On the noun אִשָּׁה in 2 Samuel 14:2

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the אִישׁ term—which in this case is its feminine form אִשָּׁה—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in “Notes on Gender in Translation,” pp. 11–16.)

---

Here I am going to challenge a myth. It claims that a compelling midrashic reading of this verse is actually its plain sense. I hope that by repeating the myth I won’t thereby strengthen it.…

In recent decades, some scholars have stated that here (and in 20:16) the referring expression אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה alludes to a title for someone with a special status: a sage. Yet that is a poor fit for this story. Joab pro­ceeds to tell this woman what to do and what to say (vv. 2–3, 19). That would not be the case if he had selected her because she was a sage. Rather, he would be asking for her advice. Furthermore, there is no evidence within the story that her purported public status makes any difference to its outcome.

Meanwhile, the evidence that has been adduced for the existence of such a status in ancient Israel is circumstantial at best. Yet even if a trove of documents were uncovered tomorrow that proved the existence of a social institution of ‘wise women’ in ancient Israel, that would not alter what אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה means here (and in 20:16).

Why not? Because the term אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה already has a very ordinary meaning. It exemplifies the conventional way of introducing a character into a narrative who possesses a quality that is considered essential for grasping the depicted situation. Because of the existence of that convention, there is near-zero probability that an ancient Israelite narrator or audience would have construed it unconventionally here, as the indication of the woman’s special status.

Prototypically in ancient Hebrew, the noun אִשָּׁה functions mainly on the discourse level, to individuate a new discourse-participant and to situate her, while any adjective such as חֲכָמָה directs our attention to a salient characteristic. That conventional construal yields a coherent and informative text here, so the ancient audience would have looked no further. No other possible plain-sense meaning would have crossed their minds.

The noun phrase אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה is no more a title of special social status than is אִישׁ עִוֵּר (Lev 21:18); אִישׁ זָקֵן (Judg 19:16); אִישׁ־עָנִי (Ps 109:16); or אִשָּׁה זָרָה (Prov 2:16)—instances where אִישׁ or אִשָּׁה is likewise combined with an adjective to introduce a discourse participant.

Even the direct masculine counterpart אִישׁ חָכָם is never a title. Tellingly, Eccles 9:15 reads אִישׁ מִסְכֵּן חָכָם—rather than אִישׁ חָכָם מִסְכֵּן, which would be expected if a title were involved.

The adjective חֲכָמָה here indicates one of Joab’s criteria for selecting this particular individual as his agent. He is in need of a role-playing actress—one who can improvise convincingly, who can speak judiciously so as to achieve the desired results. And חֲכָמָה describes this quality (among others). The proximate case of Jonadab (13:3), who is characterized as אִישׁ חָכָם מְאֹד shows that when a person displays the quality of being a חכם/חכמה in a social setting, it describes their ability to attain their goals in the face of opposition. I.e., it is about being adroit. This construal is confirmed by David’s later characterization of Solomon (כִּ֛י אִ֥ישׁ חָכָ֖ם אָ֑תָּה) precisely while urging him to find a way to take revenge without incurring a political cost (1 Kgs 2:9).

As the present story proceeds, the success of this agent’s mission comes about due to her ability to improvise articulately within her assigned role. Ultimately what she manifests is cunning, not wisdom in its usual modern sense (so Roland Murphy, “Wisdom in the OT,” Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary 6:920).

In short, the claim that אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה refers to a social status is midrash by definition: it disregards the normal conventions of the language. Here it may be a compelling reading, but it is not the plain sense.

---

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘clever woman’ devi­ated from the traditional ‘wise woman’ (e.g., KJV, OJPS, RSV). Why? Because in English, the adjective wise seldom describes the ability to get things done by being adroit. (Normally, wise is about coping with life via a philosophical perspective, and on being prudent, judicious, and well-informed.) Generally, NJPS strove to be contextually precise.

Yet clever has come to have a negative connotation that is not appropriate to this setting. Furthermore, its use here creates a problem of consistency with regard to gender. What the young king Solomon asks for in his dream—namely the ability to make incisive decisions in the administration of justice (1 Kings 3)—and what he soon demonstrates in his famous order to slice the live baby in two (ibid.) is the same kind of know-how for getting things done that the Tekoite displays here. Yet the phrase “the wisdom of Solomon” is so proverbial (literally and figuratively) that NJPS could hardly describe him as anything but wise. And therefore, to avoid sexism in translation, RJPS restores wise here (and in 20:16).

That being said, the phrase ‘wise woman’ is too easily misunderstood for the reasons discussed above. Consequently, as a service to the reader, I added a footnote to clarify the intended sense, and I altered the construction of the phrase itself, emulating the NJPS “a man who is clean” for אִישׁ טָהוֹר (Num 19:9) and “a man who is blind” for אִישׁ עִוֵּר (Lev 21:18).