes their paths straight,
    but the wicked are brought down by their own wickedness.

⁶ The righteousness of the upright delivers them,
    but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires.

⁷ Hopes placed in mortals die with them;
    all the promise of^[a] their power comes to nothing.

⁸ The righteous person is rescued from trouble,
    and it falls on the wicked instead.

⁹ With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors,
    but through knowledge the righteous escape.

¹⁰ When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices;
    when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.

¹¹ Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
    but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed.

¹² Whoever derides their neighbor has no sense,
    but the one who has understanding holds their tongue.

¹³ A gossip betrays a confidence,
    but a trustworthy person keeps a secret.

¹⁴ For lack of guidance a nation falls,
    but victory is won through many advisers.

¹⁵ Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer,
    but whoever refuses to shake hands in pledge is safe.

¹⁶ A kindhearted woman gains honor,
    but ruthless men gain only wealth.

¹⁷ Those who are kind benefit themselves,
    but the cruel bring ruin on themselves.

¹⁸ A wicked person earns deceptive wages,
    but the one who sows righteousness reaps a sure reward.

¹⁹ Truly the righteous attain life,
    but whoever pursues evil finds death.

²⁰ The Lord detests those whose hearts are perverse,
    but he delights in those whose ways are blameless.

²¹ Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished,
    but those who are righteous will go free.

²² Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout
    is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.

²³ The desire of the righteous ends only in good,
    but the hope of the wicked only in wrath.

²⁴ One person gives freely, yet gains even more;
    another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty.

²⁵ A generous person will prosper;
    whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.

²⁶ People curse the one who hoards grain,
    but they pray God’s blessing on the one who is willing to sell.

²⁷ Whoever seeks good finds favor,
    but evil comes to one who searches for it.

²⁸ Those who trust in their riches will fall,
    but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.

²⁹ Whoever brings ruin on their family will inherit only wind,
    and the fool will be servant to the wise.

³⁰ The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,
    and the one who is wise saves lives.

³¹ If the righteous receive their due on earth,
    how much more the ungodly and the sinner!

Footnotes

1. Proverbs 11:7 Two Hebrew manuscripts; most Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate, Syriac and Targum When the wicked die, their hope perishes; / all they expected from

Not much has changed.

I just rediscovered something I wrote ten years ago. Other than the anecdote, which is old but could still happen today, it's completely current. 

And btw, why is it ridiculous to say that the most likely use for a firearm stored in the home (other than hunting or target practice) is suicide? It's just a fact. Maybe it's a fact you don't like, but it is, you know, true.

Hed: How to Buy a Miracle Cure



Dek: To make cures like gene therapy possible, the US will have to overturn everything we think we know about Economics 101



In 2014, Charlene Dill, a mother of 3 from Orlando who was estranged from her husband, was trying to make ends meet by selling vacuum cleaners. She had a heart condition for which she needed medication, but when Florida rejected the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion, she fell into the gap between Medicaid and subsidized insurance, and was forced to go without.



But some other chronic conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, may one day have a quick fix. This isn’t science fiction; gene therapy may soon make cures for such congenital diseases possible in a single treatment. However, to recoup the high cost of developing treatments for comparatively rare conditions, companies will have to slap on a price tag on the order of a million dollars. Since that’s actually less than the life-long cost of treating cystic fibrosis, one can imagine that an insurer might want to pay for it. But there’s a catch: the insurance company might not recoup the cost because the same insurer won’t necessarily be covering that person in the future.



Though we might not realize it, this dilemma is one we already face. Take some new cancer therapies, which offer only a few weeks of added life for most patients at a cost of more than $100,000. Established therapies such as organ and bone marrow transplants are comparably expensive, as much as a half million dollars, and are often unsuccessful, or leave patients with diminished quality of life. We’re all paying for these treatments, as taxpayers or through our insurance premiums, and most people support these expenditures; people will typically say that “You can’t put a price on human life.”



