Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume IV. Poetical Books/Proverbs Fourth Introductory Mashal Discourse

by Franz Delitzsch

FOURTH INTRODUCTORY MASHAL DISCOURSE, III. 1-18.

EXHORTATION TO LOVE AND FAITHFULNESS, AND SELF-SACRIFICING DEVOTION TO GOD, AS THE TRUE WISDOM.

The foregoing Mashal discourse seeks to guard youth against ruinous companionship ; this points out to them more particularly the relation toward God and man, which alone can make them truly happy, vers. 1-4.
1 My son, forget not my doctrine,
And let thine heart keep my commandments ;
2 For length of days, and years of life,
And peace, -will they add to thee.
3 Let not kindness and truth forsake thee :
Bind them about thy neck,
Write them on the tablet of thy heart, 4 And obtain favour and true prudence
In the eyes of God and of men.
The admonition takes a new departure, תּוֹרָתִ֣י and וּ֝מִצְוֺתַ֗י refer to the following new discourse and laws of conduct. Here, in the midst of the discourse, we have יִצֹּ֥ר and not יִגְצֹּ֥ר ; the non-assimilated form is found only in the conclusion, e.g. ii. 11, v. 2. The plur. יוֹסִ֥יפוּ (ver. 2) for חּוֹטֵפְנָח (they will bring, add) refers to the doctrine and the precepts ; the synallage has its ground in this, that the fem. construction in Hebrew is not applicable in such a case ; the vulgar Arab, also has set aside the forms jaktubna, taktubna. “Extension of days” is continuance of duration, stretching itself out according to the promise, Ex. 20:12; and “years of life” (9:11) are years — namely, many of them — of a life which is life in the full sense of the word. חַיִּ֑ים has here the pregnant signification vita vitalis, βίος βιωτός (Fl.). שָׁל֗וֹם (R. של) is pure well-being, free from all that disturbs peace or satisfaction, internal and external contentment.
Pro 3:3
With this verse the doctrine begins; אל (not לא) shows the 3a does not continue the promise of Pro 3:2. חסד (R. חם, stringere, afficere) is, according to the prevailing usage of the language, well-affectedness, it may be of God toward men, or of men toward God, or of men toward one another - a loving disposition, of the same meaning as the N.T. ἀγάπη (vid., e.g., Hos 6:6). אמת (from אמנת), continuance, a standing to one's promises, and not falsifying just expectations; thus fidelity, πίστις, in the interrelated sense of fides and fidelitas. These two states of mind and of conduct are here contemplated as moral powers (Psa 61:8; Psa 43:3), which are of excellent service, and bring precious gain; and 4b shows that their ramification on the side of God and of men, the religious and the moral, remains radically inseparable. The suffix ם does not refer to the doctrine and the precepts, but to these two cardinal virtues. If the disciple is admonished to bind them about his neck (vid., Pro 1:9, cf. Pro 3:22), so here reference is made, not to ornament, nor yet to protection against evil influences by means of them, as by an amulet^[1] (for which proofs are wanting), but to the signet which was wont to be constantly carried (Gen 38:18, cf. Sol 8:6) on a string around the neck. The parallel member 3c confirms this; 3b and 3c together put us in mind of the Tephillim (phylacteries), Exo 13:16; Deu 6:8; Deu 11:18, in which what is here a figure is presented in external form, but as the real figure of that which is required in the inward parts. לוּח (from לוּח, Arab. l'ah, to begin to shine, e.g., of a shooting star, gleaming sword; vid., Wetzstein, Deutsch. morgenl. Zeitschr. xxii. 151f.) signifies the tablet prepared for writing by means of polish; to write love and fidelity on the tablet of the heart, is to impress deeply on the heart the duty of both virtues, so that one will be impelled to them from within outward (Jer 31:33).

Verse 4

To the admonitory imper. there follows here a second, as Pro 4:4; Pro 20:13; Amo 5:4; 2Ch 20:20, instead of which also the perf. consec. might stand; the counsellor wishes, with the good to which he advises, at the same time to present its good results. שׂכל is (1Sa 25:3) the appearance, for the Arab. shakl means forma, as uniting or binding the lineaments or contours into one figure, σχῆμα, according to which שׂכל טוב may be interpreted of the pleasing and advantageous impression which the well-built external appearance of a man makes, as an image of that which his internal excellence produces; thus, favourable view, friendly judgment, good reputation (Ewald, Hitzig, Zöckler). But everywhere else (Pro 13:15; Psa 111:10; 2Ch 30:22) this phrase means good, i.e., fine, well-becoming insight, or prudence; and שׂכל has in the language of the Mishle no other meaning than intellectus, which proceeds from the inwardly forming activity of the mind. He obtains favour in the eyes of God and man, to whom favour on both sides is shown; he obtains refined prudence, to whom it is on both sides adjudicated. It is unnecessary, with Ewald and Hitzig, to assign the two objects to God and men. In the eyes of both at the same time, he who carries love and faithfulness in his heart appears as one to whom חן and שׂכל טוב must be adjudicated.

Verses 5-8

Were “kindness and truth” (Pro 3:3) understood only in relation to men, then the following admonition would not be interposed, since it proceeds from that going before, if there the quality of kindness and truth, not only towards man, but also towards God, is commended: 5 Trust in Jahve with thy whole heart, And lean not on thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge Him, And He will make plain thy paths. 7 Be not wise in thine own eyes; Fear Jahve, and depart from evil. 8 Health will then come to thy navel, And refreshing to thy bones.
From God alone comes true prosperity, true help. He knows the right way to the right ends. He knows what benefits us. He is able to free us from that which does us harm: therefore it is our duty and our safety to place our confidence wholly in Him, and to trust not to our own judgment. The verb בּטח, Arab. baṭḥ, has the root-meaning expandere, whence perhaps, by a more direct way than that noted under Psa 4:6, it acquires the meaning confidere, to lean with the whole body on something, in order to rest upon it, strengthened by על, if one lean wholly - Fr. se reposer sur quelqu'un; Ital. riposarsi sopra alcuno, - like השּׁען with אל, to lean on anything, so as to be supported by it; with על, to support oneself on anything (Fl.). דעהוּ (the same in form as שׂאהוּ, Num 11:12) is not fully represented by “acknowledge Him;” as in 1Ch 28:9 it is not a mere theoretic acknowledgment that is meant, but earnest penetrating cognizance, engaging the whole man. The practico-mystical דעהוּ, in and of itself full of significance, according to O. and N.T. usage, is yet strengthened by toto corde. The heart is the central seat of all spiritual soul-strength; to love God with the whole heart is to concentrate the whole inner life on the active contemplation of God, and the ready observance of His will. God requites such as show regard to Him, by making plain their path before them, i.e., by leading them directly to the right end, removing all hindrances out of their way. ארחתיך has Cholem in the first syllable (vid., Kimchi's Lex.).^[2] “Be not wise in thine own eyes” is equivalent to ne tibi sapiens videare; for, as J. H. Michaelis remarks, confidere Deo est sapere, sibi vero ac suae sapientiae, desipere. “Fear God and depart from evil” is the twofold representation of the εὐσέβεια, or practical piety, in the Chokma writings: Pro 16:6, the Mashal Psa 34:10, Psa 34:15, and Job 28:28 cf. Pro 1:2. For סר מרע, the post-biblical expression is ירא חטא.

Verse 8

The subject to תּהי; (it shall be) is just this religious-moral conduct. The conjectural reading לבשׂרך (Clericus), לשׁרך = לשׁארך (Ewald, Hitzig), to thy flesh or body, is unnecessary; the lxx and Syr. so translating, generalize the expression, which is not according to their taste. שׁר, from שׁרר, Arab. sarr, to be fast, to bind fast, properly, the umbilical cord (which the Arabs call surr, whence the denom. sarra, to cut off the umbilical cord of the newborn); thus the navel, the origin of which coincides with the independent individual existence of the new-born, and is as the firm centre (cf. Arab. saryr, foundation, basis, Job, p. 487) of the existence of the body. The system of punctuation does not, as a rule, permit the doubling of ר, probably on account of the prevailing half guttural, i.e., the uvular utterance of this sound by the men of Tiberias.^[3] לשׁרּך here, and שׁרּך at Eze 16:4, belong to the exceptions; cf. the expanded duplication in שׁררך, Sol 7:3, to which a chief form שׁרר is as little to be assumed as is a הרר to הררי. The ἅπ. γεγρ. רפאוּת, healing, has here, as מרפּא, Pro 4:22; Pro 16:24, and תּרוּפה, Eze 47:12, not the meaning of restoration from sickness, but the raising up of enfeebled strength, or the confirming of that which exists; the navel comes into view as the middle point of the vis vitalis. שׁקּוּי is a Piel formation, corresponding to the abstract Kal formation רפאוּת; the Arab. saqâ, used transit. (to give to drink), also saqqâ (cf. Pu. Job 21:24) and asqâ, like the Hebr. השׁקה (Hiph. of שׁקה, to drink); the infin. (Arab.) saqy means, to the obliterating of the proper signification, distribution, benefaction, showing friendship, but in the passage before us is to be explained after Job 21:24 (the marrow of his bones is well watered; Arnheim - full of sap) and Pro 15:30. Bertheau and Hitzig erroneously regard Pro 3:8 as the conclusion to Pro 3:7, for they interpret רפאות as the subject; but had the poet wished to be so understood, he should have written וּתהי. Much rather the subject is devotion withdrawn from the evil one and turned to God, which externally proves itself by the dedication to Him of earthly possessions.

Verses 9-10

Pro 3:9-10 Honour Jahve with thy wealth, And with the first-fruits of all thine increase: 10 Then shall thy barns be filled with plenty, And thy vats overflow with must.
It may surprise us that the Chokma, being separated from the ceremonial law, here commends the giving of tithes. But in the first place, the consciousness of the duty of giving tithes is older than the Mosaic law, Gen 28:22; in this case, the giving of tithes is here a general ethical expression. עשּׂר and מעשׂר do not occur in the Book of Proverbs; in the post-biblical phraseology the tithes are called חלק הגּבהּ, the portion of the Most High. כּבּד, as the Arab. waḳḳra, to make heavy, then to regard and deal with as weighty and solemn (opp. קלּל, to regard and treat as light, from קלל = Arab. hân, to be light). הון, properly lightness in the sense of aisance, opulency, forms with כּבּד an oxymoron (fac Jovam gravem de levitate tua), but one aimed at by the author neither at Pro 1:13 nor here. מן (in מהונך and 'מר, Pro 3:9) is in both cases partitive, as in the law of the Levitical tenths, Lev 27:30, and of the Challa (heave-offering of dough), Num 15:21, where also ראשׁית (in Heb 7:4, ἀκροθίνια) occurs in a similar sense, cf. Num 18:12 (in the law of the Theruma or wave-offering of the priests), as also תּבוּאה in the law of the second tenths, Deu 14:22, cf. Num 18:30 (in the law of the tenths of the priests).

Verse 10

With ו apodosis imperativi the conclusion begins. שׂבע, satisfaction, is equivalent to fulness, making satisfied, and that, too, richly satisfied; תּירושׁ ;deif also is such an accusative, as verbs of filling govern it, for פּרץ, to break through especially to overflow, signifies to be or become overflowingly full (Job 1:10). אסם (from אסם, Chald. אסן, Syr. âsan, to lay up in granaries) is the granary, of the same meaning as the Arab. âkhzan (from khazan = חסן, Isa 23:18, recondere), whence the Spanish magazen, the French and German magazin. יקב (from יקב, Arab. wakab, to be hollow) is the vat or tub into which the must flows from the wine-press (גּת or פּוּרה), λάκκος or ὑπολήνιον. Cf. the same admonition and promise in the prophetic statement of Mal 3:10-12.

Verses 11-12

The contrast here follows. As God should not be forgotten in days of prosperity, so one should not suffer himself to be estranged from Him by days of adversity. 11 The school of Jahve, my son, despise thou not, Nor loathe thou His correction; 12 For Jahve correcteth him whom He loveth, And that as a father his son whom he lovethVid., the original passage Job 5:17. There is not for the Book of Job a more suitable motto than this tetrastich, which expresses its fundamental thought, that there is a being chastened and tried by suffering which has as its motive the love of God, and which does not exclude sonship.^[4]
One may say that Pro 3:11 expresses the problem of the Book of Job, and Pro 3:12 its solution. מוּסר, παιδεία, we have translated “school,” for יסּר, παιδεύειν, means in reality to take one into school. Ahndung [punishment] or Rüge [reproof] is the German word which most corresponds to the Hebr. תּוכחה or תּוכחת. קוּץ ב (whence here the prohibitive תּקץ with אל) means to experience loathing (disgust) at anything, or aversion (vexation) toward anything. The lxx (cited Heb 12:5.), μηδὲ ἐκλύου, nor be faint-hearted, which joins in to the general thought, that we should not be frightened away from God, or let ourselves be estranged from Him by the attitude of anger in which He appears in His determination to inflict suffering. In 12a the accentuation leaves it undefined whether יהוה as subject belongs to the relative or to the principal clause; the traditional succession of accents, certified also by Ben Bileam, is כי את אשׁר יאהב יהוה, for this passage belongs to the few in which more than three servants (viz., Mahpach, Mercha, and three Munachs) go before the Athnach.^[5]
The further peculiarity is here to be observed, that את, although without the Makkeph, retains its Segol, besides here only in Psa 47:5; Psa 60:2. 12b is to be interpreted thus (cf. Pro 9:5): “and (that) as a father the son, whom he loves.” The ו is explanatory, as 1Sa 28:3 (Gesenius, §155, 1a), and ירצה (which one may supplement by אתו or בּו) is a defining clause having the force of a clause with אשׁר. The translation et ut pater qui filio bene cupit, is syntactically (cf. Isa 40:11) and accentually (vid., 13b) not less admissible, but translating “and as a father he holds his son dear,” or with Hitzig (after Jer 31:10, a passage not quite syntactically the same), “and holds him dear, as a father his son” (which Zöckler without syntactical authority prefers on account of the 2nd modus, cf. e.g., Psa 51:18), does not seem a right parallel clause, since the giving of correction is the chief point, and the love only the accompanying consideration (Pro 13:24). According to our interpretation, יוכיח is to be carried forward in the mind from 12a. The lxx find the parallel word in יכאב, for they translate μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν, ὃν παραδέχεται, and thus have read יכאב or ויכאב.

Verses 13-14

Such submission to God, the All-wise, the All-directing, who loves us with fatherly affection, is wisdom, and such wisdom is above all treasures. 13 Blessed is the man who has found wisdom, And the man who has gained understanding; 14 For better is her acquisition than the acquisition of silver, And her gain than fine gold. 15 More precious is she than corals; And all thy jewels do not equal her value.
The imperfect יפיק, which as the Hiph. of פּוּק, exire, has the general meaning educere, interchanges with the perfect מצא. This bringing forth is either a delivering up, i.e., giving out or presenting, Isa 58:10; Psa 140:9; Psa 144:13 (cf. נפק, Arab. nafaḳ, to give out, to pay out), or a fetching out, getting out, receiving, Pro 8:35; Pro 12:2; Pro 18:22. Thus 13a reminds one of the parable of the treasure in the field, and 13b of that of the goodly pearl for which the ἔμπορος who sought the pearl parted with all that he had. Here also is declared the promise of him who trades with a merchant for the possession of wisdom; for סחרהּ and סחר (both, as Isa 23:3, Isa 23:18; Isa 45:15, from סחר, the latter after the forms זרע, נטע, without our needing to assume a second primary form, סחר) go back to the root-word סחר, to trade, go about as a trader, with the fundamental meaning ἐμπορεύεσθαι (lxx); and also the mention of the pearls is not wanting here, for at all events the meaning “pearls” has blended itself with פּנינים, which is a favourite word in the Mashal poetry, though it be not the original meaning of the word. In 14b כּסף is surpassed by חרוּץ (besides in the Proverbs, found only in this meaning in Psa 68:14), which properly means ore found in a mine, from חרץ, to cut in, to dig up, and hence the poetic name of gold, perhaps of gold dug out as distinguished from molten gold. Hitzig regards χρυσός as identical with it; but this word (Sanskr. without the ending hir, Zench. zar) is derived from ghar, to glitter (vid., Curtius). תּבוּאתהּ we have translated “gain,” for it does not mean the profit which wisdom brings, the tribute which it yields, but the gain, the possession of wisdom herself.

Verse 15

As regards פּנינים, for which the Kethîb has פּניּים, the following things are in favour of the fundamental meaning “corals,” viz.: (1.) The name itself, which corresponds with the Arab. fann; this word, proceeding from the root-idea of shooting forth, particularly after the manner of plants, means the branch and all that raises or multiplies itself branch-like or twig-like (Fleischer). (2.) The redness attributed to the פנינים, Lam 4:7, in contradistinction to the pure whiteness attributed to snow and milk (vid., at Job 28:18). The meaning of the word may, however, have become generalized in practice (lxx in loc. λίθων πολετελῶν, Graec. Venet. λιθιδίων); the meaning “pearls,” given to it in the Job-Targum by Rashi, and particularly by Bochart, lay so much the nearer as one may have wrought also corals and precious stones, such as the carbuncle, sardius, and sapphire, into the form of pearls. יקרה, in consequence of the retrogression of the tone, has Munach on the penult., and that as an exception, as has been remarked by the Masora, since in substantives and proper names terminating in ה the נסוג אחור, i.e., the receding of the tone, does not elsewhere appear, e.g., יפה היא, Gen 12:14, בּרה היא, Sol 6:9, צרה היא, Jer 30:7. חפץ is first abstr., a being inclined to something, lust, will, pleasure in anything, then also concr., anything in which one has pleasure, what is beautiful, precious; cf. Arab. nfı̂s, hyy, hence hjârt nfı̂st, precious stones” (Fleischer). שׁוה with ב means to be an equivalent (purchase-price, exchange) for anything; the most natural construction in Arab. as well as in Hebr. is that with ל, to be the equivalent of a thing (vid., at Job 33:27); the ב is the Beth pretii, as if one said in Arab.: biabi anta thou art in the estimate of my father, I give it for thee. One distinctly perceives in Pro 3:14, Pro 3:15, the echo of Job 28. This tetrastich occurs again with a slight variation at Pro 8:10-11. The Talmud and the Midrash accent it so, that in the former the expression is וכל־חפצים, and in the latter וכל־חפציך, and they explain the latter of precious stones and pearls (אבנים טובות ומרגליות).

Verses 16-18

That wisdom is of such incomparable value is here confirmed: 16 Length of days is in her right hand; In her left, riches and honour. 17 Her ways are pleasant ways, And all her paths are peace. 18 A tree of life is she to those that lay hold upon her, And he who always holdeth her fast is blessed.
As in the right hand of Jahve, according to Psa 16:11, are pleasures for evermore, so Wisdom holds in her right hand “length of days,” viz., of the days of life, thus life, the blessing of blessings; in her left, riches and honour (Pro 8:18), the two good things which, it is true, do not condition life, but, received from Wisdom, and thus wisely, elevate the happiness of life-in the right hand is the chief good, in the left the προσθήκη, Mat 6:33. Didymus: Per sapientiae dextram divinarum rerum cognitio, ex qua immortalitatis vita oritur, significatur; per sinistram autem rerum humanarum notitia, ex qua gloria opumque abundantia nascitur. The lxx, as between 15a and 15b, so also here after Pro 3:16, interpolate two lines: “From her mouth proceedeth righteousness; justice and mercy she bears upon her tongue,” - perhaps translated from the Hebr., but certainly added by a reader.

Verse 17

Pro 3:17 דּרכי־נעם are ways on which one obtains what is agreeable to the inner and the outer man, and which it does good to enjoy. The parallel שׁלום is not a genitive to נתיבות to be supplied; that paths of Wisdom are themselves שׁלום, for she brings well-being on all sides and deep inwards satisfaction (peace). In regard to נתיבה, via eminens, elata, Schultens is right (vid., under Pro 1:15);^[6] נתיבותיה has Munach, and instead of the Metheg, Tarcha, vid., under Pro 1:31. The figure of the tree of life the fruit of which brings immortality, is, as Pro 11:30; Pro 15:4 (cf. Pro 13:12), Rev 2:7, taken from the history of paradise in the Book of Genesis. The old ecclesiastical saying, Lignum vitae crux Christi, accommodates itself in a certain measure, through Mat 11:19; Luk 11:49, with this passage of the Book of Proverbs. החזיק ב means to fasten upon anything, more fully expressed in Gen 21:18, to bind the hand firm with anything, to seize it firmly. They who give themselves to Wisdom, come to experience that she is a tree of life whose fruit contains and communicates strength of life, and whoever always keeps fast hold of Wisdom is blessed, i.e., to be pronounced happy (Psa 41:3, vid., under Psa 137:8). The predicate מאשּׁר, blessed, refers to each one of the תּמכיה, those who hold her, cf. Pro 27:16; Num 24:9. It is the so-called distributive singular of the predicate, which is freely used particularly in those cases where the plur. of the subject is a participle (vid., under Pro 3:35).

Verses 19-20

This place of a mediatrix - the speaker here now continues - she had from the beginning. God's world-creating work was mediated by her: 19 Jahve hath by wisdom founded the earth, Established the heavens by understanding. 20 By His knowledge the water-floods broke forth, And the sky dropped down dew.
That wisdom is meant by which God planned the world-idea, and now also wrought it out; the wisdom in which God conceived the world ere it was framed, and by which also He gave external realization to His thoughts; the wisdom which is indeed an attribute of God and a characteristic of His actions, since she is a property of His nature, and His nature attests itself in her, but not less, as appears, not from this group of tetrastichs, but from all that has hitherto been said, and form the personal testimony, Pro 8:22., of which it is the praeludium, she goes forth as a divine power to which God has given to have life in herself. Considered apart from the connection of these discourses, this group of verses, as little as Jer 10:2; Psa 104:24, determines regarding the attributive interpretation; the Jerusalem Targum, I, when it translates, Gen 1:1, בראשׁית by בּחוּכמא (בּחוּכמתא), combines Pro 8:22 with such passages as this before us. יסד (here with the tone thrown back) properly signifies, like the Arab. wasad, to lay fast, to found, for one gives to a fact the firm basis of its existence. The parallel Pil. of כּוּן (Arab. kân, cogn. כהן, see on Isaiah, p. 691) signifies to set up, to restore; here equivalent to, to give existence.

Verse 20

It is incorrect to understand 20a, with the Targ., of division, i.e., separating the water under the firmament from the water above the firmament; נבקע is spoken of water, especially of its breaking forth, Gen 7:11; Exo 14:21, cf. Psa 74:15, properly dividing itself out, i.e., welling forth from the bowels of the earth; it means, without distinguishing the primordial waters and the later water-floods confined within their banks (cf. Job 38:8., Psa 104:6-8), the overflowing of the earth for the purpose of its processes of cultivation and the irrigation of the land. תּהומות (from הוּם = המה, to groan, to roar) are chiefly the internal water stores of the earth, Gen 49:25; Psa 33:7. But while 20a is to be understood of the waters under the firmament, 20b is to be interpreted of those above. שׁחקים (from שׁחק, Arab. sḥaḳ, comminuere, attenuare) properly designates the uppermost stratum of air thinly and finely stretching itself far and wide, and then poetically the clouds of heaven (vid., under Psa 77:18). Another name, עריפים, comes from ערף, which is transposed from רעף (here used in 20b), Arab. r'af, to drop, to run. The טל added on the object accusative represents synecdochically all the waters coming down from heaven and fructifying the earth. This watering proceeds from above (ורעפו); on the contrary, the endowing of the surface of the earth with great and small rivers is a fundamental fact in creation (נבקעו).

Verses 21-22

From this eminence, in which the work of creation presents wisdom, exhortations are now deduced, since the writer always expresses himself only with an ethical intention regarding the nature of wisdom: 21 My son, may they not depart from thine eyes - Preserve thoughtfulness and consideration, 22 And they will be life to thy soul And grace to thy neck.
If we make the synonyms of wisdom which are in 21b the subject per prolepsin to אל־ילזוּ (Hitzig and Zöckler), then Pro 3:19-20 and Pro 3:21-22 clash. The subjects are wisdom, understanding, knowledge, which belong to God, and shall from His become the possession of those who make them their aim. Regarding לוּז, obliquari, deflectere, see under Pro 2:15, cf. Pro 4:21; regarding תּשׁיּה (here defective after the Masora, as rightly in Vened. 1515, 1521, and Nissel, 1662), see at Pro 2:7; ילזוּ for תּלזנה, see at Pro 3:2. The lxx (cf. Heb 2:1) translate without distinctness of reference: υἱὲ μὴ παραῤῥυῂς (παραρυῇς), let it now flow past, i.e., let it not be unobserved, hold it always before thee; the Targ. with the Syr. render לא נזּל, ne vilescat, as if the words were אל־יזוּלוּ. In 22a the synallage generis is continued: ויהיוּ for ותהיינה. Regarding גּרגּרת, see at Pro 1:9. By wisdom the soul gains life, divinely true and blessed, and the external appearance of the man grace, which makes him pleasing and gains for him affection.

Verses 23-26

But more than this, wisdom makes its possessor in all situations of life confident in God: 23 Then shalt thou go thy way with confidence, And thy foot shall not stumble. 24 When thou liest down, thou are not afraid, But thou layest thyself down and hast sweet sleep. 25 Thou needest not be afraid of sudden alarm, Nor for the storm of the wicked when it breaketh forth. 26 For Jahve will be thy confidence And keep thy foot from the snare.
The לבטח (cf. our “bei guter Laune” = in good cheer), with ל of the condition, is of the same meaning as the conditional adverbial accusative בּטח, Pro 10:9; Pro 1:33. Pro 3:23 the lxx translate ὁ δὲ πούς σου οὐ μὴ προσκόψῃ, while, on the contrary, at Psa 91:12 they make the person the subject (μήποτε προσκόψῃς τὸν κ.τ.λ.); here also we retain more surely the subject from 23a, especially since for the intrans. of נגף (to smite, to push) a Hithpa. התנגּף is used Jer 13:16. In Pro 3:24 there is the echo of Job 11:18, and in Pro 3:25 of Job 5:21. Pro 3:24 is altogether the same as Job 5:24 : et decumbes et suavis erit somnus tuus = si decubueris, suavis erit. The hypothetic perf., according to the sense, is both there and at Job 11:18 (cf. Jer 20:9) oxytoned as perf. consec. Similar examples are Pro 6:22; Gen 33:13; 1Sa 25:31, cf. Ewald, §357a. ערבה (of sleep as Jer 31:26) is from ערב, which in Hebr. is used of pleasing impressions, as the Arab. ‛ariba of a lively, free disposition. שׁנה, somnus (nom. actionis from ישׁן, with the ground-form sina preserved in the Arab. lidat, vid., Job, p. 284, note), agrees in inflexion with שׁנה, annus. אל, Pro 3:25, denies, like Psa 121:3, with emphasis: be afraid only not = thou hast altogether nothing to fear. Schultens rightly says: Subest species prohibitionis et tanquam abominationis, ne tale quicquam vel in suspicionem veniat in mentemve cogitando admittatur. פּחד here means terror, as Pro 1:26., the terrific object; פּתאם (with the accus. om) is the virtual genitive, as Pro 26:2 חנּם (with accus. am). Regarding שׁאה, see under Pro 1:27. The genitive רשׁעים may be, after Psa 37:18, the genit. subjecti, but still it lies nearer to say that he who chooses the wisdom of God as his guiding star has no ground to fear punishment as transgressors have reason to fear it; the שׁאה is meant which wisdom threatens against transgressors, Pro 1:27. He needs have no fear of it, for wisdom is a gift of God, and binds him who receives it to the giver: Jahve becomes and is henceforth his confidence. Regarding ב essentiae, which expresses the closest connection of the subject with the predicate which it introduces, see under Psa 35:2. As here, so also at Exo 18:4; Psa 118:7; Psa 146:6, the predicate is a noun with a pronominal suffix. כּסל is, as at Psa 78:7; Job 31:24, cognate to מבטה and מקוה,^[7] the object and ground of confidence. That the word in other connections may mean also fool-hardiness, Psa 49:14, and folly, Ecc 7:25 (cf. regarding כּסיל, which in Arab. as belı̂d denotes the dull, in Hebr. fools, see under Pro 1:22), it follows that it proceeds from the fundamental conception of fulness of flesh and of fat, whence arise the conceptions of dulness and slothfulness, as well as of confidence, whether confidence in self or in God (see Schultens l.c., and Wünsche's Hosea, p. 207f.). לכד is taking, catching, as in a net or trap or pit, from לכד, to catch (cf. Arab. lakida, to fasten, III, IV to hold fast); another root-meaning, in which Arab. lak connects itself with nak, nk, to strike, to assail (whence al-lakdat, the assault against the enemy, Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitsch. xxii. 140), is foreign to the Hebr. Regarding the מן of מלכד, Fleischer remarks: “The מן after the verbs of guarding, preserving, like שׁמר and נצר, properly expresses that one by those means holds or seeks to hold a person or thing back from something, like the Lat. defendere, tueri aliquem ab hostibus, a perculo.”^[8]

Verses 27-28

The first illustration of neighbourly love which is recommended, is readiness to serve: 27 Refuse no manner of good to him to whom it is due When it is in thy power to do it. 28 Say not to thy neighbour, “Go, and come again, To-morrow I will give it,” whilst yet thou hast it.
Regarding the intensive plur. בּעליו with a sing. meaning, see under Pro 1:19. The form of expression without the suffix is not בּעלי but בּעל טוב; and this denotes here, not him who does good (בעל as Arab. dhw or ṣaḥab), but him to whom the good deed is done (cf. Pro 17:8), i.e., as here, him who is worthy of it (בעל as Arab. âhl), him who is the man for it (Jewish interp.: מי שׁהוא ראוי לו). We must refuse nothing good (nothing either legally or morally good) to him who has a right to it (מנע מן as Job 22:7; Job 31:16),^[9] if we are in a condition to do him this good. The phrase ישׁ־לאל ידי, Gen 31:29, and frequently, signifies: it is belonging to (practicable) the power of my hand, i.e., I have the power and the means of doing it. As זד signifies the haughty, insolent, but may be also used in the neuter of insolent conduct (vid., Psa 19:14), so אל signifies the strong, but also (although only in this phrase) strength. The Keri rejects the plur. ידיך, because elsewhere the hand always follows לאל in the singular. But it rejects the plur. לרעיך (Pro 3:28) because the address following is directed to one person. Neither of these emendations was necessary. The usage of the language permits exceptions, notwithstanding the usus tyrannus, and the plur. לרעיך may be interpreted distributively: to thy fellows, it may be this one or that one. Hitzig also regards לרעיך as a singular; but the masc. of רעיה, the ground-form of which is certainly ra‛j, is רעה, or shorter, רע. לך ושׁוּב does not mean: forth! go home again! but: go, and come again. שׁוּב, to come again, to return to something, to seek it once more.^[10]
The ו of ישׁו אתּך is, as 29b, the conditional: quum sit penes te, sc. quod ei des. “To-morrow shall I give” is less a promise than a delay and putting off, because it is difficult for him to alienate himself from him who makes the request. This holding fast by one's own is unamiable selfishness; this putting off in the fulfilment of one's duty is a sin of omission - οὐ γὰρ οἶδας, as the lxx adds, τὶ τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα.

Verse 29

A second illustration of neighbourly love is harmlessness:
Devise not evil against thy neighbour,
While he dwelleth securely by thee.
The verb חרשׁ, χαράσσειν, signifies to cut into, and is used of the faber ferrarius as well as of the τιγναριυς (Isaiah, p. 463), who with a cutting instrument (חרשׁ, Gen 4:22) works with metal or wood, and from his profession is called חרשׁ. But the word means as commonly to plough, i.e., to cut with the plough, and חרשׁ is used also of a ploughman, and, without any addition to it, it always has this meaning. It is then a question whether the metaphorical phrase רעה חרשׁ signifies to fabricate evil, cf. dolorum faber, mendacia procudere, ψευδῶν καὶ ἀπατῶν τέκτων, and the Homeric κακὰ φρεὶ βυσσοδομεύειν (Fleischer and most others), or to plough evil (Rashi, Ewald, etc.). The Targ., Syriac, and Jerome translate חשׁב, without deciding the point, by moliri; but the lxx and Graecus Venet. by τεκταίνειν. The correctness of these renderings is not supported by Ezek. 21:36, where חרשׁי משׁחית are not such as fabricate destruction, but smiths who cause destruction; also מחרישׁ, 1Sa 23:9, proves nothing, and probably does not at all appertain to חרשׁ incidere (Keil), but to חרשׁ silere, in the sense of dolose moliri. On the one hand, it is to be observed from Job 4:8; Hos 10:13, cf. Psa 129:3, that the meaning arare malum might connect itself with חרשׁ רעה; and the proverb of Sirach 7:12, μὴ ἀροτρία ψεῦδος ἐπ ̓ ἀδελφῷ σου, places this beyond a doubt. Therefore in this phrase, if one keeps before him a clear perception of the figure, at one time the idea of fabricating, at another that of ploughing, is presented before us. The usage of the language in the case before us is more in favour of the latter than of the former. Whether ישׁב את means to dwell together with, or as Böttcher, to sit together with, after Psa 1:1; Psa 26:4., need not be a matter of dispute. It means in general a continued being together, whether as sitting, Job 2:13, or as dwelling, Jdg 17:11.^[11]
To take advantage of the regardlessness of him who imparts to us his confidence is unamiable. Love is doubly owing to him who resigns himself to it because he believes in it.

Verse 30

A third illustration of the same principle is peaceableness:
Contend not with a man without a cause,
When he has inflicted no evil upon thee.
Instead of תּרוּב, or as the Kerı̂ has amended it תּריב, the abbreviated form תּרב or תּרב would be more correct after אל; רוּב or ריב (from רב, to be compact) means to fall upon one another, to come to hand-blows, to contend. Contending and quarrelling with a man, whoever he may be, without sufficient reason, ought to be abandoned; but there exists no such reason if he has done me no harm which I have to reproach him with. גּמל רעה with the accus. or dat. of the person signifies to bring evil upon any one, malum inferre, or also referre (Schultens), for גּמל (cogn. גּמר) signifies to execute, to complete, accomplish - both of the initiative and of the requital, both of the anticipative and of the recompensing action; here in the former of these senses.

Verses 31-32

These exhortations to neighbourly love in the form of warning against whatever is opposed to it, are followed by the warning against fellowship with the loveless: 31 Be not envious toward the man of violence, And have no pleasure in all his ways. 32 For an abhorrence to Jahve is the perverse, But with the upight is His secret.
The conceptions of jealousy and envy lie in קנּא (derived by Schultens from קנא, Arab. ḳanâ, intensius rubere) inseparable from each other. The lxx, which for תקנא reads תקנה (κτήσῃ), brings the envy into 31b, as if the words here were ואל־תּתחר, as in Psa 37:1, Psa 37:7 (there the lxx has μὴ παραζήλου, here μηδὲ ζηλώσῃς). There is no reason for correcting our text in accordance with this (substituting תּתחר for תּבחר as Hitzig does), because בּכל־דּרכיו would be too vague an expression for the object of the envy, while אל־תבחר altogether agrees with it; and the contrary remark, that בּחר בּכּל is fundamentally no בחר, fails since (1) בחר frequently expresses pleasure in anything without the idea of choice, and (2) “have not pleasure in all his ways” is in the Hebrew style equivalent to “in any one of his ways;” Ewald, §323b. He who does “violence to the law” (Zep 3:4) becomes thereby, according to the common course of the world, a person who is feared, whose authority, power, and resources are increased, but one must not therefore envy him, nor on any side take pleasure in his conduct, which in all respects is to be reprobated; for the נלוז, inflexus, tortuosus (vid., Pro 2:15), who swerves from the right way and goes in a crooked false way, is an object of Jahve's abhorrence, while, on the contrary, the just, who with a right mind walks in the right way, is Jahve's סוד - an echo of Psa 25:14. סוד (R. סד, to be firm, compressed) means properly the being pressed together, or sitting together (cf. the Arab. wisâd, wisâdt, a cushion, divan, corresponding in form to the Hebr. יסוד) for the purpose of private communication and conversation (הוּסד), and then partly the confidential intercourse, as here (cf. Job 29:4), partly the private communication, the secret (Amo 3:7). lxx, ἐν δὲ δικαίοις [οὐ] συνεδριάζει. Those who are out of the way, who prefer to the simplicity of right-doing all manner of crooked ways, are contrary to God, and He may have nothing to do with them; but the right-minded He makes partakers of His most intimate intercourse, He deals with them as His friends.

Verse 33

The prosperity of the godless, far from being worthy of envy, has as its reverse side the curse:
The curse of Jahve is in the house of the godless,
And the dwelling of the just He blesseth. מארה (a curse), like מסלּה (a highway, from סלל), is formed from ארר (cf. Arab. harr, detestari, abhorrere, a word-imitation of an interjection used in disagreeable experiences). The curse is not merely a deprivation of external goods which render life happy, and the blessing is not merely the fulness of external possessions; the central-point of the curse lies in continuous disquiet of conscience, and that of the blessing in the happy consciousness that God is with us, in soul-rest and peace which is certain of the grace and goodness of God. The poetic נוה (from נוה = Arab. nwy, tetendit aliquo) signifies the place of settlement, and may be a word borrowed from a nomad life, since it denotes specially the pasture-ground; cf. Pro 24:15 (Fleischer). While the curse of God rests in the house of the wicked (vid., Köhler on Zec 5:4), He blesses, on the contrary, the dwelling-place of the righteous. The lxx and Jerome read יברך, but יברך is more agreeable, since God continues to be the subject.

Verse 34

His relation to men is determined by their relation to Him.
As for the scorners, He scorneth them,
But to the lowly He giveth grace.
Most interpreters render the verse thus: “If the scorner He (even He, in return) scorneth, so He (on the other hand) giveth grace to the lowly.” For the sequence of the words in the consequence, in which the precedence of the verb is usual, e.g., Lev 12:5, we are referred to Pro 23:18, cf. Pro 24:14; but why had the poet placed the two facts in the relation of condition and consequence? The one fact is not the consequence but the reverse of the other, and accordingly they are opposed to each other in coordinated passages, Psa 18:26. The Vav in such antitheses has generally the meaning of “and on the other hand,” e.g., Job 8:20, while the lxx, Targ., Syriac, and Jerome altogether pass over the אם as if it did not exist. Ziegler translates: “Truly! the scorner He scorneth;” but an affirmative אם does not exist, the asseveration after the manner of an oath is negative. Bertheau's expedient would be more acceptable, by which he makes the whole of Pro 3:34 the protasis to Pro 3:35; but if this were intended, another subject would not enter into Pro 3:35. Thus 34a and 34b are two independent parallel passages; אם־ללּצים is the protasis: if as regards the scorners, i.e., if His conduct is directed to the scorners, so He scorneth. The ל denotes relation, and in this elliptical usage is like the ל of superscription, e.g., Jer 23:9. הוּא is the emphatic αὐτός: He on the contrary, and in a decisive way (Ewald, §314ab). Instead of יליץ fo there might have been used יליצם (for הליץ, where it occurs as a governing word, has the accusative, Pro 19:28; Psa 119:51), but we do not miss the object: if it relates to scorners (thus also Löwenstein translates), so it is He in return who scorneth. The lxx renders it: κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι χάριν; cf. Jam 4:6; 1Pe 5:5. הוּא is used as a name of God (Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xvi. 400), on which account it is rendered like יהוה by κύριος. A ὑπερήφανος (appearing above others, i.e., overbearing) is the לץ, according to the definition Pro 21:24. the expression of the talio is generalized in ἀντιτάσσεται (resists them). For עניים the Kerı̂ has ענוים: ענו (from ענה, the ground-form ענו, Arab. 'anaw) is the lowly (ταπεινός), or he who bends himself, i.e., the gentle and humble, the patient, and the passive עני, he who is bowed down, the suffering; but the limits of the conception are moveable, since in עני is presupposed the possession of fruit-virtues gained in the school of affliction.

Verse 35

This group of the proverbs of wisdom now suitably closes with the fundamental contrast between the wise and fools:
The wise shall inherit honour,
But fools carry away shame.
If we take וּכסילים as the object, then we can scarcely interpret the clause: shame sweeps fools away (Umbreit, Zöckler, Bertheau), for הרים [Hiph. of רוּם] signifies (Isa 57:14; Eze 21:31) “to raise up anything high and far,” not “to sweep away.” Preferable is the rendering: τοὺς δ ̓ ἄφρονας ὑψοῖ ἀτιμία (Graec. Venet., and similarly Jerome), i.e., only to it do they owe their celebrity as warning examples (Ewald), to which Oetinger compares “whose glory is in their shame,” Phi 3:19;^[12] but קלון is the contrary of כּבוד (glory, Hab 2:16), and therefore is as much an object conception as is the latter, 35a. If it is the object, then if we take מרים from מר after the form of לן, Neh 13:21 = ממירים (Hos 4:7), it might be rendered: Yet fools exchange shame (Löwenstein). But מוּר, like the Arab. mrr, transire, means properly to pass over or to wander over; it is intransitive, and only in Hiph. signifies actively to exchange. מרים thus will be the participle of הרים; the plur. taken distributively (fools = whoever is only always a fool) is connected with the singular of the predicate. This change in the number is here, however, more difficult than at Pro 3:18, and in other places, where the plur. of the part. permits the resolution into a relative clause with quicunque, and more difficult than at Pro 28:1, where the sing. of the predicate is introduced by attraction; wherefore מרים may be an error in transcribing for מרימים or מרימי (Böttcher). J. H. Michaelis (after the Targ. and Syr.) has properly rendered the clause: “stulti tollunt ignominiam tanquam portionem suam,” adding “quae derivato nomine תרומהdicitur.” הרים signifies, in the language of the sacrificial worship and of worship generally, to lift off from anything the best portion, the legitimate portion due to God and the priesthood (vid., at Pro 3:9); for which reason Rashi glosses מרים by מפרישׁ לו, and Ralbag by מגביה לו. See Pro 14:29. Honour is that which the wise inherit, it falls to them unsought as a possession, but fools receive shame as the offal (viz., of their foolish conduct). The fut. and part. are significantly interchanged. The life of the wise ends in glory, but fools inherit shame; the fruit of their conduct is shame and evermore shame.

Chap. 4

Verses 1-4

He now confirms and explains the command to duty which he has placed at the beginning of the whole (Pro 1:8). This he does by his own example, for he relates from the history of his own youth, to the circle of disciples by whom he sees himself surrounded, what good doctrine his parents had taught him regarding the way of life: 1 Hear, ye sons, the instruction of a father, And attend that ye may gain understanding; 2 For I give to you good doctrine, Forsake not my direction! 3 For I was a son to my father, A tender and only (son) in the sight of my mother. 4 And he instructed me, and said to me: “Let thine heart hold fast my words: Observe my commandments and live!”
That בּנים in the address comes here into the place of בּני, hitherto used, externally denotes that בני in the progress of these discourses finds another application: the poet himself is so addressed by his father. Intentionally he does not say אביכם (cf. Pro 1:8): he does not mean the father of each individual among those addressed, but himself, who is a father in his relation to them as his disciples; and as he manifests towards them fatherly love, so also he can lay claim to paternal authority over them. לדעת is rightly vocalized, not לדעת. The words do not give the object of attention, but the design, the aim. The combination of ideas in דּעת בּינה (cf. Pro 1:2), which appears to us singular, loses its strangeness when we remember that דעת means, according to its etymon, deposition or reception into the conscience and life. Regarding לקח, apprehension, reception, lesson = doctrine, vid., Pro 1:5. נתתּי is the perf., which denotes as fixed and finished what is just now being done, Gesenius, §126, 4. עזב is here synonym of נטשׁ, Pro 1:8, and the contrary of שׁמר, Pro 28:4. The relative factum in the perfect, designating the circumstances under which the event happened, regularly precedes the chief factum ויּרני; see under Gen 1:2. Superficially understood, the expression 3a would be a platitude; the author means that the natural legal relation was also confirming itself as a moral one. It was a relation of many-sided love, according to 3a: he was esteemed of his mother - לפני, used of the reflex in the judgment, Gen 10:9, and of loving care, Gen 17:18, means this - as a tender child, and therefore tenderly to be protected (רך as Gen 33:13), and as an only child, whether he were so in reality, or was only loved as if he were so. יחיד (Aq., Sym., Theod., μονογενής) may with reference to number also mean unice dilectus (lxx ἀγαπώμενος); cf. Gen 22:2, יחידך (where the lxx translate τὸν ἀγαπητόν, without therefore having ידידך before them). לפני is maintained by all the versions; לבני is not a variant.^[13]
The instruction of the father begins with the jussive, which is pointed יתמך־^[14] to distinguish it from יתמך־ on account of the ǒ. The lxx has incorrectly ἐρειδέτω, as if the word were יסמך; Symmachus has correctly κατεχέτω. The imper. וחיה is, as Pro 7:2; Gen 20:7, more than ותחיה; the teacher seeks, along with the means, at the same time their object: Observe my commandments, and so become a partaker of life! The Syriac, however, adds תּורתיו כּאישׁון עיניך and my instruction as the apple of thine eye, a clause borrowed from Pro 7:2.

Verses 5-6

The exhortation of the father now specializes itself: 5 Get wisdom, get understanding; Forget not and turn not from the words of my mouth. 6 Forsake her not, so shall she preserve thee; Love her, so shall she keep thee.
Wisdom and understanding are (5a) thought of as objects of merchandise (cf. Pro 23:23; Pro 3:14), like the one pearl of great price, Mat 13:46, and the words of fatherly instruction (5b), accordingly, as offering this precious possession, or helping to the acquisition of it. One cannot indeed say correctly אל־תשׁכח מאמרי־פי, but אל־תשׁכח משּׁמר אמרי־פי (Psa 102:5); and in this sense אל־תּשׁכּח goes before, or also the accus. object, which in אל־תשכח the author has in his mind, may, since he continues with אל־תּט, now not any longer find expression as such. That the אמרי־פי are the means of acquiring wisdom is shown in Pro 4:6, where this continues to be the primary idea. The verse, consisting of only four words, ought to be divided by Mugrash;^[15] the Vav (ו) in both halves of the verse introduces the apodosis imperativi (cf. e.g., Pro 3:9., and the apodosis prohibitivi, Pro 3:21.). The actual representation of wisdom, Pro 4:5, becomes in Pro 4:6 personal.

Verses 7-9

Referring to Pro 4:5, the father further explains that wisdom begins with the striving after it, and that this striving is itself its fundamental beginning: 7 The beginning of wisdom is “Get wisdom,” And with [um, at the price of] all thou hast gotten get understanding, 8 Esteem her, so shall she lift thee up; She will bring thee honour if thou dost embrace her. 9 She will put on thine head a graceful garland, She will bestow upon thee a glorious diadem.
In the motto of the book, Pro 1:7, the author would say that the fear of Jahve is that from which all wisdom takes its origin. יראת יהוה (Pro 1:7) is the subject, and as such it stands foremost. Here he means to say what the beginning of wisdom consists in. ראשׁית חכמה is the subject, and stands forth as such. The predicate may also be read קנה־חכמה (= קנות), after Pro 16:16. The beginning of wisdom is (consists in) the getting of wisdom; but the imperative קנה, which also Aq., Sym., Theod. (κτῆσαι), Jerome, Syr., Targ. express (the lxx leaves Pro 4:7 untranslated), is supported by 7b. Hitzig, after Mercier, De Dieu, and Döderlein, translates the verse thus: “the highest thing is wisdom; get wisdom,” which Zöckler approves of; but the reasons which determine him to this rendering are subtleties: if the author had wished himself to be so understood, he ought at least to have written the words ראשׁית החכמה. But ראשׁית חכמה is a genitive of relation, as is to be expected from the relativity of the idea ראשׁית, and his intention is to say that the beginning of wisdom consists in the proposition קנה חכמה (cf. the similar formula, Ecc 12:13); this proposition is truly the lapis philosophorum, it contains all that is necessary in order to becoming wise. Therefore the Greek σοφία called itself modestly φιλοσοφία; for ἀρχὴ σὐτῆς the Book of Wisdom has, Pro 6:18, ἡ ἀληθεστάτη παιδείας ἐπιθυμία. In 7b the proposition is expressed which contains the specificum helping to wisdom. The בּ denotes price: give all for wisdom (Mat 13:46, Mat 13:44); no price is too high, no sacrifice too great for it.

Verses 8-9

The meaning of the ἁπ. γεγρ. סלסל is determined by רומם in the parallel clause; סלל signifies to raise, exalt, as a way or dam by heaping up; the Pilpel, here tropical: to value or estimate highly. Böttcher interprets well: hold it high in price, raise it (as a purchaser) always higher, make offer for it upon offer. The lxx (approved by Bertheau), περιχαράκωσον αὐτήν, circumvallate it, i.e., surround it with a wall (סללה) - a strange and here unsuitable figure. Hold it high, says the author, and so it will reward^[16] thee with a high place, and (with chiastic transposition of the performance and the consequence) she will honour^[17] thee if (ἐάν) thou lovingly embracest her. חבּק is used of embracing in the pressure of tender love, as in Sol 2:6; Sol 8:3; the Piel is related to the Kal as amplexari to amplecti. Wisdom exalts her admirers, honours her lovers, and makes a man's appearance pleasant, causing him to be reverenced when he approaches. Regarding לוית־חן, vid., Pro 1:9. מגּן, to deliver up (Gen 14:20), to give up (Hos 11:8), is connected in the free poetic manner with two accusatives, instead of with an accus. and dat. lxx has ὑπερασπίσῃ, but one does not defend himself (as with a shield) by a wreath or crown.

Verses 10-12

There is no reason for the supposition that the warning which his father gave to the poet now passes over into warnings given by the poet himself (Hitzig); the admonition of the father thus far refers only in general to the endeavour after wisdom, and we are led to expect that the good doctrines which the father communicates to the son as a viaticum will be further expanded, and become more and more specific when they take a new departure. 10 Hearken, my son, and receive my sayings, So shall the years of life be increased to thee. 11 In the way of wisdom have I taught thee, Guided thee in the paths of rectitude. 12 When thou goest, thy step shall not be straitened; And if thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.
Regarding קח (of לקח) of appropriating reception and taking up in succum et sanguinem, vid., Pro 1:3; regarding שׁנות חיּים, years not merely of the duration of life, but of the enjoyment of life, Pro 3:2; regarding מעגּל (מעגּלה), path (track), Pro 2:9; regarding the בּ of הורה, of the department and subject of instruction, Psa 25:8. The perfects, Pro 4:11, are different from נתתּי, 2a: they refer to rules of life given at an earlier period, which are summarily repeated in this address. The way of wisdom is that which leads to wisdom (Job 28:23); the paths of rectitude, such as trace out the way which is in accordance with the rule of the good and the right. If the youth holds to this direction, he will not go on in darkness or uncertainty with anxious footsteps; and if in youthful fervour he flies along his course, he will not stumble on any unforeseen obstacle and fall. יצר is as a metaplastic fut. to צרר or צוּר, to be narrow, to straiten, formed as if from יצר. The Targ. after Aruch,^[18] לא תשנק ארחך, thou shalt not need to bind together (constringere) or to hedge up thy way.

Verses 13-14

The exhortations attracting by means of promises, now become warnings fitted to alarm: 13 Hold fast to instruction, let her not go; Keep her, for she is thy life. 14 Into the path of the wicked enter not, And walk not in the way of the evil 15 Avoid it, enter not into it; Turn from it and pass away. 16 For they cannot sleep unless they do evil, And they are deprived of sleep unless they bring others to ruin. 17 For they eat the bread of wickedness, And they drink the wine of violence.
Elsewhere מוּסר means also self-discipline, or moral religious education, Pro 1:3; here discipline, i.e., parental educative counsel. תּרף is the segolated fut. apoc. Hiph. (indic. תּרפּה) from tarp, cf. the imper. Hiph. הרף from harp. נצּרה is the imper. Kal (not Piel, as Aben Ezra thinks) with Dagesh dirimens; cf. the verbal substantive נצּרה Psa 141:3, with similar Dagesh, after the form יקּהה, Gen 49:10. מוּסר (elsewhere always masc.) is here used in the fem. as the synonym of the name of wisdom: keep her (instruction), for she is thy life,^[19]i.e., the life of thy life. In Pro 4:14 the godless (vid., on the root-idea of רשׁע under Psa 1:1) and the habitually wicked, i.e., the vicious, stand in parallelism; בּוא and אשּׁר are related as entering and going on, ingressus and progressus. The verb אשׁר signifies, like ישׁר, to be straight, even, fortunate, whence אשׁר = Arab. yusâr, happiness, and to step straight out, Pro 9:6, of which meanings אשּׁר is partly the intensive, as here, partly the causative, Pro 23:19 (elsewhere causative of the meaning, to be happy, Gen 30:13). The meaning progredi is not mediated by a supplementary צעדיו; the derivative אשׁוּר (אשּׁוּר), a step, shows that it is derived immediately from the root-idea of a movement in a straight line. Still less justifiable is the rendering by Schultens, ne vestigia imprimas in via malorum; for the Arab. âththr is denom. of ithr, אתר, the primitive verb roots of which, athr, אתר = אשׁר, are lost.

Verse 15

On פּרעהוּ, avoid it (the way), (opp. אחז, Job 17:9; תּמך, Psa 17:5), see under Pro 1:25. שׂטה, elsewhere (as the Arab. shatt, to be without measure, insolent) used in malam partem, has here its fundamental meaning, to go aside. מעליו (expressed in French by de dessus, in Ital. by di sopra) denotes: so that thou comest not to stand on it. עבר means in both cases transire, but the second instance, “to go beyond (farther)” (cf. 2Sa 15:22, and under Hab 1:11), coincides with “to escape, evadere.”

Verse 16

In the reason here given the perf. may stand in the conditional clauses as well as in Virgil's Et si non aliqua nocuisses, mortuus esses; but the fut., as in Ecc 5:11, denotes that they (the רעים and the רשׁעים) cannot sleep, and are deprived of their sleep, unless they are continually doing evil and bringing others into misery; the interruption of this course of conduct, which has become to them like a second nature, would be as the interruption of their diet, which makes them ill. For the Kal יכשׁולוּ, which here must have the meaning of the person sinning (cf. Pro 4:19), and would be feeble if used of the confirmed transgressors, the Kerı̂ rightly substitutes the Hiphil יכשׁילוּ, which occurs also 2Ch 25:8, there without an object, in the meaning to cause to fall, as the contrast of עזר (to help).

