Okay, Now What?
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:4-5 NASB 1995
Do not answer/ answer – Proverbs is instruction in piety. It’s practical. It’s didactic. It’s anthropological (human) rather than divine. “Live like this,” it proclaims, “and you will be blessed with good character and favorable circumstances.” It’s not really about God’s involvement in human life. It’s wisdom literature, the collection of ethical and moral instructions found throughout the ancient Near East. But Proverbs also has its problems. Because God isn’t front and center in this work, the rabbis were cautious about its authority. They also found other issues. Robert Alter notes, “The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 30B) in fact brackets Proverbs with Qohelet as a text that might have been excluded from the canon—in particular because it contains contradictory assertions.”[1] He illustrates this point with Proverbs 26:4-5. Read the two verses again and tell me how you are supposed to answer, or not answer, a fool. Alter continues, “It is probably misguided to argue for a dialectic or subtly complementary relationship between these two admonitions. The contradiction between them stems from the anthological character of the book: the two sayings have been culled either from folk-tradition or from verbal repertory of Wisdom schools and have been set in immediate sequence by the anthologist because of the identical wording . . .”[2]
The problem isn’t a linguistic one. Both verses use the same verb, ʿānâ, “to answer.” Both use the same noun, kĕsîl, “fool” or “dullard.” The same is true of ʾiwwelet, “folly.” Alter is probably correct. The scribe who collected the material put the two verses together because of their wording. But what does this imply? First, it doesn’t tell us exactly how to answer a fool. Rather, it implies that there were two different schools of thought on the matter, each with its unique instruction. Secondly, it implies that the anthologist didn’t try to “correct” this information. He just recorded it as he found it. Next, it implies that there isn’t one right answer. Your approach will depend on which school you followed, or more likely, where you happen to have lived. And finally, it challenges our naïve view that God was the real, hidden author of the text.
Of course, theologians who believe in the divine authorship of all the biblical texts will have to come up with an explanation for this contradiction. They are quick to respond.
The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4-5, which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him.
The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, . . .[3]
When trying to understand these two verses, we need to realize that the Bible does not contradict itself. God’s entire Word is truth, as Christ said in John 17:17: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”. . . Rather than being contradictory, the two statements in Proverbs 26:4, 5, complement each other. The last part of each statement shows the sets of circumstances or scenarios under which each of the two statements is to be applied. In every case, before deciding whether or not to answer, we need to consider the questioner’s motives–where the questioner is coming from–the content of his question, and his attitude![4]
What we have here is not contradiction, but dilemma—an indication that when it comes to answering fools, you cannot win . . .[5]
And so it goes. Paradigm (in this case, doctrine) trumps textual criticism, archeology, cultural considerations, and the language itself. It can’t be a contradiction because the doctrine says it can’t, and I have to do whatever is necessary to prove that the doctrine is correct. After all, the Bible is God’s words! It can’t be mistaken. It can’t have human error or even human perspective. It’s sacred!
Since the world succumbed to Hellenism, religion was converted from experiential to cognitive. We no longer believe because we have a trust relationship with the living God. We believe because we have the truth! See! There it is written in the text.
Topical Index: contradiction, paradigm, truth, experience, Proverbs 26:4-5
[1] Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: Volume 3 The Writings, p. 345.
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://www.gotquestions.org/Proverbs-26-4-5.html
[4] https://www.eternalgod.org/q-a-4009/
[5] https://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/main/default/id/7750/ver/NKJV/proverbs-26-4-5.htm