But we put a price on human life all the time, or nobody would ever ride in an automobile. And we certainly wouldn’t let three million children under five die every year from causes such as malaria, or vaccine preventable diseases that would only cost a few dollars to prevent. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs178/en/) And we still let some people like Charlene Dill, in our own country, go without health care entirely.



Paradoxically, though we spend more on health care than any other country on earth, our health status and life expectancy are well down the list. The problem is, we aren’t allocating our resources to get the most out of our health care spending.



We often hear that our country’s “free market” solutions constrain costs, improve quality, and give consumers more control over their own health care. A common argument is that when people are insulated from health care costs by insurance, they don’t shop wisely, as they would for other goods and services.



These claims have superficial appeal, but the truth is that health care doesn’t work anything like the idealized “free market” taught to beginning economics students. Here are some assumptions underlying cartoon Economics 101: All costs and benefits to society are captured in transactions between buyers and sellers
Buyers have perfect information, and know everything about the product and alternatives
Consumers have sovereignty, and consumer choice drives demand

And a grand conclusion: “Free markets” are self-regulating and efficient.



However, these postulates are always false, and so must be any theory based on them. Anyway, the theory does not tell us anything about whether outcomes are fair and just. Yet many politicians and pundits go from the supposed "is" -- that this fictitious "free market" is the natural state of affairs -- to an "ought" -- that whatever outcomes it produces must be the right ones.



Let's start with that first assumption: that all costs and benefits of a transaction affect only the participants. A person who receives health care might indeed benefit. But benefits are conveyed to others as well.



An obvious benefit is communicable disease control. If you cure or prevent an infection in one person, you protect a whole lot of other people. Furthermore, the good health of one may contribute to the prosperity of all. Good health allows people to care for children and disabled relatives, to volunteer – all sorts of good works that aren’t part of the money economy. Some might even feel bad about suffering in general, and enjoy being part of a society that provides basic, compassionate care for everybody. If that doesn’t apply to you, you might at least find it unpleasant to have to step over sick and dying people in the street.



So health care is, in fact, in part a public good. If we had to depend on people to buy only as much as they could afford, it would be under-produced – all of us would be losers.



Next up: as patients, we don’t have perfect information. That’s why we pay doctors – they know more than we do. The result is called “provider-induced demand.” For the most part, people don’t consume health care because they want it, but because a doctor tells them it’s what they need.



Lastly, the need for health care differs radically among consumers. It’s just bad luck if you develop rheumatoid arthritis, but few could pay for the needed medical services out of their paycheck. Meanwhile, for sane people, getting medical interventions is generally unpleasant; we undergo them out of necessity. I might have a lobster dinner because somebody else is paying for it, but I’m not going to have an appendectomy just because it’s free.



Therefore, every other affluent country provides universal health care, and makes it affordable for everyone by some form of progressive financing. But how is it also cheaper for them? There are a few reasons, including negotiated drug prices and lower physician salaries. I’ll leave that aside for now and focus on this aspect: Countries with universal systems allocate resources more cost-effectively than in the U.S.



The United Kingdom has a National Health Service (NHS) that takes care of everybody (although it’s currently underfunded by the Tory government and struggling); it also has the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, which decides what treatments the NHS will provide, in part on a cost/benefit standard. If you’re rich enough, you can buy unapproved treatments, but the taxpayers won’t.



This isn’t the “death panel” concept that was (falsely) claimed by certain politicians to be hidden in the Affordable Care Act. NICE doesn’t review individual cases, and they don’t value one person more than another, although age is sometimes a factor. But so is cold cash. NICE needs especially compelling reasons to approve a treatment that costs more than 30,000 pounds per “Quality Adjusted Life Year,” which is a way of combining length and quality of life in a common currency. The fictive “free market” can’t do that.



NICE decisions are often controversial, but Britons generally accept the necessity of making them. There is ample public participation in NICE decision making, and the basic philosophy and standards are subject to robust public debate.