Verse 17

The second כּי introduces the reason of their bodily welfare being conditioned by evil-doing. If the poet meant: they live on bread which consists in wickedness, i.e., on wickedness as their bread, then in the parallel sentence he should have used the word חמס; the genitives are meant of the means of acquisition: they live on unrighteous gain, on bread and wine which they procure by wickedness and by all manner of violence or injustice. On the etymon of חמס (Arab. ḥamas, durum, asperum, vehementem esse), vid., Schultens; the plur. חמסים belongs to a more recent epoch (vid., under 2Sa 22:49 and Psa 18:49). The change in the tense represents the idea that they having eaten such bread, set forth such wine, and therewith wash it down.

Verses 18-19

The two ways that lie for his choice before the youth, are distinguished from one another as light is from darkness: 18 And the path of the just is like the brightness of the morning light, Which shines more and more till the perfect day. 19 The way of the wicked is deep darkness, They know not at what they stumble.
The Hebr. style is wont to conceal in its Vav (ו) diverse kinds of logical relations, but the Vav of 18a may suitably stand before 19a, where the discontinuance of this contrast of the two ways is unsuitable. The displacing of a Vav from its right position is not indeed without example (see under Psa 16:3); but since Pro 4:19 joins itself more easily than Pro 4:18 to Pro 4:17 without missing a particle, thus it is more probable that the two verses are to be transposed, than that the ו of וארח (Pro 4:17) is to be prefixed to דּרך (Pro 4:18). Sinning, says Pro 4:16, has become to the godless as a second nature, so that they cannot sleep without it; they must continually be sinning, adds Pro 4:17, for thus and not otherwise do they gain for themselves their daily bread. With reference to this fearful self-perversion to which wickedness has become a necessity and a condition of life, the poet further says that the way of the godless is כּאפלה,^[20] as deep darkness, as the entire absence of light: it cannot be otherwise than that they fall, but they do not at all know whereat they fall, for they do not at all know wickedness as such, and have no apprehension of the punishment which from an inward necessity it brings along with it; on the contrary, the path of the just is in constantly increasing light - the light of knowledge, and the light of true happiness which is given^[21] in and with knowledge. On בּמּה vid., under Isa 2:22; it is מכשׁול, σκάνδαλον, that is meant, stumbling against which (cf. Lev 26:37) they stumble to their fall. נגהּ,^[22] used elsewhere than in the Bible, means the morning star (Venus), (Sirach 50:4, Syr.); when used in the Bible it means the early dawn, the light of the rising sun, the morning light, 2Sa 23:4; Isa 62:1, which announces itself in the morning twilight, Dan 6:20. The light of this morning sunshine is הולך ואור, going and shining, i.e., becoming ever brighter. In the connection of הולך ואור it might be a question whether אור is regarded as gerundive (Gen 8:3, Gen 8:5), or as participle (2Sa 16:5; Jer 41:6), or as a participial adjective (Gen 26:13; Jdg 4:24); in the connection of הלוך ואור, on the contrary, it is unquestionably the gerundive: the partic. denoting the progress joins itself either with the partic., Jon 1:11, or with the participial adjective, 2Sa 3:1; 2Ch 17:12, or with another adjective formation, 2Sa 15:12; Est 9:4 (where וגדול after וגדל of other places appears to be intended as an adjective, not after 2Sa 5:10 as gerundive). Thus ואור, as also וטוב, 1Sa 2:26, will be participial after the form בּושׁ, being ashamed (Ges. §72, 1); cf. בּוס, Zec 10:5, קום, 2Ki 16:7. “נכון היּום quite corresponds to the Greek τὸ σταθηρὸν τῆς ἡμέρας, ἡ σταθηρὰ μεσημβρία (as one also says τὸ σταθηρὸν τῆς νυκτός), and to the Arabic qâ'mt ‛l-nhâr and qâ'mt ‛l-dhyrt. The figure is probably derived from the balance (cf. Lucan's Pharsalia, lib. 9: quam cardine summo Stat librata dies): before and after midday the tongue on the balance of the day bends to the left and to the right, but at the point of midday it stands directly in the midst” (Fleischer). It is the midday time that is meant, when the clearness of the day has reached its fullest intensity - the point between increasing and decreasing, when, as we are wont to say, the sun stands in the zenith (= Arab. samt, the point of support, i.e., the vertex). Besides Mar 4:28, there is no biblical passage which presents like these two a figure of gradual development. The progress of blissful knowledge is compared to that of the clearness of the day till it reaches its midday height, having reached to which it becomes a knowing of all in God, Pro 28:5; 1Jo 2:20.

Verses 20-22

The paternal admonition now takes a new departure: 20 My son, attend unto my words, Incline thine ear to my sayings. 21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; Keep them in the midst of thine heart. 22 For they are life to all who get possession of them, And health to their whole body.
Regarding the Hiph. הלּין (for הלין), Pro 4:21, formed after the Chaldee manner like הלּין, הנּיח, הסּיג, vid., Gesenius, §72, 9; - Ewald, §114, c, gives to it the meaning of “to mock,” for he interchanges it with הלין, instead of the meaning to take away, efficere ut recedat (cf. under Pro 2:15). This supposed causative meaning it has also here: may they = may one (vid., under Pro 2:22) not remove them from thine eyes; the object is (Pro 4:20) the words of the paternal admonition. Hitzig, indeed, observes that “the accusative is not supplied;” but with greater right it is to be remarked that ילּיזוּ (fut. Hiph. of לוּז) and ילוּזוּ (fut. Kal of id.) are not one and the same, and the less so as הלּיז occurs, but the masoretical and grammatical authorities (e.g., Kimchi) demand ילּיזוּ. The plur. למצאיהם is continued, 22b, in the sing., for that which is said refers to each one of the many (Pro 3:18, Pro 3:28, Pro 3:35). מצא is fundamentally an active conception, like our “finden,” to find; it means to attain, to produce, to procure, etc. מרפּא means, according as the מ is understood of the “that = ut” of the action or of the “what” of its performance, either health or the means of health; here, like רפאוּת, Pro 3:8, not with the underlying conception of sickness, but of the fluctuations connected with the bodily life of man, which make needful not only a continual strengthening of it, but also its being again and again restored. Nothing preserves soul and body in a healthier state than when we always keep before our eyes and carry in our hearts the good doctrines; they give to us true guidance on the way of life: “Godliness has the promise of this life, and of that which is to come.” 1Ti 4:8.

Verses 23-27

After this general preface the exhortation now becomes special: 23 Above all other things that are to be guarded, keep thy heart, For out from it life has its issues. 24 Put away from thee perverseness of mouth, And waywardness of lips put far from thee. 25 Thine eyes should look straight forward, And thine eyelids look straight to the end before thee. 26 Make even the path of thy feet, And let all thy ways be correct. 27 Turn not aside to the right and to the left; Remove thy foot from evil.
Although משׁמר in itself and in this connection may mean the object to be watchfully avoided (cavendi) (vid., under Pro 2:20): thus the usage of the language lying before us applies it, yet only as denoting the place of watching or the object observandi; so that it is not to be thus explained, with Raschi and others: before all from which one has to protect himself (ab omni re cavenda), guard thine heart; but: before all that one has to guard (prae omni re custodienda), guard it as the most precious of possessions committed to thy trust. The heart, which according to its etymon denotes that which is substantial (Kernhafte) in man (cf. Arab. lubb, the kernel of the nut or almond), comes here into view not as the physical, but as the intellectual, and specially the ethical centrum.

Verse 24

The תּוצאות are the point of a thing, e.g., of a boundary, from which it goes forth, and the linear course proceeding from thence. If thus the author says that the תּוצאות חיּים go out from the heart,^[23] he therewith implies that the life has not only its fountain in the heart, but also that the direction which it takes is determined by the heart. Physically considered, the heart is the receptacle for the blood, in which the soul lives and rules; the pitcher at the blood-fountain which draws it and pours it forth; the chief vessel of the physically self-subsisting blood-life from which it goes forth, and into which it disembogues (Syst. der bib. Psychol. p. 232). What is said of the heart in the lower sense of corporeal vitality, is true in the higher sense of the intellectual soul-life. The Scripture names the heart also as the intellectual soul-centre of man, in its concrete, central unity, its dynamic activity, and its ethical determination on all sides. All the radiations of corporeal and of soul life concentrate there, and again unfold themselves from thence; all that is implied in the Hellenic and Hellenistic words νοῦς, λόγος, συνείδησις, θυμός, lies in the word καρδία; and all whereby בּשׂר (the body) and נפשׁ (the spirit, anima) are affected comes in לב into the light of consciousness (Id. p. 251). The heart is the instrument of the thinking, willing, perceiving life of the spirit; it is the seat of the knowledge of self, of the knowledge of God, of the knowledge of our relation to God, and also of the law of God impressed on our moral nature; it is the workshop of our individual spiritual and ethical form of life brought about by self-activity - the life in its higher and in its lower sense goes out from it, and receives from it the impulse of the direction which it takes; and how earnestly, therefore, must we feel ourselves admonished, how sacredly bound to preserve the heart in purity (Psa 73:1), so that from this spring of life may go forth not mere seeming life and a caricature of life, but a true life well-pleasing to God! How we have to carry into execution this careful guarding of the heart, is shown in Pro 4:24 and the golden rules which follow. Mouth and lips are meant (Pro 4:24) as instruments of speech, and not of its utterance, but of the speech going forth from them. עקּשׁוּת, distorsio, refers to the mouth (Pro 6:12), when what it speaks is disfiguring and deforming, thus falsehood as the contrast of truth and love (Pro 2:12); and to the lips לזוּת, when that which they speak turns aside from the true and the right to side-ways and by-ways. Since the Kametz of such abstracta, as well of verbs 'ו'ע like לזוּת, Eze 32:5, as of verbs 'ה'ל like גּלוּת, Isa 45:13, חזוּת, Isa 28:18, is elsewhere treated as unalterable, there lies in this לזוּת either an inconsistency of punctuation, or it is presupposed that the form לזוּת was vocalized like שׁבוּת = שׁבית, Num 21:29.

Verse 25

Another rule commends gathering together (concentration) in opposition to dissipation. It is also even externally regarded worthy of consideration, as Ben-Sira, Pro 9:5, expresses it: μὴ περιβλέπου ἐν ῥύμαις πόλεως - purposeless, curious staring about operates upon the soul, always decentralizing and easily defiling it. But the rule does not exhaust itself in this meaning with reference to external self-discipline; it counsels also straight-forward, unswerving directness toward a fixed goal (and what else can this be in such a connection than that which wisdom places before man?), without the turning aside of the eye toward that which is profitless and forbidden, and in this inward sense it falls in with the demand for a single, not squinting eye, Mat 6:22, where Bengel explains ἁπλοῦς by simplex et bonus, intentus in caelum, in Deum, unice. נכח (R. נך) means properly fixing, or holding fast with the look, and נגד (as the Arab. najad, to be clear, to be in sight, shows) the rising up which makes the object stand conspicuous before the eyes; both denote here that which lies straight before us, and presents itself to the eye looking straight out. The naming of the עפעפּים (from עפעף, to flutter, to move tremblingly), which belongs not to the seeing apparatus of the eye but to its protection, is introduced by the poetical parallelism; for the eyelids, including in this word the twinkling, in their movement follow the direction of the seeing eye. On the form יישׁרוּ (fut. Hiph. of ישׁר, to be straight), defective according to the Masora, with the Jod audible, cf. Hos 7:12; 1Ch 12:2, and under Gen 8:17; the softened form הישׁיר does not occur, we find only הישׁיר or הושׁיר.

Verse 26

The understanding of this rule is dependent on the right interpretation of פּלּס, which means neither “weigh off” (Ewald) nor “measure off” (Hitzig, Zöckler). פּלּס has once, Psa 58:3, the meaning to weigh out, as the denom. of פּלס, a level, a steelyard;^[24] everywhere else it means to make even, to make level, to open a road: vid., under Isa 26:7; Isa 40:12. The admonition thus refers not to the careful consideration which measures the way leading to the goal which one wishes to reach, but to the preparation of the way by the removal of that which prevents unhindered progress and makes the way insecure. The same meaning appears if פּלּס, of cognate meaning with תּכּן, denoted first to level, and then to make straight with the level (Fleischer). We must remove all that can become a moral hindrance or a dangerous obstacle, in our life-course, in order that we may make right steps with our feet, as the lxx (Heb 12:13) translate. 26b is only another expression for this thought. הכין דּרכּו (2Ch 27:6) means to give a direction to his way; a right way, which keeps in and facilitates the keeping in the straight direction, is accordingly called דּרך נכון; and “let all thy ways be right” (cf. Psa 119:5, lxx κατευθυνθείησαν) will thus mean: see to it that all the ways which thou goest lead straight to the end.

Verse 27

In closest connection with the preceding, 27a cautions against by-ways and indirect courses, and 27b continues it in the briefest moral expression, which is here הסר רגלך מרע instead of סוּר מרע, Pro 3:7, for the figure is derived from the way. The lxx has other four lines after this verse (27), which we have endeavoured to retranslate into the Hebrew (Introd. p. 47). They are by no means genuine; for while in 27a right and left are equivalent to by-ways, here the right and left side are distinguished as that of truth and its contrary; and while there [in lxx] the ὀρθὰς τροχιὰς ποιεῖν is required of man, here it is promised as the operation of God, which is no contradiction, but in this similarity of expression betrays poverty of style. Hitzig disputes also the genuineness of the Hebrew Pro 4:27. But it continues explanatorily Pro 4:26, and is related to it, yet not as a gloss, and in the general relation of 26 and 27a there comes a word, certainly not unwelcome, such as 27b, which impresses the moral stamp on these thoughts. That with Pro 4:27 the admonition of his father, which the poet, placing himself back into the period of his youth, reproduces, is not yet concluded, the resumption of the address בּני, Pro 5:1, makes evident; while on the other hand the address בּנים in Pro 5:7 shows that at that point there is advance made from the recollections of his father's house to conclusions therefrom, for the circle of young men by whom the poet conceives himself to be surrounded. That in Pro 5:7. a subject of the warning with which the seventh address closes is retained and further prosecuted, does not in the connection of all these addresses contradict the opinion that with Pro 5:7 a new address begins. But the opinion that the warning against adultery does not agree (Zöckler) with the designation רך, Pro 4:3, given to him to whom it is addressed, is refuted by 1Ch 22:5; 2Ch 13:7.

Chap. 5

Verses 1-6

Here a fourth rule of life follows the three already given, Pro 4:24, Pro 4:25, Pro 4:26-27 : 1 My son, attend unto my wisdom, And incline thine ear to my prudence, 2 To observe discretion, And that thy lips preserve knowledge. 3 For the lips of the adulteress distil honey, And smoother than oil is her mouth; 4 But her end is bitter like wormwood, Sharper than a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death, Her steps cleave to Hades. 6 She is far removed from entering the way of life, Her steps wander without her observing it.
Wisdom and understanding increase with the age of those who earnestly seek after them. It is the father of the youth who here requests a willing ear to his wisdom of life, gained in the way of many years' experience and observation. In Pro 5:2 the inf. of the object is continued in the finitum, as in Pro 2:2, Pro 2:8. מזמּות (vid., on its etymon under Pro 1:4) are plans, projects, designs, for the most part in a bad sense, intrigues and artifices (vid., Pro 24:8), but also used of well-considered resolutions toward what is good, and hence of the purposes of God, Jer 23:20. This noble sense of the word מזמּה, with its plur., is peculiar to the introductory portion (chap. 1-9) of the Book of Proverbs. The plur. means here and at Pro 8:12 (placing itself with חכמות and תּבוּנות, vid., p. 68) the reflection and deliberation which is the presupposition of well-considered action, and שׁמר is thus not otherwise than at Pro 19:8, and everywhere so meant, where it has that which is obligatory as its object: the youth is summoned to careful observation and persevering exemplification of the quidquid agas, prudenter agas et respice finem. In 2b the Rebia Mugrash forbids the genitive connection of the two words דּעתו שׂפתיך; we translate: et ut scientiam labia tua tueantur. Lips which preserve knowledge are such as permit nothing to escape from them (Psa 17:3) which proceeds not from the knowledge of God, and in Him of that which is good and right, and aims at the working out of this knowledge; vid., Köhler on Mal 2:7. שׂפתיך (from שׂפה, Arab. shafat, edge, lip, properly that against which one rubs, and that which rubs itself) is fem., but the usage of the language presents the word in two genders (cf. 3a with Pro 26:23). Regarding the pausal ינצרוּ for יצּרוּ, vid., under Mal 3:1; Mal 2:11. The lips which distil the honey of enticement stand opposite to the lips which distil knowledge; the object of the admonition is to furnish a protection against the honey-lips.

Verse 3

Pro 5:3 זרה denotes the wife who belongs to another, or who does not belong to him to whom she gives herself or who goes after her (vid., Pro 2:16). She appears here as the betrayer of youth. The poet paints the love and amiableness which she feigns with colours from the Song of Songs, Sol 4:11, cf. Sol 5:16. נפת denotes the honey flowing of itself from the combs (צוּפים), thus the purest and sweetest; its root-word is not נוּף, which means to shake, vibrate, and only mediately (when the object is a fluid) to scatter, sprinkle, but, as Schultens has observed, as verb נפת = Arab. nafat, to bubble, to spring up, nafath, to blow, to spit out, to pour out. Parchon places the word rightly under נפת (while Kimchi places it under נוּף after the form בּשׁת), and explained it by חלות דבשׁ היצאים מי הכוורת קודם ריסוק (the words דבשׁ היוצא should have been used): the honey which flows from the cells before they are broken (the so-called virgin honey). The mouth, חך = Arab. ḥink (from חנך, Arab. hanak, imbuere, e.g., after the manner of Beduins, the mouth of the newly-born infant with date-honey), comes into view here, as at Pro 8:7, etc., as the instrument of speech: smoother than oil (cf. Psa 55:22), it shows itself when it gives forth amiable, gentle, impressive words (Pro 2:16, Pro 6:24); also our “schmeicheln” (= to flatter, caress) is equivalent to to make smooth and fair; in the language of weavers it means to smooth the warp.

Verses 4-5

In Pro 5:4 the reverse of the sweet and smooth external is placed opposite to the attraction of the seducer, by whose influence the inconsiderate permits himself to be carried away: her end, i.e., the last that is experienced of her, the final consequence of intercourse with her (cf. Pro 23:32), is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. The O.T. language regards bitterness and poison as related both in meaning and in reality; the word לענה (Aq. ἀψίνθιον = wormwood) means in Arab. the curse. חרב פּיּות is translated by Jerome after the lxx, gladius biceps; but פּיפיּות means double-edged, and חרב שׁני פיות (Jdg 3:16) means a doubled-edged sword. Here the plur. will thus poetically strengthen the meaning, like ξίφος πολύστομον, that which devours, as if it had three or four edges (Fl.). The end in which the disguised seduction terminates is bitter as the bitterest, and cutting as that which cuts the most: self-condemnation and a feeling of divine anger, anguish of heart, and destructive judgment. The feet of the adulteress go downward to death. In Hebr. this descendentes ad mortem is expressed by the genitive of connection; מות is the genitive, as in יורדי בור, Pro 1:12; elsewhere the author uses יורדות אל, Pro 7:27; Pro 2:18. Death, מות (so named from the stretching of the corpse after the stiffness of death), denotes the condition of departure from this side as a punishment, with which is associated the idea of divine wrath. In שׁאול (sinking, abyss, from שׁאל, R. של, χαλᾶν, vid., under Isa 5:14), lie the ideas of the grave as a place of corruption, and of the under-world as the place of incorporeal shadow-life. Her steps hold fast to Hades is equivalent to, they strive after Hades and go straight to it; similar to this is the Arab. expression, hdhâ âldrb yâkhdh âly âlbld: this way leads straight forward to the town (Fl.).

Verse 6

If we try to connect the clause beginning with פּן with 5b as its principal sentence: she goes straight to the abyss, so that by no means does she ever tread the way of life (thus e.g., Schultens), or better, with 6b: never more to walk in the way of life, her paths fluctuate hither and thither (as Gr. Venet. and Kamphausen in Bunsen's Bibelwerk, after Bertheau and Ewald, translate); then in the former case more than in the latter the difference of the subject opposes itself, and in the latter, in addition, the לא תדע, only disturbing in this negative clause. Also by the arrangement of the words, 6a appears as an independent thought. But with Jewish expositors (Rashi, Aben-Ezra, Ralbag, Malbim, etc.) to interpret תּפּלּס, after the Talmud (b. Moëd katan 9a) and Midrash, as an address is impracticable; the warning: do not weigh the path of life, affords no meaning suitable to this connection - for we must, with Cartwright and J. H. Michaelis, regard 6a as the antecedent to 6b: ne forte semitam vitae ad sequendum eligas, te per varios deceptionum meandros abripit ut non noveris, ubi locorum sis; but then the continuation of the address is to be expected in 6b. No, the subject to תפלם is the adulteress, and פּן is an intensified לא. Thus the lxx, Jerome, Syr., Targ., Luther, Geier, Nolde, and among Jewish interpreters Heidenheim, who first broke with the tradition sanctioned by the Talmud and the Midrash, for he interpreted 6a as a negative clause spoken in the tone of a question. But פּן is not suitable for a question, but for a call. Accordingly, Böttcher explains: viam vitae ne illa complanare studeat! (פּלּס in the meaning complanando operam dare). But the adulteress as such, and the striving to come to the way of life, stand in contradiction: an effort to return must be meant, which, because the power of sin over her is too great, fails; but the words do not denote that, they affirm the direct contrary, viz., that it does not happen to the adulteress ever to walk in the way of life. As in the warning the independent פּן may be equivalent to cave ne (Job 32:13), so also in the declaration it may be equivalent to absit ut, for פּן (from פּנה, after the forms בּן = Arab. banj. עץ = Arab. 'aṣj) means turning away, removal. Thus: Far from taking the course of the way of life (which has life as its goal and reward) - for פּלּס, to open, to open a road (Psa 78:50), has here the meaning of the open road itself - much rather do her steps wilfully stagger (Jer 14:10) hither and thither, they go without order and without aim, at one time hither, at another time thither, without her observing it; i.e., without her being concerned at this, that she thereby runs into the danger of falling headlong into the yawning abyss. The unconsciousness which the clause לא תדע esu expresses, has as its object not the falling (Psa 35:8), of which there is here nothing directly said, but just this staggering, vacillation, the danger of which she does not watch against. נעו has Mercha under the ע with Zinnorith preceding; it is Milra [an oxytone] (Michlol 111b); the punctuation varies in the accentuations of the form without evident reason: Olsh. § 233, p. 285. The old Jewish interpreters (and recently also Malbim) here, as also at Pro 2:16, by the זרה [strange woman] understand heresy (מינות), or the philosophy that is hostile to revelation; the ancient Christian interpreters understood by it folly (Origen), or sensuality (Procopius), or heresy (Olympiodorus), or false doctrine (Polychronios). The lxx, which translates, Pro 5:5, רגליה by τῆς ἀφροσύνης οἱ πόδες, looks toward this allegorical interpretation. But this is unnecessary, and it is proved to be false from Pro 5:15-20, where the זרה is contrasted with the married wife.

Verses 7-11

The eighth discourse springs out of the conclusion of the seventh, and connects itself by its reflective מעליה so closely with it that it appears as its continuation; but the new beginning and its contents included in it, referring only to social life, secures its relative independence. The poet derives the warning against intercourse with the adulteress from the preceding discourse, and grounds it on the destructive consequences. 7 And now, ye sons, hearken unto me, And depart not from the words of my mouth. 8 Hold thy path far from her neighbourhood, And come not to the door of her house! 9 That thou mayest not give the freshness of thy youth to another, Nor thy years to the cruel one; 10 That strangers may not sate themselves with thy possessions, And the fruit of thy toils come into the house of a stranger, 11 And thou groanest at the end, When thy flesh and thy body are consumed.
Neither here nor in the further stages of this discourse is there any reference to the criminal punishment inflicted on the adulterer, which, according to Lev 20:10, consisted in death, according to Eze 16:40, cf. John. Pro 8:5, in stoning, and according to a later traditional law, in strangulation (חנק). Ewald finds in Pro 5:14 a play on this punishment of adultery prescribed by law, and reads from Pro 5:9. that the adulterer who is caught by the injured husband was reduced to the state of a slave, and was usually deprived of his manhood. But that any one should find pleasure in making the destroyer of his wife his slave is a far-fetched idea, and neither the law nor the history of Israel contains any evidence for this punishment by slavery or the mutilation of the adulterer, for which Ewald refers to Grimm's Deutsche Rechtsaltertümer. The figure which is here sketched by the poet is very different. He who goes into the net of the wanton woman loses his health and his goods. She stands not alone, but has her party with her, who wholly plunder the simpleton who goes into her trap. Nowhere is there any reference to the husband of the adulteress. The poet does not at all think on a married woman. And the word chosen directs our attention rather to a foreigner than to an Israelitish woman, although the author may look upon harlotry as such as heathenish rather than Israelitish, and designate it accordingly. The party of those who make prostitutes of themselves consists of their relations and their older favourites, the companions of their gain, who being in league with her exhaust the life-strength and the resources of the befooled youth (Fl.). This discourse begins with ועתּה, for it is connected by this concluding application (cf. Pro 7:24) with the preceding.

Verses 8-9

In Pro 5:8, one must think on such as make a gain of their impurity. מעל, Schultens remarks, with reference to Eze 23:18, crebrum in rescisso omni commercio: מן denotes the departure, and על the nearness, from which one must remove himself to a distance. Regarding הוד gn (Pro 5:9), which primarily, like our Pracht (bracht from brechen = to break) pomp, magnificence, appears to mean fulness of sound, and then fulness of splendour, see under Job 39:20; here there is a reference to the freshness or the bloom of youth, as well as the years, against the sacrifice of which the warning is addressed - in a pregnant sense they are the fairest years, the years of youthful fulness of strength. Along with אחרים the singulare-tantum אכזרי (vid., Jer 50:42) has a collective sense; regarding the root-meaning, vid., under Isa 13:9. It is the adj. relat. of אכזר after the form אכזב, which is formed not from אך זר, but from an unknown verb כּזר. The ancients referred it to death and the devil; but the אכזרי belongs to the covetous society, which impels ever anew to sin, which is their profit, him who has once fallen into it, and thus brings bodily ruin upon him; they are the people who stand far aloof from this their sacrifice, and among them are barbarous, rude, inexorably cruel monsters (Unmenschen) (Graecus Venetus, τῷ ἀπανθρώπῳ), who rest not till their victim is laid prostrate on the ground and ruined both bodily and financially.

Verse 10

This other side of the ruin Pro 5:10 presents as an image of terror. For הוד refers to the person in his stately appearance, but כּח to his possessions in money and goods; for this word, as well as in the strikingly similar passage Hos 7:9, is used as the synonym of חיל (Gen 34:29, etc.), in the sense of ability, estate. This meaning is probably mediated by means of a metonymy, as Gen 4:12; Job 31:39, where the idea of the capability of producing is passed over into that of the produce conformable to it; so here the idea of work-power passes over into that of the gain resulting therefrom. ועצביך (and thy toils) is not, like כּחך, the accusative governed by ישׂבּעוּ; the carrying over of this verb disturbs the parallelism, and the statement in the passage besides does not accord therewith, which, interpreted as a virtual predicate, presents 10b as an independent prohibitive clause: neve sint labores tui in domo peregrini, not peregrina; at least נכרי according to the usage of the language is always personal, so that בּית נכרי (cf. Lam 5:2), like מלבושׁ נכרי, Zep 1:8, is to be explained after עיר נכרי, Jdg 19:12. עצב (from עצב, Arab. 'aṣab, to bind fast, to tie together, then to make effort, ποιεῖν, laborare) is difficult work (Pro 10:22), and that which is obtained by it; Fleischer compares the Ital. i miei sudori, and the French mes sueurs.

Verse 11

The fut. ישׂבּעוּ and the יהיוּ needed to complete 10b are continued in Pro 5:11 in the consec. perf. נהם, elsewhere of the hollow roaring of the sea, Isa 5:30, the growling of the lion, Pro 28:15, here, as also Eze 24:23, of the hollow groaning of men; a word which echoes the natural sound, like הוּם, המה. The lxx, with the versions derived from it, has καὶ μεταμεληθήσῃ, i.e., ונחמתּ (the Niph. נחם, to experience the sorrow of repentance, also an echo-word which imitates the sound of deep breathing) - a happy quid pro quo, as if one interchanged the Arab. naham, fremere, anhelare, and nadam, poenitere. That wherein the end consists to which the deluded youth is brought, and the sorrowful sound of despair extorted from him, is stated in 11b: his flesh is consumed away, for sensuality and vexation have worked together to undermine his health. The author here connects together two synonyms to strengthen the conception, as if one said: All thy tears and thy weeping help thee nothing (Fl.); he loves this heaping together of synonyms, as we have shown at p. 33. When the blood-relation of any one is called שׁאר בּשׂרו, Lev 18:6; Lev 25:49, these two synonyms show themselves in subordination, as here in close relation. שׁאר appears to be closely connected with שׁרירים, muscles and sinews, and with שׁר, the umbilical cord, and thus to denote the flesh with respect to its muscular nature adhering to the bones (Mic 3:2), as בּשׂר denotes it with respect to its tangible outside clothed with skin (vid., under Isaiah, p. 418).

Verses 12-14

The poet now tells those whom he warns to hear how the voluptuary, looking back on his life-course, passes sentence against himself. 12 And thou sayest, “Why have I then hated correction, And my heart despised instruction! 13 And I have not listened to the voice of my teachers, Nor lent mine ear to my instructors? 14 I had almost fallen into every vice In the midst of the assembly and the congregation!”
The question 12a (here more an exclamation than a question) is the combination of two: How has it become possible for me? How could it ever come to it that.... Thus also one says in Arab.: Kyf f'alat hadhâ (Fl.). The regimen of איך in 12b is becoming faint, and in 13b has disappeared. The Kal נאץ (as Pro 1:30; Pro 15:5) signifies to despise; the Piel intensively, to contemn and reject (R. נץ, pungere).

Verse 13

Pro 5:13 שׁמע בּ signifies to cleave to anything in hearing, as ראה ב is to do so in seeing; שׁמע ל yet more closely corresponds with the classic ἐπακούειν, obedire, e.g., Psa 81:9; שׁמע בּקול is the usual phrase for “hearken!”

Verse 14

Pro 5:14 כּמעט with the perf. following is equivalent to: it wanted but a little that this or that should happen, e.g., Gen 26:10. It is now for the most part thus explained: it wanted but a little, and led astray by that wicked companionship I would have been drawn away into crime, for which I would then have been subjected to open punishment (Fl.). Ewald understands רע directly of punishment in its extreme form, stoning; and Hitzig explains כל־רע by “the totality of evil,” in so far as the disgraceful death of the criminal comprehends in it all other evils that are less. But בּכל־רע means, either, into every evil, misfortune, or into every wickedness; and since רע, in contradistinction to לב (Hitzig compares Eze 36:5), is a conception of a species, then the meaning is equivalent to in omni genere mali. The reference to the death-punishment of the adulteress is excluded thereby, though it cannot be denied that it might be thought of at the same time, if he who too late comes to consider his ways were distinctly designated in the preceding statements as an adulterer. But it is on the whole a question whether בכל־רע is meant of the evil which follows sin as its consequence. The usage of the language permits this, cf. 2Sa 16:8; Exo 5:19; 1Ch 7:23; Psa 10:6, but no less the reference to that which is morally bad, cf. Exo 32:22 (where Keil rightly compares with 1Jo 5:19); and הייתי (for which in the first case one expected נפלתּי, I fell into, vid., Pro 13:17; Pro 17:20; Pro 28:14) is even more favourable to the latter reference. Also בּתוך קהל ועדה (cf. on the heaping together of synonyms under 11b), this paraphrase of the palam ac publice, with its בּתוך (cf. Psa 111:1; 2Ch 20:14), looks rather to a heightening of the moral self-accusation. He found himself in all wickedness, living and moving therein in the midst of the congregation, and thereby giving offence to it, for he took part in the external worship and in the practices of the congregation, branding himself thereby as a hypocrite. That by the one name the congregation is meant in its civil aspect, and by the other in its ecclesiastical aspect, is not to be supposed: in the congregation of the people of the revealed law, the political and the religious sides are not so distinguished. It is called without distinction קהל and עדה (from יעד). Rather we would say that קהל is the whole ecclesia, and עדה the whole of its representatives; but also the great general council bears sometimes the one name (Exo 12:3, cf. 21) and sometimes the other (Deu 31:30, cf. 28) - the placing of them together serves thus only to strengthen the conception.

Verses 15-17

The commendation of true conjugal love in the form of an invitation to a participation in it, is now presented along with the warning against non-conjugal intercourse, heightened by a reference to its evil consequences. 15 Drink water from thine own cistern, And flowing streams from thine own fountain. 16 Shall thy streams flow abroad, The water-brooks in the streets! 17 Let them belong to thyself alone, And not to strangers with thee.
One drinks water to quench his thirst; here drinking is a figure of the satisfaction of conjugal love, of which Paul says, 1Co 7:9, κρεῖσσόν ἐστι γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι, and this comes into view here, in conformity with the prevailing character of the O.T., only as a created inborn natural impulse, without reference to the poisoning of it by sin, which also within the sphere of married life makes government, moderation, and restraint a duty. Warning against this degeneracy of the natural impulse to the πάθος ἐπιθυμίας authorized within divinely prescribed limits, the apostle calls the wife of any one τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος (cf. 1Pe 3:7). So here the wife, who is his by covenant (Pro 2:17), is called “cistern” (בור)^[25] and “fountain” (בּאר) of the husband to whom she is married. The figure corresponds to the sexual nature of the wife, the expression for which is נקבה; but Isa 51:1 holds to the natural side of the figure, for according to it the wife is a pit, and the children are brought out of it into the light of day. Aben-Ezra on Lev 11:36 rightly distinguishes between בור and באר: the former catches the rain, the latter wells out from within. In the former, as Rashi in Erubin ii. 4 remarks, there are מים מכונסים, in the latter חיים מים. The post-biblical Hebrew observes this distinction less closely (vid., Kimchi's Book of Roots), but the biblical throughout; so far the Kerı̂, Jer 6:7, rightly changes בור into the form בּיר, corresponding to the Arab. byar. Therefore בור is the cistern, for the making of which חצב, Jer 2:13, and באר the well, for the formation of which חפר, Gen 21:30, and כרה, Gen 26:25, are the respective words usually employed (vid., Malbim, Sifra 117b). The poet shows that he also is aware of this distinction, for he calls the water which one drinks from the בור by the name מים, but on the other hand that out of the באר by the name נוזלים, running waters, fluenta; by this we are at once reminded of Sol 4:15, cf. 12. The בור offers only stagnant water (according to the Sohar, the בור has no water of its own, but only that which is received into it), although coming down into it from above; but the באר has living water, which wells up out of its interior (מתּוך, 15b, intentionally for the mere מן), and is fresh as the streams from Lebanon (נזל, properly labi, to run down, cf. אזל, placide ire, and generally ire; Arab. zâl, loco cedere, desinere; Arab. zll, IV, to cause to glide back, deglutire, of the gourmand). What a valuable possession a well of water is for nomads the history of the patriarchs makes evident, and a cistern is one of the most valuable possessions belonging to every well-furnished house. The figure of the cistern is here surpassed by that of the fountain, but both refer to the seeking and finding satisfaction (cf. the opposite passage, Pro 23:27) with the wife, and that, as the expressive possessive suffixes denote, with his legitimate wife.

Verse 16

Here we meet with two other synonyms standing in a similar relation of progression. As עין denotes the fountain as to its point of outflow, so מעין (n. loci) means water flowing above on the surface, which in its course increases and divides itself into several courses; such a brook is called, with reference to the water dividing itself from the point of outflow, or to the way in which it divides, פּלג (from פּלג, Job 38:25), Arab. falaj (as also the Ethiop.) or falj, which is explained by nahar ṣaghayr (Fl.).^[26]
We cannot in this double figure think of any reference to the generative power in the sperma; similar figures are the waters of Judah, Isa 48:1, and the waters of Israel flowing forth as if from a bucket, Num 24:7, where זרעו is the parallel word to מים, cf. also the proper name מואב (from מו = מוי from מוה, diffluere), aqua h.e. semen patris, and שׁגל, Deu 28:30, = Arab. sajal (whence sajl = דּלי, situla), which is set aside by the Kerı̂. Many interpreters have by חוּצה and בּרחבות been here led into the error of pressing into the text the exhortation not to waste the creative power in sinful lust. The lxx translates יפצוּ by ὑπερεκχείσθω; but Origen, and also Clemens Alexandrinus, used the phrase μὴ ὑπερεκχείσθω, which is found in the Complut., Ald., and several codd., and is regarded by Lagarde, as also Cappellus, as original: the three Göttingen theologians (Ewald, Bertheau, and Elster) accordingly make the emendation אל־יפצוּ. But that μή of the lxx was not added till a later period; the original expression, which the Syro-Hexapl. authorizes, was ὑπερεκχείσθω without μή, as also in the version of Aquila, διασκορπιζέσθωσαν without μή (vid., Field). The Hebrew text also does not need אל. Clericus, and recently Hitzig, Zöckler, Kamphausen, avoid this remedy, for they understand this verse interrogatively - an expedient which is for the most part and also here unavailing; for why should not the author have written אם יפצו? Schultens rightly remarks: nec negationi nec interrogationi ullus hic locus, for (with Fleischer and von Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 2, 402) he regards Pro 5:16 as a conclusion: tunc exundabunt; so that he strengthens the summons of Pro 5:15 by the promise of numerous descendants from unviolated marriage. But to be so understood, the author ought to have written ויפצו. So, according to the text, יפצו as jussive continues the imper. שׁתה (15a), and the full meaning according to the connection is this: that within the marriage relation the generative power shall act freely and unrestrained. חוּץ and רחבות denote (Pro 1:20) the space free from houses, and the ways and places which lead towards and stretch between them; חוּץ (from חוּץ, Arab. khass, to split, seorsim ponere) is a very relative conception, according as one thinks of that which is without as the contrast of the house, the city, or the country. Here חוץ is the contrast of the person, and thus that which is anywhere without it, whereto the exercise of its manly power shall extend. The two figurative expressions are the description of the libero flumine, and the contrast, that restriction of self which the marriage relation, according to 1Co 7:3-5, condemns.

Verse 17

That such matters as there are thought of, is manifest from this verse. As זרע comprehends with the cause (sperma) the effect (posterity), so, in Pro 5:16, with the effusio roboris virilis is connected the idea of the beginnings of life. For the subjects of Pro 5:17 are the effusiones seminis named in Pro 5:16. These in their effects (Pro 5:17) may belong to thee alone, viz., to thee alone (לבדּך, properly in thy separateness) within thy married relation, not, as thou hast fellowship with other women, to different family circles, Aben-Ezra rightly regards as the subject, for he glosses thus: הפלגים שׁהם הבנים הבשׁרים, and Immanuel well explains יהיוּ־לך by יתיחסו לך. The child born out of wedlock belongs not to the father alone, he knows not to whom it belongs; its father must for the sake of his honour deny it before the world. Thus, as Grotius remarks: ibi sere ubi prolem metas. In ואין the יהיו is continued. It is not thus used adverbially for לא, as in the old classic Arabic lyas for l' (Fl.), but it carries in it the force of a verb, so that יהיו, according to rule, in the sense of ולא היו = ולא יהיו, continues it.

Verses 18-20

With Pro 5:18 is introduced anew the praise of conjugal love. These three verses, Pro 5:18-21, have the same course of thought as Pro 5:15-17. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of thy youth. 19 The lovely hind and the graceful gazelle - May her bosom always charm thee; In her love mayest thou delight thyself evermore. 20 But why wilt thou be fascinated with a stranger, And embrace the bosom of a foreign woman?
Like בור and באר, מקור is also a figure of the wife; the root-word is קוּר, from קר, כר, the meanings of which, to dig and make round, come together in the primary conception of the round digging out or boring out, not קוּר = קרר, the Hiph. of which means (Jer 6:7) to well out cold (water). It is the fountain of the birth that is meant (cf. מקור of the female ערוה, e.g., Lev 20:18), not the procreation (lxx, ἡ σὴ φλέψ, viz., φλὲψ γονίμη); the blessing wished for by him is the blessing of children, which בּרוּך so much the more distinctly denotes if בּרך, Arab. barak, means to spread out, and בּרך thus to cause a spreading out. The מן, 18b, explains itself from the idea of drawing (water), given with the figure of a fountain; the word בּאשׁת found in certain codices is, on the contrary, prosaic (Fl.). Whilst שׂמח מן is found elsewhere (Ecc 2:20; 2Ch 20:27) as meaning almost the same as שׂמח בּ; the former means rejoicing from some place, the latter in something. In the genitive connection, “wife of thy youth” (cf. Pro 2:17), both of these significations lie: thy youthful wife, and she who was chosen by thee in thy youth, according as we refer the suffix to the whole idea or only to the second member of the chain of words.

Verse 19

The subject, 19a, set forth as a theme courts love for her who is to be loved, for she presents herself as lovely. איּלת is the female of the stag, which may derive its name איּל from the weapon-power of its horns, and יעלה (from יעל, Arab. w'al, to climb), that of the wild-goat (יעל); and thus properly, not the gazelle, which is called צבי on account of its elegance, but the chamois. These animals are commonly used in Semitic poetry as figures of female beauty on account of the delicate beauty of their limbs and their sprightly black eyes. אהבים signifies always sensual love, and is interchanged in this erotic meaning (Pro 7:18) with דּודים. In 19b the predicate follows the subject. The Graec. Venet. translates as if the word were דודיה, and the Syr. as if it were דרכיה, but Aquila rightly translates τίτθοι αὐτῆς. As τίτθος is derived (vid., Curtius, Griech. Etymologie, Nr. 307) from dhâ, to suck (causative, with anu, to put to sucking), so דּד, שׁד, תּד, Arab. thady (commonly in dual thadjein), from שׁדה, Arab. thdy, rigare, after which also the verb ירוּוּך is chosen: she may plentifully give thee to drink; figuratively equivalent to, refresh or (what the Aram. רוּי precisely means) fascinate^[27] thee, satisfy thee with love. דּדּים also is an erotic word, which besides in this place is found only in Ezekiel (Eze 23:3, Eze 23:8, Eze 23:21). The lxx obliterates the strong sensual colouring of this line. In 19c it changes תּשׁגּה into תשׂגה, πολλοστὸς ἔσῃ, perhaps also because the former appeared to be too sensual. Moses ha-Darshan (in Rashi) proposes to explain it after the Arab. sjy, to cover, to cast over, to come over anything (III = עסק, to employ oneself with something): engage thyself with her love, i.e., be always devoted to her in love. And Immanuel himself, the author of a Hebrew Divan expatiating with unparalleled freedom in erotic representations, remarks, while he rightly understands תשׁגה of the fascination of love: קורא התמדת חשׁקו אפילו באשׁתו שׁגגה, he calls the husband's continual caressing of the wife an error. But this moral side-glance lies here at a distance from the poet. He speaks here of a morally permissible love-ecstasy, or rather, since תמיד excludes that which is extraordinary, of an intensity of love connected with the feeling of superabundant happiness. שׁגה properly signifies to err from the way, therefore figuratively, with ב of a matter, like delirare ea, to be wholly captivated by her, so that one is no longer in his own power, can no longer restrain himself - the usual word for the intoxication of love and of wine, Pro 20:1 (Fl.).

Verse 20

The answer to the Why? in this verse is: no reasonable cause - only beastly sensuality, only flagitious blindness can mislead thee. The ב of בזרה is, as 19b and Isa 28:7, that of the object through which one is betrayed into intoxication. חק (thus, according to the Masora, four times in the O.T. for חיק) properly means an incision or deepening, as Arab. hujr (from hjr, cohibere), the front of the body, the part between the arms or the female breasts, thus the bosom, Isa 40:11 (with the swelling part of the clothing, sinus vestis, which the Arabs call jayb), and the lap; חבּק (as Pro 4:8), to embrace, corresponds here more closely with the former of these meanings; also elsewhere the wife of any one is called אשת חיקו or השׁכבת בחיקו, as she who rests on his breast. The ancients, also J. H. Michaelis, interpret Pro 5:15-20 allegorically, but without thereby removing sensual traces from the elevated N.T. consciousness of pollution, striving against all that is fleshly; for the castum cum Sapientia conjugium would still be always represented under the figure of husband and wife dwelling together. Besides, though זרה might be, as the contrast of חכמה, the personified lust of the world and of the flesh, yet 19a is certainly not the חכמה, but a woman composed of flesh and blood. Thus the poet means the married life, not in a figurative sense, but in its reality - he designedly describes it thus attractively and purely, because it bears in itself the preservative against promiscuous fleshly lust.

Verses 21-23

That the intercourse of the sexes out of the married relationship is the commencement of the ruin of a fool is now proved. 21 For the ways of every one are before the eyes of Jahve, And all his paths He marketh out. 22 His own sins lay hold of him, the evil-doer, And in the bands of his sins is he held fast. 23 He dies for the want of correction, And in the fulness of his folly he staggers to ruin.
It is unnecessary to interpret נכח as an adverbial accusative: straight before Jahve's eyes; it may be the nominative of the predicate; the ways of man (for אישׁ is here an individual, whether man or woman) are an object (properly, fixing) of the eyes of Jahve. With this the thought would suitably connect itself: et onmes orbitas ejus ad amussim examinat; but פּלּס, as the denom. of פּלס, Psa 58:3, is not connected with all the places where the verb is united with the obj. of the way, and Psa 78:50 shows that it has there the meaning to break though, to open a way (from פל, to split, cf. Talmudic מפלּשׁ, opened, accessible, from פלשׁ, Syriac pelaa, perfodere, fodiendo viam, aditum sibi aperire). The opening of the way is here not, as at Isa 26:7, conceived of as the setting aside of the hindrances in the way of him who walks, but generally as making walking in the way possible: man can take no step in any direction without God; and that not only does not exempt him from moral responsibility, but the consciousness of this is rather for the first time rightly quickened by the consciousness of being encompassed on every side by the knowledge and the power of God. The dissuasion of Pro 5:20 is thus in Pro 5:21 grounded in the fact, that man at every stage and step of his journey is observed and encompassed by God: it is impossible for him to escape from the knowledge of God or from dependence on Him. Thus opening all the paths of man, He has also appointed to the way of sin the punishment with which it corrects itself: “his sins lay hold of him, the evil-doer.” The suffix יו does not refer to אישׁ of Pro 5:21, where every one without exception and without distinction is meant, but it relates to the obj. following, the evil-doer, namely, as the explanatory permutative annexed to the “him” according to the scheme, Exo 2:6; the permutative is distinguished from the apposition by this, that the latter is a forethought explanation which heightens the understanding of the subject, while the former is an explanation afterwards brought in which guards against a misunderstanding. The same construction, Pro 14:13, belonging to the syntaxis ornata in the old Hebrew, has become common in the Aramaic and in the modern Hebrew. Instead of ילכּדוּהוּ (Pro 5:22), the poet uses poetically ילכּדנו; the interposed נ may belong to the emphatic ground-form ילכּדוּן, but is epenthetic if one compares forms such as קבנו (R. קב), Num 23:13 (cf. p. 73). The חמּאתו governed by חבלי, laquei (חבלי, tormina), is either gen. exeg.: bands which consist in his sin, or gen. subj.: bands which his sin unites, or better, gen. possess.: bands which his sin brings with it. By these bands he will be held fast, and so will die: he (הוּא referring to the person described) will die in insubordination (Symm. δι ̓ ἀπαιδευσίαν), or better, since אין and רב are placed in contrast: in want of correction. With the ישׁגּה (Pro 5:23), repeated purposely from Pro 5:20, there is connected the idea of the overthrow which is certain to overtake the infatuated man. In Pro 5:20 the sense of moral error began already to connect itself with this verb. אוּלת is the right name of unrestrained lust of the flesh. אולת is connected with אוּל, the belly; אול, Arab. âl, to draw together, to condense, to thicken (Isaiah, p. 424). Dummheit (stupidity) and the Old-Norse dumba, darkness, are in their roots related to each other. Also in the Semitic the words for blackness and darkness are derived from roots meaning condensation. אויל is the mind made thick, darkened, and become like crude matter.

Chap. 6

Verses 1-5

The author warns against suretyship; or rather, he advises that if one has made himself surety, he should as quickly as possible withdraw from the snare. 1 My son, if thou hast become surety for thy neighbour, Hast given thy hand for another: 2 Thou art entangled in the words of thy mouth, Ensnared in the words of thy mouth. 3 Do this then, my son, and free thyself - For thou hast come under the power of thy neighbour - Go, instantly entreat and importune thy neighbour. 4 Give no sleep to thine eyes, And no slumber to thine eyelids; 5 Tear thyself free like a gazelle from his hand, And as a bird from the hand of the fowler.
The chief question here is, whether ל after ערב introduces him for whom or with whom one becomes surety. Elsewhere ערב (R. רב, whence also ארב, nectere, to twist close and compact) with the accusative of the person means to become surety for any one, to represent him as a surety, Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16 (Pro 27:13), Gen 43:9; Gen 44:33 (as with the accusative of the matter, to pledge anything, to deposit it as a pledge, Jer 30:21; Neh 5:3, = שׂים, Arab. waḍ'a, Job 17:3); and to become surety with any one is expressed, Gen 17:18, by ערב לפני. The phrase ערב ל is not elsewhere met with, and is thus questionable. If we look to Pro 6:3, the רע (רעה) mentioned there cannot possibly be the creditor with whom one has become surety, for so impetuous and urgent an application to him would be both purposeless and unbecoming. But if he is meant for whom one has become surety, then certainly לרעך is also to be understood of the same person, and ל is thus dat. commodi; similar to this is the Targumic ערבוּתא על, suretyship for any one, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26. But is the זר, 1b, distinguished from רעך, the stranger with whom one has become surety? The parallels Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16, where זר denotes the person whom one represents, show that in both lines one and the same person is meant; זר is in the Proverbs equivalent to אחר, each different from the person in the discourse, Pro 5:17; Pro 27:2 - thus, like רעך, denotes not the friend, but generally him to whom one stands in any kind of relation, even a very external one, in a word, the fellow-creatures or neighbours, Pro 24:28 (cf. the Arab. sahbk and ḳarynk, which are used as vaguely and superficially). It is further a question, whether we have to explain 1b: if thou hast given thine hand to another, or for another. Here also we are without evidence from the usage of the language; for the phrase תּקע כּף, or merely תּקע, appears to be used of striking the hand in suretyship where it elsewhere occurs without any further addition, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26; Pro 11:15; however, Job 17:3, נתקע ליד appears the same: to strike into the hand of any one, i.e., to give to him the hand-stroke. From this passage Hitzig concludes that the surety gave the hand-stroke, without doubt in the presence of witnesses, first of all of the creditor, to the debtor, as a sign that he stood for him. But this idea is unnatural, and the “without doubt” melts into air. He on whose hand the stroke falls is always the person to whom one gives suretyship, and confirms it by the hand-stroke. Job also, l.c., means to say: who else but Thou, O Lord, could give to me a pledge, viz., of my innocence? If now the זר, v. 1b, is, as we have shown, not the creditor,^[28] but the debtor, then is the ל the dat. commodi, as 1a, and the two lines perfectly correspond. תּקע properly means to drive, to strike with a resounding noise, cogn. with the Arab. wak'a, which may be regarded as its intrans. (Fl.); then particularly to strike the hand or with the hand. He to whom this hand-pledge is given for another remains here undesignated. A new question arises, whether in Pro 6:6, where נוקשׁ (illaqueari) and נלכּד (comprehendi) follow each other as Isa 8:15, cf. Jer 50:24, the hypothetical antecedent is continued or not. We agree with Schultens, Ziegler, and Fleischer against the continuance of the אם. The repetition of the בּאמרי פיך (cf. Pro 2:14) serves rightly to strengthen the representation of the thought: thou, thou thyself and no other, hast then ensnared thyself in the net; but this strengthening of the expression would greatly lose in force by placing Pro 6:2 in the antecedent, while if Pro 6:2 is regarded as the conclusion, and thus as the principal proposition, it appears in its full strength.

Verse 3

The new commencement needs no particle denoting a conclusion; the אפוא, making the summons emphatic (cf. 2Ki 10:10, frequently in interrogative clauses), connects it closely enough. זאת, neut., refers to what follows. The ו before הנּצל is explanatory, as we say in familiar language: Be so good as tell me, or do me the favour to come with me; while no Frenchman would say, Faites-moi le (ce) plaisir et venez avec moi (Fl.).^[29]
The clause כּי באת^[30] is not to be translated: in case thou art fallen into the hand of thy neighbour; for this is represented (Pro 6:1, Pro 6:2) as having already in fact happened. On two sides the surety is no longer sui juris: the creditor has him in his hand; for if the debtor does not pay, he holds the surety, and in this way many an honourable man has lost house and goods, Sirach 29:18, cf. 8:13; - and the debtor has him, the surety, in his hand; for the performance which is due, for which the suretyship avails, depends on his conscientiousness. The latter is here meant: thou hast made thy freedom and thy possessions dependent on the will of thy neighbour for whom thou art the surety. The clause introduced with כּי gives the reason for the call to set himself free (הנּצל from נצל, R. צל, של, to draw out or off); it is a parenthetical sentence. The meaning of התרפּס is certain. The verb רפס (רפשׂ, רפס) signifies to stamp on, calcare, conclucare; the Kamûs^[31] explains rafas by rakad balarjal. The Hithpa. might, it is true, mean to conduct oneself in a trampling manner, to tread roughly, as התנבּא, and the medial Niph. נבּא, to conduct oneself speaking (in an impassioned manner); but Psa 68:31 and the analogy of התבּוסס favour the meaning to throw oneself in a stamping manner, i.e., violently, to the ground, to trample upon oneself - i.e., let oneself be trampled upon, to place oneself in the attitude of most earnest humble prayer. Thus the Graec. Venet. πατήθητι, Rashi (“humble thyself like to the threshold which is trampled and trode upon”), Aben-Ezra, Immanuel (“humble thyself under the soles of his feet”); so Cocceius, J. H. Michaelis, and others: conculcandum te praebe. וּרהב is more controverted. The Talmudic-Midrash explanation (b. Joma, 87a; Bathra, 173b, and elsewhere): take with thee in great numbers thy friends (רהב = הרבּה), is discredited by this, that it has along with it the explanation of התרפס by (יד) פּס חתּר, solve palmam (manus), i.e., pay what thou canst. Also with the meaning to rule (Parchon, Immanuel), which רהב besides has not, nothing is to be done. The right meaning of רהב בּ is to rush upon one boisterously, Isa 3:5. רהב means in general to be violently excited (Arab. rahiba, to be afraid), and thus to meet one, here with the accusative: assail impetuously thy neighbour (viz., that he fulfil his engagement). Accordingly, with a choice of words more or less suitable, the lxx translates by παρόξυνε, Symm., Theodotion by παρόρμησον, the Graec. Venet. by ἐνίσχυσον, the Syr. (which the Targumist copies) by גרג (solicita), and Kimchi glosses by: lay an arrest upon him with pacifying words. The Talmud explains רעיך as plur.;^[32] but the plur., which was permissible in Pro 3:28, is here wholly inadmissible: it is thus the plena scriptio for רעך with the retaining of the third radical of the ground-form of the root-word (רעי = רעה), or with י as mater lectionis, to distinguish the pausal-form from that which is without the pause; cf. Pro 24:34. lxx, Syr., Jerome, etc., rightly translate it in the sing. The immediateness lying in לך (cf. ὕπαγε, Mat 5:24) is now expressed as a duty, Pro 6:4. One must not sleep and slumber (an expression quite like Psa 132:4), not give himself quietness and rest, till the other has released him from his bail by the performance of that for which he is surety. One must set himself free as a gazelle or as a bird, being caught, seeks to disentangle itself by calling forth all its strength and art.