How will NICE treat gene therapy? Since one treatment will probably be cost saving over a lifetime, it will presumably be approved, in spite of the high cost. However, some cancer therapies with limited benefits might not be.



Now imagine these same treatments being weighed in the US. Treatments like gene therapy may soon be a reality—however, a discussion about their relative value in our country still remains science fiction. And while we were waiting for that discussion, on March 21, 2014, Charlene Dill collapsed and died on a stranger’s floor while trying to sell a vacuum cleaner.

Wednesday Bible Study: Wise guy?

As I have said, the Book of Proverbs is really several books smooshed together. (Is that the correct verb?) With chapter 10 we come to the next chunk. As far as I have been able to determine scholars don't really have a good idea about the origins of this or when it was composed. It does consist of those pithy two-liners that we usually think of as a "proverb." However, the content not theological. The rabbis who compiled the masoretic text considered excluding this from the canon, not only because of its secular nature but also because it contains contradictions and, well, inanities. Apparently the (fictitious) ascription to Solomon is the only reason it's here. 

 

I won't go through this critically in any detail, but most of it is inane. Does the Lord not let the righteous go hungry? You can decide for yourself how wise this is.

 

 

 A reminder: Anonymous comments won't be published, no matter how sound they are otherwise. That's just a policy. Also, I won't amplify bullshit racist talking points.

10 The proverbs of Solomon:

A wise son brings joy to his father,
    but a foolish son brings grief to his mother.

² Ill-gotten treasures have no lasting value,
    but righteousness delivers from death.

³ The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry,
    but he thwarts the craving of the wicked.

⁴ Lazy hands make for poverty,
    but diligent hands bring wealth.

⁵ He who gathers crops in summer is a prudent son,
    but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son.

⁶ Blessings crown the head of the righteous,
    but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.^[a]

⁷ The name of the righteous is used in blessings,^[b]
    but the name of the wicked will rot.

⁸ The wise in heart accept commands,
    but a chattering fool comes to ruin.

⁹ Whoever walks in integrity walks securely,
    but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.

¹⁰ Whoever winks maliciously causes grief,
    and a chattering fool comes to ruin.

¹¹ The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life,
    but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.

¹² Hatred stirs up conflict,
    but love covers over all wrongs.

¹³ Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning,
    but a rod is for the back of one who has no sense.

¹⁴ The wise store up knowledge,
    but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.

¹⁵ The wealth of the rich is their fortified city,
    but poverty is the ruin of the poor.

¹⁶ The wages of the righteous is life,
    but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death.

¹⁷ Whoever heeds discipline shows the way to life,
    but whoever ignores correction leads others astray.

¹⁸ Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips
    and spreads slander is a fool.

¹⁹ Sin is not ended by multiplying words,
    but the prudent hold their tongues.

²⁰ The tongue of the righteous is choice silver,
    but the heart of the wicked is of little value.

²¹ The lips of the righteous nourish many,
    but fools die for lack of sense.

²² The blessing of the Lord brings wealth,
    without painful toil for it.

²³ A fool finds pleasure in wicked schemes,
    but a person of understanding delights in wisdom.

²⁴ What the wicked dread will overtake them;
    what the righteous desire will be granted.

²⁵ When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone,
    but the righteous stand firm forever.

²⁶ As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes,
    so are sluggards to those who send them.

²⁷ The fear of the Lord adds length to life,
    but the years of the wicked are cut short.

²⁸ The prospect of the righteous is joy,
    but the hopes of the wicked come to nothing.

²⁹ The way of the Lord is a refuge for the blameless,
    but it is the ruin of those who do evil.

³⁰ The righteous will never be uprooted,
    but the wicked will not remain in the land.

³¹ From the mouth of the righteous comes the fruit of wisdom,
    but a perverse tongue will be silenced.

³² The lips of the righteous know what finds favor,
    but the mouth of the wicked only what is perverse.