Verse 5

The naked מיּד is not to be translated “immediately;” for in this sense the word is rabbinical, not biblical. The versions (with exception of Jerome and the Graec. Venet.) translate as if the word were מפּח [out of the snare]. Bertheau prefers this reading, and Böttcher holds חיּד [a hunter] to have fallen out after מיד. It is not a parallelism with reservation; for a bird-catcher is not at the same time a gazelle-hunter. The author, if he has so written, has conceived of מיד, as at 1Ki 20:42, as absolute, and connected it with הנּצל: tear thyself free like the gazelle from the hand into which thou hast fallen (Hitzig); according to which, the section should be accentuated thus: הנצל כצבי מיד. צבי, Aram. טבי, Arab. zaby, is the gazelle (Arab. ghazâl), so called from its elegance; צפּור, the bird, from its whistling (צפר, Arab. ṣafar, R. צף, cf. Arab. saffârat, the whistling of a bird), Arab. safar, whistler (with prosthesis, 'aṣafwar, warbler, Psalm. p. 794). The bird-catcher is called יקושׁ (from יקשׁ, after the form יכל, cog. קושׁ, Isa 29:21, נקשׁ, R. קש), after the form בּגוד (fem. בּגודה), or יקוּשׁ; one would think that the Kametz, after the form kâtwl (vid., under Isa 1:17), must here be fixed, but in Jer 5:26 the word is vocalized יקוּשׁים.

Verses 6-8

As Elihu (Job 35:11) says that God has set the beasts as our teachers, so he sends the sluggard to the school of the ant (Ameise), so named (in Germ.) from its industry (Emsigkeit): 6 Go to the ant, sluggard; Consider her ways, and be wise! 7 She that hath no judge, Director, and ruler: 8 She prepareth in summer her food, Has gathered in harvest her store.
The Dechî written mostly under the לך separates the inseparable. The thought, Go to the ant, sluggard! permits no other distinction than in the vocative; but the Dechî of לך אל־נמלה is changed into Munach^[33] on account of the nature of the Athnach-word, which consists of only two syllables without the counter-tone. The ant has for its Hebrew-Arabic name נמלה, from the R. נם (Isaiah, p. 687), which is first used of the sound, which expresses the idea of the low, dull, secret - thus of its active and yet unperceived motion; its Aramaic name in the Peshîto, ûmenaa', and in the Targ. שׁוּמשׁמנא (also Arab. sumsum, simsim, of little red ants), designates it after its quick activity, its busy running hither and thither (vid., Fleischer in Levy's Chald. Wörterb. ii. 578). She is a model of unwearied and well-planned labour. From the plur. דּרכיה it is to be concluded that the author observed their art in gathering in and laying up in store, carrying burdens, building their houses, and the like (vid., the passages in the Talmud and Midrash in the Hamburg Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, 1868, p. 83f.). To the ant the sluggard (עצל, Aram. and Arab. עטל, with the fundamental idea of weight and dulness) is sent, to learn from her to be ashamed, and to be taught wisdom.

Verse 7

This relative clause describes the subject of Pro 6:8 more fully: it is like a clause with גּם כּי, quamquam.^[34]
The community of ants exhibits a peculiar class of workers; but it is not, like that of bees, composed of grades germinating in the queen-bee as the head. The three offices here named represent the highest judiciary, police, and executive powers; for קצין (from קצה, to distinguish, with the ending in, vid., Jesurun, p. 215 s.) is the judge; שׁטר (from שׁטר, Arab. saṭr, to draw lines, to write) is the overseer (in war the director, controller), or, as Saalschütz indicates the province of the schotrim both in cities and in the camp, the office of police; משׁל (vid., Isaiah, p. 691), the governors of the whole state organism subordinated to the schoftim and the schotrim. The Syr., and the Targ. slavishly following it, translate קצין by חצדּא (harvest), for they interchange this word with קציר.

Verse 8

In this verse the change of the time cannot be occasioned by this, that קיץ and קציר are distinguished as the earlier and the later period of the year; for קיץ (= Arab. ḳayt, from ḳât, to be glowing hot, cf. Arab. kghyyṭ of the glow of the mid-day heat) is the late summer, when the heat rises to the highest degree; but the son of the Shunammite succumbed to the sun-stroke in the time of harvest (2Ki 4:18.). Löwenstein judiciously remarks that תּכין refers to immediate want, אנרה to that which is future; or, better, the former shows them engaged in persevering industry during the summer glow, the latter as at the end of the harvest, and engaged in the bringing home of the winter stores. The words of the procuring of food in summer are again used by Agur, Pro 30:25; and the Aramaic fable of the ant and the grasshopper,^[35] which is also found among those of Aesop and of Syntipas, serves as an illustration of this whole verse. The lxx has, after the “Go to the ant,” a proverb of five lines, ἢ πορεύθητι πρὸς τὴν μέλισσαν. Hitzig regards it as of Greek origin; and certainly, as Lagarde has shown, it contains idiomatic Greek expressions which would not occur to a translator from the Hebrew. In any case, however, it is an interpolation which disfigures the Hebrew text by overlading it.

Verses 9-11

After the poet has admonished the sluggard to take the ant as an example, he seeks also to rouse him out of his sleepiness and indolence: 9 How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie? When wilt thou rise up from thy sleep? 10 “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest!” 11 So comes like a strong robber thy poverty, And thy want as an armed man.

Verses 9-10

The awakening cry, Pro 6:9, is not of the kind that Paul could have it in his mind, Eph 5:14. עצל has, as the vocative, Pasek after it, and is, on account of the Pasek, in correct editions accentuated not with Munach, but Mercha. The words, Pro 6:10, are not an ironical call (sleep only yet a little while, but in truth a long while), but per mimesin the reply of the sluggard with which he turns away the unwelcome disturber. The plurals with מעט sound like self-delusion: yet a little, but a sufficient! To fold the hands, i.e., to cross them over the breast, or put them into the bosom, denotes also, Ecc 4:5, the idler. חבּוּק, complicatio (cf. in Livy, compressis quod aiunt manibus sidere; and Lucan, 2:292, compressas tenuisse manus), for formed like שׁקּוּי, Pro 3:8, and the inf. שׁכב like חסר, Pro 10:21, and שׁפל, Pro 16:19. The perf. consec. connects itself with the words heard from the mouth of the sluggard, which are as a hypothetical antecedent thereto: if thou so sayest, and always again sayest, then this is the consequence, that suddenly and inevitably poverty and want come upon thee. That מהלּך denotes the grassator, i.e., vagabond (Arab. dawwar, one who wanders much about), or the robber or foe (like the Arab. 'aduww, properly transgressor finium), is not justified by the usage of the language; הלך signifies, 2Sa 12:4, the traveller, and מהלּך is one who rides quickly forward, not directly a κακὸς ὁδοιπόρος (lxx).

Verse 11

The point of comparison, 11a, is the unforeseen, as in quick march or assault (Böttcher), and 11b the hostile and irretrievable surprise; for a man in armour, as Hitzig remarks, brings no good in his armour: he assails the opponent, and he who is without defence yields to him without the possibility of withstanding him. The lxx translate כאישׁ מגן by ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς δρομεύς (cf. δρομεύς = מני־ארג, Job 7:6, lxx, Aq.), for what reason we know not. After Pro 6:11 they interpose two other lines: “but if thou art assiduous, thy harvest will come to thee as a fountain, but want will go away ὥσπερ κακὸς δρομεύς.” Also this “bad runner” we must let go; for Lagarde's retranslation, ומחסרך כחשׁ בּאישׁ נמג, no one can understand. The four lines, Pro 6:10, Pro 6:11 are repeated in the appendix of Words of the Wise, Pro 24:33.; and if this appendix originated in the time of Hezekiah, they may have been taken therefrom by the poet, the editor of the older Book of Proverbs. Instead of כמהלּך, מתהלך is there used (so comes forward thy poverty, i.e., again and again, but certainly moving forward); and instead of מחסרך, מחסריך is written, as also here, Pro 6:6, for משׁנתך is found the variant משׁנתיך with Jod as mater lectionis of the pausal Segol.

Verses 12-15

There follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing. 12 A worthless man, a wicked man, Is he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth; 13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot, Pointeth with his fingers. 14 Malice is in his heart, He deviseth evil at all times, He spreadeth strife. 15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come, Suddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy.
It is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and אדם בּליּעל is without doubt predicate. But does the complex subject begin with אישׁ און? Thus e.g., Hitzig: “A worthless man is the wicked man who....” But the interchange of עדם and אישׁ is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to אישׁ און, then since אישׁ האון is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by ההולך. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate. Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, אישׁ בליעל. Since אדם און is not possible, the author uses instead בליעל. This word, composed of בּלי and יעל (from יעל, ועל, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, 1Sa 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for אדם does not form a constructivus, and never governs a genitive. בליעל is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam); the connection is like that of אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with בליעל is און (from an, to breathe), wickedness, i.e., want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.e., who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. עקּשׁוּת פּה is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for הלך is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i.e., dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15.

Verse 13

Pro 6:13 קורץ בּעיניו is translated according to the sense: who winks (nictat) with his eyes; but that is not the proper meaning of the word, for קרץ is used not only of the eyes. Pro 10:10 (cf. Pro 16:30, qui oculos morsicat or connivet), Psa 35:19, but also of the lips, Pro 16:30. Thus Löwenstein's explanation: who opens up the eyes, is incorrect. The verb קרץ unites in it the meanings of Arab. qrts, to pinch off with a sharp implement, and Arab. qrd, with a blunt instrument (Arab. miḳraḍ, pincers). It means to pince, to nip, as Arab. ḳarṣ, pincer - e.g., ḳarṣ balskyn alarsasat, he cuts off with the knife the leaden seal - hence frequently, to nip together the eyes, provincially: to wink (“zwickern,” frequent. of “zwicken,” to nip) with the eyes - the action of the deceiver, who thereby gives the sign to others that they help or at least do not hinder him from bantering and mocking, belying and deceiving a third person (Fl.); cf. Ali's proverb, “O God, pardon to us the culpable winking with the eye (ramzat),” and Fleischer's notes thereon, the Proverbs of Ali, p. 100f.
That the words which follow, בּרגליו מולל, are meant of discourse, i.e., the giving of signs, with the feet, and, so to say, significant oratio pedestris (lxx, Aben-Ezra, Bertheau, Hitzig, and others), is very improbable, since the usage of language has set apart the Piel מלּל for the meaning loqui, and מולל admits another suitable signification, for מולל means in Talmudic fricare, confricare - e.g., המולל מלילות, he who grinds the parched ears of corn (b. Beza 12b; Ma'seroth, iv. 5) - after which Syr., Targ., תכס (stamping), Aq. τρίβων, Symm. προστρίβων, Jerome, (qui) terit pede, and Rashi משׁפשׁף (grinding, scratching); it means one who scrapes with his feet, draws them backwards and forwards on the ground in order thereby to give a sign to others; also the Arab. mll, levem et agilem esse, which as the synonym of Arab. sr is connected with Arab. fı̂ of the way, signifies properly to move the feet quickly hither and thither (Fl.).^[36] מרה appears here, in accordance with its primary signification (projicere, sc. brachium or digitum = monstrare), connected with בּעצבּעתיו; another expression for this scornful, malicious δακτυλοδεικνεῖν is שׁלח אצבּע, Isa 58:9.

Verse 14

In this verse is continued the description of the subject, only once returning to the particip. The clauses are arranged independently, but logically according to the complex conception of the subject. תּהפּכות .tce are just the knaveries, i.e., the malicious wickedness which comes to light in word and deportment as עקשׁות פה. Regarding the double figure of the smithy and of agriculture underlying חרשׁ, machinari, vid., at Pro 3:29, and regarding the omission of the הוּא to חרשׁ, at Psa 7:10. The phrase שׁלּח מדנים (as Pro 6:19, Pro 16:28), to let loose disputes, so that they break forth, reminds us rather of the unfettering of the winds by Aeolus than of the casting in of the apple of discord. Instead of מדנים the Kerı̂ has מדינים; on the other hand, מדנים remains uncorrected Pro 6:19; Pro 10:12. The form מדינים occurs once, Pro 18:18, and its constr. מדיני once, Pro 19:13. Everywhere else the text has מדונים, for which the Kerı̂ has מדינים, Pro 18:19; Pro 21:9, Pro 21:19; Pro 23:29; Pro 25:24; Pro 26:21; Pro 27:15. The forms מדין and מדן are also recognised: the former stands alone without any analogous example; the latter is compared at least with מצד, Arab. masâd (Psalmen, p. 163, 3). Probably these two forms are warranted by Gen 25:2, cf. Gen 37:28, Gen 37:36, where מדין and מדן occur as the names of two sons of Abraham by Keturah. But the national name מדינים is no reason for the seven times laying aside of the regular form מדונים, i.e., מדונים, which is the plur. of מדון after the forms מאורים, מעורים, although מדוּנים, after the forms מבוּשׁים, מצוּקים, is also found.

Verse 15

With the 14th verse the description terminates. A worthless and a wicked person is he who does such things. The point lies in the characteristic out of which the conclusion is drawn: therefore his ruin will suddenly come upon him, etc. Regarding איד, the root-meaning of which is illustrated by Amo 2:13, vid., at Pro 1:26. פּתאם is an old accus. of an absol. פּתא, of the same meaning as פּתע, used as an adverbial accus., both originating in the root-idea of splitting, opening, breaking out and breaking forth. “Shall be broken to pieces” (as a brittle potter's vessel, Psa 2:9; Isa 30:14; Jer 29:11) is a frequent figure for the destruction (שׁבר) of an army (cf. Arab. ânksar âljysh), of a city or a state, a man. ואין continues the ישּׁבר as Pro 29:1 : there shall be as it were no means of recovery for his shattered members (Fl.). Without the Vav this אין מרפּא would be a clause conceived of accusatively, and thus adverbially: without any healing.

Verses 16-19

What now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (מדנים, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp. 12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda: - 16 There are six things which Jahve hateth, And seven are an abhorrence to His soul: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil, Feet that hastily run to wickedness, 19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness, And he who soweth strife between brethren.
The sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Löwenstein); the Midda-form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit, for המּה, הנּה, (הם, הן) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as אלּה, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be שׁשׁ אלה, or more correctly האלה שׁשׁ. But also Hitzig's explanation, “These six things (viz., Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,” is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce) the substantive pronoun המה nuonorp , הנה (ההמה, ההנה) is never, like the Chald. המּון (המּו), employed as an accus. in the sense of אתהם, אתהן, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom., whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which הנה (המה) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, 'שׂנא ה is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex (sunt) ea quae Deus odit, et septem (sunt) abominatio animae ejus. Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid., at Isa 1:14. תועבות, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral (vid., Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Kerı̂; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote תועבת. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light. The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor, which expresses itself in elatum (grande) supercilium: עינים רמות, the feature of the רם, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with 2Sa 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the שׁח עינים, Job 22:29; עין is in the O.T. almost always (vid., Sol 4:9) fem., and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. דּם־נקי is innocent blood as distinguished from דּם הנּקי, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13.^[37]

Verse 18

The fourth characteristic is a deceitful heart. On חרשׁ, vid., Pro 6:14, Pro 3:29, and on אין, Pro 6:12. The fifth: feet running with haste to evil; לרעה as לרע in Isa 59:7, echoing the distich Pro 1:16, as here, 17b and 18b. The connection מהר לרוּץ, propere cucurrit (contrast אחר ל), is equivalent to רץ מהר.

Verse 19

The sixth: “A speaker of lies, a tongue of falsehood,” is hateful to God. It is one subject which is thus doubly characterized. כּזבים are fictions, and שׁקר is the disfiguring (deformatio) of the actual facts. They are purposely placed together in this connection. The derivations of these synonyms are obscure; Fürst gives to the former the root-idea of spinning (properly knotting together), and to the latter that of painting. כזבים is introduced to support שׁקר.^[38]
It would also be verbally permissible to interpret עד שׁקר in the sense of עדוּת שׁקר, like Pro 25:18, as in apposition to כזבים; but in the nearest parallel, Pro 14:15, the idea is personal, for it is said of the עד שׁקר that he breathes out lies. In that place there can be no doubt that the clause is a verbal one, and יפיח finitum, viz., Hiph. of פּוּח. This Hiph. signifies elsewhere also sufflare, Pro 20:8, afflare, Psa 10:5; Eze 21:26, perflare, Sol 4:16, anhelare (desiderare), Psa 12:6; Hab 2:3, but with כזבים, efflare, a synonym to דּבּר, as הבּיע and הטּיף, which has (cf. Pro 12:17) no secondary meaning in use, but is mostly connected with כזבים, not without reference to the fact that that which is false is without reality and is nothing more than הבל ורוח. But what kind of a form is יפיח, where it is not, as Pro 14:5, the predicate of a verbal clause, but in connection with כזבים, as here and at Pro 14:25; Pro 19:5, Pro 19:9 (once with אמונה, Pro 12:17), is the subject of a substantival clause? That which lies nearest is to regard it as a noun formed from the fut. Hiph. Such formations we indeed meet only among proper names, such as יאיר, יכין, יקים; however, at least the one n. appell. יריב (an adversary) is found, which may be formed from the Hiph. as well as from the Kal. But should not the constr. of יפיח after the form יריב be יפיח? One does not escape from this consideration by deriving יפיח, after the forms יגיע, יחיל, ידיד, ישׁישׁ, and the like, from a secondary verb יפח, the existence of which is confirmed by Jer 4:31, and from which also יפח, Psa 27:12, appears to be derived, although it may be reduced also, after the form ירב (with יריב), to הפיח. But in this case also one expects as a connecting form יפיח like ידיד, as in reality יפח from יפח (cf. אבל, שׂמהי, from אבל, שׂמח). Shall it now be assumed that the Kametz is treated as fixed? This were contrary to rule, since it is not naturally long. Thus the connection is not that of the genitive. But if יפיח were a substantive formed with the preformative of the second modus like ילקוּט 1Sa 17:40, or were it a participial intensive form of active signification such as נביא, then the verbal force remaining in it is opposed to the usage of the language. There remains nothing further, therefore, than to regard יפיח as an attributive put in the place of a noun: one who breathes out; and there is a homogeneous example of this, for in any other way we cannot explain יוסיף, Ecc 1:18. In 19b the numeral proverb reaches its point. The chief of all that God hates is he who takes a fiendish delight in setting at variance men who stand nearly related. Thus this brief proverbial discourse rounds itself off, coming again to 14b as a refrain.

Verses 20-21

After these three smaller sections, the teacher of wisdom returns here to the theme of the eighth: Warning against sins of the flesh, whose power and prevalence among men is so immeasurably great, that their terrible consequences cannot sufficiently be held up before them, particularly before youth. 20 Keep, my son, the commandment of thy father, And reject not the instruction of thy mother. 21 Bind them to thy heart evermore, Fasten them about thy neck.
The suff. -ēm refers to the good doctrine (cf. Pro 7:3) pointed out by מצוה and תּורה; the masc. stands, as is usual (e.g., Pro 1:16; Pro 5:2), instead of the fem. Regarding the figure, reminding us of the Tefillin and of Amuletes for perpetual representation, vid., under Pro 3:3. Similarly of persons, Sol 8:6. The verb ענד (only here and Job 31:36) signifies to bend, particularly to bend aside (Arab. 'ind, bending off, going aside; accus. as adv., aside, apud), and to bend up, to wind about, circumplicare.

Verse 22

The representation of the good doctrine is now personified, and becomes identified with it.
When thou walkest, it will guide thee;
When thou liest down, it will keep watch over thee;
And when thou wakest, it will talk with thee.
The subject is the doctrine of wisdom, with which the representation of wisdom herself is identified. The futures are not expressive of a wish or of an admonition, but of a promise; the form of the third clause shows this. Thus, and in the same succession as in the schema Deu 6:7, cf. Pro 11:19, are the three circumstances of the outward life distinguished: going, lying down, and rising up. The punctuation בּהתהלכך, found here and there, is Ben-Naphtali's variant; Ben-Asher and also the Textus rec. reject the Metheg in this case, vid., Baer's Metheg-Setzung, §28. The verb נחה, with its Hiph. in a strengthened Kal-signification, is more frequently found in the Psalms than in the Proverbs; the Arab. nh' shows that it properly signifies to direct (dirigere), to give direction, to move in a definite direction. שׁמר with על, to take into protection, we had already Pro 2:11; this author has favourite forms of expression, in the repetition of which he takes delight. With lying down, sleeping is associated. והקיצות is, as Psa 139:18, the hypoth. perf., according to Ewald, §357a: et ut expergefactus es, illa te compellabit. Bertheau incorrectly: she will make thee thoughtful. But apart from the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of this Hiph. in the language of the Bible, the personification demands a clearer figure. שׂיח (שׂוּח) signifies mental speech and audible speech (Gen 24:63, poet., in the Talmudic^[39] a common word); with ב, speaking concerning something (fabulari de), Psa 69:13; with the accus., that which is said of a thing, Psa 145:5, or the address, briefly for שׂיח ל, Job 12:8 (as מגּן with accus. Pro 4:9 = מגן ל): when thou art awake, wisdom will forthwith enter into conversation with thee, and fill thy thoughts with right matter, and give to thy hands the right direction and consecration.

Verse 23

Since in היא the idea of wisdom and of wholesome doctrine lie in one another, the author can proceed with proof:
For a lamp is the commandment, and instruction a light (Jerome et lex lux);
And a way of life, disciplinary reproofs.
That תורה has here not the positive, specifically Israelitish sense, but the generalized sense of instruction in conformity with truth regarding the will of God and the duty of man, vid., p. 42. This instruction mediated by man, but of divine origin, is אור, light, which enlightens the man who submits to it; and the commandment, מצוה, which directs men in every case to do what is right, and forbids that which is wrong (including the prohibition Lev 4:2), is נר, a lamp which, kindled at that light, enlightens all the darkness of ignorance with reference to human conduct and its consequences. אור and נר are related to each other as general and particular, primary and derivative. Löwenstein accentuates incorrectly תּורהו אור instead of תּורהו אור (as the Cod. 1294 and the 3 Erfurt Codd.); vid., on the retrogression of the tone, not existing here, under Pro 3:15. The gen. מוּסר denotes the object or character of the admonition: not disciplinary in the external sense of the word, but rather moral, having in view discipline in the sense of education, i.e., moral edification and elevation. Such corrections are דּרך חיּים, the way to true life, direction how to obtain it.

Verse 24

The section thus closes:
To keep thee from the vile woman,
From the flattery of the strange tongue.
Regarding the genitive connection אושׁת רע, a woman of a wicked character, vid., under Pro 2:14; and regarding the adjectival connection לשׁון נכריה, under Pro 6:17; the strange tongue is the tongue (לשׁון) of the strange (foreign) woman (vid., p. 81), alluring with smooth words (Pro 2:16). Ewald, Bertheau: from her of a smooth tongue, the stranger, as Symm., Theod., ἀπὸ λειογλώσσου ξένης; but חלקת is a substantive (Gen 27:16), and as a fem. adject. form is without an example. Rather חלקת לשׁון is to be regarded as the first member and נכריה as the second of the st. constr., for the former constitutes one idea, and לשון on this account remains unabbreviated; cf. Psa 68:22; Isa 28:1; but (1) this syntactical phenomenon is yet problematical, vid., Friedr. Philippi, Wesen und Ursprung des St. Constr. p. 17; and (2) the supposition of such an anomaly is here unnecessary.

Verses 25-26

The proaemium of these twelve proverbial discourses is now at an end. Wisdom herself begins striking the note of the Decalogue: 25 Long not for her beauty in thy heart, And let her not catch thee with her eyelids; 26 Because for a harlot one cometh down to a piece of bread, And a man's wife lieth in wait for a precious soul.
The warning 25a is in the spirit of the “thou shalt not covet,” Exo 20:17, and the ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ, Mat 5:28, of the Preacher on the Mount. The Talmudic proverb הרהודי עבירה קשו מעבירה (Joma 29a) means only that the imagination of the sinful act exhausts the body even more than the act itself. The warning, “let her not catch thee with her eyelids,” refers to her (the adulteress's) coquettish ogling and amorous winking. In the reason added, beginning with כּי בעד־ (thus it is to be punctuated), there is the appositional connection אשּׁה זונה, Gesen. §113; the idea of זונה goes over into 26b. “לחם כּכּר [ = כּרכּר, R. kr, to round, vid., at Gen 49:5], properly a circle of bread, is a small round piece of bread, such as is still baked in Italy (pagnotta) and in the East (Arab. ḳurṣ), here an expression for the smallest piece” (Fl.). בּעד (constr. of בּעד), as Job 2:4; Isa 32:14, is used in the sense of ὑπέρ, pro, and with עד there is connected the idea of the coming down to this low point. Ewald, Bertheau explain after the lxx, τιμὴ γὰρ πόρνης ὅση καὶ ἑνὸς ἄρτου, γυνὴ δὲ ἀνδρῶν τιμίας ψυχὰς ἀγρεύει. But nothing is said here of price (reward); the parallelism is synonymous, not antithetic: he is doubly threatened with loss who enters upon such a course. The adulterer squanders his means (Pro 29:3) to impoverishment (vid., the mention of a loaf of bread in the description of poverty 1Sa 2:36), and a man's wife (but at the same time seeking converse with another) makes a prey of a precious soul; for whoever consents to adulterous converse with her, loses not perhaps his means, but certainly freedom, purity, dignity of soul, yea, his own person. צוּד comprehends - as צידון, fisher's town [Zidon], Arab. ṣyâd, hunter and fisher, show - all kinds of hunting, but in Hebr. is used only of the hunting of wild beasts. The root-meaning (cf. צדיּה) is to spy, to seize.

Verses 27-29

The moral necessity of ruinous consequences which the sin of adultery draws after it, is illustrated by examples of natural cause and effect necessarily connected: 27 Can one take fire in his bosom And his clothes not be burned? 28 Or can any one walk over burning coals And his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth to his neighbour's wife, No one remains unpunished that toucheth her.
We would say: Can any one, without being, etc.; the former is the Semitic “extended (paratactic)^[40] construction.” The first אישׁ has the conjunctive Shalsheleth. חתה signifies to seize and draw forth a brand or coal with the fire-tongs or shovel (מחתּה, the instrument for this); cf. Arab. khât, according to Lane, “he seized or snatched away a thing;” the form יחתּה is Kal, as יחנה (vid., Köhler, De Tetragammate, 1867, p. 10). חיק (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom.

Verse 28

A second example of destructive consequences naturally following a certain course is introduced with אם of the double question. גּחלים (from גּחל, after the form פּחם, but for which גּחלת is used) is the regular modification of gaḥḥalı̂m (Gesen. §27, 2). The fem. ורגליו is followed here (cf. on the other hand Pro 1:16) by the rhythmically full-sounding form תכּוינה (retaining the distinction of gender), from כּוה, Arab. kwy, to burn so that a brand-mark (כּי, Isa 3:24, cauterium) remains.

Verse 29

The instruction contained in these examples here follows: τὸ εἰς πῦρ καὶ εἰς γυναῖκα ἐμπεσεῖν Ἴσον ὑπάρχει (Pythagoras in Maximi Eclog. c. 39). בּוא אל is here, as the second in Psa 51:1, a euphemism, and נגע בּ, to come in contact with, means, as נגע אל, to touch, Gen 20:6. He who goes in to his neighbour's wife shall not do so with impunity (נקי). Since both expressions denote fleshly nearness and contact, so it is evident he is not guiltless.

Verses 30-31

The thief and the adulterer are now placed in comparison with one another, in such a way that adultery is supposed to be a yet greater crime. 30 One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals To satisfy his craving when he is hungry; 31 Being seized, he may restore sevenfold, Give up the whole wealth of his house.
For the most part 30a is explained: even when this is the case, one does not pass it over in the thief as a bagatelle. Ewald remarks: בּוּז ל stands here in its nearest signification of overlooking, whence first follows that of contemning. But this “nearest” signification is devised wholly in favour of this passage; - the interpretation, “they do not thus let the thief pass,” is set aside by Sol 8:1, Sol 8:7; for by 31b, cf. Sol 8:7, and 34a, cf. Sol 8:6, it is proved that from Pro 6:30 on, reminiscences from the Canticles, which belong to the literature of the Chokma, find their way into the Mashal language of the author. Hitzig's correct supposition, that בּוּז ל always signifies positive contemning, does not necessitate the interrogative interpretation: “Does not one despise the thief if...?” Thus to be understood, the author ought to have written אף כי or גם כי. Michaelis rightly: furtum licet merito pro infami in republica habetur, tamen si cum adulterio comparatur, minus probrosum est. Regarding נפשׁ in the sense of appetite, and even throat and stomach, vid., Psychologie, p. 204. A second is, that the thief, if he is seized (but we regard ונמצא not as the hypoth. perf., but as the part. deprehensus), may make compensation for this crime. The fut. ישׁלּם thus to be understood as the potential lies near from this, that a sevenfold compensation of the thing stolen is unheard of in the Israelitish law; it knows only of a twofold, fourfold, fivefold restoration, Ex. 21:37; Exo 22:1-3, Exo 22:8 (cf. Saalschütz, Mos. Recht, p. 554ff.). This excess over that which the law rendered necessary leads into the region of free-will: he (the thief, by which we are now only to think of him whom bitter necessity has made such) may make compensation sevenfold, i.e., superabundantly; he may give up the whole possessions (vid., on הון at Pro 1:13) of his house, so as not merely to satisfy the law, but to appease him against whom he has done wrong, and again to gain for himself an honoured name. What is said in Pro 6:30 and Pro 6:31 is perfectly just. One does not contemn a man who is a thief through poverty, he is pitied; while the adulterer goes to ruin under all circumstances of contempt and scorn. And: theft may be made good, and that abundantly; but adultery and its consequences are irreparable.

Verses 32-33

Here there is a contrast stated to Pro 6:30 : 32 He who commits adultery (adulterans mulierem) is beside himself, A self-destroyer-who does this. 33 He gains stripes and disgrace, And his reproach is never quenched. נאף, which primarily seems to mean excedere, to indulge in excess, is, as also in the Decalogue, cf. Lev 20:10, transitive: ὁ μοιχεύων γυναῖκα. Regarding being mad (herzlos = heartless) = amens (excors, vecors), vid., Psychologie, p. 254. משׁחית נפשׁו is he who goes to ruin with wilful perversity. A self-murderer - i.e., he intends to ruin his position and his prosperity in life - who does it, viz., this, that he touches the wife of another. It is the worst and most inextinguishable dishonouring of oneself. Singularly Behaji: who annihilates it (his soul), with reference to Deu 21:12. Eccl. 4:17, where עשׂה would be equivalent to בּטּל, καταργεῖν, which is untrue and impossible.^[41] נגע refers to the corporal punishment inflicted on the adulterer by the husband (Deu 17:8; Deu 21:5); Hitzig, who rejects Pro 6:32, refers it to the stripes which were given to the thief according to the law, but these would be called מכּה (מכּות). The punctuation נגע־וקלון is to be exchanged for קלונו נגע (Löwenstein and other good editors). מצא has a more active signification than our “finden” (to find): consequitur, τυγχάνει.

Verses 34-35

One who has been stolen from is to be appeased, but not the injured husband. 34 For jealousy is the fury of a husband, And he spareth not in the day of vengeance. 35 He regardeth not any ransom, And is not contented though thou offerest to him gifts ever so great.
The connection marks קנאה as the subject; for it respects carnal intercourse with another's wife. Jealousy is not usually חמה, the glow of anger (from יחם, as שׁנה from ישׁן), but חמת־גּבר (constr. as שׂנת), the glow of a man's anger, who with the putting forth of all his manly strength will seek satisfaction to his wounded honour. גּבר, here significant for אישׁ, with the fundamental idea of strength, firmness; cf. Arab. jabr, to make fast, to put right again something broken in pieces, particularly a broken vessel, hence Algebra, properly the operation by which an incomplete magnitude is completed (Fl.). The following ולא־יחמּל (with the orthophonic Dagesh, as Pro 6:25 יחמּד, and with Makkeph) is connected with גבר, with definite reference to the man whom the faithless guest has made a cuckold. When the day comes in which the adultery brought to light demands and admits of vengeance, then, wounded in his right and in his honour, he knows no mercy; he pays no regard to any atonement or recompense by which the adulterer seeks to appease him and induce him not to inflict the punishment that is due: he does not consent, even though thou makest ever so great the gift whereby thou thinkest to gain him. The phrase נשׂא פנים, πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, signifies elsewhere to receive the countenance, i.e., the appearance and the impression of a man, i.e., to let it impress one favourably; here it is used of the כּפר, i.e., the means by which covering, i.e., non-punishment, pardon of the crime, impunity of the guilty, is obtained. Regarding אבה, to consent to, vid., at Pro 1:10. שׂחד, Aram. שׂוּחד, is a gift, particularly bribery. That the language may again finally assume the form of an address, it beautifully rounds itself off.

Chap. 7

Verses 1-3

The introduction first counsels in general to a true appreciation of these well-considered life-rules of wisdom. 1 My son, keep my words, And treasure up my commandments with thee. 2 Keep my commandments, and thou shalt live; And my instruction as the apple of thine eye. 3 Wind them about thy fingers, Write them on the tablet of thy heart.
The lxx has after Pro 7:1 another distich; but it here disturbs the connection. Regarding צפן, vid., at Pro 2:1; אתּך refers, as there, to the sphere of one's own character, and that subjectively. Regarding the imper. וחיה, which must here be translated according to its sense as a conclusion, because it comes in between the objects governed by שׁמר, vid., at Pro 4:4. There וחיה is punctuated with Silluk; here, according to Kimchi (Michlol 125a), with Segol-Athnach, וחיה, as in the Cod. Erfurt. 2 and 3, and in the editions of Athias and Clodius, so that the word belongs to the class פתחין באתנח (with short instead of long vowel by the pausal accent): no reason for this is to be perceived, especially as (Pro 4:4) the Tsere (ê from aj) which is characteristic of the imper. remains unchanged. Regarding אישׁון העין, Arab. insân el-'ain, the little man of the eye, i.e., the apple of the eye, named from the miniature portrait of him who looks into it being reflected from it, vid., at Psa 17:8; the ending ôn is here diminutive, like Syr. achuno, little brother, beruno, little son, and the like. On Pro 7:3, vid., at Pro 6:21; Pro 3:3. The תפילין שׁל יד^[42] were wound seven times round the left arm and seven times round the middle finger. The writing on the table of the heart may be regarded as referring to Deu 6:9 (the Mezuzoth).^[43]

Verses 4-5

The subject-matter of this earnest warning are the admonitions of the teacher of wisdom, and through him of Wisdom herself, who in contrast to the world and its lust is the worthiest object of love, and deserves to be loved with the purest, sincerest love: 4 Say to wisdom: “Thou art my sister!” And call understanding “Friend;” 5 That they may keep thee from the strange woman, From the stranger who useth smooth words.
The childlike, sisterly, and friendly relationship serves also to picture forth and designate the intimate confidential relationship to natures and things which are not flesh and blood. If in Arabic the poor is called the brother of poverty, the trustworthy the brother of trustworthiness, and abu, um (אם), achu, ucht, are used in manifold ways as the expression for the interchangeable relation between two ideas; so (as also, notwithstanding Ewald, §273b, in many Hebr. proper names) that has there become national, which here, as at Job 17:14; Job 30:29, mediated by the connection of the thoughts, only first appears as a poetic venture. The figurative words of Pro 7:4 not merely lead us to think of wisdom as a personal existence of a higher order, but by this representation it is itself brought so near, that אם easily substitutes itself, Pro 2:3, in the place of אם. אחתי of Solomon's address to the bride brought home is in its connection compared with Book of Wisdom 8:2. While the ôth of אחות by no means arises from abstr. ûth, but achôth is derived from achajath, מודע (as Rth 2:1, cf. מודעת, Pro 3:2), here by Mugrash מודע, properly means acquaintance, and then the person known, but not in the superficial sense in which this word and the Arab. ma'arfat are used (e.g., in the Arabic phrase quoted by Fleischer, kanna aṣḥaab ṣarna m'aaraf - nous étions amis, nous en sommes plus que de simples connaissances), but in the sense of familiar, confidential alliance. The infin. לשׁמרך does not need for its explanation some intermediate thought to be introduced: quod eo conducet tibi ut (Mich.), but connects itself immediately as the purpose: bind wisdom to thyself and thyself to wisdom thus closely that thou mayest therewith guard thyself. As for the rest, vid., Pro 2:16; this verse repeats itself here with the variation of one word.

Verses 6-7

How necessary it is for the youth to guard himself by the help of wisdom against the enticements of the wanton woman, the author now shows by a reference to his own observation. 6 For through the window of my house, From behind the lattice I looked out; 7 Then saw I among the simple ones, Discerned among the young people, a youth devoid of understanding. כּי refers indeed to the immediately following clause, yet it actually opens up the whole following exemplification. The connection with Pro 7:5 would be closer if instead of the extended Semitic construction it were said: nam quum ...prospicerem vidi, etc. חלּון (from חלל, to bore through) is properly a place where the wall is bored through. אשׁנב .hguor (from שׁנב = Arab. shaniba, to be agreeable, cool, fresh) is the window-lattice or lattice-window, i.e., lattice for drawing down and raising up, which keeps off the rays of the sun. נשׁקף signifies primarily to make oneself long in order to see, to stretch up or out the neck and the head, καραδοκεῖν, Arab. atall, atal'a, and tatall'a of things, imminere, to overtop, to project, to jut in; cf. Arab. askaf of the ostrich, long and bent, with respect to the neck stretching it up, sakaf, abstr. crooked length. And בּעד is thus used, as in Arab. duna, but not b'ad, is used: so placed, that one in relation to the other obstructs the avenue to another person or thing: “I looked forth from behind the lattice-window, i.e., with respect to the persons or things in the room, standing before the lattice-window, and thus looking out into the open air” (Fleischer). That it was far in the night, as we learn at Pro 7:9, does not contradict this looking out; for apart from the moon, and especially the lighting of the streets, there were star-lit nights, and to see what the narrator saw there was no night of Egyptian darkness. But because it was night 6a is not to be translated: I looked about among those devoid of experience (thus e.g., Löwenstein); but he saw among these, observed among the youths, who thus late amused themselves without, a young man whose want of understanding was manifest from what further happened. Bertheau: that I might see, is syntactically impossible. The meaning of וארא is not determined by the אבינה following, but conversely אבינה stands under the operation of ו (= אבינה, Neh 13:7), characterizing the historic aorist. Regarding פּתי, vid., at Pro 1:4. בּנים is the masc. of בּנות, Arab. benât in the meaning maiden. בבּנים has in correct texts, according to the rules of the accents, the ב raphatum.^[44]

Verses 8-9

Now follows, whither he saw the young fop [Laffen] then go in the darkness. 8 Going up and down the street near her corner, And he walked along the way to her house, 9 In the twilight, when the day declined, In the midst of the night and deep darkness.
We may interpret עבר as appos.: juvenem amentem, ambulantem, or as the predicate accus.: vidi juvenem ... ambulantem; for that one may so express himself in Hebrew (cf. e.g., Isa 6:1; Dan 8:7), Hitzig unwarrantably denies. The passing over of the part. into the finite, 8b, is like Pro 2:14, Pro 2:17, and that of the inf. Pro 1:27; Pro 2:8. שׁוּק, Arab. suk (dimin. suweiḳa, to separate, from sikkat, street, alley), still means, as in former times, a broad street, a principal street, as well as an open place, a market-place where business is transacted, or according to its etymon: where cattle are driven for sale. On the street he went backwards and forwards, yet so that he kept near to her corner (i.e., of the woman whom he waited for), i.e., he never withdrew himself far from the corner of her house, and always again returned to it. The corner is named, because from that place he could always cast a look over the front of the house to see whether she whom he waited for showed herself. Regarding פּנּהּ for פּנּתהּ, vid., at Psa 27:5 : a primary form פּן has never been in use; פּנּים, Zec 14:10, is plur. of פּנּהּ. אצל (from אצל, Arab. wasl, to bind) is, as a substantive, the side (as the place where one thing connects itself with another), and thus as a preposition it means (like juxta from jungere) beside, Ital. allato. דּרכו is the object. accus., for thus are construed verbs eundi (e.g., Hab 3:12, Num. 30:17, cf. Pro 21:22).

Verse 9

The designations of time give the impression of progress to a climax; for Hitzig unwarrantably denies that נשׁף means the twilight; the Talmud, Berachoth 3b, correctly distinguishes תרי נשׁפי two twilights, the evening and the morning twilight. But the idea is not limited to this narrow sense, and does not need this, since the root-word נשׁף (vid., at Isa 40:24) permits the extension of the idea to the whole of the cool half (evening and night) of the entire day; cf. the parallel of the adulterer who veils himself by the darkness of the night and by a mask on his countenance, Job 24:15 with Jer 13:16. However, the first group of synonyms, בּנשׁף בּערב יום (with the Cod. Frankf. 1294, to be thus punctuated), as against the second, appears to denote an earlier period of the second half of the day; for if one reads, with Hitzig, בּערב יום (after Jdg 19:9), the meaning remains the same as with בּערב יום, viz., advesperascente die (Jerome), for ערב = Arab. gharab, means to go away, and particularly to go under, of the sun, and thus to become evening. He saw the youth in the twilight, as the day had declined (κέκλικεν, Luk 24:29), going backwards and forwards; and when the darkness of night had reached its middle, or its highest point, he was still in his lurking-place. אישׁון לילה, apple of the eye of the night, is, like the Pers. dili scheb, heart of the night, the poetic designation of the middle of the night. Gusset incorrectly: crepusculum in quo sicut in oculi pupilla est nigredo sublustris et quasi mistura lucis ac tenebrarum. אישׁון is, as elsewhere לב, particularly the middle; the application to the night was specially suitable, since the apple of the eye is the black part in the white of the eye (Hitzig). It is to be translated according to the accus., in pupilla noctis et caligine (not caliginis); and this was probably the meaning of the poet, for a ב is obviously to be supplied to ואפלה.

Verses 10-12

Finally, the young man devoid of understanding sees his waiting rewarded: like meets like. 10 And, lo, a woman coming to meet him, In the attire of an harlot and of subtle heart. 11 Boisterous is she, and ungovernable; Her feet have no rest in her own house. 12 At one time before her door, at another in the street, And again at every corner she places herself on the watch. “Pro 7:12 (Hitzig) expresses what is wont to be, instead of a single event, Pro 7:11, viz., the custom of a street harlot. But she who is spoken of is not such an one; lurking is not applicable to her (cf. Job 31:9), and, Pro 7:11, it is not meant that she is thus inclined.” But Hitzig's rendering of Pro 7:11, “she was boisterous ... in her house her feet had no rest,” is inaccurate, since neither היאו nor שׁכנוּ is used. Thus in Pro 7:11 and Pro 7:12 the poet gives a characteristic of the woman, introduced by הנּהו into the frame of his picture, which goes beyond that which then presented itself to his eyes. We must with Pro 7:12 reject also Pro 7:11; and even that would not be a radical improvement, since that characteristic lying behind the evident, that which was then evident begins with וּנצרת לב (and subtle in heart). We must thus suppose that the woman was not unknown to the observer here describing her. He describes her first as she then appeared. שׁית Hitzig regards as equivalent to שׁוית, similitude (from שׁוה), and why? Because שׁית does not mean “to lay against,” but “to place.” But Exo 33:4 shows the contrary, and justifies the meaning attire, which the word also has in Psa 73:6. Meîri less suitably compares 2Ki 9:30, but rightly explains תקון (dressing, ornament), and remarks that שׁית elliptical is equivalent to בּשׁית. It is not the nominative (Bertheau), but the accusative, as תבנית, Psa 144:12, Ewald, §279d. How Hitzig reaches the translation of ונצרת לב by “and an arrow in her heart” (et saucia corde)^[45] one can only understand by reading his commentary. The usage of the language, Pro 4:23, he remarks, among other things, would stamp her as a virtuous person. As if a phrase like נצר לב could be used both sensu bono and sensu malo! One can guard his heart when he protects it carefully against moral danger, or also when he purposely conceals that which is in it. The part. נצוּר signifies, Isa 1:8, besieged (blockaded), Eze 16:12, protected, guarded, and Isa 48:6; Isa 65:4, concealed, hidden. Ewald, §187b, refers these three significations in the two passages in Isaiah and in the passage before us to צרר, Niph. נצר (as נגל); but (1) one would then more surely take צוּר (cf. נמּול, נבכים) as the verbal stem; (2) one reaches the idea of the concealed (the hidden) easier from that of the preserved than from that of the confined. As one says in Lat. homo occultus, tectus, abstrusus, in the sense of κρυψίνους, so it is said of that woman נצרת לב, not so much in the sense of retenta cor, h.e. quae quod in corde haberet non pandebat, Fr. retenue (Cocc.), as in the sense of custodita cor, quae intentionem cordis mentemque suam callide novit premere (Mich.): she is of a hidden mind, of a concealed nature; for she feigns fidelity to her husband and flatters her paramours as her only beloved, while in truth she loves none, and each of them is to her only a means to an end, viz., to the indulgence of her worldly sensual desire. For, as the author further describes here, she is המיּה (fem. of המה = המי, as Pro 1:21; Isa 22:2), tumultuosa, externally as internally impetuous, because full of intermingling lust and deceit (opp. ἡσύχιος, 1Pe 3:4; 1Ti 2:11), and סררת, self-willed, not minding the law of duty, of discretion, or of modesty (from סרר, Arab. sharr, pervicacem, malum esse). She is the very opposite of the noiseless activity and the gentle modesty of a true house-wife, rude, stubborn, and also vagrant like a beast in its season (Hos 4:14): in domo ipsius residere nequeunt pedes ejus; thus not οἰκουρός or οἰκουργός (Tit 2:5), far removed from the genuine woman - like εἴσω ἥσυχον μένειν δόμων^[46] or as she is called in Aram. נפקת בּרא.

Verse 12

This verse shows how she conducts herself when she wanders abroad. It is no common street-walker who is designated (no “Husterin,” Arab. ḳaḥbt, after which also the female demon-name (Arab.) se'alâ is explained), but that licentious married wife, who, no better than such a strumpet when she wanders abroad, hunts after lovers. The alternating פּעם (properly a stroke) Fleischer compares with the Arab. synonyms, marrt, a going over, karrt, a going back, una volta, una fiata, une fois (Orelli, Synon. der Zeit und Ewigkeit, p. 51). Regarding חוּץ, vid., at Pro 5:16 : it is the free space without, before the house-door, or also before the gate of the city; the parallelism speaks here and at Pro 1:20 more in favour of the former signification.

Verse 13

After this digression the poet returns to the subject, and further describes the event as observed by himself.
And she laid hold on him and kissed him;
Put on a bold brow and said to him.
The verb נשׁק is here, after its primary signification, connected with the dat.: osculum fixit ei. Thus also Gen 27:26 is construed, and the Dagesh in לּו is, as there, Dag. forte conj., after the law for which the national grammarians have coined the technical name אתי מרחיק (veniens e longinquo, “coming out of the distance,” i.e., the attraction of a word following by one accented on the penult.). The penult.-accenting of נשׁקה is the consequence of the retrogression of the accent (נסוג אחור), which, here where the word from the first had the penult, only with Metheg, and thus with a half a tone, brings with it the dageshing of the לו following, as the original penultima-accenting of והחזיקה does of the בו which follows it, for the reading בּו by Löwenstein is contrary to the laws of punctuation of the Textus receptus under consideration here.^[47]
As בו and לו have received the doubling Dagesh, so on the other hand, according to Ewald, §193b, it has disappeared from העזה (written with Raphe according to Kimchi, Michlol 145a). And as נשׁקה has the tone thrown back, so the proper pausal ותּאמר is accented on the ult., but without attracting the לו following by dageshing, which is the case only when the first of the two words terminates in the sound of ā (āh). העז פניו is said of one who shows firmness of hardness of countenance (Arab. slabt alwajh), i.e., one who shows shamelessness, or, as we say, an iron forehead (Fl.).

Verses 14-15

She laid hold on him and kissed him, both of which actions were shameless, and then, assuming the passivity and modesty befitting the woman, and disregarding morality and the law, she said to the youth: 14 “To bring peace-offerings was binding upon me, To-day have I redeemed my vows. 15 Therefore am I come out to meet thee, To seek thy face, and have found thee.”
We have translated זבחי שׁלמים “peace-offerings,” proceeding on the principle that שׁלם (sing. only Amo 5:22, and on the Phoenician altar at Marseilles) denotes contracting friendship with one (from שׁלם, to hold friendly relationship), and then the gifts having this in view; for the idea of this kind of offering is the attestation and confirmation of communion with God. But in view of the derivatives שׁלמנים and שׁלּוּם, it is perhaps more appropriate to combine שׁלם with שׁלּם, to discharge perfectly, and to translate it thank-payment-offering, or with v. Hofmann, a due-offering, where not directly thank-offering; for the proper eucharistic offering, which is the expression of thanks on a particular occasion, is removed from the species of the Shelamim by the addition of the words על־תּודה (Lev 7:12-25). The characteristic of the Shelamim is the division of the flesh of the sacrifice between Jahve and His priests on the one side, and the person (or persons) bringing it on the other side: only one part of the flesh of the sacrifice was Jahve's, consumed by fire (Lev 3:16); the priests received one part; those who brought the offering received back another part as it were from the altar of God, that they might eat it with holy joy along with their household. So here the adulteress says that there was binding upon her, in consequence of a vow she had taken, the duty of presenting peace-offerings, or offerings that were due; to-day (she reckons the day in the sense of the dies civilis from night to night) she has performed her duties, and the שׁלמי נדר have yielded much to her that she might therewith regale him, her true lover; for with על־כּן she means to say that even the prospect of the gay festival which she can prepare for him moved her thus to meet him. This address of the woman affords us a glimpse into the history of the customs of those times. The Shelamim meals degenerated in the same manner as our Kirmsen.^[48]
Secularization lies doubly near to merrymaking when the law sanctions this, and it can conceal itself behind the mask of piety. Regarding שׁחר, a more exact word for בּקּשׁ, vid., at Pro 1:28. To seek the countenance of one is equivalent to to seek his person, himself, but yet not without reference to the wished-for look [aspectus] of the person.

Verses 16-18

Thus she found him, and described to him the enjoyment which awaited him in eating and drinking, then in the pleasures of love. 16 “My bed have I spread with cushions, Variegated coverlets, Egyptian linen; 17 I have sprinkled my couch With myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. 18 Come then, we will intoxicate ourselves with love till the morning, And will satisfy ourselves in love.”
The noun ערשׂ, from ערשׂ, = Arab. 'arash, aedificare, fabricari, signifies generally the wooden frame; thus not so much the bed within as the erected bed-place (cf. Arab. 'arsh, throne, and 'arysh, arbour). This bedstead she had richly and beautifully cushioned, that it might be soft and agreeable. רבד, from רב, signifies to lay on or apply closely, thus either vincire (whence the name of the necklace, Gen 41:42) or sternere (different from רפד, Job 17:13, which acquires the meaning sternere from the root-meaning to raise up from under, sublevare), whence מרבדּים, cushions, pillows, stragulae. Böttcher punctuates מרבדּים incorrectly; the ב remains aspirated, and the connection of the syllables is looser than in מרבּה, Ewald, §88d. The צטבות beginning the second half-verse is in no case an adjective to מרבדים, in every case only appos., probably an independent conception; not derived from חטב (cogn. חצב), to hew wood (whence Arab. ḥaṭab, fire-wood), according to which Kimchi, and with him the Graec. Venet. (περιξύστοις), understands it of the carefully polished bed-poles or bed-boards, but from חטב = Arab. khaṭeba, to be streaked, of diverse colours (vid., under Psa 144:12), whence the Syriac machṭabto, a figured (striped, checkered) garment. Hitzig finds the idea of coloured or variegated here unsuitable, but without justice; for the pleasantness of a bed is augmented not only by its softness, but also by the impression which its costliness makes on the eye. The following אטוּן מצרים stands in an appositional relation to חטבות, as when one says in Arabic taub-un dı̂bâg'-un, a garment brocade = of brocade. אטוּן (after the Syr. for אטוּן, as אמוּן) signifies in the Targum the cord (e.g., Jer 38:6), like the Arab. ṭunub, Syr. (e.g., Isa 54:2) tûnob; the root is טן, not in the sense of to bind, to wind (Deitr.), but in the sense of to stretch; the thread or cord is named from the extension in regard to length, and אטון is thus thread-work, whether in weaving or spinning.^[49]
The fame of Egyptian manufactures is still expressed in the Spanish aclabtea, fine linen cloth, which is equivalent to the modern Arabic el-ḳobṭı̂je (ḳibṭije); they had there particularly also an intimate acquaintance with the dye stuffs found in the plants and fossils of the country (Klemm's Culturgeschichte, v. 308-310).

Verses 17-18

These verses remind us of expressions in the Canticles. There, at Pro 4:14, are found the three names for spicery as here, and one sees that מר אהלים are not to be connected genitively: there are three things, accented as in the title-verse Pro 1:3. The myrrh, מר (Balsamodendron myrrha), belongs, like the frankincense, to the species of the Amyris, which is an exotic in Palestine not less than with us; the aromatic quality in them does not arise from the flowers or leaves, so that Sol 1:13 leads us to think of a bunch of myrrh, but from the resin oozing through the bark (Gummi myrrhae or merely myrrha), consisting of bright glossy red or golden-yellow grains more or less transparent. אהלים (used by Balaam, Num 24:6) is the Semitic Old-Indian name of the aloë, agaru or aguru; the aromatic quality is in the wood of the Aquilaria agallocha, especially its root (agallochum or lignum aloes) dried in the earth - in more modern use and commerce the inspissated juice of its leaves. קנּמון is κιννάμωμον (like מר, a Semitic word^[50] that had come to the Greeks through the Phoenicians), the cinnamon, i.e., the inner rind of the Laurus cinnamomum. The myrrh is native to Arabia; the aloë, as its name denotes, is Indian; the cinnamon in like manner came through Indian travellers from the east coast of Africa and Ceylon (Taprobane). All these three spices are drugs, i.e., are dry apothecaries' wares; but we are not on that account to conclude that she perfumed (Hitzig) her bed with spices, viz., burnt in a censer, an operation which, according to Sol 3:6, would rather be designated קטּרתּי. The verb נוּף (only here as Kal) signifies to lift oneself up (vid., under Psa 48:13), and transitively to raise and swing hither and thither (= חניף); here with a double accusative, to besprinkle anything out of a vessel moved hither and thither. According to this sense, we must think of the three aromas as essences in the state of solution; cf. Exo 30:22-33; Est 2:12. Hitzig's question, “Who would sprinkle bed-sheets with perfumed and thus impure water?” betrays little knowledge of the means by which even at the present day clean linen is made fragrant. The expression רוה דּודים sounds like שׁכר דודים, Sol 5:1, although there דודים is probably the voc., and not, as here, the accus.; רוה is the Kal of רוּה, Pro 5:19, and signifies to drink something copiously in full draughts. The verbal form עלס for עלץ is found besides only in Job 20:18; Job 39:13; the Hithpa. signifies to enjoy oneself greatly, perhaps (since the Hithpa. is sometimes used reciprocally, vid., under Gen 2:25) with the idea of reciprocity (Targ. חר לצד). We read boohabim with Chateph-Kametz after Ben-Asher (vid., Kimchi's Lex.); the punctuation בּאהבים is that of Ben-Naphtali.

Verses 19-20

The adulteress now deprives the youth of all fear; the circumstances under which her invitation is given are as favourable as possible. 19 “For the man is not at home, He has gone on a long journey. 20 He has taken the purse with him: He will not return home till the day of the full moon.”
It is true that the article stands in האישׁ, Arab. alm'ar-fat, i.e., serves to define the word: the man, to whom here κατ ̓ ̓ξοχήν and alone reference can be made, viz., the husband of the adulteress (Fl.); but on the other side it is characteristic that she does not say אישׁי (as e.g., Gen 29:32), but ignores the relation of love and duty in which she is placed to him, and speaks of him as one standing at a distance from her (Aben-Ezra). Erroneously Vogel reads בּבּית after the Targ. instead of בּביתו. We say in Hebr. אינו בביתו, il n'est pas chez soi, as we say לקח בּידו, il a pris avec soi (cf. Jer 38:10). מרחוק Hitzig seeks to connect with the verb, which, after Isa 17:13; Isa 22:3, is possible; for the Hebr. מרחוק (ממּרחק), far off, has frequently the meaning from afar, for the measure of length is determined not from the point of departure outward, but from the end, as e.g., Homer, Il. ii. 456; ἕκαθεν δέ τε φαίνεται αὐγή, from afar the gleam is seen, i.e., shines hither from the distance. Similarly we say in French, il vient du coté du nord, he comes from the north, as well as il va du coté du nord, he goes northwards. But as we do not say: he has gone on a journey far off, but: on a distant journey, so here מרחוק is virtually an adj. (vid., under Isa 5:26) equivalent to רחוקה (Num 9:10): a journey which is distant = such as from it he has a long way back. Michaelis has well remarked here: ut timorem ei penitus adimat, veluti per gradus incedit. He has undertaken a journey to a remote point, but yet more: he has taken money with him, has thus business to detain him; and still further: he has even determined the distant time of his return. צרור־הכּסף .nruter (thus to be written after Ben-Asher, vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 41) is the purse (from צרר, to bind together), not one of many, but that which is his own. The terminus precedes 20b to emphasize the lateness; vid., on כּסא under Psa 81:4. Graec. Venet. τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ καιροῦ, after Kimchi and others, who derive כסא (כסה) from the root כס, to reckon, and regard it as denoting only a definite time. But the two passages require a special idea; and the Syr. ḳêso, which in 1Ki 12:32; 2Ch 7:10, designates the time from the 15th day of the month, shows that the word denotes not, according to the Talmud, the new moon (or the new year's day), when the moon's disk begins to cover itself, i.e., to fill (יתכסה), but the full moon, when it is covered, i.e., filled; so that thus the time of the nightscene here described is not that of the last quarter of the moon (Ewald), in which it rises at midnight, but that of the new moon (Hitzig), when the night is without moonlight. Since the derivation of the word from כסא (כסה), to cover, gives the satisfactory idea of the covering or filling of the moon's disk, we do not seek after any other; Dietrich fixes on the root-idea of roundness, and Hitzig of vision (כסא = סכה, שׂכה, vid., on the contrary, under Psa 143:9). The ל is that of time at which, in which, about which, anything is done; it is more indefinite than בּ would be. He will not return for some fourteen days.

Verse 21

The result: - 21 She beguiled him by the fulness of her talking, By the smoothness of her lips she drew him away.
Here is a climax. First she brought him to yield, overcoming the resistance of his mind to the last point (cf. 1Ki 11:3); then drove him, or, as we say, hurried him wholly away, viz., from the right path or conduct (cf. Deu 13:6, Deu 13:11). With הטּתּוּ (= הטּתהוּ) as the chief factum, the past imperf. is interchanged, 21b. Regarding לקח, see above, p. 56. Here is the rhetoric of sin (Zöckler); and perhaps the לקח of 20a has suggested this antiphrastic לקח to the author (Hitzig), as חלק (the inverted לקח, formed like שׁפל, which is the abstr. of שׁפל as that is of חלק) and תּדּיחנּוּ are reciprocally conditioned, for the idea of the slippery (Psa 73:18) connects itself with חלק.

Verses 22-23

What followed: - 22 So he goes after her at once As an ox which goeth to the slaughter-house, And as one bereft of reason to the restraint of fetters, 23 As a bird hastens to the net, Without knowing that his life is at stake - Till the arrow pierces his liver.
The part. הולך (thus to be accentuated according to the rule in Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 25, with Mercha to the tone-syllable and Mahpach to the preceding open syllable) preserves the idea of the fool's going after her. פּתאם (suddenly) fixes the point, when he all at once resolves to betake himself to the rendezvous in the house of the adulteress, now a κεπφωθείς, as the lxx translates, i.e., as we say, a simpleton who has gone on the lime-twig. He follows her as an ox goes to the slaughter-house, unconscious that he is going thither to be slaughtered; the lxx ungrammatically destroying the attributive clause: ὥσπερ δὲ βοῦς ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἄγεται. The difficulties in וּכעכס (thus punctuated, after Kimchi, with a double Segol, and not וכעכס, as is frequently the case) multiply, and it is not to be reconciled with the traditional text. The ox appears to require another beast as a side-piece; and accordingly the lxx, Syr., and Targ. find in עכס a dog (to which from אויל they also pick out איּל, a stag), Jerome a lamb (et quasi agnus כבשׂ), Rashi a venomous serpent (perhaps after ἔχις?), Löwenstein and Malbim a rattlesnake (נחשׁ מצלצל after עכּס); but all this is mere conjecture. Symmachus' σκιρτῶν (ἐπὶ δεσμῶν ἄφρων) is without support, and, like the favourite rendering of Schelling, et sicut saliens in vinculum cervus (איל), is unsuitable on account of the unsemitic position of the words. The noun עכס, plur. עכסים, signifies, Isa 3:18, an anklet as a female ornament (whence Isa 3:16 the denom. עכּס, to make a tinkling of the anklets). In itself the word only means the fetter, compes, from עכס, Arab. 'akas, 'akash, contrahere, constringere (vid., Fleischer under Isa 59:5); and that it can also be used of any kind of means of checking free movement, the Arab. 'ikâs, as the name of a cord with which the camel is made fast by the head and forefeet, shows. With this signification the interpretation is: et velut pedicâ (= וכבעכס) implicatus ad castigationem stulti, he follows her as if (bound) with a fetter to the punishment of the fool, i.e., of himself (Michaelis, Fleischer, and others). Otherwise Luther, who first translated “in a fetter,” but afterwards (supplying ל, not ב): “and as if to fetters, where one corrects fools.” But the ellipsis is harsh, and the parallelism leads us to expect a living being in the place of עכס. Now since, according to Gesenius, עכס, fetter, can be equivalent to a fettered one neither at Isa 17:5; Isa 21:17, nor Pro 23:28 (according to which עכס must at least have an active personal signification), we transpose the nouns of the clause and write וכאויל אל־מוּסר עכס, he follows her as a fool (Psychol. p. 292) to correction (restraint) with fetters; or if אויל is to be understood not so much physically as morally, and refers to self-destroying conduct (Psa 107:7): as a madman, i.e., a criminal, to chains. The one figure denotes the fate into which he rushes, like a beast devoid of reason, as the loss of life; and the other denotes the fate to which he permits himself to be led by that woman, like a criminal by the officer, as the loss of freedom and of honour.

Verse 23

The confusion into which the text has fallen is continued in this verse. For the figure of the deadly arrow connects itself neither with that of the ox which goes to the slaughter-house, nor with that of the madman who is put in chains: the former is not killed by being shot; and with the latter, the object is to render him harmless, not to put him to death. The lxx therefore converts אויל into איל, a stag, and connects the shooting with an arrow with this: ἢ ὡς ἔλαφος τοξεύματι πεπληγὼς εἰς τὸ ἧπαρ. But we need no encroachment on the text itself, only a correct placing of its members. The three thoughts, Pro 7:23, reach a right conclusion and issue, if with כּמהר צפּור אל־פּח (here Mercha-mahpach) a new departure is begun with a comparison: he follows her with eager desires, like as a bird hastens to the snare (vid., regarding פח, a snare, and מוקשׁ, a noose, under Isa 8:15). What then follows is a continuation of 22a. The subject is again the youth, whose way is compared to that of an ox going to the slaughter, of a culprit in chains, and of a fool; and he knows not (non novit, as Pro 4:19; Pro 9:18, and according to the sense, non curat, Pro 3:6; Pro 5:6) that it is done at the risk of his life (בנפשׁו as 1Ki 2:23; Num 17:3), that his life is the price with which this kind of love is bought (הוּא, neut., as not merely Ecc 2:1 and the like, but also e.g., Lev 10:3; Est 9:1) - that does not concern him till (עד = עד אשׁר or עד כי) the arrow breaks or pierces through (פּלּח as Job 16:13) his liver, i.e., till he receives the death-wound, from which, if not immediately, yet at length he certainly dies. Elsewhere the part of the body struck with a deadly wound is called the reins or loins (Job, etc.), or the gall-bladder (Job 20:25); here the liver, which is called כּבד, Arab. kebid, perhaps as the organ in which sorrowful and painful affections make themselves felt (cf. Aeschylus, Agam. 801: δῆγμα λύπης ἐφ ̓ ἧπαρ προσικνεῖται), especially the latter, because the passion of sensual love, according to the idea of the ancients, reflected itself in the liver. He who is love-sick has jecur ulcerosum (Horace, Od. i. 25. 15); he is diseased in his liver (Psychol. p. 268). But the arrow is not here the arrow of love which makes love-sick, but the arrow of death, which slays him who is ensnared in sinful love. The befooled youth continues the disreputable relation into which he has entered till it terminates in adultery and in lingering disease upon his body, remorse in his soul, and dishonour to his name, speedily ending in inevitable ruin both spiritually and temporally.

Verses 24-25

With ועתּה, as at Pro 5:7, the author now brings his narrative to a close, adding the exhortation deduced from it: 24 And now, ye children, give ear unto me, And observe the words of my mouth! 25 Let not thine heart incline to her ways, And stray not in her paths.
The verb שׂטה (whence jēst, like jēt, Pro 4:15, with long ē from i) the author uses also of departure from a wicked way (Pro 4:15); but here, where the portraiture of a faithless wife (a סוטה) is presented, the word used in the law of jealousy, Num 5, for the trespass of an אשׁת אישׁ is specially appropriate. שׂטה is interchanged with תּעה (cf. Gen 21:14): wander not on her paths, which would be the consequence of straying on them. Theodotion: καὶ μὴ πλανηθῇς ἐν ἀτραποῖς αὐτῆς, with καί, as also Syr., Targ., and Jerome. The Masora reckons this verse to the 25 which have אל at the beginning and ואל at the middle of each clause (vid., Baer in the Luth. Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 587); the text of Norzi has therefore correctly ואל, which is found also in good MSS (e.g., the Erfurt, 2 and 3).

Verses 26-27

The admonition, having its motive in that which goes before, is now founded on the emphatic finale: 26 For many are the slain whom she hath caused to fall, And many are her slain. 27 A multiplicity of ways to help is her house, Going down to the chambers of death.
The translation “for many slain has she laid low” (Syr., Targ., Jerome, Luther) is also syntactically possible; for רבּים can be placed before its substantive after the manner of the demonstratives and numerals (e.g., Neh 9:28, cf. אחד, Sol 4:9), and the accentuation which requires two servants (the usual two Munachs) to the Athnach appears indeed thus to construe it. It is otherwise if רבים here meant magni (thus e.g., Ralbag, and recently Bertheau), and not multi; but רבים and עצמים stand elsewhere in connection with each other in the signification many and numerous, Psa 35:18; Joe 2:2; Mic 4:3. “Her slain” are those slain by her; the part. pass. is connected with the genitive of the actor, e.g., Pro 9:18; cf. (Arab.) ḳatyl âlmḥabbt, of one whom love kills (Fl.). With Pro 7:27 cf. Pro 2:18; Pro 9:18. In 27a, בּיתהּ is not equivalent to בביתה after Pro 8:2, also not elliptical and equivalent to דרכי ביתה; the former is unnecessary, the latter is in no case established by Psa 45:7; Ezr 10:13, nor by Deu 8:15; 2Ki 23:17 (see, on the other hand, Philippi's Status Constructus, pp. 87-93). Rightly Hitzig has: her house forms a multiplicity of ways to hell, in so far as adultery leads by a diversity of ways to hell. Similarly the subject and the predicate vary in number, Pro 16:25; Psa 110:3; Job 26:13; Dan 9:23, and frequently. If one is once in her house, he may go in this or in that way, but surely his path is to destruction: it consists of many steps to hell, such as lead down (דרך, fem. Isa 37:34, masc. Isa 30:21) to the extreme depths of death (cf. Job 9:9, “chambers of the south” = its remotest regions veiling themselves in the invisible); for חדר (Arab. khiddr) is the part of the tent or the house removed farthest back, and the most private (Fl.). These חדרי־מות, cf. עמקי שׁאול, Pro 9:18, approach to the conception of גּיהנּם, which is afterwards distinguished from שאול.

Chap. 8

Verses 1-3

The author has now almost exhausted the ethical material; for in this introduction to the Solomonic Book of Proverbs he works it into a memorial for youth, so that it is time to think of concluding the circle by bending back the end to the beginning. For as in the beginning, Pro 1:20., so also here in the end, he introduces Wisdom herself as speaking. There, her own testimony is delivered in contrast to the alluring voice of the deceiver; here, the daughter of Heaven in the highways inviting to come to her, is the contrast to the adulteress lurking in the streets, who is indeed not a personification, but a woman of flesh and blood, but yet at the same time as the incarnate ἀπάτη of worldly lust. He places opposite to her Wisdom, whose person is indeed not so sensibly perceptible, but who is nevertheless as real, coming near to men in a human way, and seeking to win them by her gifts. 1 Doth not Wisdom discourse, And Understanding cause her voice to be heard? 2 On the top of the high places in the way, In the midst of the way, she has placed herself. 3 By the side of the gates, at the exit of the city, At the entrance to the doors, she calleth aloud.
As הנּה points to that which is matter of fact, so הלא calls to a consideration of it (cf. Pro 14:22); the question before the reader is doubly justified with reference to Pro 1:20. With חכמה, תבונה is interchanged, as e.g., Pro 2:1-6; such names of wisdom are related to its principal name almost as אלהים, עליון, and the like, to יהוה. In describing the scene, the author, as usual, heaps up synonyms which touch one another without coming together.

Verse 2

By מרמים Hitzig understands the summit of a mountain, and therefore regards this verse as an interpolation; but the “high places” are to be understood of the high-lying parts of the city. There, on the way which leads up and down, she takes her stand. עלי = Arab. 'ly, old and poetic for על, signifies here “hard by, close to,” properly, so that something stands forward over the edge of a thing, or, as it were, passes over its borders (Fl.). The בּית, Hitzig, as Bertheau, with lxx, Targ., Jerome, interpret prepositionally as a strengthening of בּין (in the midst); but where it once, Eze 1:27, occurs in this sense, it is fully written בּית ל. Here it is the accus. loci of the substantive; “house of the ascent” (Syr. bêth urchotho) is the place where several ways meet, the uniting point, as אם הדרך (Eze 21:26), the point of departure, exit; the former the crossway, as the latter the separating way. Thus Immanuel: the place of the frequented streets; Meîri: the place of the ramification (more correctly, the concentration) of the ways. נצּבה signifies more than קמה (she raises herself) and עמדה (she goes thither); it means that she plants herself there.

Verse 3

In this verse Bertheau finds, not inappropriately, the designations of place: on this side, on that side, and within the gate. ליד, at the hand, is equivalent to at the side, as Psa 140:6. לפי, of the town, is the same as לפּתח, Pro 9:14, of the house: at the mouth, i.e., at the entrance of the city, thus where they go out and in. There are several of these ways for leaving and entering a city, and on this account מבּוא פתחים are connected: generally where one goes out and in through one of the gates (doors). מבוא, fully represented by the French avenue, the space or way which leads to anything (Fl.). There she raises her voice, which sounds out far and wide; vid., concerning תּרנּה (Graec. Venet. incorrectly, after Rashi, ἀλαλάξουσι), at Pro 1:20.

Verses 4-9

Now begins the discourse. The exordium summons general attention to it with the emphasis of its absolute truth: 4 “To you, ye men, is my discourse addressed, And my call is to the children of men! 5 Apprehend, O ye simple ones, what wisdom is; And, ye fools what understanding is. 6 Hear, for I will speak princely things, And the opening of my lips is upright. 7 For my mouth uttereth truth, And a wicked thing is an abomination to my lips. 8 The utterances of my mouth are in rectitude, There is nothing crooked or perverse in them. 9 To the men of understanding they are all to the point, And plain to those who have attained knowledge.”
Hitzig rejects this section, Pro 8:4-12, as he does several others in chap. 8 and 9, as spurious. But if this preamble, which reminds us of Elihu, is not according to every one's taste, yet in respect of the circle of conception and thought, as well as of the varying development of certain fundamental thoughts, it is altogether after the manner of the poet. The terminology is one that is strange to us; the translation of it is therefore difficult; that which is given above strives at least not to be so bad as to bring discredit on the poet. The tautology and flatness of Pro 8:4 disappears when one understands אישׁים and בּני אדם like the Attic ἄνδρες and ἄνθρωποι; vid., under Isa 2:9; Isa 53:3 (where אישׁים, as here and Psa 141:4, is equivalent to בּני אישׁ, Psa 49:3; Psa 4:3). Wisdom turns herself with her discourses to high and low, to persons of standing and to the proletariat. The verbal clause 4a interchanges with a noun clause 4b, as frequently a preposition with its noun (e.g., Pro 8:8) completes the whole predicate of a semistich (Fl.).

Verse 5

Regarding ארמה, calliditas, in a good sense, vid., at Pro 1:4; regarding פּתאים, those who are easily susceptible of good or bad, according to the influence that is brought to bear upon them, vid., also Pro 1:4; and regarding כּסילים, the intellectually heavy, dull persons in whom the flesh burdens the mind, vid., at Pro 1:22. לב is parallel with ערמה, for the heart (according to its Semitic etymon, that which remains fast, like a kernel, the central-point) is used for the understanding of which it is the seat (Psychol. p. 249), or heartedness = intelligence (cf. חסר־לב, Pro 6:32 = ἄνους or ἄλογος). We take ערמה and לב as objective, as we have translated: that which is in both, and in which they consist. Thus הבּין, which is a favourite word with this author, has both times the simple transitive meaning of the gain of understanding into the nature and worth of both; and we neither need to interpret the second הבינוּ in the double transitive meaning, “to bring to understanding,” nor, with Hitzig, to change in into הכינוּ^[51] direct, i.e., applicate.

Verse 6

That to which Wisdom invites, her discourse makes practicable, for she speaks of נגידים. Hitzig interprets this word by conspicua, manifest truths, which the Graec. Venet. understands to be ἐναντία, after Kimchi's interpretation: truths which one makes an aim and object (נגד) on account of their worth. Fürst, however, says that נגיד, from נגד, Arab. najad, means to be elevated, exalted, and thereby visible (whence also הגּיד, to bring to light, to bring forward); and that by נגידים, as the plur. of this נגיד, is to be understood princeps in the sense of principalia, or πραεσταντια (lxx σεμνά; Theodot. ἡγεμονικά; Jerome, de rebus magnis) (cf. νόμος βασιλικός of the law of love, which surpasses the other laws, as kings do their subjects), which is supported by the similar expression, Pro 22:20. But that we do not need to interpret נגידים as abstr., like מישׁרים, and as the acc. adverb.: in noble ways, because in that case it ought to be נגידות (Berth.), is shown by Pro 22:20, and also Pro 16:13; cf. on this neuter use of the masc., Ewald, §172a. “The opening of my lips (i.e., this, that they open themselves, not: that which they disclose, lay open) is upright” is to be regarded as metonymia antecedentis pro conseq.: that which I announce is...; or also as a poetic attribution, which attributes to a subject that which is produced by it (cf. Pro 3:17): my discourse bearing itself right, brings to light (Fl.). Pro 23:16, cf. 31, is parallel both in the words and the subject; מישׁרים, that which is in accordance with fact and with rectitude, uprightness (vid., at Pro 1:3), is a word common to the introduction (chap. 1-9), and to the first appendix to the first series of Solomonic Proverbs (Prov 22:17-24:22), with the Canticles. In Sol 5:16, also, as where (cf. Pro 5:3; Job 6:30), the word palate [Gaumen] is used as the organ of speech.

Verse 7

Pro 8:7 כּי continues the reason (begun in Pro 8:6) for the Hearken! (cf. Pro 1:15-17; Pro 4:16.); so that this second reason is co-ordinated with the first (Fl.). Regarding אמת, vid., at Pro 3:3; הגה, here of the palate (cf. Psa 37:30), as in Pro 15:28 of the heart, has not hitherto occurred. It signifies quiet inward meditation, as well as also (but only poetically) discourses going forth from it (vid., at Psa 1:2). The contrary of truth, i.e., moral truth, is רשׁע, wickedness in words and principles - a segolate, which retains its Segol also in pausa, with the single exception of Ecc 3:16.

Verses 8-9

The בּ of בּצדק is that of the close connection of a quality with an action or matter, which forms with a substantive adverbia as well as virtual adjectiva, as here: cum rectitudine (conjuncta i. e. vera) sunt omnia dicta oris mei (Fl.); it is the ב of the distinctive attribute (Hitzig), certainly related to the ב essentiae (Pro 3:26, according to which Schultens and Bertheau explain), which is connected with the abstract conception (e.g., Psa 33:4), but also admits the article designating the gender (vid., at Psa 29:4). The opposite of צדק (here in the sense of veracitas, which it means in Arab.) is נפתּל ועקּשׁ, dolosum ac perversum. עקּשׁ (cf. Gesen. §84, 9) is that which is violently bent and twisted, i.e., estranged from the truth, which is, so to speak, parodied or caricatured. Related to it in meaning, but proceeding from a somewhat different idea, is נפתל. פּתל, used primarily of threads, cords, ropes, and the like, means to twist them, to twine them over and into one another, whence פּתיל, a line or string made of several intertwisted threads (cf. Arab. ftı̂lt, a wick of a candle or lamp); Niph., to be twisted, specifically luctari, of the twisting of the limbs, and figuratively to bend and twist oneself, like the crafty (versutus) liars and deceivers, of words and thoughts which do not directly go forth, but by the crafty twistings of truth and rectitude, opp. ישׁר, נכון (Fl.). There is nothing of deception of error in the utterances of wisdom; much rather they are all נכצים, straight out from her (cf. Isa 57:2), going directly out, and without circumlocution directed to the right end for the intelligent, the knowing (cf. Neh 10:29); and ישׁרים, straight or even, giving no occasion to stumble, removing the danger of erring for those who have obtained knowledge, i.e., of good and evil, and thus the ability of distinguishing between them (Gesen. §134, 1) - briefly, for those who know how to estimate them.

Verses 10-12

Her self-commendation is continued in the resumed address: 10 “Receive my instruction, and not silver, And knowledge rather than choice gold! 11 For wisdom is better than corals, And all precious jewels do not equal her. 12 I, Wisdom, inhabit prudence, And the knowledge of right counsels is attainable by me.”
Instead of ולא־כּסף influenced by קחוּ, is ואל־כסף with תּקחוּ to be supplied; besides, with most Codd. and older editions, we are to accentuate קחוּ מוּסרי with the erasure of the Makkeph. “Such negations and prohibitions,” Fleischer remarks, “are to be understood comparatively: instead of acquiring silver, rather acquire wisdom. Similar is the old Arabic 'l-nâr w-l'-'l-'âr, the fire, and not the disgrace! Also among the modern Arabic proverbs collected by Burckhardt, many have this form, e.g., No. 34, alḥajamat balafas wala alḥajat alanas, Better to let oneself be cut with the axe then to beg for the favour of another” 10b is to be translated, with Jerome, Kimchi, and others: and knowledge is more precious than fine gold (נבחר, neut.: auro pretiosius); and in view of Pro 16:16, this construction appears to be intended. But Fleischer has quite correctly affirmed that this assertatory clause is unsuitably placed as a parallel clause over against the preceding imperative clause, and, what is yet more important, that then Pro 8:11 would repeat idem per idem in a tautological manner. We therefore, after the Aramaic and Greek translators, take כסף נבחר together here as well as at Pro 8:19, inasmuch as we carry forward the קחו: et scientiam prae auro lectissimo, which is also according to the accentuation. Equally pregnant is the מן in מחרוּץ of the passage Pro 3:14-15, which is here varied.

Verse 12

Ver. 12 follows Pro 8:11 = Pro 3:15 as a justification of this estimating of wisdom above all else in worth. Regarding אני with Gaja, vid., the rule which the accentuation of this word in the three so-called metrical books follows in Merx' Archiv, 1868, p. 203 (cf. Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 40). We translate: ego sapientia involo sollertiam, for the verb שׁכן is construed with the accusative of the object, Pro 2:21; Pro 10:30; 37:3 (cf. גוּר, Psa 5:5), as well as with ב, Gen 26:2, Ps. 69:37. Wisdom inhabits prudence, has settled down, as it were, and taken up her residence in it, is at home in its whole sphere, and rules it. Bertheau not unsuitably compares οἰκῶν with μόνος ἔχων, 1Ti 6:16. Regarding מזמּות, vid., Pro 1:4; Pro 5:2. It denotes well-considered, carefully thought out designs, plans, conclusions, and דּעת is here the knowledge that is so potent. This intellectual power is nothing beyond wisdom, it is in her possession on every occasion; she strives after it not in vain, her knowledge is defined according to her wish. Wisdom describes herself here personally with regard to that which she bestows on men who receive her.

Verse 13

Far remote is the idea that 13a is dependent on אמצא (I acquire) (Löwenstein, Bertheau). With this verse begins a new series of thoughts raising themselves on the basis of the fundamental clause 13a. Wisdom says what she hates, and why she hates it: 13 “The fear of Jahve is to hate evil; Pride and arrogancy, and an evil way And a deceitful mouth, do I hate.”
If the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Pro 9:10; Pro 1:7), then wisdom, personally considered, stands before all else that is to be said of her in a relation of homage or reverence toward God corresponding to the fear of God on the part of man; and if, as the premiss 13a shows, the fear of God has as its reverse side the hatred of evil, then there arises what Wisdom says in שׂנאתי (I hate) of herself. Instead of the n. actionis שׂנאת (hatred), formed in the same way with יראת, which, admitting the article, becomes a substantive, the author uses, in order that he might designate the predicate as such (Hitzig), rather the n. actionis שׂנאת as מלאת, Jer 29:10. קראת, Jdg 8:1, is equivalent to שׂנאת like יבּשׁת, the becoming dry, יכלת, the being able; cf. (Arab.) shanat, hating, malât, well-being, ḳarât, reading (Fl.). The evil which Wisdom hates is now particularized as, Pro 6:16-19, the evil which Jahve hates. The virtue of all virtues is humility; therefore Wisdom hates, above all, self-exaltation in all its forms. The paronomasia גּאה וגאון (pride and haughtiness) expresses the idea in the whole of its contents and compass (cf. Isa 15:6; Isa 3:1, and above at Pro 1:27). גּאה (from גּאה, the nominal form), that which is lofty = pride, stands with גּאון, as Job 4:10, גבהּ, that which is high = arrogance. There follows the viam mali, representing the sins of walk, i.e., of conduct, and os fullax (vid., at Pro 2:12), the sins of the mouth. Hitzig rightly rejects the interpunctuation רע, and prefers רע. In consequence of this Dechî (Tiphcha init.), וּפי תהפּכת have in Codd. and good editions the servants Asla and Illuj (vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 11); Aben-Ezra and Moses Kimchi consider the Asla erroneously as disjunctive, and explain וּפי by et os = axioma meum, but Asla is conjunctive, and has after it the ת raphatum.

Verses 14-16

After Wisdom has said what she hates, and thus what she is not, she now says what she is, has, and promises: 14 “Mine is counsel and promotion; I am understanding, mine is strength. 15 By me kings reign, And rulers govern justly. 16 By me princes rule, and nobles - All judges of the earth.”
Whoever gives anything must himself possess it; in this sense Wisdom claims for herself counsel, promotion (in the sense of offering and containing that which is essentially and truly good; vid., concerning תּוּשׁיּה, Pro 2:7), and energy (vid., Ecc 7:19). But she does not merely possess בּינה; this is much rather her peculiar nature, and is one with her. That Pro 8:14 is formed after Job 12:13, Job 12:16 (Hitzig) is possible, without there following thence any argument against its genuineness. And if Pro 8:15., and Isa 32:1; Isa 10:1, stand in intentional reciprocal relation, then the priority is on the side of the author of the Proverbs. The connection gives to the laconic expression its intended comprehensiveness. It is not meant that Wisdom has the highest places in the state to give, but that she makes men capable of holding and discharging the duties of these.

Verse 15

Here we are led to think of legislation, but the usage of the language determines for the Po. חקק only the significations of commanding, decreeing, or judging; צדק is the object accus., the opposite of חקקי־און (decrees of unrighteousness), Isa 10:1. רזן is a poetic word, from רזן = Arab. razuna, to be heavy, weighty, then to be firm, incapable of being shaken, figuratively of majestic repose, dignity (cf. Arab. wqâr and כּבוד) in the whole external habitus, in speech and action such as befits one invested with power (Fl.).

Verse 16

We may not explain the second clause of this verse: et ad ingenua impelluntur quicunque terrae imperant, for נדיב is adj. without such a verbal sense. But besides, נדיבים is not pred., for which it is not adapted, because, with the obscuring of its ethical signification (from נדב, to impel inwardly, viz., to noble conduct, particularly to liberality), it also denotes those who are noble only with reference to birth, and not to disposition (Isa 32:8). Thus נדיבים is a fourth synonym for the highly exalted, and כל־שׁפטי ארץ is the summary placing together of all kinds of dignity; for שׁפט unites in itself references to government, administration of justice, and rule. כל is used, and not וכל - a so-called asyndeton summativum. Instead of ארץ (lxx) there is found also the word צדק (Syr., Targ., Jerome, Graec. Venet., adopted by Norzi after Codd. and Neapol. 1487). But this word, if not derived from the conclusion of the preceding verse, is not needed by the text, and gives a summary which does not accord with that which is summed up (מלכים, רזנים, שׂרים, נדיבים); besides, the Scripture elsewhere calls God Himself שׁופט צדק (Psa 9:5; Jer 11:20). The Masoretic reading^[52] of most of the editions, which is also found in the Cod. Hillel (ספר הללי)^[53] merits the preference.

Verses 17-21

The discourse of Wisdom makes a fresh departure, as at Pro 8:13 : she tells how, to those who love her, she repays this love: 17 “I love them that love me, And they that seek me early find me. 18 Riches and honour are with me, Durable riches and righteousness. 19 Better is my fruit than pure and fine gold, And my revenue (better) than choice silver. 20 In the way of righteousness do I walk, In the midst of the paths of justice. 21 To give an inheritance to them that love me And I fill their treasuries.”
The Chethı̂b אהביה (ego hos qui eam amant redamo), Gesenius, Lehrgeb. §196, 5, regards as a possible synallage (eam = me), but one would rather think that it ought to be read (יהוה =) 'אהבי ה. The ancients all have the reading אהבי. אהב (= אאהב, with the change of the éě into ê, and the compression of the radical א; cf. אמר, תּבא, Pro 1:10) is the form of the fut. Kal, which is inflected תּאהבוּ, Pro 1:22. Regarding שׁחר (the Graec. Venet. well: οἱ ὀρθρίζοντές μοι), vid., Pro 1:28, where the same epenthet. fut. form is found.

Verse 18

In this verse part of Pro 3:16 is repeated, after which אתּי is meant of possession (mecum and penes me). Regarding הון, vid., Pro 1:13; instead of the adjective יקר there, we have here עתק. The verb עתק brev signifies promoveri, to move forwards, whence are derived the meanings old (cf. aetas provecta, advanced age), venerable for age, and noble, free (cf. עתּיק, Isa 28:9, and Arab. 'atyḳ, manumissus), unbound, the bold. Used of clothing, עריק (Isa 23:18) expresses the idea of venerable for age. עתק used of possessions and goods, like the Arab. 'âtak, denotes such goods as increase during long possession as an inheritance from father to son, and remain firm, and are not for the first time gained, but only need to be inherited, opes perennes et firmae (Schultens, Gesenius' Thesaur., Fleischer), although it may be also explained (which is, however, less probable with the form עתק) of the idea of the venerable from opes superbae (Jerome), splendid opulence. צדקה is here also a good which is distributed, but properly the distributing goodness itself, as the Arab. ṣadaḳat, influenced by the later use of the Hebrew צדקה (δικαιοσύνη = ἐλεημοσύνη), denotes all that which God of His goodness causes to flow to men, or which men bestow upon men (Fl.). Righteousness is partly a recompensative goodness, which rewards, according to the law of requital, like with like; partly communicative, which, according to the law of love without merit, and even in opposition to it, bestows all that is good, and above all, itself; but giving itself to man, it assimilates him to itself (vid., Psa 24:7), so that he becomes צדיק, and is regarded as such before God and men, Pro 8:19.
The fruit and product of wisdom (the former a figure taken from the trees, Pro 3:18; the latter from the sowing of seed, Pro 3:9) is the gain and profit which it yields. With חרוּץ, Pro 8:10; Pro 3:14, פּז is here named as the place of fine gold, briefly for זהב מוּפז, solid gold, gold separated from the place of ore which contains it, or generally separated gold, from פּזז, violently to separate metals from base mixtures; Targ. דּהבא אובריזין, gold which has stood the fire-test, obrussa, of the crucible, Greek ὄβρυζον, Pers. ebrı̂z, Arab. ibrı̂z. In the last clause of this verse, as also in 10b, נבחר is to be interpreted as pred. to תבוּאתי, but the balance of the meaning demands as a side-piece to the מחרוץ ומפז (19a) something more than the mere כּסף. In 20f. the reciprocal love is placed as the answer of love under the point of view of the requiting righteousness. But recompensative and communicative righteousness are here combined, where therefore the subject is the requital of worthy pure love and loving conduct, like with like. Such love requires reciprocal love, not merely cordial love, but that which expresses itself outwardly.

Verses 20-21

In this sense, Wisdom says that she acts strictly according to justice and rectitude, and adds (21) wherein this her conduct manifests itself. The Piel הלּך expresses firm, constant action; and בּתוך means that she turns from this line of conduct on no side. להנחיל is distinguished from בּהנחיל, as ut possidendam tribuam from possidendam tribuendo; the former denotes the direction of the activity, the latter its nature and manner; both combine if we translate ita ut....^[54]
Regarding the origin of ישׁ, vid., at Pro 2:7; it denotes the being founded, thus substantia, and appears here, like the word in mediaeval Latin and Romanic (Ital. sustanza, Span. substancia), and like οὐσία and ὕπαρξις (τὰ ὑπάρχοντα) in classic Greek, to denote possessions and goods. But since this use of the word does not elsewhere occur (therefore Hitzig explains ישׁ = ישׁ לי, I have it = presto est), and here, where Wisdom speaks, ישׁ connects itself in thought with תּוּשׁיּה, it will at least denote real possession (as we also are wont to call not every kind of property, but only landed property, real possession), such possession as has real worth, and that not according to commercial exchange and price, but according to sound judgment, which applies a higher than the common worldly standard of worth. The Pasek between אהבי and ישׁ is designed to separate the two Jods from each other, and has, as a consequence, for להנחיל אהבי the accentuation with Tarcha and Mercha (vid., Accentssystem, vi. §4; cf. Torath Emeth, p. 17, §3). The carrying forward of the inf. with the finite, 21b, is as Pro 1:27; Pro 2:2, and quite usual.

Verse 22

Wisdom takes now a new departure, in establishing her right to be heard, and to be obeyed and loved by men. As the Divine King in Psa 2:1-12 opposes to His adversaries the self-testimony: “I will speak concerning a decree! Jahve said unto me: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee;” so Wisdom here unfolds her divine patent of nobility: she originates with God before all creatures, and is the object of God's love and joy, as she also has the object of her love and joy on God's earth, and especially among the sons of men: “Jahve brought me forth as the beginning of His way,
As the foremost of His works from of old.”
The old translators render קנני (with Kametz by Dechî; vid., under Psa 118:5) partly by verbs of creating (lxx ἔκτισε, Syr., Targ. בּראני), partly by verbs of acquiring (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Venet. ἐκτήσατο; Jerome, possedit); Wisdom appears also as created, certainly not without reference to this passage, Sir. 1:4, προτέρα πάντων ἕκτισται σοφία; 1:9, αὐτὸς ἕκτισεν αὐτήν; 24:8, ὁ κτίσας με. In the christological controversy this word gained a dogmatic signification, for they proceeded generally on the identity of σοφία ὑποστατική (sapientia substantialis) with the hypostasis of the Son of God. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus, i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο, and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε of the lxx by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum; Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum). But (1) Wisdom is not God, but is God's; she has personal existence in the Logos of the N.T., but is not herself the Logos; she is the world-idea, which, once projected, is objective to God, not as a dead form, but as a living spiritual image; she is the archetype of the world, which, originating from God, stands before God, the world of the idea which forms the medium between the Godhead and the world of actual existence, the communicated spiritual power in the origination and the completion of the world as God designed it to be. This wisdom the poet here personifies; he does not speak of the person as Logos, but the further progress of the revelation points to her actual personification in the Logos. And (2) since to her the poet attributes an existence preceding the creation of the world, he thereby declares her to be eternal, for to be before the world is to be before time. For if he places her at the head of the creatures, as the first of them, so therewith he does not seek to make her a creature of this world having its commencement in time; he connects her origination with the origination of the creature only on this account, because that à priori refers and tends to the latter; the power which was before heaven and earth were, and which operated at the creation of the earth and of the heavens, cannot certainly fall under the category of the creatures around and above us. Therefore (3) the translation with ἔκτισεν has nothing against it, but it is different from the κτίσις of the heavens and the earth, and the poet has intentionally written not בּראני, but קנני. Certainly קנה, Arab. knâ, like all the words used of creating, refers to one root-idea: that of forging (vid., under Gen 4:22), as ברא does to that of cutting (vid., under Gen 1:1); but the mark of a commencement in time does not affix itself to קנה in the same way as it does to ברא, which always expresses the divine production of that which has not hitherto existed. קנה comprehends in it the meanings to create, and to create something for oneself, to prepare, parare (e.g., Psa 139:13), and to prepare something for oneself, comparare, as κτίζειν and κτᾶσθαι, both from kshi, to build, the former expressed by struere, and the latter by sibi struere. In the קנני, then, there are the ideas, both that God produced wisdom, and that He made Himself to possess it; not certainly, however, as a man makes himself to possess wisdom from without, Pro 4:7. But the idea of the bringing forth is here the nearest demanded by the connection. For ראשׁית דּרכּו is not equivalent to בּראשׁית דרכו (Syr., Targ., Luther), as Jerome also reads: Ita enim scriptum est: adonai canani bresith dercho (Ep. cxl. ad Cyprian.); but it is, as Job 40:19 shows, the second accusative of the object (lxx, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). But if God made wisdom as the beginning of His way, i.e., of His creative efficiency (cf. Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15), the making is not to be thought of as acquiring, but as a bringing forth, revealing this creative efficiency of God, having it in view; and this is also confirmed by the חוללתי (genita sum; cf. Gen 4:1, קניתי, genui) following. Accordingly, קדם מפעליו (foremost of His works) has to be regarded as a parallel second object. accusative. All the old translators interpret קדם as a preposition [before], but the usage of the language before us does not recognise it as such; this would be an Aramaism, for קדם, Dan 7:7, frequently מן־קדם (Syr., Targ.), is so used. But as קדם signifies previous existence in space, and then in time (vid., Orelli, Zeit und Ewigkeit, p. 76), so it may be used of the object in which the previous existence appears, thus (after Sir. 1:4): προτέραν τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ (Hitzig).

Verse 23

A designation of the When? expressed first by מאז (Isa 48:8, cf. Isa 40:21), is further unfolded: “From everlasting was I set up,
From the beginning, from the foundations of the earth.”
That נסּכתּי cannot be translated: I was anointed = consecrated, vid., at Psa 2:6. But the translation also: I was woven = wrought (Hitzig, Ewald, and previously one of the Greeks, ἐδιάσθην), does not commend itself, for רקּם (Psa 139:15), used of the embryo, lies far from the metaphorical sense in which נסך = Arab. nasaj, texere, would here be translated of the origin of a person, and even of such a spiritual being as Wisdom; נסדתּי, as the lxx reads (ἐθεμελιωσέ με), is not once used of such. Rightly Aquila, κατεστάθην; Symmachus, προκεχείρισμαι; Jerome, ordinata sum. Literally, but unintelligibly, the Gr. Venet. κέχυμαι, according to which (cf. Sir. 1:10) Böttcher: I was poured forth = formed, but himself acknowledging that this figure is not suitable to personification; nor is it at all likely that the author applied the word, used in this sense of idols, to the origin of Wisdom. The fact is, that נסך, used as seldom of the anointing or consecration of kings, as סוּך, passes over, like יצק (הצּיק), צוּק (מצוּק, a pillar), and יצג (הצּיג), from the meaning of pouring out to that of placing and appointing; the mediating idea appears to be that of the pouring forth of the metal, since נסיך, Dan 11:8, like נסך, signifies a molten image. The Jewish interpreters quite correctly remark, in comparing it with the princely name נסיך [cf. Psa 83:12] (although without etymological insight), that a placing in princely dignity is meant. Of the three synonyms of aeternitas a parte ante, מעולם points backwards into the infinite distance, מראשׁ into the beginning of the world, מקּדמי־ארץ not into the times which precede the origin of the earth, but into the oldest times of its gradual arising; this קדמי it is impossible to render, in conformity with the Hebr. use of language: it is an extensive plur. of time, Böttcher, §697. The מן repeated does not mean that the origin and greatness of Wisdom are contemporaneous with the foundation of the world; but that when the world was founded, she was already an actual existence.

Verses 24-26

This her existence before the world began is now set forth in yet more explicit statements: 24 “When there were as yet no floods was I brought forth, When as yet there were not fountains which abounded with water; 25 For before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth, 26 While as yet He had not made land and plains, And the sum of the dust of the earth.”
The description is poetical, and affords some room for imagination. By תּהומות are not intended the unrestrained primeval waters, but, as also Pro 3:20, the inner waters, treasures of the earth; and consequently by מעינות, not the fountains of the sea on this earth (Ewald, after Job 38:16), but he springs or places of springs (for מעין is n. loci to עין, a well as an eye of the earth; vid., Gen 16:7), by means of which the internal waters of the earth communicate themselves to the earth above (cf. Gen 7:11 with Gen 49:25). נכבּדּי־מים(abounding with water) is a descriptive epitheton to מעינות, which, notwithstanding its fem. plur., is construed as masc. (cf. Pro 5:16). The Masora does not distinguish the thrice-occurring נכבדי according to its form as written (Isa 23:8-9). The form נכבּדּי (which, like בּתּים, would demand Metheg) is to be rejected; it is everywhere to be written נכבּדּי nettirw (Ewald, §214b) with Pathach, with Dagesh following; vid., Kimchi, Michlol 61b. Kimchi adds the gloss מעיני מים רבים, which the Gr. Venet., in accordance with the meaning of נכבד elsewhere, renders by πηγαῖς δεδοξασμένων ὑδάτων (as also Böttcher: the most honoured = the most lordly); but Meîri, Immanuel, and others rightly judge that the adjective is here to be understood after Gen 13:2; Job 14:21 (but in this latter passage כבד does not mean “to be numerous”): loaded = endowed in rich measure.

Verse 25

Instead of בּאין, in (yet) non-existence (24), we have here טרם, a subst. which signifies cutting off from that which already exists (vid., at Gen 2:5), and then as a particle nondum or antequam, with בּ always antequam, and in Pro 8:26 עד־לא, so long not yet (this also originally a substantive from עדה, in the sense of progress). With הטבּעוּ (were settled) (as Job 38:6, from טבע, to impress into or upon anything, imprimere, infigere) the question is asked: wherein? Not indeed: in the depths of the earth, but as the Caraite Ahron b. Joseph answers, אל קרקע הים, in the bottom of the sea; for out of the waters they rise up, Psa 104:8 (cf. at Gen 1:9).

Verse 26

Pro 8:26 ארץ וחוּצות is either, connecting the whole with its part: terra cum campis, or ארץ gains by this connection the meaning of land covered with buildings, while חוצות the expanse of unoccupied land, or the free field outside the towns and villages (cf. בּר, Arab. barrytt) (Fl.), vid., Job 5:10; Job 18:17 (where we have translated “in the steppe far and wide”); and regarding the fundamental idea, vid., above at Pro 5:16. Synonymous with ארץ, as contrast to חוצות, is תּבל, which like יבוּל (produce, wealth) comes from יבל, and thus denotes the earth as fruit-bearing (as אדמה properly denotes the humus as the covering of earth). Accordingly, with Ewald, we may understand by ראשׁ עפרות, “the heaps of the many clods of the fertile arable land lying as if scattered on the plains.” Hitzig also translates: “the first clods of the earth.” We do not deny that עפרות may mean clods of earth, i.e., pieces of earth gathered together, as Job 28:6, עפרת זהב, gold ore, i.e., pieces of earth or ore containing gold. But for clods of earth the Heb. language has the nouns רגב and מגרפה; and if we read together עפרות, plur. of the collective עפר (dust as a mass), which comes as from a n. unitatis עפרה, and ראשׁ, which, among its meanings in poetry as well as in prose, has also that of the sum, i.e., the chief amount or the total amount (cf. the Arab. râs âlmâl, the capital, τὸ κεφάλαιον), then the two words in their mutual relation yield the sense of the sum of the several parts of the dust, as of the atoms of dust (Cocceius; Schultens, summam pluverum orbis habitabilis); and Fleischer rightly remarks that other interpretations, as ab initio pulveris orbis, praecipus quaeque orbis terrarum, caput orbis terrarum (i.e., according to Rashi, the first man; according to Umbreit, man generally), leave the choice of the plur. עפרות unintelligible. Before these creatures originated, Wisdom was, as she herself says, and emphatically repeats, already born; חוללתּי is the passive of the Pilel חולל, which means to whirl, to twist oneself, to bring forth with sorrow (Aquila, Theodotion, ὠδινήθην; Graec. Venet. 24a, πέπλασμαι, 25b, ὠδίνημαι), then but poet. generally to beget, to bring forth (Pro 25:23; Pro 26:10).

Verse 27

But not only did her existence precede the laying of the foundation of the world; she was also actively taking part in the creative work: “When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He measured out a circle for the mirror of the multitude of waters.”
Again a sentence clothed with two designations of time. The adv. of place שׁם is used, chiefly poetically, for אז, eo tempore (Arab. thumm, in contradistinction to thamm, eo loco); but here it has the signification of place, which includes that of time: Wisdom was there when God created the world, and had then already long before that come into existence, like as the servant of Jahve, Isa 48:16, with just such a שׁם אני, says that He is there from the time that the history of nations received a new direction, beginning with Cyrus. הכין signifies to give a firm position or a definite direction. Thus Job 28:27 of Wisdom, whom the Creator places before Himself as a pattern (ideal); here, as Jer 10:12; Psa 65:7, of the setting up, restoring throughout the whole world. In the parallel member, חוּג, corresponding to שׁמים, appears necessarily to designate the circle or the vault of the heavens (Job 22:14), which, according to the idea of the Hebrews, as in Homer, rests as a half-globe on the outermost ends of the disc of the earth surrounded with water, and thus lies on the waters. Vid., Hupfeld under Psa 24:2. This idea of the ocean girdling the earth is introduced into the O.T. without its being sanctioned by it. The lxx (καὶ ὅτε ἀφώριζε τὸν ἑαυτοῦ θρόνον ἐπ ̓ ἀνέμων) appears to understand תהום of the waters above; but תהום never has this meaning, ים (Job 9:8; Job 36:30) might rather be interpreted of the ocean of the heavens. The passage in accordance with which this before us is to be expounded is Job 26:10 : He has set a limit for the surface of the waters, i.e., describing over them a circle setting bounds to their region. So here, with the exchange of the functions of the two words; when He marked out a circle over the surface of the multitude of waters, viz., to appoint a fixed region (מקוה, Gen 1:10) for them, i.e., the seas, fountains, rivers, in which the waters under the heavens spread over the earth. חקק signifies incidere, figere, to prescribe, to measure off, to consign, and directly to mark out, which is done by means of firm impressions of the graver's tools. But here this verb is without the Dagesh, to distinguish between the infinitive and the substantive חקּו (his statute or limit); for correct texts have בּחקו (Michlol 147a); and although a monosyllable follows, yet there is no throwing back of the tone, after the rule that words terminating in o in this case maintain their ultima accentuation (e.g., משׂמו אל, Num 24:23). Fleischer also finally decides for the explanation: quum delinearet circulum super abysso, when He marked out the region of the sea as with the circle.