Footnotes

1. Proverbs 10:6 Or righteous, / but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence
2. Proverbs 10:7 See Gen. 48:20.

 

Nobody asked me . . .

 ... and nobody cares what I think, which is why I have largely stayed above the vitriolic fray over whether Joe Biden should withdraw his candidacy for reelection. But now that the dust is settling I'll offer my 1 1/2 cents, just for the heck of it.

I think he made the right decision. I think his physical and mental decline is evident -- I've seen it before, I know what it looks like. People who complained that the corporate media weren't paying proportionate attention to the manifest insanity and raving idiocy of his Republican opponent were missing the point. The cult doesn't care about that, and they care less than zero what CNN and the New York Times say about it. People who went on about the excellent job Biden has done as president and how he would be a better choice than his opponent even if he was a vegetable are equally missing the point. 

The point is that we can't allow the insane idiot to win the election and there are a lot of people who cast their votes based entirely on style points. They aren't listening to your litany of Biden's accomplishments or your complaints about the New York Times. But, the days when a woman, and a person of African and Indian (Bharati) descent can't possibly win are past. In fact, I think a lot of people are going to be galvanized by the Harris candidacy. She's quite young for a presidential candidate, vigorous, smart, and there's no way Cheeto Benito is going to debate her. Or rather, I sure hope he will. She's been raking in the moolah and we won't be hearing any more about Hunter Biden's laptop.

 

I think we've got this.

Clarifying the issues about immigration

Historically, the U.S. has regularly faced fraught political conflicts over immigration. I'm not going to recount all that history, I just want to keep in mind that controversy about this subject is definitely not new. What I will do here is try to sort out the issues, because there seems to be a lot of confusion. There are not just two kinds of immigration or immigrants, legal or illegal. It's more complicated.

First -- and this is important so pay attention! -- the so-called crisis at the southern border is not about illegal immigration. The people who are massing along the border and who have crossed in large numbers and been bussed to northern cities by Greg Abbot and flown to Martha's Vineyard by Ron DeSantis are not in the country illegally. If they were, they would simply have been immediately deported. They are asylum seekers. By current U.S. law and international treaties, people who enter the country and who have a credible claim for political asylum or refugee status must be given a hearing. 

 

The status of these people is that they are in the United States "under color of law," awaiting a legal hearing on their claim for asylum. The problem is that the courts are backed up and it takes a long time for their cases to come up. When they finally do, most claims are denied and the people are in fact deported. Some get refugee status. The solution to this problem is not to build a wall at the southern border, which is ridiculous, inane, physically impossible and would be horribly environmentally destructive. The solution is to hire more judges and move the cases faster. And no, they are not coming from prisons or mental hospitals. They are families for whom conditions in their countries of origin are intolerable. Arguably, it wouldn't be a bad idea to relax the standards and accept more refugees and asylees, but that's a separate question which I will now get to  . . . 

Some of the people who are in the U.S. illegally did cross the border illegally, but many, probably most, overstayed visas. They cannot and do not receive any government benefits. They can't get "welfare" (which doesn't really exist any more anyway), food stamps, Medicaid, or any other benefits of any kind. Neither can people awaiting asylum hearings, although they could legally receive work permits. Furthermore, people who are not U.S. citizens, even legal permanent residents, cannot and do not vote. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

 

People who are in the U.S. illegally, therefore, work, because they must. There is a labor shortage in the U.S. right now, and it is basically impossible for farmers to hire enough legal residents or guest workers. It is also impossible to hire enough people in the meat processing industry. Without undocumented immigrants, crops would rot in the fields, and it would be impossible to turn cattle and sheep and chickens into the products in the supermarket. In fact, where there have been crackdowns, crops have in fact rotted in the fields. If you are complaining about grocery prices, the last thing in the world you want to happen is to expel all those people who are putting food on your table.