Verses 28-31

In Pro 8:28, Pro 8:29, these two features of the figure of the creation of the world return (the beginning of the firmament, and the embankment of the under waters); hence we see that the discourse here makes a fresh start with a new theme: 28 “When He made firm the ether above, When He restrained the fountains of the waters; 29 When He set to the sea its bounds, That the waters should not pass their limits When He settled the pillars of the earth; 30 Then was I with Him as director of the work, And was delighted day by day, Rejoicing always before Him, 31 Rejoicing in His earth, And having my delight in the children of men.”
We have, with Symmachus, translated שׁחקים (from שׁחק, Arab. shaḳ, to grind, to make thin) by αἰθέρα, for so the fine transparent strata of air above the hanging clouds are called - a poetic name of the firmament רקיע. The making firm עמּץ is not to be understood locally, but internally of the spreading out of the firmament over the earth settled for continuance (an expression such as Psa 78:23). In 28b the Masora notices the plur. עינות instead of עינות with לית as unicum (cf. Michlol 191a); the transition of the sound is as in גּלית from galajta. The inf. עזוז appears on the first look to require a transitive signification, as the lxx and the Targ., the Graec. Venet. and Luther (da er festiget die Brünnen der tieffen = when He makes firm the fountains of the deep) have rendered it. Elster accordingly believes that this signification must be maintained, because בּ here introduces creative activity, and in itself is probably the transitive use of עזז, as the Arab. 'azz shows: when He set His עז against the מים עזּים (Isa 43:16). But the absence of the subject is in favour of the opinion that here, as everywhere else, it is intransitive; only we may not, with Hitzig, translate: when the fountains of the flood raged wildly; but, since 28b, if not a creative efficiency, must yet express a creative work, either as Ewald, with reference to מעוז, fortress: when they became firm, or better as Fleischer, with reference to מים עזים: when they broke forth with power, with strong fulness. Whether the suff. of חקּו, 29a, refers back to the sea or to Jahve, is decided after the parallel פּיו. If this word is equivalent to its coast (cf. Psa 104:9), then both suffixes refer to the sea; but the coast of the sea, or of a river, is called שׂפה, not פּה, which only means ostium (mouth), not ora. Also Isa 19:7 will require to be translated: by the mouth of the Nile, and that פי, Psa 133:2, may denote the under edge, arises from this, that a coat has a mouth above as well as below, i.e., is open. Thus both suff. are to be referred to God, and פיו d is to be determined after Job 23:12. The clause beginning with ומים corresponds in periodizing discourse to a clause with ut, Ewald, §338. בּחוּקו is the same form, only written plene, as Pro 8:27, בּחקו = בּחקּו = בּחקקו.^[55]

Verse 30

In this sentence, subordinating to itself these designations of time, the principal question is as to the meaning of אמון, Hofmann's interpretation (Schriftbew. i. 97) “continually” (inf. absol. in an adverbial sense) is a judicious idea, and אמן, to endure, remains indeed in אמת (stability); but in this sense, which נאמן represents, it is not otherwise used. Also מהימנתּא (believing, trusting) of the Targ. (Graec. Venet. πίστις, as if the word used were אמוּן) is linguistically inadmissible; the Hebr. האמין corresponds to the Aram. haimēn. One of these two only is possible: אמון means either opifex or alumnus. The meaning alumnus (Aquila, τιθηνουμένη; Meîri and Malbim, אמון בחיק האל, ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ) would derive the word from אמן, to support, make firm, take care of; the form ought to have a passive sense (Symm. Theod. ἐστηριγμένη), as גּדול sa ,)חם, twined, pressed, strong, great, and be pointed נקד (with a moveable ā, different from the form בּגוד, חמוץ, Isa 1:17); and אמון, in the meaning nursling, foster-child, favourite (Schultens, Euchel, Elster, and others, also Rashi and Kimchi, who all find in אמון the meaning of education, גידול), would place itself with אמוּן, fostered, Lam 4:5, אמן, fosterer, אמנת ,reret, foster-mother. This is the meaning of the word according to the connection, for Wisdom appears further on as the child of God; as such she had her joy before Him; and particularly God's earth, where she rejoiced with the sons of men, was the scene of her mirth. But on this very account, because this is further said, we also lose nothing if אמון should be interpreted otherwise. And it is otherwise to be interpreted, for Wisdom is, in consequence of קנני (Pro 8:22), and חוללתי, which is twice used (Pro 8:24-25), God's own child; but the designation אמון would make Him to be the אמן of Wisdom; and the child which an אמן bears, Num 11:12, and fosters, Est 2:7, is not his own. Hence it follows that אמון in this signification would be an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; on the other hand, it really occurs elsewhere, Jer 52:15 (vid., Hitzig l.c.), in the sense of opifex. This sense, which recommends itself to Ewald, Hitzig, Bertheau, and Zöckler, lies also at the foundation of the ἁρμόζουσα of the lxx, מתקנא of the Syr., the cuncta componens of Jerome, and the designation of Wisdom as ἡ τῶν πάντων τεχνῖτις of the Book of Wisdom 7:21. The workmaster is called אמון, for which, Sol 7:2, אמן, or rather אמּן (ommân), Aram. and Mishn. אוּמן; not, perhaps, as he whom one entrusts with something in whom one confides or may confide in a work (vid., Fleischer, loc), but from אמן, to be firm, as one who is strong in his art, as perhaps also the right hand, which has the name ימין as being the artifex among the members. The word occurs also as an adjective in the sense of “experienced, skilful,” and does not form a fem. according to the use of the word in this case before us, only because handicraft (אוּמנוּת) belongs to men, and not to women; also in the Greek, δημιουργός, in the sense of τὰ δημόσια (εἰς τὸ δημόσιον) ἐργαζόμενος, has no fem.; and in Lat., artifex is used as a substantive (e.g., in Pliny: artifex omnium natura), like an adj. of double gender. It is thus altogether according to rule that we read אמון and not אמונה (after the form בּגודה); also we would make a mistake if we translated the word by the German “Werkmeisterin” work-mistress, directress (Hitzig), for it is intended to be said that she took up the place of a workmaster with Him, whereby chiefly the artistic performances of a חרשׁ artificer are thought of. This self-designation of Wisdom is here very suitable; for after she has said that she was brought forth by God before the world was, and that she was present when it was created, this אמון now answers the question as to what God had in view when He gave to Wisdom her separate existence, and in what capacity she assisted in the creation of the world: it was she who transferred the creative thoughts originally existing in the creative will of God, and set in motion by His creative order, from their ideal into their real effectiveness, and, as it were, artistically carried out the delineations of the several creatures; she was the mediating cause, the demiurgic power which the divine creative activity made use of, as is said, Pro 3:19, “Jahve has by Wisdom founded the earth,” and as the Jerusalem Targ. Gen 1:1, in connection with Pro 8:22, translates: בחוּכמא ברא יי ית שׁמיּא וית ארעא.
But - this is now the question - does the further unfolding of the thoughts here agree with this interpretation of אמון? That we may not misunderstand what follows, we must first of all represent to ourselves, that if אמון meant the foster-child, Wisdom could not yet, in what follows, be thought of as a little child (Num 11:12), for that would be an idea without any meaning; to rejoice [spielen = play] is certainly quite in accordance with youth, as 2Sa 2:14 shows (where שׂחק לפני is said of the sportive combat of youthful warriors before the captain), not exclusively little children. So, then, we must guard against interpreting שׁעשׁוּעים, with the lxx and Syr., in the sense of שׁעשׁוּעיו - an interpretation which the Targ., Jerome, the Graec. Venet., and Luther have happily avoided; for mention is not made here of what Wisdom is for Jahve, but of what she is in herself. The expression is to be judged after Psa 109:4 (cf. Gen 12:2), where Hitzig rightly translates, “I am wholly prayer;” but Böttcher, in a way characteristic of his mode of interpretation, prefers, “I am ointment” (vid., Neue Aehrenlese, No. 1222). The delight is meant which this mediating participation in God's creating work imparted to her - joy in the work in which she was engaged. The pluralet. שׁעשׁועים is to be understood here, not after Jer 13:20, but after Isa 11:8; Psa 119:70, where its root-word, the Pilpel שׁעשׁע (proceeding from the primary meaning of caressing, demulcere), signifies intransitively: to have his delight somewhere or in anything, to delight oneself - a synonym to the idea of play (cf. Aram. שׁעא, Ethpe. to play, Ethpa. to chatter); for play is in contrast to work, an occupation which has enjoyment in view. But the work, i.e., the occupation, which aims to do something useful, can also become a play if it costs no strenuous effort, or if the effort which it costs passes wholly into the background in presence of the pleasure which it yields. Thus Wisdom daily, i.e., during the whole course of creation, went forth in pure delight; and the activity with which she translated into fact the creative thoughts was a joyful noise in the sight of God, whose commands she obeyed with childlike devotion; cf. 2Sa 6:21, where David calls his dancing and leaping before the ark of the covenant a 'שׂחק לפני ה. But by preference, her delight was in the world, which is illustrated from the Persian Minokhired, which personifies Wisdom, and, among other things, says of her: “The creation of the earth, and its mingling with water, the springing up and the growth of the trees, all the different colours, the odour, the taste, and that which is pleasing in everything - all that is chiefly the endowment and the performance of Wisdom.”^[56]
She also there says that she was before all celestial and earthly beings, the first with Ormuzd, and that all that is celestial and earthly arose and also remains in existence by her. But the earth was the dearest object of her delight in the whole world; to help in establishing it (Pro 3:19) was her joyful occupation; to fashion it, and to provide it with the multiplicity of existences designed for it, was the most pleasant part of her creative activity. For the earth is the abode of man, and the heart-pleasure of Wisdom was with (את־, prep.) the children of men; with them she found her high enjoyment, these were her peculiar and dearest sphere of activity.

Verse 31

Since the statements of Wisdom, as to her participation in the creation of the world, are at this point brought to a close, in this verse there is set forth the intimate relation into which she thus entered to the earth and to mankind, and which she has continued to sustain to the present day. She turned her love to the earth for the sake of man, and to man not merely as a corporeal, but especially as a spiritual being, to whom she can disclose her heart, and whom, if he receives her, she can bring back to God (Book of Wisdom 7:27). There are not here express references to Gen 1 or Gen 2. In יום יום (day for day, as Gen 39:10, cf. Est 2:4, יום ויום) we have not to think of the six days of creation. But inasmuch as the whole description goes down to בּני אדם as its central-point, it denotes that creation came to its close and its goal in man. The connection of תּבל ארץ is as Job 37:12, where ארצה for ארץ is wholly, as לילה, חרסה, and the like, an original accusative.

Verse 32

After that Wisdom has shown in Pro 8:22-31 how worthy her fellowship is of being an object of desire from her mediating place between God and the world, she begins with this verse (as Pro 7:24; Pro 5:7) the hortatory (paränetische) concluding part of her discourse: “And now, ye sons, hearken unto me,
And salvation to those who keep my ways!”
The lxx omits Pro 8:33, and obviates the disturbing element of ואשׁרי, 32b, arising from its ו, by a transposition of the stichs. But this ואשרי is the same as the καὶ μακάριος, Mat 11:6; the organic connection lies hid, as Schleiermacher (Hermeneutik, p. 73) well expresses it, in the mere sequence; the clause containing the proof is connected by ו with that for which proof is to be assigned, instead of subordinating itself to it with כּי. Such an exclamatory clause has already been met with in Pro 3:13, there אדם follows as the governed genitive, here a complete sentence (instead of the usual participial construction, שׁמרי דרכי) forms this genitive, Gesen. §123, 3, Anm. 1.

Verses 33-36

The summons 32a, and its reason 32b, are repeated in these verses which follow: 33 “Hear instruction, and be wise, And withdraw not. 34 Blessed is the man who hears me, Watching daily at my gates, Waiting at the posts of my doors! 35 For whosoever findeth me has found life, And has obtained favour from Jahve; 36 And whosoever misseth me doeth wrong to himself; All they who hate me love death.”
The imper. וחכמוּ, 33a (et sapite), is to be judged after Pro 4:4, וחיה, cf. the Chethı̂b, Pro 13:20; one sees this from the words ואל־תּפרעוּ which follow, to which, after Pro 15:32, as at Pro 4:13, to אל־תּרף, מוּסר is to be placed as object: and throw not to the winds (ne missam faciatis; vid., regarding פרע at Pro 1:25), viz., instruction (disciplinam).

Verse 34

The אשׁרי here following שׁמעוּ is related to it as assigning a motive, like the ואשׁרי (Pro 8:32) following שׁמעו; according to the Masora, we have to write אשׁרי with Mercha, and on the first syllable Gaja (vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, pp. 26, 29; cf. under Psa 1:1). לשׁקד signifies to watch, not in the sense of ad vigilandum, but vigilando, as Isa 5:22; Isa 30:1; Ewald, §380d. In contradistinction to העיר and הקיץ, which denote watching as the consequence of wakefulness or an interruption of sleep, שׁקד signifies watching as a condition, and that as one which a person willingly maintains (Psychol. p. 275), the intentional watching (cf. Arab. shaḳidha, to fix penetrating eyes upon anything), with על of the place and object and aim (Jer 5:6; cf. העיר על, Job 8:6). The plurals דּלתות (fores, as חמות, Jer 1:18, maenia) and פתחים are amplifying plurs. of extension, suggesting the idea of a palace or temple; מזוּזת (postes portae, in quibus cardines ejus moventur, from זוּז, to move hither and thither) is intended to indicate that he to whom the discourse refers holds himself in closest nearness to the entrance, that he might not miss the moment when it is opened, or when she who dwells there presents herself to view. “The figure is derived from the service of a court: Wisdom is honoured by her disciples, as a queen or high patroness; cf. Samachschari's Golden Necklaces, Pr. 35: Blessed is the man who knocks only at God's door, and who departs not a nail's breadth from God's threshold” (Fl.).

Verse 35

This verse gives the reason for pronouncing those happy who honour Wisdom. The Chethı̂b is כי מצאי מצאי חיּים, but the passing over into the sing. 35b is harsh and objectionable; the Kerı̂ rightly regards the second מצאי as a mistaken repetition of the first, and substitutes כי מצאי מצא חיים, with which the וחטאי (Pro 8:36) of the antithesis agrees. Regarding מצאי, for which, less accurately, מצאי (only with the Dechî without Metheg) is generally written, vid., Accentuationssystem, vii. §2. הפיק, to get out = reach, exchanged with מצא, Pro 3:13 (vid., there); according to its etymon, it is connected with מן, of him from or by whom one has reached anything; here, as Pro 12:2; Pro 18:22, God's favour, favorem a Jova impetravit.

Verse 36

Pro 8:36 חטאי may, it is true, mean “my sinning one = he who sins against me (חטא לי),” as קמי is frequently equivalent to קמים עלי; but the contrast of מצאי places it beyond a doubt that חטא stands here in its oldest signification: to miss something after which one runs (Pro 19:2), seeks (Job 5:24), at which one shoots (Hiph. Jdg 20:16), etc., id non attingere quod petitur, Arab. âkhṭa, to miss, opposite to âṣab, to hit (Fl.). Just because it is the idea of missing, which, ethically applied, passes over into that of sin and guilt (of fault, mistake, false step, “Fehls, Fehlers, Fehltritts”), חטא can stand not only with the accusative of the subject in regard to which one errs, Lev 5:16, but also with the accusative of the subject which one forfeits, i.e., misses and loses, Pro 20:2, cf. Hab 2:10; so that not only מאס נפשׁו, Pro 15:32 (animam suam nihili facit), but also חוטא נפשׁו, Pro 20:2 (animam suam pessumdat), is synonymous with חמס נפשׁו (animae suae h. e. sibi ipsi injuriam facit). Whoever misses Wisdom by taking some other way than that which leads to her, acts suicidally: all they who wilfully hate (Piel) wisdom love death, for wisdom is the tree of life, Pro 3:18; wisdom and life are one, 35a, as the Incarnate Wisdom saith, Joh 8:51, “If a man keep my sayings, he shall never see death.” In the Logos, Wisdom has her self-existence; in Him she has her personification, her justification, and her truth.

Chap. 9

Verse 1

Regarding חכמות, vid., at Pro 1:20. It is a plur. excellentiae, which is a variety of the plur. extensivus. Because it is the expression of a plural unity, it stands connected (as for the most part also אלהים, Deus) with the sing. of the predicate. The perfects enumerate all that Wisdom has done to prepare for her invitation. If we had a parable before us, the perf. would have run into the historical ותּשׁלח; but it is, as the תקרא shows, an allegorical picture of the arrangement and carrying out of a present reality. Instead of בּנתה לּהּ בּית there is בּנתה בּיתהּ, for the house is already in its origin represented as hers, and 1b is to be translated: she has hewn out her seven pillars (Hitzig); more correctly: her pillars, viz., seven (after the scheme דבּתם רעה, Gen 37:2); but the construction is closer. שׁבעה is, altogether like Exo 25:37, the accusative of the second object, or of the predicate after the species of verba, with the idea: to make something, turn into something, which take to themselves a double accusative, Gesen. §139, 2: excidit columnas suas ita ut septem essent. Since the figure is allegorical, we may not dispense with the interpretation of the number seven by the remark, “No emphasis lies in the number” (Bertheau). First, we must contemplate architecturally the house with seven pillars: “They are,” as Hitzig rightly remarks, “the pillars of the מסדּרון (porch) [vid. Bachmann under Jdg 3:23, and Wetstein under Psa 144:12, where חטב is used of the cutting out and hewing of wood, as חצב of the cutting out and hewing of stone] in the inner court, which bore up the gallery of the first (and second) floors: four of these in the corners and three in the middle of three sides; through the midst of these the way led into the court of the house-floor the area.” But we cannot agree with Hitzig in maintaining that, with the seven pillars of chap. 8 and 9, the author looks back to the first seven chapters (Arab. âbwab, gates) of this book; we think otherwise of the component members of this Introduction to the Book of Proverbs; and to call the sections of a book “gates, שׁערים,” is a late Arabico-Jewish custom, of which there is found no trace whatever in the O.T. To regard them also, with Heidenheim (cf. Dante's Prose Writings, translated by Streckfuss, p. 77), as representing the seven liberal arts (שׁבע חכמות) is impracticable; for this division of the artes liberales into seven, consisting of the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric, and Dialectics) and Quadrivium (Music, Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy), is not to be looked for within the old Israelitish territory, and besides, these were the sciences of this world which were so divided; but wisdom, to which the discourse here refers, is wholly a religious-moral subject. The Midrash thinks of the seven heavens (שׁבעה רקיעים), or the seven climates or parts of the earth (שׁבעה ארצות), as represented by them; but both references require artificial combinations, and have, as also the reference to the seven church-eras (Vitringa and Chr. Ben. Michaelis), this against them, that they are rendered probable neither from these introductory proverbial discourses, nor generally from the O.T. writings. The patristic and middle-age reference to the seven sacraments of the church passes sentence against itself; but the old interpretation is on the right path, when it suggests that the seven pillars are the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. The seven-foldness of the manifestation of the Spirit, already brought near by the seven lamps of the sacred candelabra (the מנורה), is established by Isa 11:2 (vid., l.c.); and that Wisdom is the possessor and dispenser of the Spirit she herself testifies, Pro 1:23. Her Spirit is the “Spirit of wisdom;” but at the same time, since, born of God, she is mediatrix between God and the world, also the “Spirit of Jahve,” He is the “spirit of understanding,” the “spirit of counsel,” and the “spirit of might” (Isa 11:2); for she says, Pro 8:14, “Counsel is mine, and reflection; I am understanding, I have strength.” He is also the “spirit of knowledge,” and the “spirit of the fear of the Lord” (Isa 11:2); for fear and the knowledge of Jahve are, according to Pro 9:14, the beginning of wisdom, and essentially wisdom itself.

Verse 2

If thus the house of Wisdom is the place of her fellowship with those who honour her, the system of arrangements made by her, so as to disclose and communicate to her disciples the fulness of her strength and her gifts, then it is appropriate to understand by the seven pillars the seven virtues of her nature communicating themselves (apocalyptically expressed, the ἑπτὰ πνεύματα), which bear up and adorn the dwelling which she establishes among men. Flesh and wine are figures of the nourishment for the mind and the heart which is found with wisdom, and, without asking what the flesh and the wine specially mean, are figures of the manifold enjoyment which makes at once strong and happy. The segolate n. verbale טבח, which Pro 7:22 denoted the slaughtering or the being slaughtered, signifies here, in the concrete sense, the slaughtered ox; Michaelis rightly remarks that טבח, in contradistinction to זבח, is the usual word for mactatio extrasacrificialis. Regarding מסך יין, vid., under Isa 5:22; it is not meant of the mingling of wine with sweet scents and spices, but with water (warm or cold), and signifies simply to make the wine palatable (as κεραννύναι, temperare); the lxx ἐκέρασεν εἰς κρατῆρα, κρατήρ is the name of the vessel in which the mixing takes place; they drank not ἄκρατον, but κεκερασμένον ἄκρατον, Rev 14:10. The frequently occurring phrase ערך שׁלחן signifies to prepare the table (from שׁלּח, properly the unrolled and outspread leather cover), viz., by the placing out of the dishes (vid., regarding ערך, under Gen 22:9).

Verse 3

The verb קרא, when a feast is spoken of, means to invite; קראים, Pro 9:18 (cf. 1Sa 9:13, etc.), are the guests. נערותיה the lxx translates τοὺς ἑαυτῆς δούλους, but certainly here the disciples are meant who already are in the service of Wisdom; but that those who are invited to Wisdom are thought of as feminine, arises from the tasteful execution of the picture. The invitation goes forth to be known to all far and wide, so that in her servants Wisdom takes her stand in the high places of the city. Instead of בּראשׁ, Pro 8:2; Pro 1:21, there is used here the expression על־גּפּי. We must distinguish the Semitic גּף (= ganf), wings, from גנף = כנף, to cover, and גּף (= gaff or ganf), the bark, which is derived either from גּפף or גּנף, Arab. jnf, convexus, incurvus et extrinsecus gibber fuit, hence originally any surface bent outwards or become crooked (cf. the roots cap, caf, קב כף גף גב, etc.), here the summit of a height (Fl.); thus not super alis (after the analogy of πτερύγιον, after Suidas = ἀκρωτήριον), but super dorsis (as in Lat. we say δορσυμ μοντις, and also viae).

Verses 4-6

Now follows the street-sermon of Wisdom inviting to her banquet: 4 Who is simple? let him come hither!” Whoso wanteth understanding, to him she saith: 5 “Come, eat of my bread, And drink of the wine which I have mingled! 6 Cease, ye simple, and live, And walk straight on in the way of understanding.”
The question מי פּתי (thus with Munach, not with Makkeph, it is to be written here and at Pro 9:16; vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 40), quis est imperitus, is, as Psa 25:12, only a more animated expression for quisquis est. The retiring into the background of the נערות (servants), and the immediate appearance of Wisdom herself, together with the interruption, as was to be expected, of her connected discourses by the אמרה לּו, are signs that the pure execution of the allegorical representation is her at an end. Hitzig seeks, by the rejection of Pro 9:4, Pro 9:5, Pro 9:7-10, to bring in a logical sequence; but these interpolations which he cuts out are yet far more inconceivable than the proverbial discourses in the mouth of Wisdom, abandoning the figure of a banquet, which besides are wholly in the spirit of the author of this book. That Folly invites to her, Pro 9:16, in the same words as are used by Wisdom, Pro 9:4, is not strange; both address themselves to the simple (vid., on פּתי at Pro 1:4) and those devoid of understanding (as the youth, Pro 7:7), and seek to bring to their side those who are accessible to evil as to good, and do not dully distinguish between them, which the emulating devertat huc of both imports. The fourth verse points partly backwards, and partly forwards; 4a has its introduction in the תקרא of Pro 9:3; on the contrary, 4b is itself the introduction of what follows. The setting forth of the nom. absolutus חסר־לב is conditioned by the form of 4a; the מי (cf. 4a) is continued (in 4b) without its needing to be supplied: excors (= si quis est excors) dicit ei (not dixit, because syntactically subordinating itself to the תקרא). It is a nominal clause, whose virtual predicate (the devoid of understanding is thus and thus addressed by her) as in Pro 9:16.

Verse 5

The plur. of the address shows that the simple (inexperienced) and the devoid of understanding are regarded as essentially one and the same class of men. The בּ after לחם and שׁתה proceeds neither from the idea of eating into (hewing into) anything, nor from the eating with anything, i.e., inasmuch as one makes use of it, nor of pampering oneself with anything (as ראה ב); Michaelis at last makes a right decision (cf. Lev 22:11; Jdg 13:16; Job 21:25, and particularly לחם בּ, Psa 141:4): communicationem et participationem in re fruenda denotat; the lxx φάγετε τῶν ἐμῶν ἄρτων. The attributive מסכתּי stands with backward reference briefly for מסכתּיו. That Wisdom, Pro 9:2, offers flesh and wine, but here presents bread and wine, is no contradiction, which would lead us, with Hitzig, critically to reject Pro 9:4 and Pro 9:5 as spurious; לחם is the most common, all-comprehensive name for nourishment. Bertheau suitably compares Jahve's invitation, Isa 55:1, and that of Jesus, Joh 6:35.

Verse 6

That פתאים is a plur. with abstract signification (according to which the four Greek and the two Aramaean translations render it; the Graec. Venet., however, renders τοὺς νηπίους) is improbable; the author forms the abstr. Pro 9:13 otherwise, and the expression here would be doubtful. For פתאים is here to be rendered as the object-accus.: leave the simple, i.e., forsake this class of men (Ahron b. Joseph; Umbreit, Zöckler); or also, which we prefer (since it is always a singular thought that the “simple” should leave the “simple”), as the vocative, and so that עזבוּ means not absolutely “leave off” (Hitzig), but so that the object to be thought of is to be taken from פתאים: give up, leave off, viz., the simple (Immanuel and others; on the contrary, Rashi, Meîri, and others, as Ewald, Bertheau, decide in favour of פתאים as n. abstr.). Regarding וחיוּ, for et vivetis, vid., Pro 4:4. The lxx, paraphrasing: ἵνα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα βασιλεύσητε. אשׁר is related to אשׁוּר (אשׁוּר) is דּרך to דּרך; the Piel, not in its intrans. (vid., Pro 4:14) but in its trans. sense (Isa 1:17; Isa 3:12, etc.), shows that the idea of going straight out and forwards connects itself therewith. The peculiarity of the פתי is just the absence of character.

Verses 7-9

In what now follows the discourse of Wisdom is continued; wherefore she directs her invitation to the simple, i.e., those who have not yet decided, and are perhaps susceptible of that which is better: 7 “He who correcteth a scorner draweth upon himself insult; And he who communicateth instruction to a scorner, it is a dishonour to him. 8 Instruct not a scorner, lest he hate thee; Give instruction to the wise, so he will love thee. 9 Give to the wise, and he becomes yet wiser; Give knowledge to the upright, and he gains in knowledge.”
Zöckler thinks that herewith the reason for the summons to the “simple” to forsake the fellowship of men of their own sort, is assigned (he explains 6a as Ahron b. Joseph: הפרדו מן הפתאים); but his remark, that, under the term “simple,” mockers and wicked persons are comprehended as belonging to the same category, confounds two sharply distinguished classes of men. לץ is the freethinker who mocks at religion and virtue (vid., Pro 1:22), and רשׁע the godless who shuns restraint by God and gives himself up to the unbridled impulse to evil. The course of thought in Pro 9:7 and onwards shows why Wisdom, turning from the wise, who already are hers, directs herself only to the simple, and those who are devoid of understanding: she must pass over the לץ and רשׁע dna , because she can there hope for no receptivity for her invitation; she would, contrary to Mat 7:6, “give that which is holy to the dogs, and cast her pearls before swine.” יסר, παιδεύειν (with the prevailing idea of the bitter lesson of reproof and punishment), and הוכיח, ἐλέγχειν, are interchangeable conceptions, Psa 94:10; the ל is here exponent of the object (to bring an accusation against any one), as Pro 9:8, Pro 15:12 (otherwise as Isa 2:4; Isa 11:4, where it is the dat. commodi: to bring unrighteousness to light, in favour of the injured). יסר לץ is pointed with Mahpach of the penultima, and thus with the tone thrown back. The Pasek, placed in some editions between the two words, is masoretically inaccurate. He who reads the moral to the mocker brings disgrace to himself; the incorrigible replies to the goodwill with insult. Similar to the לקח לו here, is מרים tollit = reportat, Pro 3:25; Pro 4:27. In 7b מוּמו is by no means the object governed by וּמוכיח: and he who shows to the godless his fault (Meîri, Arama, Löwenstein: מומו = על־מומו, and thus also the Graec. Venet. μῶμον ἑαυτῷ, scil. λαμβάνει); plainly מומו is parallel with קלון. But מומו does not also subordinate itself to לקח as to the object. parallel קלון: maculam sibimet scil. acquirit; for, to be so understood, the author ought at least to have written לו מוּם. Much rather מומו is here, as at Deu 32:5, appos., thus pred. (Hitzig), without needing anything to be supplied: his blot it is, viz., this proceeding, which is equivalent to מוּמא הוּא ליהּ (Targ.), opprobrio ipsi est. Zöckler not incorrectly compares Psa 115:7 and Ecc 5:16, but the expression (macula ejus = ipsi) lies here less remote from our form of expression. In other words: Whoever correcteth the mockers has only to expect hatred (אל־תוכח with the tone thrown back, according to rule; cf. on the contrary, Jdg 18:25), but on the other hand, love from the wise.

Verse 8

The ו in ויאהבך is that of consequence (apodosis imperativi): so he will love thee (as also Ewald now translates), not: that he may love thee (Syr., Targ.), for the author speaks here only of the consequence, not of something else, as an object kept in view. The exhortation influences the mocker less than nothing, so much the more it bears fruit with the wise. Thus the proverb is confirmed habenti dabitur, Mat 13:12; Mat 25:29.

Verse 9

If anything is to be supplied to תּן, it is לקח (Pro 4:2); but תן, tradere, παραδιδόναι, is of itself correlat. of לקח, accipere (post-bibl. קבּל), παραλαμβάνειν, e.g., Gal 1:9. הודיע ל = to communicate knowledge, דעת, follows the analogy of הוכיח ל, to impart instruction, תוכחת. Regarding the jussive form ויוסף in the apod. imper., vid., Gesen. §128, 2. Observe in this verse the interchange of חכם and צדיק! Wisdom is not merely an intellectual power, it is a moral quality; in this is founded her receptivity of instruction, her embracing of every opportunity for self-improvement. She is humble; for, without self-will and self-sufficiency, she makes God's will her highest and absolutely binding rule (Pro 3:7).

Verse 10

These words naturally follow: 10 “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Jahve, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”
This is the highest principle of the Chokma, which stands (Pro 1:7) as a motto at the beginning of the Book of Proverbs. The lxx translate ראשׁית there (Pro 1:7), and תּחלּת here, by ἀρχή. Gusset distinguishes the two synonyms as pars optima and primus actus; but the former denotes the fear of God as that which stands in the uppermost place, to which all that Wisdom accomplishes subordinates itself; the latter as that which begins wisdom, that which it proposes to itself in its course. With יהוה is interchanged, Pro 2:5, אלהים, as here קדושׁים, as the internally multiplicative plur. (Dietrich, Abhandlungen, pp. 12, 45), as Pro 30:3, Jos 24:9; Hos 12:1, of God, the “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa 6:3), i.e., Him who is absolutely Holy. Michaelis inaccurately, following the ancients, who understood not this non-numerical plur.: cognitio quae sanctos facit et sanctis propria est. The דּעת, parallel with יראת, is meant of lively practical operative knowledge, which subordinates itself to this All-holy God as the normative but unapproachable pattern.

Verse 11

The singular reason for this proverb of Wisdom is now given:
“For by me will thy days become many,
And the years of thy life will be increased.”
Incorrectly Hitzig: “and years of life will increase to thee;” הוסיף is always and everywhere (e.g., also Job 38:11) transitive. In the similar passage, Pro 3:2, יוסיפו had as its subject the doctrine of Wisdom; here חכמה and בינה it is not practicable to interpret as subj., since 11a Wisdom is the subject discoursing - the expression follows the scheme, dicunt eos = dicuntur, as e.g., Job 7:3; Gesen. §137 - a concealing of the operative cause, which lies near, where, as Pro 2:22, the discourse is of severe judgment, thus: they (viz., the heavenly Powers) will grant to thee years of life (חיּים in a pregnant sense, as Pro 3:2) in rich measure, so that constantly one span comes after another. But in what connection of consequence does this stand with the contents of the proverb, Pro 9:10? The ancients say that the clause with כי refers back to Pro 9:5. The Pro 9:7-10 (according also to Fl.) are, as it were, parenthetic. Hitzig rejects these verses as an interpolation, but the connection of Pro 9:11 with 5f. retains also something that is unsuitable: “steps forward on the way of knowledge, for by me shall thy days become many;” and if, as Hitzig supposes, Pro 9:12 is undoubtedly genuine, whose connection with Pro 9:11 is in no way obvious, then also will the difficulty of the connection of Pro 9:7-10 with the preceding and the succeeding be no decisive mark of the want of genuineness of this course of thought. We have seen how the progress of Pro 9:6 to 7 is mediated: the invitation of Wisdom goes forth to the receptive, with the exclusion of the irrecoverable. And Pro 9:11 is related to Pro 9:10, as the proof of the cause from the effect. It is the fear of God with which Wisdom begins, the knowledge of God in which above all it consists, for by it is fulfilled the promise of life which is given to the fear of God, Pro 10:27; Pro 14:27; Pro 19:23, cf. Deu 4:40, and to humility, which is bound up with it. Pro 10:17.

Verse 12

This wisdom, resting on the fear of God, is itself a blessing to the wise: “If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself;
And if thou mockest, thou alone shalt bear it.”
The lxx, with the Syr., mangle the thought of 12a, for they translate: if thou art wise for thyself, so also thou wilt be wise for thy neighbour. The dat. commodi לך means that it is for the personal advantage of the wise to be wise. The contrast expressed by Job 22:2: not profitable to God, but to thyself (Hitzig), is scarcely intended, although, so far as the accentuation is antithetic, it is the nearest. The perf. ולצתּ is the hypothetical; Gesen. §126, 1. To bear anything, viz., anything sinful (חטא or עון), is equivalent to, to atone for it, Job 34:2, cf. Num 9:13; Eze 23:35. Also 12b is a contrast scarcely aimed at. Wisdom is its own profit to man; libertinism is its own disgrace. Man decides, whenever he prefers to be wise, or to be a mocker of religion and of virtue, regarding his own weal and woe. With this nota bene the discourse of Wisdom closes.

Verses 13-15

The poet now brings before us another figure, for he personifies Folly working in opposition to Wisdom, and gives her a feminine name, as the contrast to Wisdom required, and thereby to indicate that the seduction, as the 13th proverbial discourse (chap. 7) has shown, appears especially in the form of degraded womanhood: 13 The woman Folly [Frau Thorheit] conducts herself boisterously, Wantonness, and not knowing anything at all; 14 And hath seated herself at the door of her house, On a seat high up in the city, 15 To call to those who walk in the way, Who go straight on their path.
The connection of אשת כּסילוּת is genitival, and the genitive is not, as in אשׁת רע, Pro 6:24, specifying, but appositional, as in בת־ציון (vid., under Isa 1:8). הומיּה [boisterous] is pred., as Pro 7:11 : her object is sensual, and therefore her appearance excites passionately, overcoming the resistance of the mind by boisterousness. In 13b it is further said who and how she is. פּתיּוּת she is called as wantonness personified. This abstract פּתיּוּת, derived from פּתי, must be vocalized as אכזריּוּת; Hitzig thinks it is written with a on account of the following u sound, but this formation always ends in ijjûth, not ajjûth. But as from חזה as well חזּיון = חזיון as חזון is formed, so from פּתה as well פּתוּת like חזוּת or פּתוּת like לזוּת, רעוּת, as פּתיוּת (instead of which פּתיּוּת is preferred) can be formed; Kimchi rightly (Michlol 181a) presents the word under the form פּעלוּת. With וּבל (Pro 14:7) poetic, and stronger than לאו, the designation of the subject is continued; the words וּבל־ידעה מּה (thus with Mercha and without Makkeph following, ידעה is to be written, after Codd. and old editions) have the value of an adjective: and not knowing anything at all (מה = τὶ, as Num 23:3; Job 13:13, and here in the negative clause, as in prose מאוּמה), i.e., devoid of all knowledge. The Targ. translates explanatorily: not recognising טבתּא, the good; and the lxx substitutes: she knows not shame, which, according to Hitzig, supposes the word כּלמּה, approved of by him; but כלמה means always pudefactio, not pudor. To know no כלמה would be equivalent to, to let no shaming from without influence one; for shamelessness the poet would have made use of the expression ובל־ידעה בּשׁת. In וישׁבה the declaration regarding the subject beginning with הומיה is continued: Folly also has a house in which works of folly are carried one, and has set herself down by the door (לפּתח as לפי, Pro 8:3) of this house; she sits there על־כּסּא. Most interpreters here think on a throne (lxx ἐπὶ δίφρου, used especially of the sella curulis); and Zöckler, as Umbreit, Hitzig, and others, connecting genitiv. therewith מרמי קרת, changes in 14b the scene, for he removes the “high throne of the city” from the door of the house to some place elsewhere. But the sitting is in contrast to the standing and going on the part of Wisdom on the streets preaching (Evagrius well renders: in molli ignavaque sella); and if כסא and house-door are named along with each other, the former is a seat before the latter, and the accentuation rightly separates by Mugrash כסא from מרמי קרת. “According to the accents and the meaning, מרמי קרת is the acc. loci: on the high places of the city, as Pro 8:2.” (Fl.). They are the high points of the city, to which, as Wisdom, Pro 9:3, Pro 8:2, so also Folly, her rival (wherefore Ecc 10:6 does not appertain to this place), invites followers to herself. She sits before her door to call לעברי דרך (with Munach, as in Cod. 1294 and old editions, without the Makkeph), those who go along the way (genitive connection with the supposition of the accusative construction, transire viam, as Pro 2:7), to call (invite) המישּׁרים (to be pointed with מ raphatum and Gaja going before, according to Ben-Asher's rule; vid., Methegsetz. §20), those who make straight their path, i.e., who go straight on, directly before them (cf. Isa 57:2). The participial construction (the schemes amans Dei and amans Deum), as well as that of the verb קרא (first with the dat. and then with the accus.), interchange.

Verses 16-17

The woman, who in her own person serves as a sign to her house, addresses those who pass by in their innocence (לתמּם, 2Sa 15:11): 16 “Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither!” And if any one is devoid of understanding, she saith to him: 17 “Stolen waters taste sweet, And the bread of secrecy is pleasant.” פּתי (folly, simplicity) has a side accessible to good and its contrary: Wisdom is connected with the one side, and Folly with the other. And as the חסר־לב offers a vacuum to Wisdom which may perhaps be filled with the right contents, so is this vacuum welcome to Folly, because it meets there no resistance. In this sense, Pro 9:16 is like Pro 9:4 (excepting the addition of a connecting and of a concluding ו: et si quis excors, tum dicit ei); the word is the same in both, but the meaning, according to the two speakers, is different. That to which they both invite is the pleasure of her fellowship, under the symbol of eating and drinking; in the one case it is intellectual and spiritual enjoyment, in the other sensual. That Wisdom offers (Pro 9:5) bread and wine, and Folly water and bread, has its reason in this, that the particular pleasure to which the latter invites is of a sensual kind; for to drink water out of his own or out of another fountain is (Pro 3:15-20) the symbol of intercourse in married life, or of intercourse between the unmarried, particularly of adulterous intercourse. מים גּנוּבים (correct texts have it thus, without the Makkeph) is sexual intercourse which is stolen from him who has a right thereto, thus carnal intercourse with אושׁת אישׁ; and לחם סתרים fleshly lust, which, because it is contrary to the law, must seek (cf. furtum, secret love intrigue) concealment (סתרים, extensive plur., as מעמקּים; Böttcher, §694). Just such pleasure, after which one wipes his mouth as if he had done nothing (Pro 30:20), is for men who are without wisdom sweet (מתק, Job 20:12) and pleasant; the prohibition of it gives to such pleasure attraction, and the secrecy adds seasoning; and just such enjoyments the כסילות, personified carnality, offers. But woe to him who, befooled, enters her house!

Verse 18

He goes within: 18 And he knows not that the dead are there; In the depths of Hades, her guests.
How near to one another the house of the adulteress and Hades are, so that a man passes through the one into the other, is already stated in Pro 2:18; Pro 7:27. Here, in the concluding words of the introduction to the Book of Proverbs, addressed to youth, and for the most part containing warning against sinful pleasure, these two further declarations are advanced: the company assembled in the house of lewdness consists of רפאים, i.e., (cf. p. 83) the old, worn-out, who are only in appearance living, who have gone down to the seeming life of the shadowy existence of the kingdom of the dead; her (כסילות) invited ones (cf. Pro 7:26, her slaughtered ones) are in the depths of Hades (not in the valleys, as Umbreit, Löwenstein, and Ewald translate, but in the depths, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, ἐπὶ τοῖς βαθέσι; for עמקי is not only plur. to עמק, but also per metaplasmum to עמק, Pro 25:3, as אמרי to אמר), thus in שׁאול תּחתּית (Deu 32:22); they have forsaken the fellowship of the life and of the love of God, and have sunk into the deepest destruction. The house of infamy into which Folly allures does not only lead to hell, it is hell itself; and they who permit themselves to be thus befooled are like wandering corpses, and already on this side of death are in the realm of wrath and of the curse.^[57]

Chap. 10

Verse 1

In the introduction, chap. 1-9, there are larger sections of interconnected thoughts having one common aim. Even in Prov 6:1-19 there are manifestly three proverbial discourses distinguished from one another, shorter indeed, yet containing one fundamental thought. Such proverbs as are primarily designed to form one completed little whole of themselves, are not here to be met with. On the contrary, the Solomonic collection which now follows consists of pure distichs, for the most part antithetical, but at the same time going over all the forms of the technical proverb, as we have already shown; vid., p. 16. Accordingly the exposition must from this point onward renounce reproduced combinations of thought. The succession of proverbs here is nevertheless not one that is purely accidental or without thought; it is more than a happy accident when three of the same character stand together; the collector has connected together proverb with proverb according to certain common characteristics (Bertheau). And yet more than that: the mass separates itself into groups, not merely succeeding one another, but because a certain connection of ideas connects together a number of proverbs, in such a way that the succession is broken, and a new point of departure is arrived at (Hitzig). There is no comprehensive plan, such as Oetinger in his summary view of its contents supposes; the progressive unfolding follows no systematic scheme, but continuously wells forth. But that the editor, whom we take also to be the arranger of the contents of the book, did not throw them together by good chance, but in placing them together was guided by certain reasons, the very first proverb here shows, for it is chosen in conformity with the design of this book, which is specially dedicated to youth: 1 A wise son maketh glad his father; A foolish son is his mother's grief.
One sees here quite distinctly (cf. Hos 13:13) that חכם (from חכם, properly to be thick, stout, solid, as πυκνός = σοφός) is primarily a practical and ethical conception. Similar proverbs are found further on, but consisting of synonymous parallel members, in which either the father both times represents the parents, as Pro 17:21; Pro 23:24, or father and mother are separated, each being named in different members, as Pro 17:25; Pro 23:25, and particularly Pro 15:20, where 20a = 1a of the above proverb. It is incorrect to say, with Hitzig, that this contrast draws the division after it: the division lies nearer in the synonymous distichs, and is there less liable to be misunderstood than in the antithetic. Thus, from this proverb before us, it might be concluded that grief on account of a befooled son going astray in bypaths, and not coming to the right way, falls principally on the mother, as (Sir. 3:9) is often the case in unfortunate marriages. The idea of the parents is in this way only separated, and the two members stand in suppletive interchangeable relationship. ישׂמּח is the middle of the clause, and is the usual form in connection; ישׂמּח is the pausal form. תּוּגה, from הוגה (יגה), has pass. û, as תּורה, act. ô. “The expression of the pred. 1b is like Pro 3:17; Pro 8:6; Pro 10:14.; cf. e.g., Arab. âlastaḳṣa furkat, oversharpening is dividing, i.e., effects it inquiries become or lead to separation (cf. our proverb, Allzuscharf macht scharig = too much sharpening makes full of notches); Burckhardt, Sprüchw. Nr. 337” (Fl.).

Verse 2

There follows now a series of proverbs which place possessions and goods under a moral-religious point of view:
Treasures of wickedness bring no profit;
But righteousness delivers from death.
The lxx and Aquila translate ἀνόμους (ἀσεβεῖς). הועיל (to profit) with the accus. is possible, Isa 57:12, but אוצרות one does not use by itself; it requires a genitive designating it more closely. But also דּרשּׂיעא of the Targ., παρανόμων of Symmachus, fails; for the question still remains, to whom? Rightly Syr., Jerome, Theodotion, and the Quinta: ἀσεβείας, cf. Pro 4:17; Mic 4:10; Luk 16:9, μαμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικίας. Treasures to which wickedness cleaves profit not, viz., him who has collected them through wickedness. On the contrary, righteousness saves from death (2b = Pro 11:4, where the parallelism makes it clear that death as a judgment is meant). In Deu 24:13 it had been already said that compassionate love is “righteousness before the Lord,” the cardinal virtue of the righteousness of life. Faith (Hab 2:4) is its soul, and love its life. Therefore δικαιοσύνη and ἐεημοσύνη are interchangeable ideas; and it ought not to be an objection against the Apocrypha that it repeats the above proverb, ἐλεημοσύνη ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται, Tob. 4:10; 12:9, Sir. 3:30; 29:12, for Dan 4:24 also says the very same thing, and the thought is biblical, in so far as the giving of alms is understood to be not a dead work, but (Psa 112:9) the life-activity of one who fears God, and of a mind believing in Him and resting in His word.

Verse 3

Another proverb, the members of which stand in chiastic relation to those of the preceding:
Jahve does not suffer the soul of the righteous to hunger;
But the craving of the godless He disappointeth.
The thought is the same as Pro 13:25. There, as also at Pro 6:30, the soul is spoken of as the faculty of desire, and that after nourishment, for the lowest form of the life of the soul is the impulse to self-preservation. The parallel הוּה, in which lxx and Ar. erroneously find the meaning of חיּה, life, the Syr. Targ. the meaning of הון, possession, means the desire, without however being related to אוּה (Berth.); it is the Arab. hawan, from הוה, Arab. haway, which, from the fundamental meaning χαίνειν, hiare, to gape, yawn, signifies not only unrestrained driving along, and crashing overthrow (cf. Pro 11:6; Pro 19:13), but also the breaking forth, ferri in aliquid, whence הוּה, Arab. hawan, violent desire, in Hebr. generally (here and Psa 52:9, Mich. Pro 7:3) of desire without limits and without restraint (cf. the plur. âhawâ, arbitrary actions, caprices); the meanings deduced from this important verbal stem (of which also הוה היה, accidere, and then esse, at least after the Arabic conception of speech, is an offshoot) are given by Fleischer under Job 37:6, and after Fleischer by Ethé, Schlafgemach der Phantasie, ii. p. 6f. The verb הדף signifies to push in the most manifold shades, here to push forth, repellere, as 2Ki 4:27 (cf. Arab. ḥadhaf, to push off = to discharge); the fut. is invariably יהדּף, like יהגּה. God gives satisfaction to the soul of the righteous, viz., in granting blessings. The desire of the wicked He does not suffer to be accomplished; it may appear for a long time as if that which was aimed at was realized, but in the end God pushes it back, so that it remains at a distance, because contrary to Him. Instead of והות רשׁעים, some editions (Plantin 1566, Bragadin 1615) have והות בּגדים, but, in opposition to all decided testimony, only through a mistaken reference to Pro 11:6.

Verse 4

There follow two proverbs which say how one man fails and another succeeds:
He becomes poor who bears a sluggish hand;
But the hand of the diligent maketh rich.
These three proverbs, Pro 19:15; Pro 12:24, Pro 12:27, are similar. From the last two it is seen that רמיּה is a subst., as also from Psa 120:2. (לשׁון רמיּה, from a crafty tongue) that it is an adject., and from Lev 14:15. (where כּף is fem.) that it may be at the same time an adject. here also. The masc. is רמי, like טרי to טריּה ot , but neither of these occur; “the fundamental idea is that of throwing oneself down lazily, when one with unbent muscles holds himself no longer erect and stretched, Arab. taramy” (Fl.). The translation: deceitful balances (Löwenstein after Rashi), is contrary to biblical usage, which knows nothing of כף in this Mishnic meaning. But if כף is here regarded as fem., then it cannot be the subject (Jerome, egestatem operata est manus remissa), since we read עשׂה, not עשׂה. But ראשׁ also is not suitable as the subject (lxx, Syr., Targ.), for poverty is called רישׁ, רישׁ, ראשׁ; on the contrary, רשׁ, plur. רשׁים or ראשׁים, is used adjectively. Since now the adject. רשׁ, 1Sa 12:14, is also written ראשׁ, it may be translated: Poor is he who... (Bertheau); but we much rather expect the statement of that which happens to such an one, thus: Poor will he be... ראשׁ, 3 praet. = רשׁ, Psa 34:11, with the same (grammatically incorrect) full writing as קאם, Hos 10:14. In the conception of the subject, כף־רמיה, after Jer 48:10, is interpreted as the accus. of the manner (Berth.: whoever works with sluggish hand); but since עשׂה רמיה (in another sense indeed: to practise cunning) is a common phrase, Psa 52:4; Psa 101:7, so also will כף־רמיה be regarded as the object: qui agit manum remissam, whoever carries or moves such a hand (Hitzig). In 4b working is placed opposite to bearing: the diligent hand makes rich, ditat or divitias parit; but not for itself (Gesen. and others: becomes rich), but for him who bears it. The diligent man is called חרוּץ, from חרץ, to sharpen, for, as in ὀξύς, acer, sharpness is transferred to energy; the form is the same as הלּוּק, smooth (for the ā is unchangeable, because recompensative), a kindred form to קטול like חמוץ, and Arab. fâ'ûl as fashawsh, a boaster, wind-bag, either of active (as חנּוּן) or (as חלוק, חרוץ, עמּוּד, שׁכּוּל) of passive signification.

Verse 5

There is now added a proverb which, thus standing at the beginning of the collection, and connecting itself with Pro 10:1, stamps on it the character of a book for youth:
He that gathereth in summer is a wise son;
But he that is sunk in sleep in the time of harvest is a son that causeth shame.
Von Hofmann (Schriftb. ii. 2. 403) rightly interprets בּן משׂכּיל and בּן מבישׁ, with Cocceius and others, as the subject, and not with Hitzig as predicate, for in nominal clauses the rule is to place the predicate before the subject; and since an accurate expression of the inverted relation would both times require הוא referring to the subject, so we here abide by the usual syntax: he that gathers in summer time is... Also the relation of the members of the sentence, Pro 19:26, is a parallel from which it is evident that the misguided son is called מבישׁ as causing shame, although in הבישׁ the idea to put to shame (= to act so that others are ashamed) and to act shamefully (disgracefully), as in השׂכיל the ideas to have insight and to act intelligently, lie into one another (cf. Pro 14:35); the root-meaning of השׂכיל is determined after שׂכל, which from שׂכל, complicare, designates the intellect as the faculty of intellectual configuration. בּושׁ, properly disturbari, proceeds from a similar conception as the Lat. confundi (pudore). קיץ and קציר fall together, for קיץ (from קוץ = qât, to be glowing hot) is just the time of the קציר; vid., under Gen 8:22. To the activity of a thoughtful ingathering, אגר, for a future store (vid., Pro 6:7), stands opposed deep sleep, i.e., the state of one sunk in idleness. נרדּם means, as Schultens has already shown, somno penitus obrui, omni sensu obstructo et oppilato quasi, from רדם, to fill, to shut up, to conclude; the derivation (which has been adopted since Gesenius) from the Arab. word having the same sound, rdm, stridere, to shrill, to rattle (but not stertere, to snore), lies remote in the Niph., and also contradicts the usage of the word, according to which it designates a state in which all free activity is bound, and all reference to the external world is interrupted; cf. תּרדּמה, Pro 19:15, of dulness, apathy, somnolency in the train of slothfulness. The lxx has here one distich more than the Hebr. text.

Verse 6

There now follow two proverbs regarding the blessings and the curses which come to men, and which flow forth from them. Here, however, as throughout, we take each proverb by itself, that it might not appear as if we had a tetrastich before us. The first of these two antithetic distichs is:
Blessings (come) on the head of the just;
But violence covereth the mouth of the godless.
Blessings are, without being distinguished, bestowed as well as prayed for from above. Regarding the undistinguished uses of לראשׁ (of a recompense of reward), בּראשׁ (of penal recompense), and על־ראשׁ (especially of punishment), vid., under Gen 49:26. If we understand, with Ewald, Bertheau, Elster, Zöckler, and others, the two lines after Pro 10:11, Pro 19:28, cf. Pro 10:18 : the mouth of the wicked covers (hides under a mask) violence, inasmuch as he speaks words of blessing while thoughts of malediction lurk behind them (Psa 62:5), then we renounce the sharpness of the contrast. On the contrary, it is preserved if we interpret וּפי as object: the violence that has gone out from it covereth the mouth of the wicked, i.e., it falls back upon his foul mouth; or as Fleischer (and Oetinger almost the same) paraphrases it: the deeds of violence that have gone forth from them are given back to them in curses and maledictions, so that going back they stop, as it were, their mouth, they bring them to silence; for it is unnecessary to take פי synecdochically for פני (cf. e.g., Psa 69:8), since in בּרכות 6a are perhaps chiefly meant blessings of thankful acknowledgment on the part of men, and the giving prominence to the mouth of the wicked from which nothing good proceeds is well accounted for. The parallels do not hinder us thus to explain, since parts of proverbs repeating themselves in the Book of Proverbs often show a change of the meaning (vid., p. 24f.). Hitzig's conjecture, יכּסה (better יכסּה), is unnecessary; for elsewhere we read, as here, that חמס (violence), jure talionis, covers, יכּסּה, the wicked, Hab 2:17, or that he, using “violence,” therewith covers the whole of his external appearance, i.e., gives to it the branded impress of the unrighteousness he has done (vid., Köhler under Mal 2:16).

Verse 7

Thus, as Pro 10:6 says how it goes with the righteous and the wicked in this life, so this verse tells how it fares with them after death:
The memory of the righteous remains in blessings,
And the name of the godless rots.
The tradition regarding the writing of זכר with five (זכר) or six points (זכר) is doubtful (vid., Heidenheim in his ed. of the Pentateuch, Meôr Enajim, under Exo 17:14); the Cod. 1294 and old printed copies have here זכר. Instead of לברכה, יברך might be used; the phrase היה לברכה (opp. היה לקללה, often used by Jeremiah), subordinate to the substantival clause, paraphrases the passive, for it expresses a growing to something, and thus the entrance into a state of endurance. The remembrance of the righteous endures after his death, for he is thought of with thankfulness (צל״ז = זכר צדיק לברכה, the usual appendix to the name of an honoured, beloved man who has died), because his works, rich in blessing, continue; the name of the godless, on the contrary, far from continuing fresh and green (Psa 62:1-12 :17) after his departure, becomes corrupt (רקב, from רק, to be or to become thin, to dissolve in fine parts, tabescere), like a worm-eaten decayed tree (Isa 40:20). The Talmud explains it thus, Joma 38b: foulness comes over their name, so that we call no one after their name. Also the idea suggests itself, that his name becomes corrupt, as it were, with his bones; the Mishnah, at least Ohaloth ii. 1, uses רקב of the dust of corruption.

Verse 8

There follows now a series of proverbs in which reference to sins of the mouth and their contrary prevails:
He that is wise in heart receives precepts;
But he that is of a foolish mouth comes to ruin.
A חכם־לב, wise-hearted, as one whose heart is חכם, Pro 23:15; in a word, a נבון, a person of understanding or judgment, Pro 16:21. Such an one does not make his own knowledge the ne plus ultra, nor does he make his own will the noli me tangere; but he takes commands, i.e., instructions directing or prohibiting, to which he willingly subordinates himself as the outflow of a higher knowledge and will, and by which he sets bounds and limits to himself. But a fool of the lips, i.e., a braggart blunderer, one pleasing himself with vain talk (Pro 14:23), falls prostrate, for he thinks that he knows all things better, and will take no pattern; but while he boasts himself from on high, suddenly all at once - for he offends against the fundamental principle of common life and of morality - he comes to lie low down on the ground. The Syr. and Targ. translate ילּבט by, he is caught (Bertheau, ensnared); Aquila, Vulgate, Luther, δαρήσεται, he is slain; Symmachus, βασανισθήσεται; but all without any support in the usage of the language known to us. Theodotion, φυρήσεται, he is confounded, is not tenable; Joseph Kimchi, who after David Kimchi, under Hos 4:14, appeals in support of this meaning (ישׁתבשׁ, similarly Parchon: יתבלבל) to the Arabic, seems to think on iltibâs, confusion. The demonstrable meanings of the verb לבט are the following: 1. To occasion trouble. Thus Mechilta, under Exo 17:14, לבטוהו, one has imposed upon him trouble; Sifri, under Num 11:1, נתלבטנו, we are tired, according to which Rashi: he fatigues himself, but which fits neither to the subj. nor to the contrast, which is to be supposed. The same may be said of the meaning of the Syr. lbt, to drive on, to press, which without doubt accords with the former meaning of the word in the language of the Midrash. 2. In Arab. labaṭ (R. lab, vid., Wünsche's Hos. p. 172), to throw any one down to the earth, so that he falls with his whole body his whole length; the passive נלבט, to be thus thrown down by another, or to throw oneself thus down, figuratively of one who falls hopelessly into evil and destruction (Fl.). The Arabic verb is also used of the springing run of the animal ridden on (to gallop), and of the being lame (to hop), according to which in the Lex. the explanations, he hurries, or he wavers hither and thither, are offered by Kimchi (Graec. Venet. πλανηθήσεται). But the former of these explanations, corruit (= in calamitatem ruit), placed much nearer by the Arabic, is confirmed by the lxx ὑποσκελισθήσεται, and by the Berêshith rabba, c. 52, where לבט is used in the sense to be ruined (= נכשׁל). Hitzig changes the passive into the active: “he throws the offered לקח scornfully to the ground,” but the contrast does not require this. The wanton, arrogant boasting lies already in the designation of the subj. אויל שׂפתים; and the sequel involves, as a consequence, the contrasted consequence of ready reception of the limitations and guidance of his own will by a higher.