The final category is legal immigration. This is very limited right now. In case you didn't know it, the U.S. has a demographic problem in that the birth rate is below the rate of replacement, which means that the ratio of retired people to workers is steadily falling, which means that we risk not having a sufficient work force to fund Social Security and Medicare, or for that matter just to sustain our current level of economic output. Therefore it is worth asking whether we should increase the volume of legal immigration. One way to do that would be to offer legal status to people who have been in the country for a substantial period and have been law abiding -- as the vast majority are. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than U.S. citizens. That way, the people who pick crops could keep doing it, with legal protections against exploitation, and you could keep eating, which I presume you want to do.

Now, you might not agree with my modest proposals, but if you want to disagree, it has to be on the basis of the true facts which I have put in bold type. These are the real issues and the actual public policy questions at stake. And no, my blood is not being poisoned.

Sunday Sermonette: Metaphors ought to mean something

Chapter 9 is the conclusion of the first book that became part of the compilation now known as proverbs. Up until now wisdom has been personified as a woman. The figure of the married seductress was not explicitly labeled as folly, but perhaps that was the author's intent. In any case, a female personification of folly appears here. Both are presented as hostesses, but the language is highly figurative, so the intent of the author is often unclear and translations differ enormously. From Wikipedia:

A foolish woman is clamorous;

she is simple, and knows nothing.^[19]

Like Wisdom in the previous chapter, Folly is also personified as a character, called "Dame Folly" in the Jerusalem Bible, "the woman called Folly" in the New English Translation.^[20]

• In different languages, this verse is rendered as follows:^[21]
  • The Hebrew Masoretic Text reads "The foolish woman is boisterous, simplicity, and knows not what." and the Targum translates it, “a foolish woman and a gadabout, ignorant, and she knows not good.”
  • The Greek Septuagint reads "A foolish and impudent woman comes to lack a morsel, she who knows not shame."
  • The Syriac version has "a woman lacking in discretion, seductive"
  • The Latin Vulgate has, "a woman foolish and noisy, and full of wiles, and knowing nothing at all."^[21]
• "Clamorous": or "boisterous"^[22] or close to “riotous”.^[23]
• "Simple" or "full of simpleness",^[24] from a Hebrew noun meaning “foolishness”.^[25]

Whatever. Again, there really isn't any content here. Wisdom good, folly bad. How to tell which is which, we are not enlightened. Anyway, the next chapter introduces a new book, which I'll discuss next time. I should note, however, that the masoretic scholars considered excluding Proverbs from the canon, partly because it is riddled with direct contradictions, and partly because much of it has purely secular content. The (fictitious) ascription to Solomon is probably the only reason this is in the Bible.

 

Invitations of Wisdom and Folly

9 Wisdom has built her house;
    she has set up^[a] its seven pillars.
² She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine;
    she has also set her table.
³ She has sent out her servants, and she calls
    from the highest point of the city,
⁴     “Let all who are simple come to my house!”
To those who have no sense she says,
⁵     “Come, eat my food
    and drink the wine I have mixed.
⁶ Leave your simple ways and you will live;
    walk in the way of insight.”

⁷ Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults;
    whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.
⁸ Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you;
    rebuke the wise and they will love you.
⁹ Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still;
    teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.

¹⁰ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
    and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
¹¹ For through wisdom^[b] your days will be many,
    and years will be added to your life.
¹² If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
    if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.

¹³ Folly is an unruly woman;
    she is simple and knows nothing.
¹⁴ She sits at the door of her house,
    on a seat at the highest point of the city,
¹⁵ calling out to those who pass by,
    who go straight on their way,
¹⁶     “Let all who are simple come to my house!”
To those who have no sense she says,
¹⁷     “Stolen water is sweet;
    food eaten in secret is delicious!”
¹⁸ But little do they know that the dead are there,
    that her guests are deep in the realm of the dead.

Footnotes

1. Proverbs 9:1 Septuagint, Syriac and Targum; Hebrew has hewn out
2. Proverbs 9:11 Septuagint, Syriac and Targum; Hebrew me