Verse 9

The form of this verse is like the eighth, word for word:
He that walketh in innocence walketh securely;
But he that goeth in secret ways is known.
The full form of בּתּום does not, as Hitzig supposes, stand in causal connection with the Dechî, for the consonant text lying before us is at least 500 years older than the accentuation. For הלך תּם at Pro 2:7, there is here הלך בּתּום = הלך בּדרך תום; so מעקּשׁ דּרכיו denotes, after Pro 2:15, such an one אשׁר דּרכיו עקּשׁים. Expressed in the language of the N.T., תום is the property of the ἁπλοῦς or ἀκέραιος, for the fundamental idea of fulness is here referred to full submission, full integrity. Such an one goes בּטח (Aquila, ἀμερίμνως), for there is nothing designedly concealed by him, of which he has reason to fear that it will come to the light; whoever, on the contrary, makes his ways crooked, i.e., turns into crooked ways, is perceived, or, as we might also explain it (vid., under Gen 4:15): if one (qui = si quis) makes his ways crooked, then it is known - nothing, however, stands opposed to the reference of יוּדע to the person: he is finally known, i.e., unmasked (lxx Jerome, γνωσθήσεται, manifestus fiet). Usually it is explained: he is knowing, clever, with the remark that נודע is here the passive of הודיע (Gesen., Ewald, Hitzig); Hiph. to give to feel; Niph. to become to feel, properly to be made to know (Luth.: made wise); but the passive of the Hiph. is the Hoph. Such a Niph. in which the causative (not simply transitive) signification of the Hiph. would be applied passively is without example (vid., Ewald, §133a); the meaning of Jer 31:19 also is: after I have become known, i.e., been made manifest, uncovered, drawn into the light.

Verse 10

This verse contains another proverb, similarly formed, parallel with the half of Pro 10:8 :
He that winketh with the eye causeth trouble;
And a foolish mouth comes to ruin.
Regarding the winking or nipping, i.e., the repeated nipping of the eyes (cf. nictare, frequent. of nicere), as the conduct of the malicious or malignant, which aims at the derision or injury of him to whom it refers, vid., under Pro 6:13; there קרץ was connected with ב of the means of the action; here, as Psa 35:19, cf. Pro 16:30, it is connected with the object accus. He who so does produces trouble (heart-sorrow, Pro 15:13), whether it be that he who is the butt of this mockery marks it, or that he is the victim of secretly concerted injury; יתּן is not here used impersonally, as Pro 13:10, but as Pro 29:15, cf. Lev 19:28; Lev 24:20, in the sense of the cause. 10b forms a striking contrast to 10a, according to the text of the lxx: ὁ δὲ ἐλεγχων μετὰ παῤῥησίας εἰρηνοποιεῖ, contrary to the Syr., by the Hebrew text, which certainly is older than this its correction, which Ewald and Lagarde unsuccessfully attempt to translate into the Hebrew. The foolish mouth, here understood in conformity with 10a, is one who talks at random, without examination and deliberation, and thus suddenly stumbles and falls over, so that he comes to lie on the ground, to his own disgrace and injury.

Verse 11

Another proverb, similar to the half of Pro 10:6 :
A fountain of life is the mouth of the righteous;
But the mouth of the godless hideth violence.
If we understand 11b wholly as 6b: os improborum obteget violentia, then the meaning of 11a would be, that that which the righteous speaks tends to his own welfare (Fl.). But since the words spoken are the means of communication and of intercourse, one has to think of the water as welling up in one, and flowing forth to another; and the meaning of 11b has to accommodate itself to the preceding half proverb, whereby it cannot be mistaken that חמס (violence), which was 6b subj., bears here, by the contrast, the stamp of the obj.; for the possibility of manifold windings and turnings is a characteristic of the Mashal. In the Psalms and Prophets it is God who is called מקור חיּים, Psa 36:10; Jer 2:13; Jer 17:13; the proverbial poetry plants the figure on ethical ground, and understands by it a living power, from which wholesome effects accrue to its possessor, Pro 14:27, and go forth from him to others, Pro 13:14. Thus the mouth of the righteous is here called a fountain of life, because that which he speaks, and as he speaks it, is morally strengthening, intellectually elevating, and inwardly quickening in its effect on the hearers; while, on the contrary, the mouth of the godless covereth wrong (violentiam), i.e., conceals with deceitful words the intention, directed not to that which is best, but to the disadvantage and ruin of his neighbours; so that words which in the one case bring to light a ground of life and of love, and make it effectual, in the other case serve for a covering to an immoral, malevolent background.

Verse 12

Another proverb of the different effects of hatred and of love:
Hate stirreth up strife,
And love covereth all transgressions.
Regarding מדנים, for which the Kerı̂ elsewhere substitutes מדינים, vid., under Pro 6:14. Hatred of one's neighbour, which is of itself an evil, has further this bad effect, that it calls forth hatred, and thus stirreth up strife, feuds, factions, for it incites man against man (cf. ערר, Job 3:8); on the contrary, love covers not merely little errors, but also greater sins of every kind (כּל־פּשׁעים), viz., by pardoning them, concealing them, excusing them, if possible, with mitigating circumstances, or restraining them before they are executed. All this lies in the covering. James, however, gives it, Jam 5:20, another rendering: love covers them, viz., from the eyes of a holy God; for it forgives them to the erring brother, and turns him from the error of his way. The lxx improperly translate πάντας δὲ τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας κελόπτει φιλία; but Peter (1Pe 4:8) as well as James, but none of the Greek versions; ἡ ἀγάπη καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. The Romish Church makes use of this passage as a proof for the introduction of the fides formata, viz., caritate, in justification, which is condemned in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession; and, indeed, the multitudo peccatorum is not meant of the sins of him who cherishes love, but of the sins of the neighbour. Sin stirs up hatred in men in their relation to one another; but love covers the already existing sins, and smooths the disturbances occasioned by them.

Verse 13

There follow now two other proverbs on the use and abuse of speech:
On the lips of the man of understanding wisdom is found;
And the rod for the back of the fool.
With Löwenstein, Hitzig, and others, it is inadmissible to regard ושׁבט as a second subject to תּמּצא. The mouth itself, or the word of the mouth, may be called a rod, viz., a rod of correction (Isa 11:4); but that wisdom and such a rod are found on the lips of the wise would be a combination and a figure in bad taste. Thus 13b is a clause by itself, as Luther renders it: “but a rod belongs to the fool's back;” and this will express a contrast to 13a, that while wisdom is to be sought for on the lips of the man of understanding (cf. Mal 2:7), a man devoid of understanding, on the contrary, gives himself to such hollow and corrupt talk, that in order to educate him to something better, if possible, the rod must be applied to his back; for, according to the Talmudic proverb: that which a wise man gains by a hint, a fool only obtains by a club. The rod is called שׁבט, from שׁבט, to be smooth, to go straight down (as the hair of the head); and the back גּו, from גּוה, to be rounded, i.e., concave or convex.

Verse 14

Pro 10:14 14 Wise men store up knowledge; But the mouth of the fool is threatening destruction.
Ewald, Bertheau, Hitzig, Oetinger: “The mouth of the fool blunders out, and is as the sudden falling in of a house which one cannot escape from.” But since מחתּה is a favourite Mishle-word to denote the effect and issue of that which is dangerous and destructive, so the sense is perhaps further to be extended: the mouth of the fool is for himself (Pro 13:3) and others a near, i.e., an always threatening and unexpectedly occurring calamity; unexpectedly, because suddenly he blunders out with his inconsiderate shame-bringing talk, so that such a fool's mouth is to every one a praesens periculum. As to יצפּנוּ, it is worthy of remark that in the Beduin, Arab. dfn, fut. i, signifies to be still, to be thoughtful, to be absorbed in oneself (vid., Wetstein on Job, p. 281). According to Codd. and editions, in this correct, וּפי־ is to be written instead of אויל uwpiy; vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 40.

Verse 15

A pair of proverbs regarding possession and gain.
Regarding possession:
The rich man's wealth is his strong city;
The destruction of the poor is their poverty.
The first line = Pro 18:11. One may render the idea according to that which is internal, and according to that which is external; and the proverb remains in both cases true. As עז may mean, of itself alone, power, as means of protection, or a bulwark (Psa 8:3), or the consciousness of power, high feeling, pride (Jdg 5:21); so קרית עזּו may be rendered as an object of self-confidence, and מחתּה, on the contrary, as an object of terror (Jer 48:39): the rich man, to whom his estate (vid., on הון, p. 63) affords a sure reserve and an abundant source of help, can appear confident and go forth energetically; on the contrary, the poor man is timid and bashful, and is easily dejected and discouraged. Thus e.g., Oetinger and Hitzig. But the objective interpretation is allowable, and lies also much nearer: the rich man stands thus independent, changes and adversities cannot so easily overthrow him, he is also raised above many hazards and temptations; on the contrary, the poor man is overthrown by little misfortunes, and his despairing endeavours to save himself, when they fail, ruin him completely, and perhaps make him at the same time a moral outlaw. It is quite an experienced fact which this proverb expresses, but one from which the double doctrine is easily derived: (1) That it is not only advised, but also commanded, that man make the firm establishing of his external life-position the aim of his endeavour; (2) That one ought to treat with forbearance the humble man; and if he always sinks deeper and deeper, one ought not to judge him with unmerciful harshness and in proud self-exaltation.

Verse 16

Regarding gain:
The gain of the righteous tendeth to life;
The income of the godless to sin.
Intentionally, that which the righteous received is called פּעלּה (as Lev 19:13), as a reward of his labour; that which the godless receives is called תּבוּאה, as income which does not need to be the reward of labour, and especially of his own immediate labour. And with לחיּים, לחטּאת runs parallel, from the supposition that sin carries the germ of death in itself. The reward of his labour serves to the righteous to establish his life, i.e., to make sure his life-position, and to elevate his life-happiness. On the contrary, the income of the godless serves only to ruin his life; for, made thereby full and confident, he adds sin to sin, whose wages is death. Hitzig translates: for expiation, i.e., to lose it again as atonement for past sins; but if חיים and חטאת are contrasted with each other, then חטאת is death-bringing sin (Pro 8:35.).

Verse 17

The group of proverbs now following bring again to view the good and bad effects of human speech. The seventeenth verse introduces the transition: 17 There is a way to life when one gives heed to correction; And whoever disregards instruction runs into error.
Instead of ארח חיּים (Pro 5:6), there is here ארח לחיים; and then this proverb falls into rank with Pro 10:16, which contains the same word לחיים. The accentuation denotes ארח as subst.; for ארח way, road = ארח [a wayfarer, part. of ארח] would, as שׁסע, Lev 11:7, נטע, Psa 94:9, have the tone on the ultima. It is necessary neither to change the tone, nor, with Ewald, to interpret ארח as abstr. pro concreto, like הלך, for the expression “wanderer to life” has no support in the Mishle. Michaelis has given the right interpretation: via ad vitam est si quis custodiat disciplinam. The syntactical contents, however, are different, as e.g., 1Sa 2:13, where the participle has the force of a hypothetical clause; for the expression: “a way to life is he who observes correction,” is equivalent to: he is on the way to life who...; a variety of the manner of expression: “the porch was twenty cubits,” 2Ch 3:4, particularly adapted to the figurative language of proverbial poetry, as if the poet said: See there one observant of correction - that (viz., the שׁמר [שׁמר, to watch] representing itself in this שׁמר) is the way to life. מוּסר and תּוכחת are related to each other as παιδεία and ἔλεγχος; עזב [עזב, to leave, forsake] is equivalent to בּלתּי שׁמר. מתעה would be unsuitable as a contrast in the causative sense: who guides wrong, according to which Bertheau understands 17a, that only he who observes correction can guide others to life. We expect to hear what injuries he who thinks to raise himself above all reproach brings on himself. Hitzig, in his Commentary (1858), for this reason places the Hithpa. מתּעה (rather write מתּעה) in the place of the Hiph.; but in the Comm. on Jeremiah (1866), 42:20, he rightly remarks: “To err, not as an involuntary condition, but as an arbitrary proceeding, is suitably expressed by the Hiph.” In like manner הוסיף, הגּיע (to touch), הרחיק (to go to a distance), denote the active conduct of a being endowed with reason; Ewald, §122, c. Jewish interpreters gloss מתעה by supplying נפשׁו; but it signifies only as inwardly transitive, to accomplish the action of the תּעות.

Verse 18

Pro 10:18 18 He that hideth hatred is a mouth of falsehood; And he that spreadeth slander is a fool.
The lxx, καλύπτουσιν ἔχθραν χεῖλα δίκαια, which Ewald prefers, and which has given occasion to Hitzig to make a remarkable conjecture (“He who conceals hatred, close lips,” which no one understands without Hitzig's comment. to this his conjecture). But (1) to hide hatred (cf. Pro 10:11, Pro 26:24) is something altogether different from to cover sin (Pro 10:12, Pro 17:9), or generally to keep anything secret with discretion (Pro 10:13); and (2) that δίκαια is a corrupt reading for ἄδικα (as Grabe supposes, and Symmachus translates) or δόλια (as Lagarde supposes, and indeed is found in Codd.). Michaelis well remarks: odium tectum est dolosi, manifesta sycophantia stultorum. Whoever conceals hateful feelings behind his words is שׂפתי־שׂקר, a mouth of falsehood (cf. the mouth of the fool, Pro 10:14); one does not need to supply אישׁ, but much rather has hence to conclude that a false man is simply so named, as is proved by Psa 120:3. There is a second moral judgment, 18b: he who spreadeth slander (וּמוצא, according to the Masoretic writing: he who divulges it, the correlate to הביא, to bring to, Gen 37:2) is a Thor fool, stupid, dull, כּסיל (not a Narr fool, godless person, אויל); for such slandering can generally bring no advantage; it injures the reputation of him to whom the דבּה, i.e., the secret report, the slander, refers; it sows discord, has incalculable consequences, and finally brings guilt on the tale-bearer himself.

Verse 19

Pro 10:19 19 In a multitude of words transgression is not wanting; But he who restrains his lips shows wisdom.
We do not, with Bertheau, understand 19a: by many words a transgression does not cease to be what it is; the contrast 19b requires a more general condemnation of the multitude of words, and חדל not only means to cease from doing (to leave off), and to cease from being (to take away), but also not at all to do (to intermit, Eze 3:11; Zec 11:12), and not at all to be (to fail, to be absent), thus: ubi verborum est abundantia non deest peccatum (Fl.). Michaelis suitably compares πολυλογία πολλὰ σφάλματα ἒχει by Stobäus, and כל המרבה דברים מביא חטא in the tractate Aboth i. 17, wherewith Rashi explains the proverb. פּשׁע is not here, as elsewhere, e.g., Psa 19:14, with special reference to the sin of falling away from favour, apostasy, but, like the post-biblical עברה, generally with reference to every kind of violation (פשׁע = Arab. fsq dirumpere) of moral restraint; here, as Jansen remarks, peccatum sive mendacii, sive detractionis, sive alterius indiscretae laesionis, sive vanitatis, sive denique verbi otiosi. In 19b it is more appropriate to regard משׂכּיל as the present of the internal transitive (intelligenter agit) than to interpret it in the attributive sense (intelligens).

Verse 20

Pro 10:20 20 Choice silver is the tongue of the righteous; But the heart of the godless is little worth.
Choice silver is, as Pro 8:19, cf. 10, pure, freed from all base mixtures. Like it, pure and noble, is whatever the righteous speaks; the heart, i.e., the manner of thought and feeling, of the godless is, on the contrary, like little instar nihili, i.e., of little or no worth, Arab. yasway kâlyla (Fl.). lxx: the heart of the godless ἐκλείψει, i.e., ימעט, at first arrogant and full of lofty plans, it becomes always the more dejected, discouraged, empty. But 20a leads us to expect some designation of its worth. The Targ. (according to which the Peshito is to be corrected; vid., Levy's Wörterbuch, ii. 26): the heart of the godless is מחתא (from נחת), refuse, dross. The other Greek versions accord with the text before us.

Verse 21

Pro 10:21 21 The lips of the righteous edify many; But fools die through want of understanding.
The lxx translate 21a: the lips of the righteous ἐπίσταται ὑψηλά, which would at least require ידעו רבות. רעה is, like the post-bibl. pir|neec (vid., the Hebr. Römerbrief, p. 97), another figure for the N.T. οἰκοδομεῖν: to afford spiritual nourishment and strengthening, to which Fleischer compares the ecclesiastical expressions: pastor, ovile ecclesiae, les ouailles; רעה means leader, Jer 10:21, as well as teacher, Ecc 12:11, for it contains partly the prevailing idea of leading, partly of feeding. ירעוּ stands for תּרעינה, as Pro 10:32, Pro 5:2. In 21b, Bertheau incorrectly explains, as Euchel and Michaelis: stulti complures per dementem unum moriuntur; the food has truly enough in his own folly, and needs not to be first drawn by others into destruction. חסר is not here the connective form of חסר (Jewish interpreters: for that reason, that he is such an one), nor of חסר (Hitzig, Zöckler), which denotes, as a concluded idea, penuria, but like רחב, Pro 21:4, שׁכב, Pro 6:10, and שׁפל, Pro 16:19, infin.: they die by want of understanding (cf. Pro 5:23); this amentia is the cause of their death, for it leads fools to meet destruction without their observing it (Hos 4:6).

Verse 22

Three proverbs which say that good comes from above, and is as a second nature to the man of understanding: 22 Jahve's blessing - it maketh rich; And labour addeth nothing thereto
Like 24a, היא limits the predicate to this and no other subject: “all depends on God's blessing.” Here is the first half of the ora et labora. The proverb is a compendium of Psa 127:1-2. 22b is to be understood, according to Psa 127:2 of this Solomonic psalm, not that God adds to His blessing no sorrow, much rather with the possession grants at the same time a joyful, peaceful mind (lxx, Targ., Syriac, Jerome, Aben-Ezra, Michaelis, and others), which would require the word עליה; but that trouble, labour, i.e., strenuous self-endeavours, add not (anything) to it, i.e., that it does not associate itself with the blessing (which, as the Jewish interpreters rightly remark, is, according to its nature, תוספת, as the curse is חסרון) as the causa efficiens, or if we supply quidquam, as the complement to עמּהּ along with it: nothing is added thereto, which goes along with that which the blessing of God grants, and completes it. Thus correctly Rashi, Luther, Ziegler, Ewald, Hitzig, Zöckler. the now current accentuation, לאו יוסף עצב עמּהּ, is incorrect. Older editions, as Venice 1525, 1615, Basel 1618, have ולא־יוסף עצב עמה, the transformation of ולא־יוסף עצב. Besides, עצב has double Segol (vid., Kimchi's Lex.), and יוסף is written, according to the Masora, in the first syllable plene, in the last defective.

Verse 23

Pro 10:23 23 Like sport to a fool is the commission of a crime; And wisdom to a man of understanding.
Otherwise Löwenstein: to a fool the carrying out of a plan is as sport; to the man of understanding, on the contrary, as wisdom. זמּה, from זמם, to press together, mentally to think, as Job 17:11, and according to Gesenius, also Pro 21:27; Pro 24:9. But זמּה has the prevailing signification of an outrage against morality, a sin of unchastity; and especially the phrase עשׂה זמּה is in Jdg 20:6 and in Ezekiel not otherwise used, so that all the old interpreters render it here by patrare scelus; only the Targum has the equivocal עבד עבידתּא; the Syriac, however, 'bd bı̂ taa'. Sinful conduct appears to the fool, who places himself above the solemnity of the moral law, as sport; and wisdom, on the contrary, (appears as sport) to a man of understanding. We would not venture on this acceptation of כּשׂחוק if שׂחק were not attributed, Pro 8:30., to wisdom itself. This alternate relationship recommends itself by the indetermination of חכמהו, which is not favourable to the interpretation: sed sapientiam colit vir intelligens, or as Jerome has it: sapientia autem est viro prudentia. The subjects of the antithesis chiastically combine within the verse: חכמה, in contrast to wicked conduct, is acting in accordance with moral principles. This to the man of understanding is as easy as sporting, just as to the fool is shameless sinning; for he follows in this an inner impulse, it brings to him joy, it is the element in which he feels himself satisfied.

Verse 24

Pro 10:24 24 That of which the godless is afraid cometh upon him, And what the righteous desires is granted to him.
The formation of the clause 24a is like the similar proverb, Pro 11:27; the subject-idea has there its expression in the genitival annexum, of which Gen 9:6 furnishes the first example; in this passage before us it stands at the beginning, and is, as in Pro 10:22, emphatically repeated with היא. מגורה, properly the turning oneself away, hence shrinking back in terror; here, as Isa 66:4, of the object of fear, parallel to תּאוה, wishing, of the object of the wish. In 24b Ewald renders יתּן as adj. from יתן (whence איתן ecne), after the form פּקּח, and translates: yet to the righteous desire is always green. But whether יתּן is probably formed from יתן, and not from נתן, is a question in Pro 12:12, but not here, where wishing and giving (fulfilling) are naturally correlata. Hitzig corrects יתּן, and certainly the supplying of 'ה is as little appropriate here as at Pro 13:21. Also a “one gives” is scarcely intended (according to which the Targ., Syr., and Jerome translate passively), in which case the Jewish interpreters are wont to explain יתן, scil. הנותן; for if the poet thought of יתן fo with a personal subject, why did he not rescue it from the dimness of such vague generality? Thus, then, יתן is, with Böttcher, to be interpreted as impersonal, like Pro 13:10; Job 37:10, and perhaps also Gen 38:28 (Ewald, §295a): what the righteous wish, that there is, i.e., it becomes actual, is fulfilled. In this we have not directly and exclusively to think of the destiny at which the godless are afraid (Heb 10:27), and toward which the desire of the righteous goes forth; but the clause has also truth which is realized in this world: just that which they greatly fear, e.g., sickness, bankruptcy, the loss of reputation, comes upon the godless; on the contrary that which the righteous wish realizes itself, because their wish, in its intention, and kind, and content, stands in harmony with the order of the moral world.

Verse 25

There now follows a series of proverbs, broken by only one dissimilar proverb, on the immoveable continuance of the righteous: 25 When the storm sweeps past, it is no more with the wicked; But the righteous is a building firm for ever.
How Pro 10:25 is connected with Pro 10:24 is shown in the Book of Wisdom 5:15 (the hope of the wicked like chaff which the wind pursues). The Aram., Jerome, and Graec. Venet. interpret כ of comparison, so that the destruction of the godless is compared in suddenness and rapidity to the rushing past of a storm; but then רוּח ought to have been used instead of סוּפה; and instead of ואין רשׁע with the ו apodosis, a disturbing element in such a comparison, would have been used יחלף רשׁע, or at least רשׁע אין. The thought is no other than that of Job 21:18 : the storm, which is called סופה, from סוּף, to rush forth, is meant, as sweeping forth, and כ the temporal, as Exo 11:4 (lxx παραπορευομένης καταιγίδος), with ו htiw ,)עןה apod. following, like e.g., after a similar member of a temporal sentence, Isa 10:25. סופה is a figure of God-decreed calamities, as war and pestilence, under which the godless sink, while the righteous endure them; cf. with 25a, Pro 1:27; Isa 28:18; and with 25b, Isa 3:25, Hab 2:4; Psa 91:1. “An everlasting foundation,” since עולם is understood as looking forwards, not as at Isa 58:12, backwards, is a foundation capable of being shaken by nothing, and synecdoch. generally a building. The proverb reminds us of the close of the Sermon on the Mount, and finds the final confirmation of its truth in this, that the death of the godless is a penal thrusting of them away, but the death of the righteous a lifting them up to their home. The righteous also often enough perish in times of war and of pestilence; but the proverb, as it is interpreted, verifies itself, even although not so as the poet, viewing it from his narrow O.T. standpoint, understood it; for the righteous, let him die when and how he may, is preserved, while the godless perishes.

Verse 26

This proverb stands out of connection with the series:
As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes,
So is the sluggard to them who gives him a commission.
A parabolic proverb (vid., p. 9), priamel-like in its formation (p. 13). Here and there לשּׁנּים is found with Mugrash, but in correct texts it has Rebîa-magnum; the verse is divided into two by Athnach, whose subordinate distributive is (Accentssystem, xi. §1) Rebîa-magnum. Smoke makes itself disagreeably perceptible to the sense of smell, and particularly to the eyes, which it causes to smart so that they overflow with tears; wherefore Virgil speaks of it as amarus, and Horace lacrimosus. חמץ (from חמץ, to be sour, harsh) signifies properly that which is sour, as acetum, ὄξος; here, after the lxx ὄμφαξ, the unripe grapes, but which are called בּסר (בּסר) (vid., under Job 15:33), by which the Syr., here following the lxx, translates, and which also in the Talmud, Demaï i. 1, is named חמץ, after a doubtful meaning (vid., Aruch, and on the other side Rashi), thus: vinegar, which the word commonly means, and which also accords with the object of the comparison, especially if one thinks of the sharp vinegar-wine of the south, which has an effect on the teeth denoted by the Hebr. verb קהה, as the effect of smoke is by כהה (Fl.). The plur. לשׁלחיו is that of the category, like Pro 22:21; Pro 25:13; the parallel אדניו of the latter passage does not at least make it necessary to regard it, like this, as a plur. excellentiae (Bertheau, Hitzig, Ewald). They who send a sluggard, i.e., who make him their agent, do it to their own sorrow; his slothfulness is for them, and for that which they have in view, of dull, i.e., slow and restrained, of biting, i.e., sensibly injurious operation.

Verse 27

From this point the proverbs fall into the series connecting themselves with Pro 10:25 : 27 The fear of Jahve multiplies the days of life; But the years of the godless are shortened.
This parable, like Pro 10:25, also corresponds with the O.T. standpoint, having in view the present life. The present-life history confirms it, for vice destroys body and soul; and the fear of God, which makes men contented and satisfied in God, is truly the right principle of longevity. But otherwise also the pious often enough die early, for God carries them away מפני הרעה from the face of the evil, Isa 57:1.; or if they are martyrs for the truth (Psa 44:23, cf. Psa 60:6), the verification of the above proverb in such cases moves forward (Wisd. 4:7ff.) into eternity, in which the life of the pious continues for ever, while that of the godless loses itself with his death in the state of everlasting death. Pro 9:11, cf. Pro 3:2, resembles 27a. Instead of תּקצרנה, תקצרנה was to be expected; but the flexion does not distinguish the transitive קצר (Arab. ḳaṣara) and intransitive קצר (Arab. ḳaṣura) as it ought.

Verse 28

Pro 10:28 28 The expectation of the righteous is gladness And the hope of the godless comes to nothing. תּוחלת as well as תּקוה proceed on the fundamental idea of a strained earnest looking back upon something, the same fundamental idea which in another view gives the meaning of strength (חיל, Arab. ḥayl; ḳuwwat, kawiyy, cf. גּדל, Arab. jdl, plectere, and גּדול, strong and strength). The substantival clause 28a denotes nothing more than: it is gladness (cf. Pro 3:17, all their steps are gladness), but which is equivalent to, it is that in its issue, in gaudium desinit. Hitzig's remark that תוחלת is the chief idea for hope and fear, is not confirmed by the usage of the language; it always signifies joyful, not anxious, expectation; cf. the interchange of the same two synonyms Pro 13:7, and תּאות, Psa 112:10, instead of תּקות (here and Job 8:13). While the expectation of the one terminates in the joy of the fulfilment, the hope of the other (אבד, R. בד, to separate) perishes, i.e., comes to nothing.

Verse 29

Pro 10:29 29 Jahve's way is a bulwark to the righteous; But ruin to those that do evil.
Of the two meanings which מעז (מעוז) has: a stronghold from עזז, and asylum (= Arab. m'adz) from עוּז, the contrast here demands the former. 'דּרך ה and 'יראת ה, understood objectively, are the two O.T. names of true religion. It means, then, the way which the God of revelation directs men to walk in (Psa 143:8), the way of His precepts, Psa 119:27, His way of salvation, Psa 67:3 (4); in the N.T. ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, Mat 22:16; Act 18:25.; cf. ἡ ὁδός simply, Act 9:2; Act 24:14. This way of Jahve is a fortress, bulwark, defence for innocence, or more precisely, a disposition wholly, i.e., unreservedly and without concealment, directed toward God and that which is good. All the old interpreters, also Luther, but not the Graec. Venet., translate as if the expression were לתּם; but the punctuation has preferred the abstr. pro concreto, perhaps because the personal תּם nowhere else occurs with any such prefix; on the contrary, תּם is frequently connected with ב, כ, ל. לתם דרך, integro viae (vitae), are by no means to be connected in one conception (Ziegler, Umbr., Elster), for then the poet ought to have written מעז יהוה לתם־דרך. 29b cannot be interpreted as a thought by itself: and ruin (vid., regarding מחתּה, ruina, and subjectively consternatio, Pro 10:16) comes to those who do evil; but the thought, much more comprehensive, that religion, which is for the righteous a strong protection and safe retreat, will be an overthrow to those who delight only in wickedness (vid., on און, p. 143), is confirmed by the similarly formed distich, Pro 21:15. Also almost all the Jewish interpreters, from Rashi to Malbim, find here expressed the operation of the divine revelation set over against the conduct of men - essentially the same as when the Tora or the Chokma present to men for their choice life and death; or the gospel of salvation, according to 2Co 2:15, is to one the savour of life unto life, to another the savour of death unto death.

Verse 30

Pro 10:30 30 The righteous is never moved; But the godless abide not in the land.
Love of home is an impulse and emotion natural to man; but to no people was fatherland so greatly delighted in, to none was exile and banishment from fatherland so dreadful a thought, as it was to the people of Israel. Expatriation is the worst of all evils with which the prophets threatened individuals and the people, Amo 7:17, cf. Isa 22:17.; and the history of Israel in their exile, which was a punishment of their national apostasy, confirms this proverb and explains its form; cf. Pro 2:21., Psa 37:29. בּל is, like Pro 9:13, the emphatic No of the more elevated style; נמוט, the opposite of נכון, Pro 12:3; and שׁכן signifies to dwell, both inchoative: to come to dwell, and consecutive: to continue to dwell (e.g., Isa 57:15, of God who inhabiteth eternity). In general, the proverb means that the righteous fearlessly maintains the position he takes; while, on the contrary, all they who have no hold on God lose also their outward position. But often enough this saying is fulfilled in this, that they, in order that they may escape disgrace, became wanderers and fugitives, and are compelled to conceal themselves among strangers.

Verse 31

For the third time the favourite theme already handled in three appendixes is taken up:
The mouth of the righteous bringeth forth wisdom,
And the tongue of falsehood shall be rooted up.
Regarding the biblical comparison of thoughts with branches, and of words with flowers and fruits, vid., my Psychol. p. 181; and regarding the root נב (with its weaker אב), to swell up and to spring up (to well, grow, etc.), vid., what is said in the Comm. on Genesis on נביא, and in Isaiah on עוב. We use the word נוּב of that which sprouts or grows, and נבב of that which causes that something sprout; but also נוב may, after the manner of verbs of being full (Pro 3:10), of flowing (Gesen. §138, 1, Anm. 2), take the object accus. of that from which anything sprouts (Pro 24:31), or which sprouting, it raises up and brings forth (cf. Isa 57:19). The mouth of the righteous sprouts, brings forth (in Psa 37:30, without a figure, יהגּה, i.e., utters) wisdom, which in all relations knows how to find out that which is truly good, and suitable for the end intended, and happily to unriddle difficult complications. The conception of wisdom, in itself practical (from חכם, to be thick = solid, firm), here gains such contents by the contrast: the tongue - whose character and fruit is falsehood, which has its delight in intentional perversions of fact, and thus increaseth complications (vid., regarding תּהפּכות, Pro 2:12) - is rooted up, whence it follows as regards the mouth of the righteous, that it continues for ever with that its wholesome fruit.

Verse 32

Pro 10:32 32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable; But the mouth of the godless is mere falsehood.
Hitzig, instead of ידעוּן, reads יבּעוּן; the ἀποστάζει [they distil or send forth] of the lxx does not favour this, for it is probably only a corruption of ἐπίσταται, which is found in several MSS the Graec. Venet., which translates ποιμανοῦσι, makes use of a MS which it sometimes misreads. The text does not stand in need of any emendations, but rather of a corrected relation between the clauses, for the relation of 31a with 32b, and of 32a with 31b, strongly commends itself (Hitzig); in that case the explanation lies near: the lips of the righteous find what is acceptable, viz., to God. But this thought in the Mashal language is otherwise expressed (Pro 12:2 and paral.); and also 32a and 32b fit each other as contrasts, if by רצון, as Pro 11:27; Pro 14:9, is to be understood that which is acceptable in its widest generality, equally then in relation to God and man. It is a question whether ידעון means that they have knowledge of it (as one e.g., says ידע ספר, to understand writing, i.e., the reading of it), or that they think thereupon (cf. Pro 27:23). Fundamentally the two ideas, according to the Hebrew conception of the words, lie in each other; for the central conception, perceiving, is biblically equivalent to a delighted searching into or going towards the object. Thus: the lips of the righteous think of that which is acceptable (רצון, cogn. to חן, gracefulness; χάρις, Col 4:6); while the mouth of the godless is mere falsehood, which God (the wisdom of God) hates, and from which discord on all sides arises. We might transfer ידעון to 32b; but this line, interpreted as a clause by itself, is stronger and more pointed (Fl.).

Chap. 11

Verse 1

The next three proverbs treat of honesty, discretion, and innocence or dove-like simplicity: 1 Deceitful balances are an abomination to Jahve; But a full weight is His delight.
The very same proverb, with slightly varied expression, is found in Pro 20:23; and other such like proverbs, in condemnation of false and in approbation of true balances, are found, Pro 20:10; Pro 16:11; similar predicates, but connected with other subjects, are found at Pro 12:22; Pro 15:8. “An abomination to Jahve” is an expression we have already twice met with in the introduction, Pro 3:32; Pro 6:16, cf. Pro 8:7; תּועבה is, like תּועה, a participial noun, in which the active conception of abhorring is transferred to the action accomplished. רצון is in post-biblical Hebr. the designation of the arbitrium and the voluntas; but here רצונו signifies not that which God wishes, but that which He delights in having. “מרמה (here for the first time in Proverbs), from רמה, the Piel of which means (Pro 26:19) aliquem dolo et fraude petere. אבן, like the Pers. sanak, sanakh, Arab. ṣajat, a stone for weight; and finally, without any reference to its root signification, like Zec 5:8, אבן העופרת, a leaden weight, as when we say: a horseshoe of gold, a chess-man of ivory.”

Verse 2

Now follows the Solomonic “Pride goeth before a fall.”
There cometh arrogance, so also cometh shame;
But with the humble is wisdom.
Interpreted according to the Hebr.: if the former has come, so immediately also comes the latter. The general truth as to the causal connection of the two is conceived of historically; the fact, confirmed by many events, is represented in the form of a single occurrence as a warning example; the preterites are like the Greek aoristi gnomici (vid., p. 32); and the perf., with the fut. consec. following, is the expression of the immediate and almost simultaneous consequence (vid., at Hab 3:10): has haughtiness (זדון after the form לצון, from זיד, to boil, to run over) appeared, then immediately also disgrace appeared, in which the arrogant behaviour is overwhelmed. The harmony of the sound of the Hebr. זדון and קלון cannot be reproduced in German [nor in English]; Hitzig and Ewald try to do so, but such a quid pro quo as “Kommt Unglimpf kommt an ihn Schimpf” [there comes arrogance, there comes to him disgrace] is not a translation, but a distortion of the text. If, now, the antithesis says that with the humble is wisdom, wisdom is meant which avoids such disgrace as arrogance draws along with it; for the צנוּע thinks not more highly of himself than he ought to think (R. צן, subsidere, demitti, Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitsch. xxv. 185).

Verse 3

Pro 11:3 3 The integrity of the upright guideth them; But the perverseness of the ungodly destroyeth them.
To the upright, ישׁרים, who keep the line of rectitude without turning aside therefrom into devious paths (Psa 125:4.), stand opposed (as at Pro 2:21.) the ungodly (faithless), בּגדים, who conceal (from בּגד, to cover, whence בּגד = כּסוּת) malicious thoughts and plans. And the contrast of תּמּה, integrity = unreserved loving submission, is סלף, a word peculiar to the Solomonic Mashal, with its verb סלּף (vid., p. 32). Hitzig explains it by the Arab. saraf, to step out, to tread over; and Ewald by lafat, to turn, to turn about (“treacherous, false step”), both of which are improbable. Schultens compares salaf in the meaning to smear (R. לף, לב, ἀλείφειν; cf. regarding such secondary formations with ש preceding, Hupfeld on Psa 5:7), and translates here, lubricitas. But this rendering is scarcely admissible. It has against it lexical tradition (Menahem: מוטה, wavering; Perchon: זיוף, falsifying; Kimchi: עוות, misrepresentation, according to which the Graec. Venet. σκολιότης), as well as the methodical comparison of the words. The Syriac has not this verbal stem, but the Targum has סלף in the meaning to distort, to turn the wrong way (σκολιοῦν, στρεβλοῦν), Pro 10:10, and Est 6:10, where, in the second Targum, פּוּמהּ אסתּלף means “his mouth was crooked.” With justice, therefore, Gesenius in his Thesaurus has decided in favour of the fundamental idea pervertere, from which also the Peshito and Saadia proceed; for in Exo 23:8 they translate (Syr.) mhapêk (it, the gift of bribery, perverts) and (Arab.) tazyf (= תּזיּף, it falsifies). Fl. also, who at Pro 15:4 remarks, “סלף, from סלף, to stir up, to turn over, so that the lowermost becomes the uppermost,” gives the preference to this primary idea, in view of the Arab. salaf, invertere terram conserendi causa. It is moreover confirmed by salaf, praecedere, which is pervertere modified to praevertere. But how does סלף mean perversio (Theod. ὑποσκελισμός), in the sense of the overthrow prepared for thy neighbour? The parallels demand the sense of a condition peculiar to the word and conduct of the godless (treacherous), Pro 22:12 (cf. Exo 23:8), Pro 19:3, thus perversitas, perversity; but this as contrary to truth and rectitude (opp. תּמּה), “perverseness,” as we have translated it, for we understand by it want of rectitude (dishonesty) and untruthfulness. While the sincerity of the upright conducts them, and, so to say, forms their salvus conductus, which guards them against the danger of erring and of hostile assault, the perverseness of the treacherous destroys them; for the disfiguring of truth avenges itself against them, and they experience the reverse of the proverb, “das Ehrlich währt am längsten” (honesty endures the longest). The Chethı̂b ושׁדם (ושׁדּם) is an error of transcription; the Kerı̂ has the proper correction, ישׁדּם = ישׁדדם, Jer 5:6. Regarding שׁדד (whence שׁדּי), which, from its root-signification of making close and fast, denotes violence and destruction, vid., under Gen 17.

Verse 4

Three proverbs in praise of צדקה: 4 Possessions are of no profit in the day of wrath; But righteousness delivereth from death.
That which is new here, is only that possessions and goods (vid., regarding הון, p. 63) are destitute of all value in the day of the μέλλουσα ὀργή; for יום עברה, the day of wrath breaking through the limits (of long-suffering), has the same meaning as in the prophets; and such prophetic words as Isa 10:3; Zep 1:18, and, almost in the same words, Eze 7:19, are altogether similar to this proverb. The lxx, which translates ἐν ήμέρᾳ ἐπαγωγῆς, harmonizes in expression with Sir. 5:8, cf. 2:2. Theodotion translates איד, Pro 27:10, by ἐπαγωγή (providence, fate).

Verse 5

Pro 11:5 5 The righteousness of the blameless smootheth his way, And by his own wickedness doth the wicked fall.
With the תּמים (cf. Pro 1:12), formed after the passive, more than with תּם, is connected the idea of the perfected, but more in the negative sense of moral spotlessness than of moral perfection. The rectitude of a man who seeks to keep his conscience and his character pure, maketh smooth (ישּׁר, as Pro 3:6, not of the straightness of the line, but of the surface, evenness) his life's path, so that he can pursue his aim without stumbling and hindrance, and swerving from the direct way; while, on the contrary, the godless comes to ruin by his godlessness - that by which he seeks to forward his interests, and to make a way for himself, becomes his destruction.

Verse 6

Pro 11:6 6 The rectitude of the upright saveth them, And in their own covetousness are the faithless taken.
The integrity of those who go straight forward and straight through, without permitting themselves to turn aside on crooked ways, delivers them from the snares which are laid for them, the dangers they encounter; while, on the contrary, the faithless, though they mask their intentions ever so cunningly, are ensnared in their passionate covetousness: the mask is removed, they are convicted, and are caught and lost. Regarding הוּה, abyss, overthrow, also stumbling against anything = covetousness, vid., at Pro 10:3, and under Psa 5:10. The form of the expression 6b follows the scheme, “in the image of God created He man,” Gen 9:6. The subject is to be taken from the genitive, as is marked by the accentuation, for it gives Mugrash to the וּבהוּת, as if it were the principal form, for וּבהוּה.

Verse 7

Three proverbs regarding destruction and salvation: 7 When a godless man dies, his hope cometh to nought, And the expectation of those who stand in fulness of strength is destroyed.
We have already remarked in the Introduction that אדם is a favourite word of the Chokma, and the terminological distinction of different classes and properties of men (vid., pp. 40, 42); we read, Pro 6:12, אדם בּליּעל, and here, as also Job 20:29; Job 27:13, אדם רשׁע, cf. Pro 21:29, אישׁ רשׁע, but generally only רשׁע is used. A godless man, to whom earthly possessions and pleasure and honour are the highest good, and to whom no means are too base, in order that he may appease this his threefold passion, rocks himself in unbounded and measureless hopes; but with his death, his hope, i.e., all that he hoped for, comes to nought. The lxx translate τελευτήσαντος ἀνδρὸς δικαίου οὐκ ὄλλυται ἐλπίς, which is the converse of that which is here said, 7a: the hope of the righteous expects its fulfilment beyond the grave. The lxx further translate, τὸ δὲ καύχημα (וּתהלּת) τῶν ἀσεβῶν ὄλλυται; but the distich in the Hebr. text is not an antithetic one, and whether אונים may signify the wicked (thus also the Syr., Targ., Venet., and Luther), if we regard it as a brachyology for אנשׁי אונים, or as the plur. of an adj. און, after the form טוב (Elazar b. Jacob in Kimchi), or wickedness (Zöckler, with Hitzig, “the wicked expectation”), is very questionable. Yet more improbable is Malbim's (with Rashi's) rendering of this אונים, after Gen 49:3; Psa 78:51, and the Targ. on Job 18:12, of the children of the deceased; children gignuntur ex robore virili, but are not themselves the robur virile. But while אונים is nowhere the plur. of און fo . in its ethical signification, it certainly means in Psa 78:51, as the plur. of און, manly strength, and in Isa 40:26, Isa 40:29 the fulness of strength generally, and once, in Hos 9:4, as plur. of און in its physical signification, derived from its root-meaning anhelitus (Gen 35:18, cf. Hab 3:7), deep sorrow (a heightening of the און, Deu 26:14). This latter signification has also been adopted: Jerome, expectatio solicitorum; Bertheau, “the expectation of the sorrowing;” Ewald, ”continuance of sorrow;” but the meaning of this in this connection is so obscure, that one must question the translators what its import is. Therefore we adhere to the other rendering, “fulness of strength,” and interpret אונים as the opposite of אין אונים, Isa 40:29, for it signifies, per metonymiam abstracti pro concr., those who are full of strength; and we gain the meaning that there is a sudden end to the expectation of those who are in full strength, and build their prospects thereon. The two synonymous lines complete themselves, in so far as אונים gains by אדם רשׁע the associated idea of self-confidence, and the second strengthens the thought of the first by the transition of the expression from the fut. to the preterite (Fl.). ותוחלת has, for the most part in recent impressions, the Mugrash; the correct accentuation, according to codices and old impressions, is ותוחלת אונים (vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 10, §4).

Verse 8

Pro 11:8 8 The righteous is delivered from trouble, And the godless comes in his stead.
The succession of the tenses gives the same meaning as when, periodizing, we say: while the one is delivered, the other, on the contrary, falls before the same danger. נחלץ (vid., under Isa 58:11) followed by the historical tense, the expression of the principal fact, is the perfect. The statement here made clothes itself after the manner of a parable in the form of history. It is true there are not wanting experiences of an opposite kind (from that here stated), because divine justice manifests itself in this world only as a prelude, but not perfectly and finally; but the poet considers this, that as a rule destruction falls upon the godless, which the righteous with the help of God escapes; and this he realizes as a moral motive. In itself תּחתּיו may also have only the meaning of the exchange of places, but the lxx translate αντ ̓ αὐτοῦ, and thus in the sense of representation the proverb appears to be understood in connection with Pro 21:18 (cf. the prophetico-historical application, Isa 43:4). The idea of atonement has, however, no application here, for the essence of atonement consists in the offering up of an innocent one in the room of the guilty, and its force lies in the offering up of self; the meaning is only, that if the divinely-ordained linking together of cause and effect in the realms of nature and of history brings with it evil, this brings to the godless destruction, while it opens the way of deliverance for the righteous, so that the godless becomes for the righteous the כּפר, or, as we might say in a figure of similar import, the lightning conductor.

Verse 9

Pro 11:9 9 The wicked with his mouth prepareth destruction for his neighbour; But by knowledge the righteous are delivered from it.
The lxx translate, ἐν στόματι ἀσεβῶν παγὶς (רשׁת?) πολίταις, αἴσθησις δὲ δικαίοις εὔοδος, (יצלחו). There is no reason for changing (with Hitzig and Ewald) the text, which in the form in which it is here translated was before all other translators (Aq., Symmachus, Theodotion, Syr., Targ., Jerome). The accentuation, which separates the two instrumental statements by greater disjunctives from that which follows, is correct. The “three” Greek versions viz. of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus translate חנף by ὑποκριτής, which it means in the modern idiom; but in the ancient Hebr. it signifies, him who is resolved upon evil, as in Arab. ḥanyf, him who is resolved upon that which is right: he who turns aside to evil enters on a path far removed from that which is right. In ישׁחית one is reminded (without any etymological reason) of שׁחת (pit), and so in יחלצוּ of משּׁחיתותם (Psa 107:20) or a similar word; but בּדּעת contains the reference, in this connection not easy to be mistaken, to the hostile purposes of the wicked masked by the words of the mouth, which are seen through by the righteous by virtue of knowledge which makes them acquainted with men. This penetrating look is their means of deliverance.

Verse 10

Three proverbs follow relating to the nature of city and national life, and between them two against mockery and backbiting: 10 In the prosperity of the righteous the city rejoiceth; And if the wicked come to ruin, there is jubilation.
The בּ of בּטוּב denotes the ground but not the object, as elsewhere, but the cause of the rejoicing, like the ב 10b, and in the similar proverb, Pro 29:2, cf. Pro 28:12. If it goes well with the righteous, the city has cause for joy, because it is for the advantage of the community; and if the wicked (godless) come to an end, then there is jubilation (substantival clause for תּרן), for although they are honoured in their lifetime, yet men breathe freer when the city is delivered from the tyranny and oppression which they exercised, and from the evil example which they gave. Such proverbs, in which the city (civitas) represents the state, the πόλις the πολιτεία, may, as Ewald thinks, be of earlier date than the days of an Asa or Jehoshaphat; for “from the days of Moses and Joshua to the days of David and Solomon, Israel was a great nation, divided indeed into many branches and sections, but bound together by covenant, whose life did not at all revolve around one great city alone.” We value such critical judgments according to great historical points of view, but confess not to understand why קריה must just be the chief city and may not be any city, and how on the whole a language which had not as yet framed the conception of the state (post-bibl. מדינה), when it would described the community individually and as a whole, could speak otherwise than of city and people.

Verse 11

Pro 11:11 11 By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, But by the mouth of the godless it is broken down.
This verse is related, in the way of confirming it, to Pro 11:10. The lxx, which omits Pro 11:4, here omits 10b and 11a, and combines 10a and 11b into one proverb (vid., Lagarde). The meaning is clear: “by the benedictions and pious prayers of the upright a city rises always to a higher eminence and prosperity; while, on the contrary, the deceitful, arrogant, blasphemous talk of the godless brings ruin to it” (Fl.). The nearest contrast to “by the blessing of the upright” would be “by the cursing of the wicked,” but not in the sense of the poet, who means to say that the city raises itself by the blessing of the upright, and on the contrary, when godless men are exalted, then by their words (whose blessing is no better than their curse) it comes to ruin. קרת (= קריה) occurs only four times in Proverbs, and in Job 29:7.

Verse 12

There now follow two proverbs which refer to the intercourse of private life.
He who mocketh his neighbour is devoid of understanding;
But the intelligent man remaineth silent.
Pro 14:21 is a proverb similarly beginning with בּז לרעהוּ, Pro 13:13 is another beginning with בּז לדבר. From this one sees that בּוּז ל (cf. בּזה ל, Isa 37:22) does not mean a speaking contemptuously in one's presence; as also from Pro 6:30, that contemptuous treatment, which expresses itself not in mockery but in insult, is thus named; so that we do not possess a German [nor an English] expression which completely covers it. Whoever in a derisive or insulting manner, whether it be publicly or privately, degrades his neighbour, is unwise (חסר־לב as pred., like Pro 6:32); an intelligent man, on the contrary, keeps silent, keeps his judgment to himself, abstains from arrogant criticisms, for he knows that he is not infallible, that he is not acquainted with the heart, and he possesses too much self-knowledge to raise himself above his neighbour as a judge, and thinks that contemptuous rejection, unamiable, reckless condemnation, does no good, but on the contrary does evil on all sides.

Verse 13

Pro 11:13 13 He who goeth about tattling revealeth secrets; But he who is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter.
The tattler is called רכיל (intensive form of רכל), from his going hither and thither. אנשׁי רכיל, Eze 22:9, are men given to tattling, backbiters; הולך רכיל (cf. Lev 19:16), one of the tattlers or backbiters goes, a divulger of the matter, a tell-tale. It is of such an one that the proverb speaks, that he reveals the secret (סוד, properly the being close together for the purpose of private intercourse, then that intercourse itself, vid., at Psa 25:14); one has thus to be on his guard against confiding in him. On the contrary, a נאמן־רוּח, firmus (fidus) spiritu, properly one who is established, or reflexively one who proves himself firm and true (vid., at Gen 15:6), conceals a matter, keeps it back from the knowledge and power of another. Zöckler rightly concludes, in opposition to Hitzig, from the parallelism that the הולך רכיל is subject; the arrangement going before also shows that this is the “ground-word” (Ewald); in Pro 20:19 the relation is reversed: the revealer of secrets is rightly named (cf. Sir. 27:16, ὁ ἀποκαλύπτων μυστήρια, κ.τ.λ.).

Verse 14

Pro 11:14 14 Where there is no direction a people fall But where there is no want of counsellors there is safety.
Regarding תּחבּות, vid., at Pro 1:5. There it means rules of self-government; here, rules for the government of the people, or, since the pluralet. denotes a multiplicity in unity, circumspect κυβέρνησις. With 14b, Pro 24:6 (where direction in war, as here in peace, is spoken of, and the meaning of the word specializes itself accordingly) agrees; cf. also Pro 15:22. Hitzig criticises the proverb, remarking, “we who have the longest resorted to many counsellors, as a consequence of the superabundance have learned to say, 'Too many cooks spoil the broth,' and, 'He who asks long, errs.'” But the truth of the clause 14b is in modern times more fully illustrated in the region of ecclesiastical and political affairs; and in general it is found to be true that it is better with a people when they are governed according to the laws and conclusions which have resulted from the careful deliberation of many competent and authorized men, than when their fate is entrusted unconditionally to one or to a few. The proverb, it must be acknowledge, refers not to counsellors such as in Isa 3:3, but as in Isa 1:26.

Verse 15

There follow now two proverbs regarding kindness which brings injury and which brings honour:
It fares ill, nothing but ill, with one who is surety for another;
But he who hateth suretyship remaineth in quietness.
More closely to the original: It goes ill with him; for the proverb is composed as if the writer had before his eyes a definite person, whom one assails when he for whom he became security has not kept within the limits of the performance that was due. Regarding ערב with the accus. of the person: to represent one as a surety for him, and זר as denoting the other (the stranger), vid., at Pro 6:1. The meaning of רע ירוע is seen from Pro 20:16. ירוע is, like Pro 13:20, the fut. Niph. of רעע, or of רוּע = רעע, after the forms ימּול, יעור (Olsh. §265e). The added רעע has, like עריה, Hab 3:9, the same function as the inf. absol. (intensivus); but as the infin. form רע could only be inf. constru. after the form שׁך, Jer 5:26, the infinitive absol. must be רוע: Thus רע is an accus., or what is the same, an adverbial adj.: he is badly treated (maltreated) in a bad way, for one holds him to his words and, when he cannot or will not accomplish that which is due in the room of him for whom he is bail, arrests him. He, on the contrary, who hates תוקעים has good rest. The persons of such as become surety by striking the hands cannot be meant, but perhaps people thus becoming surety by a hand-stroke - such sureties, and thus such suretyship, he cannot suffer; תוקעים approaches an abstract “striking hands,” instead of “those who strike hands” in connection with this שׂנא, expressing only a strong impossibility, as חבלים, Zec 2:7, 14, means uniting together in the sense of combination.

Verse 16

Pro 11:16 16 A gracious woman retaineth honour, And strong men retain riches.
The lxx had אשׁת חן (not אשׁת חיל ton( א) in view: γυνὴ εὐχάριστος ἐγείρει ἀνδρὶ δόξαν, - this ἀνδρί is an interpolation inserted for the sake of the added line, θρόνος δὲ ἀτιμίας γυνὴ μισοῦσα δίκαια. The proverb thus expanded is on both sides true: an amiable woman (gratiosa) brings honour to her husband, gives him relief, while one who hates the right (that which is good, gentle) is a disgraceful vessel (opp. כּסּא כּבוד, Isa 22:23), which disfigures the household, makes the family unloved, and lowers it. But the commencing line, by which 16b is raised to an independent distich, is so much the more imperfect: πλούτου ὀκνηροὶ ἐνδεεῖς γίνονται; for that the negligent (idle) bring it not to riches, is, as they are wont in Swabia to call such truisms, a Binsenwahrheit. But it is important that the translation of 16b, οἱ δὲ ἀνδρεῖοι ἐρείδονται πλούτῳ (the Syr. has “knowledge” for riches), presupposes the phrase וחרוּצים (cf. Pro 10:4, lxx), and along with it this, that יתמכו עשׁר is so rendered as if the words were יסמכוּ בעשׁר, is to be regarded as unhistorical. If we now take the one proverb as it is found in the Hebr. text, then the repetition of the תמך in the two lines excites a prejudice in favour of it. The meaning of this otherwise difficult תמך is missed by Löwenstein and Zöckler: a gracious woman retaineth honour (Symm. ἀνθέξεται δόξης); for (1) תמך חיל would better agree with this predicate, and (2) it is evident from Pro 29:23 that תמך כבוד is not to be understood in the sense of firmiter tenere, but in the inchoative sense of consequi honorem, whence also the ἐγείρει ἀνδρί of the lxx. It is true that Pro 31:30 states that “grace (חן) is nothing,” and that all depends on the fear of God; but here the poet thinks on “grace” along with the fear of God, or he thinks on them as not separated from each other; and since it is boldly true, which is moreover besides this true, that a wife of gracious outward appearance and demeanour obtains honour, her company is sought, she finds her way into the best society, they praise her attractive, pleasant appearance, and that the husband also of such a wife participates to some extent in this honour. Experience also confirms it, that the עריצים, strong men, obtain riches (cf. Isa 49:25); and this statement regarding the עריצים fits better as a contrast to 16a, as a like statement regarding the חרוצים, diligent, for the עריץ (from ערץ, to place in terror, Psa 10:18), whose power consists in terrorism or violence, is the most direct contrast of a wife, this σκεῦος ἀσθενέστερον, who by heart-winning attraction makes yet better conquests: she thereby obtains a higher good, viz., honour, while the former gains only riches, for “a name” (viz., a good one) “is better than great riches,” Pro 22:1. If we read חרוצים, this thoughtful contrast is lost.

Verse 17

Three proverbs regarding benevolence: 17 The benevolent man doeth good to his own soul, And the violent man brings trouble on his own flesh.
Many interpreters reverse the relation of subject and predicate (Targ. only in 17b, after the phrase ודמוביד, for which the Syr. has only ומובד): qui sibi ipsi benefacit, is quidem erga alios quoque benignus praesumitur, quum caritas ordinata a se ipsa incipiat; qui vero carnem suam male habet, est crudelis erga alios (Michaelis). But this cannot be established; for certainly it occurs that whoever does good to himself does good also to others, and that whoever is hard against himself also judges and treats others harshly; but in by far the greatest number of cases the fact is this, that he who does not deny anything to himself is in relation to others an egoist, and this is not a “benevolent man;” and, on the contrary, that he who denies to himself lawful enjoyments is in relation to others capable of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and thus is the contrast of a “violent man.” The word of Sirach, 14:5, ὁ πονηρὸς ἑαυτῷ τίνα ἀγαθὸς ἔσται, to which Bertheau appeals, alludes to the niggard, and it is true indeed that this עכר שׁארו, but not every עכר שׁארו, is a niggard. Thus the “benevolent man” and the “violent man” will be the two subject conceptions, and as it is said of the benevolent (חסר as e.g., Hos 6:6, of a more restricted sense, as Isa 57:1) that he does good (גּמל, viz., טוב, Pro 31:12), so of the violent (unmerciful) (אכזרי as Pro 12:20; Jer 6:23; Jer 50:42) that he brings evil on his own flesh (lxx αὐτοῦ σῶμα); for שׁארו as a parallel word to נפשׁו (cf. p. 141) signifies not blood-relations (Symm., Jerome, Luther, and Grotius), but it has here, as at Mic 3:2, its nearest signification, from which it then comes to signify those who are of our flesh and blood. But for that reason the meaning of the poet cannot be that given by Elster: “he who exercises benevolence toward others creates within himself a determination which penetrates his whole being with generous and fruitful warmth, as on the other hand the feeling of hatred deprives the heart of him who cherishes it of the true fountain of life.” If this were meant, then soul and spirit, not soul and flesh, would stand in parallelism. The weal and woe refers thus to the divine retribution which requites the conduct of a man toward his neighbours, according to its character, with reward or punishment (Hitzig, Zöckler).

Verse 18

Man consists of body and soul. In regard to both, benevolence brings its reward, and hatred its punishment.
The godless acquires deceptive gain;
But he that soweth righteousness, a true reward.
Jerome makes 18b an independent clause, for he translates it as if the word were written וּלזרע; the Syr. and Targ. also, as if אמתּו שׂכרו (his fidelity is his reward). But according to the text as it stands, עשׂה extends its regimen to both parts of the verse; to make is here equivalent to, to work out, to acquire, περιποιεῖσθαι, as Gen 31:1; Jer 17:1, etc. The labour of the godless has selfishness as its motive, and what he acquires by his labour is therefore “delusive gain,” - it is no blessing, it profits him not (Pro 10:2), and it brings him no advantage (Pro 10:16). He, on the contrary, acquires truth, i.e., a truly profitable and enduring reward, who sows right-doing, or better: good-doing, by which we also, as the biblical moral in צדקה, think principally of well-doing, unselfish activity and self-sacrificing love. Hos 10:12 speaks of sowing which has only צדקה as the norm; and how צדקה is understood is seen from the parallel use of חסד [piety]. The “true reward” is just the harvest by which the sowing of the good seed of noble benevolent actions is rewarded.

Verse 19

Pro 11:19 19 Genuine righteousness reaches to life, And he who pursues evil does it to his death.
The lxx translate υἱὸς δίκαιος, and the Syrian follows this unwarrantable quid pro quo; the Bible uses the phrase בן־עולה and the like, but not בן־צדקה. The Graec. Venet. (translating οὕτω) deprives the distich of its supposed independence. The Targ. renders כּן with the following ו as correlates, sic ... uti; but כן in comparative proverbs stands naturally in the second, and not in the first place (vid., p. 10). Without doubt כן is here a noun. It appears to have a personal sense, according to the parallel וּמרדּף, on which account Elster explains it: he who is firm, stedfast in righteousness, and Zöckler: he who holds fast to righteousness; but כן cannot mean “holding fast,” nor does מכונן; - “fast” does not at all agree with the meaning of the word, it means upright, and in the ethical sense genuine; thus Ewald better: “he who is of genuine righteousness,” but “genuine in (of) righteousness” is a tautological connection of ideas. Therefore we must regard כן as a substantival neuter, but neither the rectum of Cocceius nor the firmum of Schultens furnishes a naturally expressed suitable thought. Or is כּן a substantive in the sense of 2 Kings 7:31? The word denotes the pedestal, the pillar, the standing-place; but what can the basis refer to here (Euchel)? Rather read “aim” (Oetinger) or “direction” (Löwenstein); but כן does not take its meaning from the Hiph. הכין. One might almost assume that the Chokma-language makes כּן, taliter, a substantive, and has begun to use it in the sense of qualitas (like the post-bibl. איכוּת), so that it is to be explained: the quality of righteousness tendeth to life. But must we lose ourselves in conjectures or in modifications of the text (Hitzig, כּנּס, as a banner), in order to gain a meaning from the word, which already has a meaning? We say דּבּר כּן, to speak right (Num 27:7), and עשׂות כּן, to do right (Ecc 8:10); in both cases כּן means standing = consisting, stedfast, right, recte. The contrast is לא־כן, 2Ki 7:9, which is also once used as a substantive, Isa 16:6 : the unrighteousness of his words. So here כן is used as a substantive connected in the genitive, but not so that it denotes the right holding, retaining of righteousness, but its right quality - שׁל־צדקה אמתּה, as Rashi explains it, i.e., as we understand it: genuineness, or genuine showing of righteousness, which is not mere appearance without reality. That כּנים denotes such people as seek to appear not otherwise than what they truly are, is in favour of this interpretation. Such genuine righteousness as follows the impulse of the heart, and out of the fulness of the heart does good, has life as its result (Pro 19:23), an inwardly happy and externally a prosperous life; on the other hand, he who wilfully pursues evil, and finds in it satisfaction, brings death upon himself: he does it to his death, or if we make (which is also possible) רדּף the subject: it tends to his death. Thus in other words: Love is life; hatred destroys life.

Verse 20

The following proverbs are especially directed, as connected with this כן, against the contradiction of the external appearance and of the masked internal nature. 20 An abomination to Jahve are the crookedly dishonest of heart, And they who are of honest walk are his delight.
We read, Pro 2:15; Pro 8:8, עקּשׁ (the form of the transgressions); but here, where the “crookedness” is transferred to the heart, we require another word, which renders the idea of falseness, the contrary of directness, lying in it, without any mixture of the fundamental conception flexuosus or tortuosus. תּמימי דרך are not only those whose walk is externally without offence and blameless, but, in conformity with the contrast, those whose manner of conduct proceeds from a disposition that is pure, free from deception and concealment. Jerome, et voluntas ejus in iis qui qimpliciter ambulant. But the word is not bit|mymy; they the upright are themselves His רצון (Pro 11:1) delight: He regards them, and only them, with satisfaction.

Verse 21

Pro 11:21 21 Assuredly the hand to it the wicked remaineth not unpunished, But the seed of the righteous is delivered.
The lxx render here, as Pro 16:5, where the יד ליד repeats itself, χειρὶ χεῖρας ἐμβαλὼν ἀδίκως, which is not to be understood, as Evagrius supposes, of one that can be bribed, but only of a violent person; the Syr. and Targ. have the same reference; but the subject is certainly רע, and a governing word, as נשׂא (2Sa 20:21), is wanting, to say nothing of the fact that the phrase “one hand against the other” would require the words to be יד ביד. Jerome and the Graec. Venet., without our being able, however, to see their meaning. The translation of the other Greek versions is not given. The Jewish interpreters offer nothing that is worthy, as e.g., Immanuel and Meîri explain it by “immediately,” which in the modern Hebr. would require מיּד, and besides is not here suitable. The Midrash connects with 21a the earnest warning that he who sins with the one hand and with the other does good, is nevertheless not free from punishment. Schultens has an explanation to give to the words which is worthy of examination: hand to hand, i.e., after the manner of an inheritance per posteros (Exo 20:5), resting his opinion on this, that Arab. yad (cf. יד, Isa 56:5) is used among other significations in that of authorizing an inheritance. Gesenius follows him, but only urging the idea of the sequence of time (cf. Pers. dest bedest, hand to hand = continuing after one another), and interprets יד ביד as Fleischer does: ab aetate in aetatem non (i.e., nullo unquam tempore futuro) erit impunis scelestus, sed posteri justorum salvi erunt. According to Böttcher, “hand to hand” is equivalent to from one hand to another, and this corresponds to the thought expressed in Plutarch's de sera numinis vindicta: if not immediately, yet at last. We may refer in vindication of this to the fact that, as the Arab. lexicographers say, yad, used of the course of time, means the extension (madd) of time, and then a period of time. But for the idea expressed by nunquam, or neutiquam, or tandem aliquando, the language supplied to the poet a multitude of forms, and we do not see why he should have selected just this expression with its primary meaning alternatim not properly agreeing with the connection. Therefore we prefer with Ewald to regard יד ליד as a formula confirmation derived from the common speech of the people: hand to hand (ל as in לידי, Job 17:3), i.e., the hand for it I pledge it, guarantee it (Bertheau, Hitzig, Elster, Zöckler). But if 21a assures by the pledge of the hand, and as it were lays a wager to it, that the wicked shall not go unpunished, then the genitive in זרע צדּיקים is not that of dependence by origin, but, as Isa 65:23; Isa 1:4, the genitive of apposition, for זרע here, as דּור, Psa 24:6; Psa 112:2, denotes a oneness of like origin and of like kind, but with a preponderance of the latter. נמלט is the 3rd pret., which by the preceding fut. retains the reference to the future: the merited punishment comes on the wicked, but the generation of the righteous escapes the judgment. רּע has the ר dagheshed (Michlol 63d) according to the rule of the דחיק, according to which the consonant first sounded after the word terminating in an accented a or é is doubled, which is here, as at Pro 15:1, done with the ר.

Verse 22

Pro 11:22 22 A golden ring in a swine's snout - A fair woman and without delicacy.
This is the first instance of an emblematical proverb in which the first and second lines are related to each other as figure and its import, vid., p. 9. The lxx translates rhythmically, but by its ὥσπερ ... οὕτως it destroys the character of this picture-book proverbial form. The nose-ring, נזם, generally attached to the right nostril and hanging down over the mouth (vid., Lane's Manners, etc.) is a female ornament that has been in use since the time of the patriarchs (Gen 24:47). If one supposes such a ring in a swine's snout, then in such a thing he has the emblem of a wife in whom beauty and the want of culture are placed together in direct contrast. טעם is taste carried over into the intellectual region, the capability of forming a judgment, Job 12:20, and particularly the capability of discovering that which is right and adapted to the end in view, 1Sa 25:33 (of Abigail), here in accordance with the figure of a beast with which the ideas of uncleanness, shamelessness, and rudeness are associated, a mind for the noble, the fine, the fitting, that which in the higher and at the same time intellectual and ethical sense we call tact (fine feeling); סרת (alienata) denotes the want of this capacity, not without the accompanying idea of self-guilt.

Verse 23

Pro 11:23 23 The desire of the righteous is nothing but good, The expectation of the godless is presumption.
This is usually explained with Fleischer: If the righteous wish for anything, their wish reaches to no other than a fortunate issue; but if the godless hope for anything, then there is to them in the end as their portion, not the good they hoped for, but wrath (Pro 10:28, cf. Pro 11:4). However, that עברה is at once to be understood thus, as in יום עברה, and that the phrase is to be rendered: the hope of the godless is God's wrath, is doubtful. But עברה denotes also want of moderation, and particularly in the form of presumption, Pro 21:24, Isa 16:6; and thus we gain the thought that the desire of the righteous is directed only to that which is good, and thus to an object that is attainable because well-pleasing to God, while on the contrary the hope of the godless consists only in the suggestions of their presumption, and thus is vain self-deceit. The punctuation תאות צדיקים is contrary to rule; correct texts have תאות צדיקים, for Dechî stands before Athnach only if the Athnach-word has two syllables (Torath Emeth, p. 43; Accentssystem, xviii. §4).

Verse 24

Three proverbs regarding giving which is not loss but gain. 24 There is one who giveth bounteously, and he increaseth still more; And (there is) one who withholdeth what is due, only to his loss.
The first of the proverbs with ישׁ (there is), which are peculiar to the first collection (vid., p. 32). The meaning is, that the possessions of the liberal giver do not decrease but increase, and that, on the contrary, the possessions of the niggardly do not increase but decrease. מפזּר is not to be understood after Psa 112:9. Instead of ונוסף עוד the three Erfurt codd. have ונוסף (with retrogression of the tone?), which Hitzig approves of; but the traditional phrase which refers (et qui augetur insuper) ונוסף not to the possession of him who scattereth, but to himself, is finer in the expression. In the characteristic of the other, מיּשׁר is commonly interpreted comparatively: plus aequo (Cocceius) or justo (Schelling). But מן after חשׂך is to be regarded as governed by it, and ישׁר denotes not competence, riches, as Arab. yusr (Bertheau, Zöckler), also not uprightness = beneficence (Midrash, מן הצדקה), but duty, uprightness, as Job 33:23, where it denotes that which is advantageous to man, as here that which befits him: he who holds back, namely himself, from that which is due to himself, and thus should permit to himself, such an one profits nothing at all by this ἀφειδία (17b, Col 2:23), but it tends only to loss to him, only to the lessening of that which he possesses. We shall meet with this (למחסּור) אך למחסור Pro 14:23, and frequently again - it is a common Mashal formula (cf. καὶ τόσῳ μᾶλλον ὑστερεῖται, Sir. 11:11). The cause of the strange phenomenon that the liberal gains and the niggardly loses is not here expressed, but the following proverb gives the explanation of it:

Verse 25

Pro 11:25 25 A liberal soul [soul of blessing] is made fat, And he that watereth others is also watered.
A synonymous distich (vid., p. 7). A soul of blessing is one from whom blessings go out to others, who is even a blessing to all with whom he comes into fellowship; בּרצה denotes also particularly the gifts of love, 1Sa 25:27, בּרך denotes, if the Arab. is right, which derives it from the fundamental idea “to spread out:” to cause to increase and prosper by means of word and deed. The blessing which goes out from such a soul comes back again to itself: תדשּׁן (as Pro 13:4; Pro 28:25), it is made fat, gains thereby sap and strength in fulness; the Pual refers to the ordinance of God; Pro 22:9 is kindred in meaning to this anima benefica pinguefiet. In 25b יורא is the Aramaic form of writing, but without the Aramaic vocalization (cf. Pro 1:10. תּבא, Isa 21:12 ויּתא). Perhaps the א makes it noticeable that here a different word from יורה, morning rain, is used; however, Symm. translates πρωΐνός, and the Graec. Venet. (Kimchi following it) ὑετός. As a rule, we do not derive יורא from ירה, of which it would be the Hophal (= יוּרה, as הודע, Lev 4:23, = הוּדע) (Ewald, §131f.); for the idea conspergitur, which the Ho. of the Hiph. יורה, Hos 6:3, expresses, is, as correlate to מרוה, as a parallel word to תדשּׁן, one not of equal force. Jerome was guided by correct feeling, for he translates: et qui inebriat ipse quoque inebriabitur. The stem-word is certainly רוה, whether it is with Hitzig to be punctuated יוּרא = ירוה, or with Fleischer we are to regard יורא as derived per metathesin from ירוה, as for Arab. ârây (to cause to see) is used^[58] the vulgar Arab. ârway (in the Syr. Arab.) and âwray (in the Egypt. Arab.). We prefer the latter, for the passing of יורה (from ירוה) into יורה is according to rule, vid., at Pro 23:21.

Verse 26

Pro 11:26 26 Whoso withholdeth corn, him the people curse; But blessing is on the head of him that selleth it.
This proverb is directed against the corn-usurer, whose covetousness and deceitful conduct is described in Amo 8:4-8. But whilst it is there said that they cannot wait till the burdensome interruption of their usurious conduct on account of the sacred days come to an end, the figure here is of a different aspect of their character: they hold back their stores of corn in the times of scarcity, for they speculate on receiving yet higher prices for it. בּר (from בּרר, to purify, to be pure) is thrashed grain, cf. Arab. burr, wheat, and naḳḳy of the cleaning of the grain by the separation from it of the tares, etc. (Fl.); the word has Kametz, according to the Masora, as always in pause and in the history of Joseph. מנע has Munach on the syllable preceding the last, on which the tone is thrown back, and Metheg with the Tsere as the sign of a pause, as Pro 1:10 בּצע (vid., p. 67). משׁבּיר, qui annonam vendit, is denom. of שׁבר, properly that which is crushed, therefore grain (Fl.). לאמּים, which we would understand in the Proph. of nations, are here, as at Pro 24:24, the individuals of the people. The בּרצה which falls on the head of the charitable is the thanks of his fellow-citizens, along with all good wishes.

Verse 27

That self-sacrificing endeavour after the good of others finds its regard in the thought encircling the following proverbs. 27 He that striveth after good, seeketh that which is pleasing; And he that searcheth after evil, it shall find him.
Here we have together three synonyms of seeking: בּקּשׁ (R. בק, findere), which has the general meaning quaerere, from the root-idea of penetrating and pressing forwards; דּרשׁ (R. דר .R( , terere), which from the root-idea of trying (proving) corresponds to the Lat. studere; and שׁחר (whence here שׁחר instead of משׁחר, as דּבר instead of מדבּר), which means mane, and thus sedulo quaere (vid., at Pro 1:28). From 27b, where by רעה is meant evil which one prepares for another, there arises for טוב the idea of good thoughts and actions with reference to others. He who applies himself to such, seeks therewith that which is pleasing, i.e., that which pleases or does good to others. If that which is pleasing to God were meant, then this would have been said (cf. Pro 12:2); the idea here is similar to Pro 10:32, and the word יבקּשׁ is used, and not ימצא, because reference is not made to a fact in the moral government of the world, but a description is given of one who is zealously intent upon good, and thus of a noble man. Such an one always asks himself (cf. Mat 7:12): what will, in the given case, be well-pleasing to the neighbour, what will tend to his true satisfaction? Regarding the punctuation here, שׁחר, vid., at Pro 11:26. The subject to תבואנּוּ, which, Pro 10:24, stands as the fundamental idea, here follows from the governed רעה, which may be the gen. (Psa 38:13) as well as the accus.

Verse 28

Pro 11:28 28 He that trusteth in his riches shall fall, And the righteous shall flourish like the green leaf. יפּול (plene after the Masora) as well as the figure וכעלה (cf. for the punctuation וכעשׁן, Pro 10:26) are singular, but are understood if one observes that in 28a a withered tree, and in 28b a tree with leaves ever green, hovers before the imagination of the poet (cf. Psa 1:4; Jer 17:8). The proud rich man, who on the ground of his riches appears to himself to be free from danger, goes on to his ruin (יפול as Pro 11:5, and frequently in the Book of Proverbs), while on the contrary the righteous continues to flourish like the leaf - they thus resemble the trees which perennially continue to flourish anew. Regarding עלה as originally collective (Symm. θάλλος), vid., at Isa 1:30, and regarding פּרח (R. פר, to break), here of the continual breaking forth of fresh-growing leaf-buds, vid., at Isa 11:1. The apostolic word names this continual growth the metamorphosis of believers, 2 Cor. 2:18. The lxx has read וּמעלה (approved by Hitzig): and he who raiseth up the righteous.

Verse 29

Pro 11:29 29 He that troubleth his own household shall inherit the wind, And a fool becomes servant to the wise in heart.
Jerome well translates: qui conturbat domum suam, for עכר closely corresponds to the Lat. turbare; but with what reference is the troubling or disturbing here meant? The Syr. translates 29a doubly, and refers it once to deceit, and the second time to the contrary of avarice; the lxx, by ὁ μὴ συμπεριφερόμενος τῷ ἑαυτοῦ οἴκῳ, understands one who acts towards his own not unsociably, or without affability, and thus not tyrannically. But עכר שׁארו Pro 11:17, is he who does not grudge to his own body that which is necessary; עכר ישׂראל is applied to Elijah, 1Ki 18:17, on account of whose prayer there was a want of rain; and at Pro 15:27 it is the covetous who is spoken of as עכר בּיתו. The proverb has, accordingly, in the man who “troubles his own house” (Luth.), a niggard and sordid person (Hitzig) in view, one who does not give to his own, particularly to his own servants, a sufficiency of food and of necessary recreation. Far from raising himself by his household arrangements, he shall only inherit wind (ינחל, not as the Syr. translates, ינחיל, in the general signification to inherit, to obtain, as Pro 3:35; Pro 28:10, etc.), i.e., he goes always farther and farther back (for he deprives his servants of all pleasure and love for their work in seeking the prosperity of his house), till in the end the reality of his possession dissolves into nothing. Such conduct is not only loveless, but also foolish; and a foolish person (vid., regarding אויל at Pro 1:7) has no influence as the master of a house, and generally is unable to maintain his independence: “and the servant is a fool to him who is wise of heart.” Thus the lxx (cf. also the lxx of Pro 10:5), Syr., Targ., Jerome, Graec. Venet., Luth. construe the sentence. The explanation, et servus stulti cordato (sc. addicitur), i.e., even the domestics of the covetous fool are at last partakers in the wise beneficence (Fl.), places 29b in an unnecessary connection with 29a, omits the verb, which is here scarcely superfluous, and is not demanded by the accentuation (cf. e.g., Pro 19:22).

Verse 30

Pro 11:30 30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And the wise man winneth souls.
The lxx translate, ἐκ καρποῦ δικαιοσύνης φύεται δένδρον ζωῆς; Hitzig takes thence the word צדק; but this translation discredits itself by the unnatural reversal of the relation of fruit and tree. The fruit of the righteous is here not the good which his conduct brings to him, as Isa 3:10; Jer 32:19, but his activity itself proceeding from an internal impulse. This fruit is a tree of life. We need to supplement פּרי [fruit] as little here as ארח [a traveller] at Pro 10:17; for the meaning of the proverb is, that the fruit of the righteous, i.e., his external influence, itself is a tree of life, namely for others, since his words and actions exert a quickening, refreshing, happy influence upon them. By this means the wise (righteousness and wisdom come together according to the saying of the Chokma, Pro 1:7) becomes a winner of souls (לקח as Pro 6:25, but taken in bonam partem), or, as expressed in the N.T. (Mat 4:19), a fisher of men, for he gains them not only for himself, but also for the service of wisdom and righteousness.

Verse 31

Pro 11:31 31 Lo, the righteous findeth on earth his reward; How much more the godless and the sinner!
The particles אף כּי signify properly, interrogatively: Shall it yet be said that...; it corresponds to the German “geschweige denn” [nedum] (Fl.). הן is already in bibl. Hebr. in the way of becoming a conditional particle; it opens, as here, the antecedent of a gradatio a minori ad majus introduced by אף כי, Job 15:15., Pro 25:5., cf. הן (הנה) with ואיך following, Gen 44:8; 2Sa 12:18. 2Sa 13:13 presents itself as the nearest parallel to שׁלּם, where it means, to be rewarded. It is a vocabulum anceps, and denotes full requital, i.e., according to the reference, either righteous reward or righteous punishment. If 30a is understood of reward, and 30b of punishment, then the force of the argument in the conclusion consists in this, that the righteous can put forth no claim to a recompense, because his well-doing is never so perfect as not to be mingled with sin (Ecc 7:20; Psa 143:2); while, on the contrary, the repression of the wicked, who, as רשׁע as to his intention, and חוטא as to his conduct, actually denies his dependence on God, is demanded by divine holiness. But the conclusion is not stringent, since in the relation of God to the righteous His dispensation of grace and faithfulness to promises also come into view, and thus in both cases ישׁלּם appears to require the same interpretation: if the righteous does not remain unrevenged, so much more shall not the godless and the sinner remain..., or how much less shall the godless and the sinner remain so. Thus the Graec. Venet., Θεῷ ὁ δίκαιος ἐν τῇ γῇ ἀποτιθήσεται; thus also Luther, and among the moderns Löwenstein and Elster. Of the proverb so understood the lxx version, εἰ ὁ μὲν δίκαιος μόλις (μόγις) σώζεται, ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται (cf. 1Pe 4:18) may be a free translation, for in the ישׁלם there certainty lies, according to the sense, a כּמעט יוּשׁע. Also ישׁלם has the principal tone, not בארץ. The thought: even on this side (on earth), lies beyond the sphere of the O.T. consciousness. The earth is here the world of man.

Chap. 12

Verse 1

Three proverbs on knowledge, the favour of God, firmness and the means thereto. 1 He loveth correction who loveth knowledge, And he hateth instruction who is without reason.
It is difficult in such cases to say which is the relation of the ideas that is intended. The sequence of words which lies nearest in the Semitic substantival clause is that in which the predicate is placed first; but the subject may, if it is to be made prominent, stand at the head of the sentence. Here, 1b, the placing of the subject in advance recommends itself: one who hates instruction is devoid of reason. But since we have no reason in 1a to invert the order of the words as they lie together, we take the conceptions placed first in both cases as the predicates. Thus: he who loves knowledge shows and proves that he does so by this, that he willingly puts himself in the place of a learner; and devoid of reason is he who with aversion rejects reproof, which is designed to guard him from future mistakes and false steps. Regarding the punctuation דעת אהב (with Mercha on the ante-penult. and the העמדה-sign on the penult.), vid., at Pro 11:26., Pro 1:19. In 1b the Munach in תוכחת is transformed from Mugrash (Accentssystem, xviii. §2), as in Pro 15:10. בּער (cf. Pro 30:2) is a being who is stupid as the brute cattle (בּעיר, from בּער, to graze, cattle of all kinds; Arab. b'ayr, the beast κατ ̓ ἐξ., i.e., the camel); as a homo brutus is compared to a בּהמּה (Ps. 49:21), 73:22), and is called Arab. behymt, from bahym, “shut up” (spec. dabb, a bear; thwr, an ox; ḥamâr, an ass) (Fl.).

Verse 2

Pro 12:2 2 A good man obtaineth favour with Jahve, But the man of wicked devices He condemns.
He who is an אישׁ מזמּות (Pro 14:17, cf. Psa 37:7) is defined in Pro 24:8 : he is a man of devices, namely, that are wicked, one who contrives evil against his neighbour. The meaning of the subject-conception טוב is defined according to this, although in itself also it is clear, for טוב, used of God (e.g., Psa 73:1; Psa 86:5) and of men (Pro 13:22; Pro 14:14), denotes the good (bonus) in the sense of the benevolent (benignus); the Scripture truths, that God is love, that love is the essence of goodness and is the fulfilling of the law, are so conformed to reason, that they stamp themselves as immediate component parts of the human consciousness. A טוב is thus a man who acts according to the ruling motive of self-sacrificing love; such an one obtains (vid., on יפיק, educit = adipiscitur, at Pro 3:13) the favour of God, He is and shows Himself kind to him, while on the contrary He condemns the wicked intriguer. Hitzig translates: the former of intrigues is punishable (as the Syr.: is condemned; Targ.: his contrivance is shattered to pieces); but to become a רשׁע = reus הרשׁיע does not denote, but either to practise רשׁע, Job 34:12, or to set forth as רשׁע = to condemn, Isa 50:9. Taken in the former signification (Jerome, impie agit), a declaration is made which is not needed, since the moral badness already lies in the reference of the subject: thus ירשׁיע will be used also of Jahve. In proof that the poet did not need to say ואת־אישׁ, Zöckler rightly points to Pro 10:6; Job 22:29.

Verse 3

Pro 12:3 3 A man does not stand by wickedness, But the root of the righteous remains unmoved.
In רשׁע there lies the idea of want of inward stay (vid., at Psa 1:1); in a manner of thought and of conduct which has no stay in God and His law, there can be expected no external endurance, no solidity. The righteous, on the contrary, have their root in God; nothing can tear them from the ground in which they are rooted, they are as trees which no storm outroots. The very same thought is clothed in other words in Pro 10:25, and another statement regarding the root of the righteous is found at Pro 12:12.

Verse 4

We now place together Pro 12:4-12. One proverb concerning the house-wife forms the beginning of this group, and four regarding the management of the house and business form the conclusion. 4 A good brave wife is the crown of her husband, But as rottenness in his bones is one that causeth shame.
As Pro 11:16 says of אושׁת חן, the pleasant wife (חן = χάρις), that she obtaineth honour, so this proverb of אושׁת חיל, the good wife (חיל = ἀρετή, virtus), that she raises her husband to higher honour: she is for his self-consciousness στέφανος καυχήσεως (1Th 2:19), and is also to him such a crown of honour before the world (cf. Pro 31:23). On the contrary, a מבישׁה, conducting herself shamefully (cf. regarding the double meaning of this Mishle word, which only here occurs in the fem., at Pro 10:5), is to her husband instar cariei in ossibus. רקב (רקב, Pro 10:7) denotes both the caries and the worm-hole (cf. Job 41:19, עץ רקּבון, worm-eaten wood). Like as the caries slowly but continuously increases, till at last the part of the body which the bone bears and the whole life of the man falls to ruin; so an unhappy marriage gnaws at the marrow of life, it destroys the happiness of life, disturbs the pursuit, undermines the life of the husband.

Verse 5

Pro 12:5 5 The thoughts of the righteous are justice, The counsels of the godless are deceit.
They are so, that is, in their contents and their aim. To the righteous are ascribed מחשׁבות, namely, simple and clear; to the godless, תּחבּות, carefully thought out, prudently thought through schemes and measures, but on that very account not simple, because with a tendency; for the righteous have an objective rule, namely, that which is right in the sight of God and of men, but the godless have only a selfish purpose, which they seek to attain by deceiving, and at the cost of, their neighbour.

Verse 6

Pro 12:6 6 The word of the godless is to lie in wait for the blood of others, But the mouth of the upright delivereth them.
Our editions have דברי רשׁעים, but the right sequence of the accents (in Cod. 1294 and elsewhere) is דברי רשׁעים; the logical relation in this transformation, which is only rhythmically conditioned, remains the same. The vocalization wavers between ארב־, which would be imper., and ארב־, which is infin., like אמר־, Pro 25:7, ענשׁ־, Pro 21:11, אכל־, Gen 3:11. However one punctuates it, the infin. is intended in any case, in which the expression always remains sketchy enough: the words of the godless are lying in wait for blood, i.e., they are calculated to bring others to this, into the danger of their lives, e.g., before the tribunal by false charges and false witness. דּם is the accus. of the object; for instead of ארב לדם (Pro 1:11), to lurk for blood, a shorter expression, ארב דּם, is used (Ewald, §282a). The suffix of יצּילם^[59] might appear, after Pro 11:6, to refer back to the ישׁרים; but the thought that their mouth saves the upright, that they thus know to speak themselves out of the danger, is by far less appropriate (vid., on the contrary, בדעת, Pro 11:9) than the thought that the mouth of the upright delivereth from danger those whose lives are threatened by the godless, as is rightly explained by Ewald, Bertheau, Elster. The personal subject or object is in the Mashal style often to be evolved from the connection, e.g., Pro 14:26; Pro 19:23.

Verse 7

Pro 12:7 7 The godless are overturned and are no more, But the house of the righteous stands.
Bertheau and Zöckler explain: The wicked turn about, then are they no more; i.e., as we say: it is over with them “in the turning of a hand.” The noun in the inf. absol. may certainly be the subject, like Pro 17:12, as well as the object (Ewald, §328c), and הפך may be used of the turning about of oneself, Psa 78:9; 2Ki 5:26; 2Ch 9:12. That explanation also may claim for itself that הפך nowhere occurs with a personal object, if we except one questionable passage, Isa 1:7. But here the interpretation of the רשׁעים as the object lies near the contrast of בית, and moreover the interpretation of the הפך, not in the sense of στρέφεσθαι (lxx), but of καταστρέφειν (Syr., Targ., Jerome, Graec. Venet., Luther), lies near the contrast of יעמד. The inf. absol. thus leaves the power from which the catastrophe proceeds indefinite, as the pass. יהפפכוּ would also leave it, and the act designedly presented in a vague manner to connect with ו the certain consequences therewith, as Pro 25:4., as if to say: there comes only from some quarter an unparalleled overthrow which overwhelms the godless; thus no rising up again is to be thought on, it is all over with them; while, on the contrary, the house of the righteous withstands the storm which sweeps away the godless.

Verse 8

Pro 12:8 8 According to the measure of his intelligence is a man praised, And whoever is of a perverse mind is despised.
Everywhere in the Mishle שׂכל has no other meaning than intellectus. The praise which is given to a man measures itself לפי שׂכלו (punctuate לפי־שׂכלו, according to Torath Emeth, p. 41, Accentssystem, xx. §1), i.e., according to the measure (so לפי is used in the oldest form of the language) of his intelligence, or as we may also say, of his culture; for in these proverbs, which make the fear of God the highest principle, שׂכל means also understanding of moral excellence, not merely the intellectual superiority of natural gifts. הלּל is here a relative conception of manifold gradations, but it does not mean renown in general, but good renown. Parallel with שׂכלו, לב refers to the understanding (νοῦς); the rendering of Löwenstein, “who is of false heart,” is defective. נעוה (synon. of נפתּל and עקּשׁ, but nowhere else interchanging with it) means here a vero et recto detortus et aversus (Fl.). Such a man who has not a good understanding, nor any certain rule of judgment, falls under contempt (Graec. Venet. τῷ ὀντωτῇ εἰς μυσαγμόν, after the false reading of יהוה instead of יהיה), i.e., he defames himself by his crooked judgment of men, of things and their relations, and is on this account in no position rightly to make use of them.

Verse 9

Pro 12:9 9 Better is he who is lowly and has a servant, Than he that makes himself mighty and is without bread.
This proverb, like Pro 15:17, commends the middle rank of life with its quiet excellences. נקלה (like 1Sa 18:23), from קלה, cognate with קלל, Syr. 'kly, to despise, properly levi pendere, levem habere (whence קלון, scorn, disgrace), here of a man who lives in a humble position and does not seek to raise himself up. Many of the ancients (lxx, Symmachus, Jerome, Syr., Rashi, Luther, Schultens) explain ועבד לו by, and is a servant to himself, serves himself; but in that case the words would have been עבד לנפשׁו (Syr. דּמשׁמּשׁ נפשׁהּ), or rather ועבדּו הוּא. ועבד לו would be more appropriate, as thus pointed by Ziegler, Ewald, and Hitzig. But if one adheres to the traditional reading, and interprets this, as it must be interpreted: et cui servus (Targ., Graec. Venet.), then that supplies a better contrast to וחסר־לחם, for “the first necessity of an oriental in only moderate circumstances is a slave, just as was the case with the Greeks and Romans” (Fl.). A man of lowly rank, who is, however, not so poor that he cannot support a slave, is better than one who boasts himself and is yet a beggar (2Sa 3:29). The Hithpa. often expresses a striving to be, or to wish to appear to be, what the adj. corresponding to the verb states, e.g., התגּדּל, התעשּׁר; like the Greek middles, εζεσθαι, αζεσθαι, cf. התחכּם and σοφίζεσθαι. So here, where with Fleischer we have translated: who makes himself mighty, for כבד, gravem esse, is etymologically also the contrast of קלה. The proverb, Sirach 10:26: κρείσσων ἐργαζόμενος καὶ περισσεύων ἐν πᾶσιν, ἢ δοξαζόμενος καὶ ἀπορῶν ἄρτων (according to the text of Fritzsche), is a half remodelling, half translation of this before us.

Verse 10

Pro 12:10 10 The righteous knows how his cattle feel, And the compassion of the godless is cruel.
The explanation: the righteous taketh care for the life of his beast (Fl.), fails, for 10a is to be taken with Exo 23:9; נפשׁ signifies also the state of one's soul, the frame of mind, the state of feeling; but ידע has, as in the related proverb, Pro 27:23, the meaning of careful cognizance or investigation, in conformity with which one acts. If the Torâ includes in the law of the Sabbath (Exo 20:10; Exo 23:12) useful beasts and cattle, which are here especially meant, and secures to them the reward of their labour (Deu 25:4); if it forbids the mutilation, and generally the giving of unnecessary pain, to beasts; if it enjoins those who take a bird's nest to let the dam escape (Deu 22:6.) - these are the prefigurations of that דעת נפש בהמה, and as the God of the Torâ thus appears at the close of the Book of Jonah, this wonderful apology (defensio) of the all-embracing compassion, the God also of the world-history in this sympathy for the beasts of the earth as the type of the righteous.
In 10b most interpreters find an oxymoron: the compassion of the godless is compassionless, the direct opposite of compassion; i.e., he possesses either altogether no compassion, or he shows such as in its principle, its expression, and in its effects is the opposite of what it ought to be (Fl.). Bertheau believes that in the sing. of the predicate אכזרי he is justified in translating: the compassion of the wicked is a tyranny. And as one may speak of a loveless love, i.e., of a love which in its principle is nothing else than selfishness, so also of a compassionless compassion, such as consists only in gesture and speech without truth of feeling and of active results. But how such a compassionless compassion toward the cattle, and one which is really cruel, is possible, it may be difficult to show. Hitzig's conjecture, רחמי, sprang from this thought: the most merciful among sinners are cruel - the sinner is as such not רחוּם. The lxx is right in the rendering, τὰ δὲ σπλάγχνα τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνελεήμονα. The noun רחמים means here not compassion, but, as in Gen 43:30 (lxx ἔντερα or ἔγκατα) and 1Ki 3:26 (lxx μήτρα), has the meaning the bowels (properly tender parts, cf. Arab. rakhuma, to be soft, tender, with rḥm), and thus the interior of the body, in which deep emotions, and especially strong sympathy, are wont to be reflected (cf. Hos 10:8). The singular of the predicate אכזרי arises here from the unity of the subject-conception: the inwards, as Jer 50:12, from the reference of the expression to each individual of the many.

Verse 11

Pro 12:11 11 He that tilleth his own ground is satisfied with bread, And he that followeth after vain pursuits is devoid of understanding.
Yet more complete is the antithetic parallelism in the doublette, Pro 28:19 (cf. also Sir. 20:27a). The proverb recommends the cultivation of the field as the surest means of supporting oneself honestly and abundantly, in contrast to the grasping after vain, i.e., unrighteous means of subsistence, windy speculations, and the like (Fl.). ריקים are here not persons (Bertheau), but things without solidity and value (lxx μάταια; Aquila, Theodotion, κενά), and, in conformity with the contrast, not real business. Elsewhere also the mas. plur. discharges the function of a neut. noun of multitude, vid., נגידים, principalia, Pro 8:6, and זדים, Psa 19:14 - one of the many examples of the imperfect use of the gender in Hebr.; the speaker has in ריקים, vana et inania, not אנשׁים (Jdg 9:4), but דברים (Deu 32:47) in view. The lxx erroneously at Pro 28:19, and Symmachus and Jerome at both places understand ריקים of slothfulness.

Verse 12

Pro 12:12 12 The godless lusteth after the spoil of evil-doers; But the root of the righteous shoots forth.
This translation is at the same time an explanation, and agrees with Fleischer's “the godless strives by unrighteous gain like the wicked (Pro 4:14) to enrich himself, namely, as must be understood from the antithetic members of the parallelism, in vain, without thereby making progress and gaining anything certain. The preterite, as Pro 11:2, Pro 11:8, etc., places the general true proposition as a separate historic principle derived from experience. In 12b יתּן stands elliptically or pregnantly: edet, scil. quod radix edere solet, sobolem stirpis, ramorum, etc., as in the Arab. natan and ânatan are specially used without an obj. of the spontaneousness of an odour.” מצוד (from צוּד, to spy, to hunt) is elsewhere the instrument of the hunt (a net), here the object and end of it. If the words had been מצוּדי רעים, then we would explain after מלאכי רעים, Psa 78:49 (vid., comm. on), and אושׁת רע, Pro 6:24; but in the difference of number, רעים will not be the qualitative but the subjective personal genitive: capturam qualem mali captant. Ewald, who understands ריקים, 11b, of good-for-nothing-fellows, interprets רעים here, on the contrary, as neuter (§172b): the desire of the wicked is an evil net, i.e., wherein he catches all manner of evil for himself. The lxx has here two proverbs, in which מצוד occurs in the plur. and in the sense of ὀχυρώματα; 12b of the Hebr. text is rendered: αἱ δὲ ῥίζαι τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐν ὀχρυώμασι, which Schleusner explains immotae erunt. The Hebr. text can gain nothing from this variation. That the lxx read ושׁרשׁ צדיקים איתן is not probable, since they nowhere thus translate איתן. But Reiske and Ziegler have, like Ewald and Hitzig, combined יתּן of this proverb with יתן from איתן (Arab. wâtin), firmum, perennem esse. Hitzig translates the distich, after emending the text of 12a by the help of the lxx and the Arab.: the refuge of the wicked is crumbling clay, but the root of the righteous endures (יתן from יתן). Böttcher also reads חמר instead of חמד, and translates (vid., p. 192, l. 11): the refuge of the wicked is miry clay, but the root of the righteous holdeth fast (יתן = Arab. wâtin). But this derivation of a verb יתן is not necessary. The Graec. Venet. rightly, ῥίζα δὲ δικαίων δώσει. The obj. is self-evident. Rashi reads מה שהוא ראוי ליתן והוא הפרי. So also Schultens. The root giveth, is equivalent to, it is productive in bringing forth that which lies in its nature. That the root of the righteous endures (Targ. נתקיּם) is otherwise expressed, Pro 12:3.

Verse 13

Proverbs regarding injurious and beneficial words, wise hearing and prudent silence. 13 In the transgression of the lips there lies a dangerous snare; The righteous escapeth from trouble.
The consecutive modus (ויּצא) is here of greater weight than e.g., at Pro 11:8, where the connection follows without it (ויּבא) from the idea of the change of place. The translation: but the righteous ... restores ויצא (ויצא), and ignores the syllogistic relation of the members of the proverb, which shows itself here (cf. the contrary, Pro 11:9) to a certain degree by ויּצא. Ewald displaces this relation, for he paraphrases: “any one may easily come into great danger by means of inconsiderate words; yet it is to be hoped that the righteous may escape, for he will guard himself against evil from the beginning.” He is right here in interpreting צרה and מוקשׁ רע as the designation of danger into which one is betrayed by the transgressions of his lips, but “inconsiderate words” are less than פּשׁע שׂפתים. One must not be misled into connecting with פּשׁע the idea of missing, or a false step, from the circumstance that פּשׁע means a step; both verbs have, it is true, the common R. פש with the fundamental idea of placing apart or separating, but פּשׁע has nothing to do with פּשׁע (step = placing apart of the legs), but denotes (as Arab. fusuwḳ fisḳ, from the primary meaning diruptio, diremtio) a sinning, breaking through and breaking off the relation to God (cf. e.g., Pro 28:24), or even the restraints of morality (Pro 10:19). Such a sinning, which fastens itself to, and runs even among the righteous, would not be called פשׁע, but rather חטּאת (Pro 20:9). According to this the proverb will mean that sinful words bring into extreme danger every one who indulges in them - a danger which he can with difficulty escape; and that thus the righteous, who guards himself against sinful words, escapes from the distress (cf. with the expression, Ecc 7:18) into which one is thereby betrayed. רע is the descriptive and expressive epithet to מוקשׁ (cf. Ecc 9:12): a bad false trap, a malicious snare, for מוקשׁ is the snare which closes together and catches the bird by the feet. This proverb is repeated at Pro 29:6, peculiarly remodelled. The lxx has after Pro 12:13 another distich:
He who is of mild countenance findeth mercy;
He who is litigious oppresseth souls. (נפשׁות, or rather, more in accordance with the Hebrew original: oppresseth himself, נפשׁו.)

Verse 14

Pro 12:14 14 From the fruit which the mouth of the man bringeth forth is he satisfied with good, And what the hands of the man accomplish returns back to him.
The proverb finds its final verification in the last judgment (cf. Mat 12:37), but it is also illustrated in the present life. If the mouth of a man bringeth forth fruit - namely, the fruit of wholesome doctrine, of right guidance, of comforting exhortation, of peace-bringing consolation for others - this fruit is also to his own advantage, he richly enjoys the good which flows out of his own mouth, the blessing he bestows is also a blessing for himself. The same also is the case with the actions of a man. That which is done, or the service which is rendered by his hands, comes back to him as a reward or as a punishment. גּמוּל signifies primarily accomplishment, execution, and is a twofold, double-sided conception: a rendering of good or evil, and merit on the side of men (whether merited reward or merited punishment), as well as recompense, requital on the side of God. The first line is repeated, somewhat altered, at Pro 13:2; Pro 18:20. The whole proverb is prophetically echoed in Isa 3:10. The Kerı̂ ישׁיב has Jahve as the subject, or rather the subject remains undefined, and “one requites him” is equivalent to: it is requited to him. The Chethı̂b seems to us more expressive; but this use of the active with the undefined subject, instead of the passive, is certainly as much in the Mishle style (cf. Pro 13:21) as the development of the subject of the clause from a foregoing genitive.

Verse 15

Pro 12:15 15 The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, But the wise listeneth to counsel.
Other proverbs, like Pro 16:2, say that generally the judgment of a man regarding his character does not go beyond a narrow subjectivity; but there are objective criteria according to which a man can prove whether the way in which he walks is right; but the fool knows not other standard than his own opinion, and however clearly and truly one may warn him that the way which he has chosen is the wrong way and leads to a false end, yet he obstinately persists;^[60] while a wise man is not so wise in his own eyes (Pro 3:7) as not to be willing to listen to well-meant counsel, because, however careful he may be regarding his conduct, yet he does not regard his own judgment so unerring as not to be inclined ever anew to try it and let it stand the test. Ewald has falsely construed: yet whoever hears counsel is wise. In consequence of the contrast, אויל and חכם are the subject ideas, and with ושׁמע לעצה is brought forward that which is in contrast to the self-complacency of the fool, the conduct of the wise man.

Verse 16

The relations of the subject and the predicate are the same as in the preceding verse.
The fool makes known his vexation on the same day [at once],
On the contrary, the prudent man hideth the offence.
Very frequently in these proverbs the first line is only defined by the adducing of the second, or the second holds itself in the light of the first. A post-bibl. proverb says that a man is known by three things: by his כוס (his behaviour in drinking), his כיס (his conduct in money transactions), and his כעס (his conduct under deep inward excitement). So here: he is a fool who, if some injury is done to him, immediately shows his vexation in a passionate manner; while, on the contrary the prudent man maintains silence as to the dishonour that is done to him, and represses his displeasure, so as not to increase his vexation to his own injury. Passionless retaliation may in certain cases be a duty of self-preservation, and may appear to be necessary for the protection of truth, but passionate self-defence is always of evil, whether the injury which is inflicted be justifiable or unjustifiable. Regarding ערוּם, callidus, vid., p. 56; Schultens' comparison of the Greek γεγυμνασμένος is only a conceit in want of better knowledge. Regarding כּסה (only here and at Pro 12:23) with מכסּה, as שׁחר (only Pro 11:27) with משׁחר, vid., Ewald, §170a. בּיּום signifies on the self-same day = without delay, immediately, and is well translated by the lxx αὐθήμερον. With another object, 16b is repeated in 23a.

Verse 17

Most of the remaining parables of this section refer to the right use and the abuse of the tongue. 17 He that breathes the love of truth, utters that which is right; But a lying tongue, deceit
This verse is similar in meaning to Pro 14:5 (where 5b = Pro 6:19); the second line of the distich = Pro 14:25. Everywhere else יפיח כּזבים stand together, only here יפיח is joined to אמוּנה; vid., regarding this יפיח forming an attributive clause, and then employed as an adjective, but with distinct verbal force, at Pro 6:19. Viewed superficially, the proverb appears tautological; it is not so, however, but places in causal connection the internal character of men and their utterances: whoever breathes אמוּנה, truth or conscientiousness (the property of the אמוּן, vid., at Psa 12:2), i.e., lets the voice of this be heard in his utterances, such an one speaks צדק, i.e., uprightness, integrity, that which is correct, right (Isa 45:19, cf. Isa 41:26), in relation to truth in general, and to the present case in particular; but he who עד שׁקרים, i.e., he who, against better knowledge and the consciousness of untruth, confirms by his testimony (from עוּד, revertere, to say again and again), therewith gives utterance to his impure character, his wicked intention, proceeding from delight in doing evil or from self-interest, and diverted towards the injury of his neighbour. As אמונה and מרמה correspond as statements of the contents of the utterances, so צדק and שקרים as statements of their motive and aim. מרמה is obj. accus. of the יגּיד (from הגּיד, to bring to light, cf. נגד, visibility) to be supplied, not the pred. nom. dolorum structor, as Fleischer poetically finds.

Verse 18

Pro 12:18 18 There is that babbleth like the thrusts of a sword, But the tongue of the wise is healing.
The second (cf. Pro 11:24) of the proverbs beginning with ישׁ. The verb בּטה (בּטא), peculiar to the Hebr., which in the modern Hebr. generally means “to speak out” (מבטא in the grammar: the pronunciation) (according to which the lxx, Syr., and Targ. translate it by אמר), means in biblical Hebr., especially with reference to the binding of oneself by an oath (Lev 5:4), and to solemn protestations (Num 30:7, Num 30:9, according to which Jerome, promittit): to utter incautiously in words, to speak without thought and at random, referred erroneously by Gesenius to the R. בט, to be hollow, probably a word imitative of the sound, like the Greek βατταρίζειν, to stammer, and βαττολογεῖν, to babble, which the lexicographers refer to a talkative person of the name of Βάττος, as our “salbadern” [= to talk foolishly] owes its origin to one Jenaer Bader on the Saal. Theod. and the Graec. Venet. give the false reading בּוטח (πεποιθώς). כּמדקרות חרב stands loco accusativi, the כּ being regarded as a noun: (effutiens verba) quae sunt instar confossionum gladii (Fl.). We also call such a man, who bridles his loquacity neither by reflection nor moderates it by indulgent reference to his fellow-men, a Schwertmaul (sword-mouth) or a Schandmaul (a mouth of shame = slanderer), and say that he has a tongue like a sword. But on the other hand, the tongue of the wise, which is in itself pure gentleness and a comfort to others, since, far from wounding, rather, by means of comforting, supporting, directing exhortation, exercises a soothing an calming influence. Regarding רפא, whence מרפּא, Dietrich in Gesenius' Lex. is right. The root-meaning of the verb רפא (cognate רפה, to be loose, Hiph. to let go, Hithpa. Pro 18:9, to show oneself slothful) is, as the Arab. kindred word rafâ, rafa, raf, rawf (râf) shows, that of stilling, softening, soothing, whence arises the meaning of healing (for which the Arab. has ṭabb and 'alkh); the meaning to repair, to mend, which the Arab. rafâ and rafa have, does not stand in a prior relation to to heal, as might appear from Job 13:4, but is a specializing of the general idea of reficere lying in mitigare, just as the patcher is called ἀκέστρια = ἠπήτρια,^[61] from ἀκέομαι, which means equally to still and to heal. Since thus in רפא the meanings of mitigating and of healing are involved, it is plain that מרפא, as it means healing (the remedy) and at the same time (cf. θεραπεία, Rev 22:2) the preservation of health, Pro 4:22; Pro 6:15; Pro 16:24; Pro 29:1, so also may mean mildness (here and Pro 15:4), tranquillity (Pro 14:30; Ecc 10:4, calm patience in contrast to violent passion), and refreshing (Pro 13:17). Oetinger and Hitzig translate here “medicine;” our translation, “healing (the means of healing),” is not essentially different from it.

Verse 19

Pro 12:19 19 The lip of truth endures for ever, But the lying tongue only while I wink with the eye.
None of the old translators understood the phrase ועד־ארגּיעה; the Venet. also, which follows Kimchi's first explanation, is incorrect: ἕως ῥήξεως, till I split (shatter) it (the tongue). Abulwalîd is nearer the correct rendering when he takes ארגיעה as a noun = רגע with He parag. Ahron b. Joseph is better in rendering the phrase by: until I make a רגע, and quite correct if רגע (from רגע = Arab. raj', which is used of the swinging of the balance) is taken in the sense of a twinkling of the eye (Schultens: vibramen); cf. Orelli's Die hebr. Synonyme der Zeit und Ewigkeit, p. 27f., where the synonyms for a twinkling of the eye, a moment, are placed together. עד (properly progress) has in this phrase the meaning, while, so long as, and the cohortative signifies, in contradistinction to ארגיע, which may also denote an unwilling movement of the eyelids, a movement proceeding from a free determination, serving for the measurement of a short space of time, Ewald, §228a. ארגיעה, Jer 49:19; Jer 50:44, where Ewald takes כי ארגיעה (when I...) in the same sense as אד־ארגיעה here, which is more appropriate than the explanation of Hitzig, who regards כי as opening the principal clause, and attaches to הרגיע the quite too pregnant signification “to need (for an action) only a moment.” The lip of truth, i.e., the lip which speaketh truth, endures for ever (for truth, אמת = אמנתּ, is just the enduring); but the tongue of falsehood is only for a moment, or a wink of the eye, for it is soon convicted, and with disgrace brings to silence; for a post-bibl. Aram. proverb says: קוּשׁטא קאי שׁקרא לא קאי, the truth endures, the lie endures not (Schabbath 104a), and a Hebrew proverb: השּׁקר אין לו רגלים, the lie has no feet (on which it can stand).^[62]

Verse 20

Pro 12:20 20 Deceit is in the heart of him who deviseth evil, But those who devise peace cause joy.
Regarding the figure of forging, fabricating (lxx, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, τεκταίνειν), or of ploughing, which underlies the phrase חרשׁ רע, moliri malum, vid., at Pro 3:29. That deceit is in the heart of him who deviseth evil (בּלב־חרשׁי רע, as is correctly punctuated e.g., by Norzi) appears to be a platitude, for the חרשׁ רע is as such directed against a neighbour. But in the first place, 20a in itself says that the evil which a man hatches against another always issues in a fraudulent, malicious deception of the same; and in the second place, it says, when taken in connection with 20b, where שׂמחה is the parallel word to מרמה, that with the deception he always at the same time prepares for him sorrow. The contrast to חרשׁי רע is יועצי שׁלום si ח, and thus denotes not those who give counsel to contending parties to conclude peace, but such as devise peace, viz., in reference to the neighbour, for יעץ means not merely to impart counsel, but also mentally to devise, to resolve upon, to decree, 2Ch 25:16; Isa 32:7.; cf. יעץ על, Jer 49:30. Hitzig and Zöckler give to שׁלום the general idea of welfare (that which is salutary), and interpret the שׂמחה as the inner joy of the good conscience. Certainly שלום (R. של, extrahere, in the sense of deliverance from trouble) means not only peace as to the external relationship of men with each other, but also both internal and external welfare. Thus it is here meant of external welfare; Hitzig rightly compares Jer 29:11 with Nah 1:11 to the contrast between שׁלום and רע. But as מרמה is not self-deception, but the deception of another, so also שׂמחה is not the joy of those who devise the device in their hearts for the deception of others, but the joy they procure for others. Thoughts of peace for one's neighbour are always thoughts of procuring joy for him, as thoughts of evil are thoughts of deceit, and thus of procuring sorrow for him. Thus וליועצי is an abbreviated expression for ובלב יועצי.

Verse 21

Pro 12:21 21 No evil befalls the righteous, But the godless are full of evil.
Hitzig translates און “sorrow,” and Zöckler “injury;” but the word signifies evil as ethical wickedness, and although it may be used of any misfortune in general (as in בּן־אוני, opp. בּנימין); thus it denotes especially such sorrow as is the harvest and product of sin, Pro 22:8; Job 4:8; Isa 59:4, or such as brings after it punishment, Hab 3:7; Jer 4:15. That it is also here thus meant the contrast makes evident. The godless are full of evil, for the moral evil which is their life-element brings out of itself all kinds of evil; on the contrary, no kind of evil, such as sin brings forth and produces, falls upon the righteous. God, as giving form to human fortune (Exo 21:13), remains in the background (cf. Psa 91:10 with Psa 5:1.); vid., regarding אנה, the weaker power of ענה, to go against, to meet, to march against, Fleischer, Levy's Chald. Wörterbuch, 572.

Verse 22

Pro 12:22 22 Lying lips are an abhorrence to Jahve, And they that deal truly are His delight.
The frame of the distich is like Pro 11:1, Pro 11:20. אמוּנה is probity as the harmony between the words and the inward thoughts. The lxx, which translates ὁ δὲ ποιῶν πίστεις, had in view עשה אמונים (עשׂה אמוּנים, cf. Isa 26:2); the text of all other translations agrees with that commonly received.

Verse 23

Pro 12:23 23 A prudent man conceals knowledge, And a heart-fool proclaims imbecility.
In 23a Pro 12:16 is repeated, only a little changed; also 16a corresponds with 23a, for, as is there said, the fool knows not how to keep his anger to himself, as here, that a heart-fool (cf. the lying mouth, 22a) proclaims (trumpets forth), or as Pro 13:16 says, displays folly without referring to himself the si tacuisses. To this forward charlatan blustering, which intends to preach wisdom and yet proclaims in the world mere folly, i.e., nonsense and imbecility, and thereby makes itself troublesome, and only to be laughed at and despised, stands in contrast the relation of the אדם ערוּם, homo callidus, who possesses knowledge, but keeps it to himself without bringing it forth till an occasion presents itself for setting it forth at the right place, at the right time, and to the right man. The right motive also regulates such silence as well as modesty. But this proverb places it under the point of view of prudence.

Verse 24

We take Pro 12:24-28 together as a group. In these verses the subject is the means of rising (in the world), and the two ways, the one of which leads to error, and the other to life. 24 The land of the diligent attains to dominion, But slothfulness will become tributary.
In Pro 10:4 רמיּה was adj., but to כּף standing beside it; here it is to be regarded as adj. to יד (sluggish hand) supplied from 24a, but may be equally regarded as a subst. (slothfulness) (vid., at Pro 12:27). Regarding חרוּץ, vid., p. 211. מס signifies tribute and service, i.e., tributary service rendered to a master. In Pro 11:29 עבד stands for it. It is still the experience of to-day, as it was of Solomon's time, that slothfulness (indolence) brings down to a state of servitude, if not even deeper, but that vigorous activity raises to dominion or to the position of a master, i.e., to independence, wealth, respect, and power.

Verse 25

Pro 12:25 25 Trouble in the heart of a man boweth it down, And a friendly word maketh it glad.
The twofold anomaly that דּאגה is construed as masc. and לב as fem. renders the text doubtful, but the lxx, Syr., Targum, which introduce another subject, φοβερὸς λόγος (דּבר מדאיג?), do not improve it; Theodotion's is preferable, who translates μέριμνα ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀνδρὸς κατίσχει αὐτόν, and thus reads ישׁחנּוּ. But the rhyme is thereby lost. As כּבוד, Gen 49:6, so also may לב be used as fem., for one thereby thinks on נפשׁ; the plur. לבּות (לבבות), according to which in Eze 16:30 we find the sing. לבּה, may also conform to this. And ישׁחנה as pred. to דאגה follows the scheme Pro 2:10, perhaps not without attractional co-operation after the scheme קשׁת גברים חתים, 1Sa 2:4. השׁחה, from שׁחה, occurs only here; but השׁח, from שׁחח, occurs only twice. דּבר טוב designates in the book of Joshua and in Kings (1Ki 8:56) the divine promise; here it is of the same meaning as 1Ki 12:7 : an appeasing word. Who has not in himself had this experience, how such a word of friendly encouragement from a sympathizing heart cheers the sorrowful soul, and, if only for a time, changes its sorrow into the joy of confidence and of hope!

Verse 26

Pro 12:26 26 The righteous looketh after his pastures, But the way of the godless leadeth them into error.
In 26a no acceptable meaning is to be gained from the traditional mode of vocalization. Most of the ancients translate יתר as part. to יתר, as it occurs in post-bibl. Hebr., e.g., חבּה יתרה, prevailing, altogether peculiar love. Thus the Targum, טב מן הבריהּ; Venet. πεπερίττευται (after Kimchi); on the other hand, Aquila, active: περισσεύων τὸν πλησίον (making the neighbour rich), which the meaning of the Kal as well as the form יתר oppose; Luther, “The righteous man is better than his neighbour,” according to which Fleischer also explains, “Probably יתר from יתר, πλεονάζειν, has the meaning of πλέον ἔχων, πλεονεκτῶν, he gains more honour, respect, riches, etc., than the other, viz., the unrighteous.” Yet more satisfactory Ahron b. Joseph: not the nobility and the name, but this, that he is righteous, raises a man above others. In this sense we would approve of the praestantior altero justus, if only the two parts of the proverb were not by such a rendering wholly isolated from one another. Thus יתר is to be treated as the fut. of התיר. The Syr. understands it of right counsel; and in like manner Schultens explains it, with Cocceius, of intelligent, skilful guidance, and the moderns (e.g., Gesenius) for the most part of guidance generally. Ewald rather seeks (because the proverb-style avoids the placing of a fut. verb at the commencement of the proverb but cf. Pro 17:10) to interpret יתר as a noun in the sense of director, but his justification of the fixed ā is unfounded. And generally this sense of the word is exposed to many objections. The verb תּוּר signifies, after its root, to go about, “to make to go about,” but is, however, not equivalent to, to lead (wherefore Böttcher too ingeniously derives יתר = יאתר from אתר = אשׁר); and wherefore this strange word, since the Book of Proverbs is so rich in synonyms of leading and guiding! The Hiph. התיר signifies to send to spy, Jdg 1:23, and in this sense the poet ought to have said יתר לרעהוּ: the righteous spies out (the way) for his neighbour, he serves him, as the Targum-Talmud would say, as תּיּר. Thus connected with the obj. accus. the explanation would certainly be: the righteous searches out his neighbour (Löwenstein), he has intercourse with men, according to the maxim, “Trau schau wem.” But why not רעהוּ, but מרעהוּ, which occurs only once, Pro 19:7, in the Mishle, and then for an evident reason? Therefore, with Döderlein, Dathe, J. D. Michaelis, Ziegler, and Hitzig, we prefer to read מרעהוּ; it is at least not necessary, with Hitzig, to change יתר into יתר, since the Hiphil may have the force of the intens. of the Kal, but יתר without the jussive signification is a poetic licence for יתיר. That תור can quite well be used of the exploring of the pasture, the deriv. יתוּר, Job 39:18, shows. Thus altered, 26a falls into an appropriately contrasted relation to 26b. The way of the godless leads them into error; the course of life to which they have given themselves up has such a power over them that they cannot set themselves free from it, and it leads the enslaved into destruction: the righteous, on the contrary, is free with respect to the way which he takes and the place where he stays; his view (regard) is directed to his true advancement, and he looketh after his pasture, i.e., examines and discovers, where for him right pasture, i.e., the advancement of his outer and inner life, is to be found. With מרעהוּ there is a combination of the thought of this verse with the following, whose catch-word is צידו, his prey.

Verse 27

Pro 12:27 27 The slothful pursues not his prey; But a precious possession of a man is diligence.
The lxx, Syr., Targ., and Jerome render יחרך in the sense of obtaining or catching, but the verbal stem חרך nowhere has this meaning. When Fleischer remarks, חרך, ἅπ. λεγ., probably like לכד, properly to entangle in a noose, a net, he supports his opinion by reference to חרכּים, which signifies lattice-windows, properly, woven or knitted like a net. But חרך, whence this חרכים, appears to be equivalent to the Arab. kharḳ, fissura, so that the plur. gives the idea of a manifoldly divided (lattice-like, trellis-formed) window. The Jewish lexicographers (Menahem, Abulwalîd, Parchon, also Juda b. Koreish) all aim at that which is in accord with the meaning of the Aram. חרך, to singe, to roast (= Arab. ḥark): the slothful roasteth not his prey, whether (as Fürst presents it) because he is too lazy to hunt for it (Berth.), or because when he has it he prepares it not for enjoyment (Ewald). But to roast is צלה, not דרך, which is used only of singeing, e.g., the hair, and roasting, e.g., ears of corn, but not of the roasting of flesh, for which reason Joseph Kimchi (vid., Kimchi's Lex.) understands צידו of wild fowls, and יחרך of the singeing of the tips of the wings, so that they cannot fly away, according to which the Venet. translates οὐ μενεῖ ... ἡ θήρα αὐτοῦ. Thus the Arab. must often help to a right interpretation of the ἅπ. λεγ.. Schultens is right: Verbum ḥarak, חרך, apud Arabes est movere, ciere, excitare, κινεῖν generatim, et speciatim excitare praedam e cubili, κινεῖν τήν θήραν. The Lat. agitare, used of the frightening up and driving forth of wild beasts, corresponds with the idea here, as e.g., used by Ovid, Metam. x. 538, of Diana:Aut pronos lepores aue celsum in cornua cervum Aut agitat damas.
Thus יחרך together with צידו gains the meaning of hunting, and generally of catching the prey. רמיּה is here incarnate slothfulness, and thus without ellipse equivalent to אישׁ רמיה. That in the contrasted clause חרוץ does not mean ἀποτόμως, decreed (Löwenstein), nor gold (Targ., Jerome, Venet.), nor that which is excellent (Syr.), is manifest from this contrast as well as from Pro 10:4; Pro 12:24. The clause has from its sequence of words something striking about it. The lxx placed the words in a difference order: κτῆμα δὲ τίμιον ἀνὴρ καθαρὸς (חלוץ in the sense of Arab. khâlaṣ). But besides this transposition, two others have been tried: הון אדם חרוץ יקר, the possession of an industrious man is precious, and הון יקר אדם חרוץ, a precious possession is that (supply הון) of an industrious man. But the traditional arrangement of the words gives a better meaning than these modifications. It is not, however, to be explained, with Ewald and Bertheau: a precious treasure of a man is one who is industrious, for why should the industrious man be thought of as a worker for another and not for himself? Another explanation advanced by Kimchi: a valuable possession to men is industry, has the twofold advantage that it is according to the existing sequence of the words, and presents a more intelligible thought. But can חרוּץ have the meaning of חריצוּת (the being industrious)? Hitzig reads חרוץ, to make haste (to be industrious). This is unnecessary, for we have here a case similar to Pro 10:17, where שׁמר for שׁומר is to be expected: a precious possession of a man is it that, or when, he is industrious, חרוּץ briefly for היותו חרוּץ rof yl. The accentuation fluctuates between והון־אדם יקר (so e.g., Cod. 1294), according to which the Targum translates, and והון־אדם יקר, which, according to our explanation, is to be preferred.

Verse 28

Pro 12:28 28 In the path of righteousness is life, And the way of its path is immortality.
All the old versions to the Venet. give אל־ instead of אל־, and are therefore under the necessity of extracting from ודּרך נתיבה a meaning corresponding to this, εἰς θάνατον, in which they are followed by Hitzig: “a devious way leadeth to death.” But נתיב (נתיבה) signifies step, and generally way and street (vid., at Pro 1:15), not “devious way,” which is expressed, Jdg 5:6, by ארחות עקלקלות. And that אל is anywhere punctuated thus in the sense of אל is previously improbable, because the Babylonian system of punctuation distinguishes the negative אל with a short Pathach, and the prepositional אל (Arab. ilâ) with a short Chirek, from each other (vid., Pinsker, Einl. p. xxii.f.); the punctuation 2Sa 18:16; Jer 51:3, gives no support to the opinion that here אל is vocalized thus in the sense of אל, and it is not to be thus corrected. Nothing is more natural than that the Chokma in its constant contrast between life and death makes a beginning of expressing the idea of the ἀθανασία, which Aquila erroneously read from the אל־מות, Ps. 48:15. It has been objected that for the formation of such negative substantives and noun-adjectives לא (e.g., לא־אל, לא־עם) and not אל is used; but that אל also may be in close connection with a noun, 2Sa 1:13 shows. There אל־טל is equivalent to אל יהי טל, according to which it may also be explained in the passage before us, with Luther and all the older interpreters, who accepted אל in its negative signification: and on (the בּ governing) the way ... is no death. The negative אל frequently stands as an intensifying of the objective לא; but why should the Chokma, which has already shown itself bold in the coining of new words, not apply itself to the formation of the idea of immortality?: the idol name אליל is the result of a much greater linguistic boldness. It is certain that אל is here not equivalent to אל; the Masora is therefore right in affirming that נתיבה is written with He raphatum pro mappicato (vid., Kimchi, Michlol 31a, and in the Lex.), cf. 1Sa 20:20, vid., Böttcher, §418. Thus: the way of their step is immortality, or much rather, since דּרך is not a fixed idea, but also denotes the going to a distance (i.e., the journey), the behaviour, the proceeding, the walk, etc.: the walking (the stepping over and passing through) of their way is immortality. Rich in synonyms of the way, the Hebrew style delights in connecting them with picturesque expressions; but דּרך always means the way in general, which divides into ארחות or נתיבות (Job 6:18; Jer 18:5), and consists of such (Isa 3:16). The distich is synonymous: on the path of righteousness (accentuate בארח צדקה) is life meeting him who walks in it, and giving itself to him as a possession, and the walking in its path is immortality (cf. Pro 3:17; Pro 10:28); so that to go in it and to be immortal, i.e., to be delivered from death, to be exalted above it, is one and the same thing. If we compare with this, 1Sa 14:32, it is obvious that the Chokma begins (vid., Psychol. p. 410) to break through the limits of this present life, and to announce a life beyond the reach of death.

Chap. 13

Verse 1

The proverb Pro 12:28 is so sublime, so weighty, that it manifestly forms a period and conclusion. This is confirmed from the following proverb, which begins like Pro 10:1 (cf. 5), and anew stamps the collection as intended for youth: 1 A wise son is his father's correction; But a scorner listens not to rebuke.
The lxx, which the Syr. follows, translate Ψἱὸς πανουργὸς ὑπήκοος πατρί, whence it is not to be concluded with Lagarde that they read נוסר in the sense of a Ni. tolerativum; they correctly understood the text according to the Jewish rule of interpretation, “that which is wanting is to be supplied from the context.” The Targ. had already supplied שׁמע from 1b, and is herein followed by Hitzig, as also by Glassius in the Philologia sacra. But such an ellipse is in the Hebr. style without an example, and would be comprehensible only in passionate, hasty discourse, but in a language in which the representation filius sapiens disciplinam patris audit numbers among the anomalies is not in general possible, and has not even its parallel in Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 56: deesse nobis terra, in qua vivamus - in qua moriemur, non potest, because here the primary idea, which the one expression confirms, the other denies, and besides no particle, such as the ו of this passage before us, stands between them. Böttcher therefore maintains the falling out of the verb, and writes יבּין before בּן; but one says not בין מוסר, but שׁמע מוסר, Pro 1:8; Pro 4:1; Pro 19:27. Should not the clause, as it thus stands, give a sense complete in itself? But מוּסר can hardly, with Schultens and Ewald, be taken as part. Hoph. of יסר: one brought up by his father, for the usage of the language knows מוסר only as part. Hoph. of סוּר. Thus, as Jerome and the Venet. translate: a wise son is the correction of his father, i.e., the product of the same, as also Fleischer explains, “Attribution of the cause, the ground, as elsewhere of the effect.” But we call that which one has trained (vegetable or animal) his Zucht (= παιδεία in the sense of παίδευμα). To the wise son (Pro 10:1) who is indebted to the מוסר אב (Pro 4:1), stands opposed the לץ (vid., Pro 1:22), the mocker at religion and virtue, who has no ear for גּערה, strong and stern words which awaken in him a wholesome fear (cf. Pro 17:10, Jud 1:23 : ἐν φόβῳ).

Verse 2

Pro 13:2 2 From the fruit of the mouth of a man he himself enjoys good; But the delight of the godless is violence. 2a = Pro 12:14, where ישׂבּע for יאכל. A man with a fruit-bringing mouth, himself enjoys also the blessing of his fruit-producing speech; his food (cf. βρῶμα, Joh 4:34) is the good action in words, which in themselves are deeds, and are followed by deeds; this good action affords enjoyment not merely to others, but also to himself. Ewald and Bertheau attract יאכל to 2b; so also does Fleischer: “the violence which the בּגדים wish to do to others turns back upon themselves; they must eat it also, i.e., bear its evil consequences.” The thought would then be like Pro 10:6 : os improborum obteget violentia, and “to eat violence” is parallel to “to drink (Pro 26:6) violence (injury).” But wherefore then the naming of the soul, of which elsewhere it is said that it hungers or satiates itself, but never simply (but cf. Luk 12:19) that it eats? On the contrary, נפשׁ means also appetitus, Pro 23:2, and particularly wicked desire, Psa 27:12; here, as Psa 35:25, the object of this desire (Psychol. p. 202). Regarding בגדים, vid., above, p. 85. There are such as do injury in a cunning deceitful manner to their neighbour to their own advantage. While the former (the righteous) distributes to his neighbour from the inner impulse without having such a result in view, yet according to God's direction he derives enjoyment himself therefrom: the desire of the latter goes to חמס, ἀδικία, and thus to the enjoyment of good unrighteously and violently seized.

Verse 3

Pro 13:3 3 He that guardeth his mouth keepeth his soul; He that openeth his lips, to him it is destruction. 3a is extended in Pro 21:23 to a distich. Mouth and soul stand in closest interchangeable relation, for speech is the most immediate and continuous expression of the soul; thus whoever guards his mouth keeps his soul (the Venet., with excellent rendering of the synonym, ὁ τηρῶν τὸ στόμα ἑαυτοῦ φυλάσσει τὴν ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ), for he watches that no sinful vain thoughts rise up in his soul and come forth in words, and because he thus keeps his soul, i.e., himself, safe from the destructive consequences of the sins of the tongue. On the contrary, he who opens wide his lips, i.e., cannot hold his mouth (lxx ὁ δὲ προπετὴς χείλεσιν), but expresses unexamined and unconsidered whatever comes into his mind and gives delight, he is destruction to himself (supply הוּא), or to him it is destruction (supply זאת); both interpretations are possible, the parallelism brings nearer the former, and the parallel Pro 18:7 brings nearer the latter. פּשׂק means to spread (Schultens diducere cum ruptura vel ad rupturam usque), here the lips, Pih. Eze 16:25, the legs, Arab. fashkh, farshkh; vid., regarding the R. פש, to extend, to spread out, Fleischer in the supplements to the A. L. Z. 1843, col. 116. Regarding the Mishle word מחתּה, vid., under Pro 10:14.

Verse 4

The three proverbs (Pro 13:1-3) which refer to hearing and speaking are now following by a fourth which, like Pro 13:2 and Pro 13:3, speaks of the נפשׁ.
The soul of the sluggard desires, yet has not;
But the soul of the industrious is richly satisfied.
The view that the o in נפשׁו עצל is the cholem compaginis, Böttcher, §835, meets with the right answer that this would be the only example of a vocal casus in the whole of gnomic poetry; but when on his own part (Neue Aehrenlese, §1305) he regards נפשׁו as the accus. of the nearer definition (= בּנפשׁו), he proceeds inadvertently on the view that the first word of the proverb is מתאוּה, while we read מתאוּה, and נפשׁו is thus the nom. of the subject. נפשׁו עצל means “his (the sluggard's) soul” (for עצל occurs as explanatory permutative briefly for נפשׁ עצל), as סעיפיה פּריּה means “its branches (i.e., of the fruitful tree),” Isa 17:6. One might, it is true, add ה to the following word here, as at Pro 14:13; but the similar expression appertaining to the syntax ornata occurs also 2Sa 22:33; Psa 71:7, and elsewhere, where this is impracticable. Meîri appropriately compares the scheme Exo 2:6, she saw him, viz., the boy. With reference to the ואין here violently (cf. Pro 28:1) introduced, Böttcher rightly remarks, that it is an adverb altogether like necquidquam, Pro 14:6; Pro 20:4, Psa 68:21, etc., thus: appetit necquidquam anima ejus, scilicet pigri. 4b shows the meaning of the desire that has not, for there תדשּׁן occurs, a favourite strong Mishle word (Pro 11:25; Pro 28:25, etc.) for abundant satisfaction (the lxx here, as at 28:25, ἐν ἐπιμελείᾳ, sc. ἔσονται, instead of which, Montfaucon supposed πιμελείᾳ, which is, however, a word not authenticated). The slothful wishes and dreams of prosperity and abundance (cf. Pro 21:25., a parallel which the Syr. has here in view), but his desire remains unsatisfied, since the object is not gained but only lost by doing nothing; the industrious gain, and that richly, what the slothful wishes for, but in vain.

Verse 5

Two proverbs of the character of the righteous and of the effect of righteousness:
A deceitful thing the righteous hateth;
But the godless disgraceth and putteth to shame.
With דּבּר in the sphere of an intelligible generality (as here of falsehood, or Psa 41:9 of worthlessness) a concrete event is in view, as with דּברי in the following plur. a general fact is separated into its individual instances and circumstances (vid., at Psa 65:4); for דבר means not only the word in which the soul reveals itself, but also any fact in which an inner principle or a general fact or a whole comes forth to view. The righteous hateth all that bears in it the character of a falsehood (punctuate דּבר־שׁקר with Gaja, cf. Pro 12:19), but the godless ... Should we now, with Bertheau, Hitzig, and others, translate “acteth basely and shamefully”? It is true that both Hiphs. may be regarded as transitive, but this expression gives not right contrast to 5a, and is pointless. We have seen at Pro 10:5 that הבישׁ, like השׂכּיל, has also a causative signification: to put to shame, i.e., bring shame upon others, and that Pro 19:26, where מבישׁ וּמחפּיר are connected, this causative signification lies nearer than the intrinsically transitive. Thus it will also here be meant, that while the righteous hateth all that is false or that is tainted by falsehood, the godless on the contrary loves to disgrace and to put to shame. But it is a question whether יבאישׁ is to be derived from בּאשׁ = בּושׁ, and thus is of the same meaning as יבישׁ; הבאישׁ, Isa 30:5, which there signifies pudefactum esse, is pointed הבאישׁ, and is thus derived from a יבשׁ = בּושׁ, vid., 2Sa 19:6. But הבאישׁ occurs also as Hiph. of בּאשׁ, and means transitively to make of an evil savour, Gen 34:30, cf. Exo 5:21, as well as intransitively to come into evil savour, 1Sa 27:12. In this sense of putidum faciens, bringing into evil savour, יבאישׁ occurs here as at Pro 19:26, suitably along with יחפיר; Pro 19:26 is the putidum facere by evil report (slander), into which the foolish son brings his parents, here by his own evil report, thus to be thought of as brought about by means of slander. The old translators here fall into error; Luther renders both Hiphils reflexively; only the Venet. (after Kimchi) is right: ὀζώσει (from an ὀζοῦν as trans. to ὀζεῖν) καὶ ἀτιμώσει, he makes to be of ill odour and dishonours.

Verse 6

Pro 13:6 6 Righteousness protecteth an upright walk, And godlessness bringeth sinners to destruction.
The double thought is closely like that of Pro 11:5, but is peculiarly and almost enigmatically expressed. As there, צדקה and רשׁעה are meant of a twofold inner relation to God, which consists of a ruling influence over man's conduct and a determination of his walk. But instead of naming the persons of the תּמימי דּרך and חטּאים as the objects of this influence, the proverb uses the abstract expression, but with personal reference, תּם־דּרך and חטּאת dna תּם, and designates in two words the connection of this twofold character with the principles of their conduct. What is meant by תּצּר and תּסלּף proceeds from the contrasted relationship of the two (cf. Pro 22:12). נצר signifies observare, which is not suitable here, but also tueri (τηρεῖν), to which סלּף (vid., at Pro 11:3, and in Gesen. Thesaurus), not so much in the sense of “to turn upside down,” pervertere (as Pro 11:3; Pro 23:8), as in the sense of “to overthrow,” evertere (as e.g., Pro 21:12), forms a fitting contrast. He who walks forth with an unfeigned and untroubled pure mind stands under the shield and the protection of righteousness (cf. with this prosopopoeia Psa 25:21), from which such a walk proceeds, and at the same time under the protection of God, to whom righteousness appertains, is well-pleasing. but he who in his conduct permits himself to be determined by sin, godlessness (cf. Zec 5:8) from which such a love for sin springs forth, brings to destruction; in other words: God, from whom the רשע, those of a perverse disposition, tear themselves away, makes the sin their snare by virtue of the inner connection established by Him between the רשׁעה and the destruction (Isa 9:17). In the lxx this 6th verse was originally wanting; the translation in the version of Aquila, in the Complut. and elsewhere, which the Syr. follows, falsely makes חטאת the subj.: τοὺς δὲ ἀσεβεῖς φαύλους ποιεῖ ἁμαρτία.

Verse 7

Two proverbs of riches and poverty: -
There is one who maketh himself rich and hath nothing;
There is another who representeth himself poor amid great riches.
A sentence which includes in itself the judgment which Pro 12:9 expresses. To the Hithpa. התכּבּד (to make oneself of importance) there are associated here two others, in the meaning to make oneself something, without anything after it, thus to place oneself so or so, Ewald, §124a. To the clauses with ו there is supplied a self-intelligible לּו.

Verse 8

Pro 13:8 8 A ransom for a man's life are his riches; But the poor heareth no threatening.
Bertheau falls into error when he understands גּערה of warning; the contrast points to threatening with the loss of life. The wealth of the rich before the judgment is not here to be thought of; for apart from this, that the Torâ only in a single case permits, or rather ordains (Exo 21:29.), ransom from the punishment of death, and declares it in all other cases inadmissible, Num 35:31. (one might indeed think of an administration of justice not strictly in accordance with the Mosaic law, or altogether accessible to bribery), 8b does not accord therewith, since the poor in such cases would fare ill, because one would lay hold on his person. But one may think e.g., on waylayers as those introduced as speaking Pro 1:11-14. The poor has no room to fear that such will threateningly point their swords against his breast, for there is nothing to be got from him: he has nothing, one sees it in him and he is known as such. But the rich is a valuable prize for them, and he has to congratulate himself if he is permitted to escape with his life. Also in the times of war and commotion it may be seen that riches endanger the life of their possessor, and that in fortunate cases they are given as a ransom for his life, while his poverty places the poor man in safety. To לא שׁמע Hitzig fittingly compares Job 3:18; Job 39:7 : he does not hear, he has no need to hear. Michaelis, Umbreit, Löwenstein (who calls to remembrance the state of things under despotic governments, especially in the East) also explain 8b correctly; and Fleischer remarks: pauper minas hostiles non audit, i.e., non minatur ei hostis. Ewald's syntactic refinement: “Yet he became poor who never heard an accusation,” presents a thought not in harmony with 8a.

Verse 9

The three following proverbs in Pro 13:9-11 have at least this in common, that the two concluding words of each correspond with one another almost rhythmically. 9 The light of the righteous burneth joyously, And the lamp of the godless goeth out.
The second line = Pro 24:20, cf. Pro 20:20. In the Book of Job 18:5., אור רשׁעים ידעך and נרו עליו ידעך (cf. Pro 21:17) stand together, and there is spoken of (Pro 29:3) a divine נר as well as a divine אור which enlightens the righteous; however, one must say that the poet, as he, Pro 6:3, deliberately calls the Torâ אור, and the commandment, as derived from it and separated, נר, so also here designedly calls the righteous אור, viz., אור היום (Pro 4:18, cf. 2Pe 1:19), and the godless נר, viz., נר דלוק - the former imparts the sunny daylight, the latter the light of tapers set in darkness. The authentic punctuation is אור־צדיקים, Ben-Naphtali's is 'אור צ' si s'i without Makkeph. To ישׂמח Hitzig compares the “laughing tongue of the taper” of Meidâni, iii. 475; Kimchi also the “laughing, i.e., amply measured span, טפח שׂוהק,” of the Talmud; for the light laughs when it brightly shines, and increases rather than decreases; in Arab. samuḥa has in it the idea of joy directly related to that of liberality. The lxx translates ישׂמח incorrectly by διαπαντός, and has a distich following Pro 13:9, the first line of which is ψυχαὶ δόλιαι (נפשׁ רמיּה?) πλανῶνται ἐν ἁμαρτίαις, and the second line is from Psa 37:21.

Verse 10

Pro 13:10 10 Nothing comes by pride but contention; But wisdom is with those who receive counsel.
The restrictive רק (only) does not, according to the sense, belong to בּזדון (by pride), but to מצּה, vid., under Psa 32:6 and Job 2:10. Of יתּן = there is, vid., under Pro 10:24. Bertheau's “one causes” is not exact, for “one” [man] is the most general personal subject, but יתן is in such cases to be regarded as impersonal: by pride is always a something which causes nothing but quarrel and strife, for the root of pride is egoism. Line second is a variant to Pro 11:2. Bescheidenheit (modesty) is in our old [German] language exactly equivalent to Klugheit (prudence). But here the צנועים are more exactly designated as permitting themselves to be advised; the elsewhere reciprocal נועץ has here once a tolerative signification, although the reciprocal is also allowable: with such as reciprocally advise themselves, and thus without positiveness supplement each his own knowledge by means of that of another. Most interpreters regard 10b as a substantival clause, but why should not יתן be carried forward? With such as permit themselves to be advised, or are not too proud to sustain with others the relation of giving and receiving, there is wisdom, since instead of hatred comes wisdom - the peaceful fruit resulting from an interchange of views.

Verse 11

Pro 13:11 11 Wealth by means of fraud always becomes less; But he that increaseth it by labour gains always more.
We punctuate הון־מהבל (with Makkeph, as in Ven. 1521, Antw. 1582, Frank.-on-the-Oder 1595, Gen. 1618, Leyden 1662), not הון מהבל (as other editions, and e.g., also Löwenstein); for the meaning is not that the wealth becomes less by הבל (Targ., but not the Syr.), or that it is less than הבל (Umbreit), but הון־מהבל is one idea: wealth proceeding from הבל; but הבל tub ;הב, properly a breath (Theod. ἀπὸ ἀτμοῦ or ἀτμίδος), then appearance without reality (Aquila, ἀπὸ ματαιότητος), covers itself here by that which we call swindle, i.e., by morally unrestrained fraudulent and deceitful speculation in contrast to solid and real gain. The translations: ἐπισπουδαζομένη μετὰ ἀνομίας (lxx), ὑπερσπουδαζομένη (Symmachus, Quinta),^[63] festinata (Jerome), do not necessarily suppose the phrase מהבּל = מבהל, Pro 20:21 Kerı̂, for wealth which comes מהבל is obtained in a windy (unsubstantial) manner and as if by storm, of which the proverb holds good: “so gewonnen so zerronnen” (= quickly come, quickly go). מהבל needs neither to be changed into that unhebraic מהבּל (Hitzig) nor into the cognate מבהל (Ewald), but yet inferior to מהבל in the content of its idea. The contrast of one who by fraud and deception quickly arrives at wealth is one who brings it together in his hand, ἐπὶ χειρός (Venet.), i.e., always as often as he can bear it in his hand and bring it forth (Ewald, Bertheau, Elster, and Lagarde), or according to the measure of the hand, κατὰ χεῖρα (which means “according to external ability”), so that על, which is applied to the formation of adverbs, e.g., Psa 31:24 (Hitzig) - by both explanations על־יד has the meaning of “gradually,” - is used as in the post-bibl. Hebr. על יד על יד = מעט מעט, e.g., Schabbath 156a (vid., Aruch under על) (distinguish from ביד = with thought, intentionally, Berachoth 52b). There is scarcely a word having more significations that יד. Connected with על, it means at one time side or place, at another mediation or direction; that which is characteristic here is the omission of the pronoun (על־ידו, על־ידיו). The lxx translates על יד with the unrestrained freedom which it allows to itself by μετ ̓ εὐσεβείας, and has following πληθυνθήσεται another line, δίκαιος οἰκτείρει καὶ κιχρᾷ (from Psa 37:26).

Verse 12

The figures of paradise in Pro 13:12 and Pro 13:14 require us to take along with them the intermediate verse (Pro 13:13). 12 Deferred waiting maketh the heart sick, And a tree of life is a wish accomplished.
Singularly the lxx Κρείσσων ἐναρχόμενος βοηθῶν καρδίᾳ, followed by the Syr. (which the Targ. Transcribes):^[64]
Better is he who begins to help than he who remains in hesitating expectation, by which תחלת is doubled, and is derived once from הוחיל, to wait, and the second time from החל, to begin. If the lxx, with its imitators, deteriorates to such a degree proverbs so clear, beautiful, and inviolable, what may one expect from it in the case of those not easily understood! משּׁך signifies also, Isa 18:2, to be widely extended (cf. Arab. meshaḳ), here in the sense of time, as נמשׁך, to prolong, Isa 13:22, and post-bibl. משׁך הזּמן, the course of time. Regarding תּוחלת, vid., at Pro 10:28, where as Pro 11:27 תּקות, here תּאוה, as also Psa 78:29 of the object of the wish, and with בוא in the sense of being fulfilled (cf. Jos 21:43), as there with הביא in the sense of accomplishing or performing. Extended waiting makes the heart sick, causes heart-woe (מחלה, part. fem. Hiph. of חלה, to be slack, feeble, sick; R. חל, to loosen, to make loose); on the contrary, a wish that has been fulfilled is a tree of life (cf. p. 23), of a quickening and strengthening influence, like that tree of paradise which was destined to renew and extend the life of man.

Verse 13

Pro 13:13 13 Whoever despiseth the word is in bonds to it, And he that feareth the commandment is rewarded.
The word is thought of as ordering, and thus in the sense of the commandment, e.g., 1Sa 17:19; Dan 9:23, Dan 9:25. That which is here said is always true where the will of a man has subordinated itself to the authoritative will of a superior, but principally the proverb has in view the word of God, the מצוה κατ ̓ ἐξ. as the expression of the divine will, which (Pro 6:3) appears as the secondary, with the תורה, the general record of the divine will. Regarding בּוּז ל of contemptuous, despiteful opposition, vid., at Pro 6:30, cf. Pro 11:12. Joël records the prevailing tradition, for he translates: “Whoever despises advice rushes into destruction; whoever holds the commandment in honour is perfect.” But that ישׁלּם is to be understood neither of perfection nor of peace (lxx and Jerome), but means compensabitur (here not in the sense of punishment, but of reward), we know from Pro 11:31. The translation also of יחבל לו by “he rushes into destruction” (lxx καταφθαρήσεται, which the Syr.-Hexap. repeats; Luther, “he destroys himself;” the Venet. οἰχησεταί οἱ, periet sibi) fails, for one does not see what should have determined the poet to choose just this word, and, instead of the ambiguous dat. ethicus, not rather to say יחבּל נפשׁו. So also this יחבל is not with Gesenius to be connected with חבל = Arab. khabl, corrumpere, but with חבל = Arab. ḥabl, ligare, obligare. Whoever places himself contemptuously against a word which binds him to obedience will nevertheless not be free from that word, but is under pledge until he redeem the pledge by the performance of the obedience refused, or till that higher will enforce payment of the debt withheld by visiting with punishment. Jerome came near the right interpretation: ipse se in futurum obligat; Abulwalîd refers to Exo 22:25; and Parchon, Rashi, and others paraphrase: משׁכּן יתמשׁכּן עליו, he is confiscated as by mortgage. Schultens has, with the correct reference of the לו not to the contemner, but to the word, well established and illustrated this explanation: he is pledged by the word, Arab. marhwan (rahyn), viz., pigneratus paenae (Livius, xxix. 36). Ewald translates correctly: he is pledged to it; and Hitzig gives the right explanation: “A חבלה [a pledge, cf. Pro 20:16] is handed over to the offended law with the חבוּלה [the bad conduct] by the despiser himself, which lapses when he has exhausted the forbearance, so that the punishment is inflicted.” The lxx has another proverb following Pro 13:13 regarding υἱὸς δόλιος and οἰκέτης σοφός; the Syr. has adopted it; Jerome has here the proverb of the animae dolosae (vid., at Pro 13:9).

Verse 14

Pro 13:14 14 The doctrine of the wise man is a fountain of life, To escape the snares of death.
An integral distich, vid., p. 8 of the Introduction. Essentially like 14a, Pro 10:11 says, “a fountain of life is the mouth of the righteous.” The figure of the fountain of life with the teleological 'לסור וגו (the ל of the end and consequence of the action) is repeated Pro 14:27. The common non-biblical figure of the laquei mortis leads also to the idea of death as יקוּשׁ a fowler, Psa 91:3. If it is not here a mere formula for the dangers of death (Hitzig), then the proverb is designed to state that the life which springs from the doctrine of the wise man as from a fountain of health, for the disciple who will receive it, communicates to him knowledge and strength, to know where the snares of destruction lie, and to hasten with vigorous steps away when they threaten to entangle him.

Verse 15

Four proverbs follow, whose connection appears to have been occasioned by the sound of their words (שׂכל ... כל, בדעת ... ברע, רשׁע ... רישׁ). 15 Fine prudence produceth favour; But the way of the malicious is uncultivated.
Regarding שׂכל טוב (thus to be punctuated, without Makkeph with Munach, after Codd. and old editions), vid., p. 84; for the most part it corresponds with that which in a deep ethical sense we call fine culture. Regarding יתּן, vid., at Pro 10:10 : it is not used here, as there, impersonally, but has a personal subject: he brings forth, causes. Fine culture, which shows men how to take the right side and in all circumstances to strike the right key, exercises a kindly heart-winning influence, not merely, as would be expressed by ימצא חן, to the benefit of its possessor, but, as is expressed by יתּן חן, such as removes generally a partition wall and brings men closer to one another. The איתן [perennis], touching it both for the eye and the ear, forms the contrast to יתן חן. This word, an elative formation from יתן = Arab. wtn, denotes that which stretches itself far, and that with reference to time: that which remains the same during the course of time. “That which does not change in time, continuing the same, according to its nature, strong, firm, and thus איתן becomes the designation of the enduring and the solid, whose quality remains always the same.” Thus Orelli, Die hebr. Synonyme der Zeit u. Ewigkeit, 1871. But that in the passage before us it denotes the way of the בגדים as “endlessly going forward,” the explanation of Orelli, after Böttcher (Collectanea, p. 135), is withdrawn by the latter in the new Aehrenlese (where he reads ריב איתן, “constant strife”). And נחל איתן (Deu 21:4) does not mean “a brook, the existence of which is not dependent on the weather and the season of the year,” at least not in accordance with the traditional meaning which is given Sota ix. 5 (cf. the Gemara), but a stony valley; for the Mishna says: איתן כמשׁמעו קשׁה, i.e., איתן is here, according to its verbal meaning, equivalent to קשׁה (hard). We are of the opinion that here, in the midst of the discussion of the law of the עגלה ערופה (the ritual for the atonement of a murder perpetrated by an unknown hand), the same meaning of the איתן is certified which is to be adopted in the passage before us. Maimuni^[65] (in Sota and Hilchoth Rozeach ix. 2) indeed, with the Mishna and Gemara, thinks the meaning of a “strong rushing wâdy” to be compatible; but קשׁה is a word which more naturally denotes the property of the ground than of a river, and the description, Deu 21:4 : in a נחל איתן, in which there is no tillage and sowing, demands for נחל here the idea of the valley, and not primarily that of the valley-brook. According to this tradition, the Targum places a תּקּיפא in the Peshito translation of 15b, and the Venet. translates, after Kimchi, ὁδὸς δὲ ἀνταρτῶν (of ἀνταρτής from ἀνταίρειν) ἰσχυρά. The fundamental idea of remaining like itself, continuing, passes over into the idea of the firm, the hard, so that איתן is a word that interchanges with סלע, Num 24:21, and serves as a figurative designation of the rocky mountains, Jer 49:19, and the rocky framework of the earth, Mic 6:2. Thus the meaning of hardness (πετρῶδες, Mat 13:5) connects itself with the word, and at the same time, according to Deu 21:4, of the uncultivable and the uncultivated. The way of the בּגדים, the treacherous, i.e., the manner in which they transact with men, is stiff, as hard as stone, and repulsive; they follow selfish views, never placing themselves in sympathy with the condition of their neighbour; they are without the tenderness which is connected with fine culture; they remain destitute of feeling in things which, as we say, would soften a stone. It is unnecessary to give a catalogue of the different meanings of this איתן, such as vorago (Jerome), a standing bog (Umbreit), and ever trodden way (Bertheau), etc.; Schultens offers, as frequently, the relatively best: at via perfidorum pertinacissime tensum; but יתן does not mean to strain, but to extend. The lxx has between 15a and 15b the interpolation: τὸ δὲ γνῶναι νόμον διανοίας ἐστὶν ἀγαθῆς.

Verse 16

Pro 13:16 16 Every prudent man acteth with understanding; But a fool spreadeth abroad folly.
Hitzig reads, with the Syr. (but not the Targ.) and Jerome, כּל (omnia agit), but contrary to the Hebr. syntax. The כּל־ is not feeble and useless, but means that he always acts בּדּעת, mit Bedacht [with judgment] (opp. בּבלי דעת, inconsulto, Deu 4:42; Deu 19:4), while on the contrary the fool displays folly. Pro 12:23 and Pro 15:2 serve to explain both members of the verse. Bedächtigkeit [judgment] is just knowledge directed to a definite practical end, a clear thought concentrated on a definite point. יקרא, he calls out, and יבּיע, he sputters out, are parallels to יפרשׂ. Fleischer: פּרשׂ, expandit (opp. Arab. ṭawy, intra animum cohibuit), as a cloth or paper folded or rolled together, cf. Schiller's (Note: “Er breitet es heiter und glänzend aus, Das zusammengewickelte Leben.”) - “He spreads out brightly and splendidly
The enveloped life.”
There lies in the word something derisive: as the merchant unrolls and spreads out his wares in order to commend them, so the fool does with his foolery, which he had enveloped, i.e., had the greatest interest to keep concealed within himself - he is puffed up therewith.

Verse 17

Pro 13:17 17 A godless messenger falls into trouble; But a faithful messenger is a cordial.
The traditional text, which the translations also give (except Jerome, nuntius impii, and leaving out of view the lxx, which makes of Pro 13:17 a history of a foolhardy king and a wise messenger), has not מלאך, but מלאך; the Masora places the word along with המלאך, Gen 48:16. And יפל is likewise testified to by all translators; they all read it as Kal, as the traditional text punctuates it; Luther alone departs from this and translates the Hiph.: “a godless messenger bringeth misfortune.” Indeed, this conj. יפּל presses itself forward; and even though one read יפּל, the sense intended by virtue of the parallelism could be no other than that a godless messenger, because no blessing rests on his godlessness, stumbles into disaster, and draws him who gave the commission along with him. The connection מלאך רשׁע is like אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7 (cf. the fem. of this adj., Eze 3:18). Instead of בּרע is בּרעה, Pro 17:20; Pro 28:14, parallels (cf. also Pro 11:5) which the punctuators may have had in view in giving the preference to Kal. With מלאך, from לאך, R. לך, to make to go = to send, is interchanged ציר, from צוּר, to turn, whence to journey (cf. Arab. ṣar, to become, to be, as the vulg. “to be to Dresden = to journey” is used). The connection ציר אמוּנים (cf. the more simple ציר נאמן, Pro 25:13) is like Pro 14:15, עד אמונים; the pluralet. means faithfulness in the full extent of the idea. Regarding מרפּא, the means of healing, here to strength, refreshment, vid., Pro 4:22; Pro 12:18.

Verse 18

Pro 13:18 18 Poverty and shame (to him) who rejecteth correction; But he who regardeth reproof is honoured.
We are neither to supply אישׁ before רישׁ קלונו (or more correctly, abstr. pro concr., as רמיּה, Pro 1:27), nor ל before פורע, as Gesenius (Lehrgeb. §227a) does; nor has the part. פּורע the value of a hypothetical clause like Pro 18:13, Job 41:18, although it may certainly be changed into such without destroying the meaning (Ewald, Hitzig); but “poverty and shame is he who is without correction,” is equivalent to, poverty and shame is the conclusion or lot of him who is without correction; it is left to the hearer to find out the reference of the predicate to the subject in the sense of the quality, the consequence, or the lot (cf. e.g., Pro 10:17; Pro 13:1; Pro 14:35).^[66]
Regarding פרע, vid., p. 73. The Latin expression corresponding is: qui detrectat disciplinam. He who rejects the admonition and correction of his parents, his pastor, or his friend, and refuses every counsel to duty as a burdensome moralizing, such an one must at last gather wisdom by means of injury if he is at all wise: he grows poorer in consequence of missing the right rule of life, and has in addition thereto to be subject to disgrace through his own fault. On the contrary, to him who has the disgrace to deserve reproof, but who willingly receives it, and gives it effect, the disgrace becomes an honour, for not to reject reproof shows self-knowledge, humility, and good-will; and these properties in the judgment of others bring men to honour, and have the effect of raising them in their position in life and in their calling.

Verse 19

Two pairs of proverbs regarding fools and wise men, ranged together by catchwords. 19 Quickened desire is sweet to the soul, And it is an abomination to fools to avoid evil.
A synthetic distich, the first line of which, viewed by itself, is only a feebler expression of that which is said in Pro 13:12, for תּאוה נהיה is essentially of the same meaning as תאוה באה, not the desire that has just arisen and is not yet appeased (Umbreit, Hitzig, Zöckler), which when expressed by a part. of the same verb would be הוה (= אשׁר היתה), but the desire that is appeased (Jerome, Luther, also Venet. ἔφεσις γενομένη, i.e., after Kimchi: in the fulfilling of past desire; on the contrary, the Syr., Targ. render the phrase נאוה of becoming desire). The Niph. נהיה denotes not the passing into a state of being, but the being carried out into historical reality, e.g., Eze 21:12; Eze 39:8, where it is connected with באה; it is always the expression of the completed fact to which there is a looking back, e.g., Jdg 20:3; and this sense of the Niph. stands so fast, that it even means to be done, finished (brought to an end), to be out, to be done with anything, e.g., Dan 2:1.^[67]
The sentence, that fulfilled desire does good to the soul, appears commonplace (Hitzig); but it is comprehensive enough on the ground of Heb 11 to cheer even a dying person, and conceals the ethically significant truth that the blessedness of vision is measured by the degree of the longing of faith. But the application of the clause in its pairing with 19b acquires another aspect. On this account, because the desire of the soul is pleasant in its fulfilment, fools abhor the renouncing of evil, for their desire is directed to that which is morally worthless and blameworthy, and the endeavour, which they closely and constantly adhere to, is to reach the attainment of this desire. This subordinate proposition of the conclusion is unexpressed. The pairing of the two lines of the proverb may have been occasioned by the resemblance in sound of תועבת and תּאוה. סוּר is n. actionis, like Pro 16:17, cf. 6. Besides, it in to be observed that the proverb speaks of fools and not of the godless. Folly is that which causes that men do not break free from evil, for it is the deceit of sinful lust which binds them fast thereto.

Verse 20

Pro 13:20 20 Whoever goes with wise men, becomes wise; And whoever has intercourse with fools, becomes base.
Regarding the significance of this proverb in the history of the religion and worship of Israel, vid., p. 39. We have translated 20a after the Kerı̂; the translation according to the Chethı̂b is: “go with wise men and become wise” (cf. Pro 8:33), not הלוך, for the connection of the (meant imperatively) infin. absol. with an imper. (meant conclusively) is not tenable; but הלוך is an imper. form established by הלכוּ, Jer 51:50 (cf. הלוך = לכת, Num 22:14), and appears to have been used with such shades of conception as here as intercourse and companionship for לך. Regarding ירוע gnid, vid., at Pro 11:15; there it meant malo afficietur, here it means malus (pejor) fiet. The Venet. (contrary to Kimchi, who explains by frangetur) rightly has κακωθήσεται. There is here a play upon words; רעה means to tend (a flock), also in general to be considerate about anything (Pro 15:14; 44:20), to take care of anything with the accusative of the person (Pro 28:7; Pro 29:3), to hold intercourse with any one: he who by preference seeks the society of fools, himself becomes such (Jerome, similis efficietur), or rather, as ירוע expresses, he comes always morally lower down. “A wicked companion leads his associate into hell.”

Verse 21

Pro 13:21 21 Evil pursueth sinners, And the righteous is repaid with good.
To תּרדּף of the punishment which follows after sinners at their heels, cf. Nah 1:8. Greek art gives wings to Nemesis in this sense. To translate 21b, with Löwenstein, “The pious, the good rewards them,” is untenable, for טוב, the good (e.g., Pro 11:27), never appears personified, only טוב, goodness, Psa 23:6, according to which the lxx τοὺς δὲ δικαίους καταλήψεται (ישׂיג) ἀγαθά. Still less is טוב meant personally, as the Venet. τὰ δὲ δίκαια ἀποδώσει χρηστός, which probably means: righteous conduct will a good one, viz., God, reward. טוב .dr is an attribute of God, but never the name of God. So the verb שׁלּם, after the manner of verbs of educating and leading (גמל, עשׂה, עבד), is connected with a double accusative. The Syr., Targum, and Jerome translate passively, and so also do we; for while we must think of God in the retribuet, yet the proverb does not name Him any more than at Pro 12:14, cf. Pro 10:24; it is designedly constructed, placing Him in the background, with vague generality: the righteous will one, will they, reward with good - this expression, with the most general personal subject, almost coincides with one altogether passive.

Verse 22

Pro 13:22 22 The good man leaveth behind him for his children's children, And the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
As a commencing word, טוב signifies in the Mishle for the most part bonum (prae); but here, as at Pro 12:2, cf. Pro 22:9; Pro 14:4, it signifies bonus. As the expression that God is טוב (Psa 25:8, etc.) of the O.T. is equivalent to the N.T. that He is ἀγάπη, so that man who in his relation to others is determined by unselfish love is טוב for the good man [der Gütige], i.e., the man who is willing to communicate all good is truly good, because the essence of צדקה, righteousness of life, is love. Such an one suffers no loss by his liberality, but, according to the law, Pro 11:25, by which a dispenser of blessings is at the same time also a recipient of blessings, he has only gain, so that he makes his children's children to inherit, i.e., leaves behind him an inheritance extending even to his grandchildren (vid., regarding הנחיל, p. 182; here trans. as containing its object in itself, as at Deu 32:8 : to make to inherit, to place in possession of an inheritance). The sinner, on the contrary (חוטא sing. to חטּאים, ἁμαρτωλοί), loses his wealth, it is already destined to pass over to the righteous who is worthy of it, and makes use (cf. Job 27:17) of that which he possesses in accordance with the will and appointment of God - a revelation of justice appertaining to time, the exceptions to which the old limited doctrine of requital takes no notice of. חיל, strength, then like our “Vermögen” (cf. opes, facultates), that by means of which one is placed in circumstances to accomplish much (Fl.); cf. regarding the fundamental idea contorquere, compingere, p. 226, also regarding צפן, properly condensare, then condere, p. 61.

Verse 23

Connected with Pro 13:22 there now follow two proverbs regarding sustenance, with one intervening regarding education. 23 The poor man's fresh land gives food in abundance, And many are destroyed by iniquity.
The Targ. and Theodotion (μέγας) translate רב, but the Masora has רב־ with short Kametz, as Pro 20:6; Ecc 1:8 (cf. Kimchi under רבב). The rendering: multitudo cibi est ager pauperum, makes the produce the property of the field (= frugum fertilis). ניר .)s is the new field (novale or novalis, viz., ager), from ניר, to make arable, fruitful; properly to raise up, viz., by grubbing and freeing of stones (סקּל). But why, asks Hitzig, just the new field? As if no answer could be given to this question, he changes ניר into ניב, and finds in 23a the description of a rentier, “a great man who consumes the income of his capital.” But how much more intelligible is the new field of the poor man than these capitals (ראשׁים) with their per cents (ניב)! A new field represents to us severe labour, and as belonging to a poor man, a moderate field, of which it is here said, that notwithstanding its freshly broken up fallow, it yet yields a rich produce, viz., by virtue of the divine blessing, for the proverb supposes the ora et labora. Regarding ראשׁים = רשׁים, vid., at Pro 10:4. Jerome's translation, patrum (properly, heads), follows a false Jewish tradition. In the antithesis, 23b, one is tempted to interpret ישׁ in the sense of Pro 8:21 [substance, wealth], as Schultens, opulentia ipsa raditur quum non est moderamen, and Euchel: that which is essentially good, badly managed, goes to ruin. But ישׁ and וישׁ at the beginning of a proverb, or of a line of a proverb, in every case means est qui. That a wealthy person is meant, the contrast shows. נספּה, which denotes anything taken away or gathered up, has the same meaning here as at 1Sa 27:1 : est qui (Fl. quod, but the parallel does not demand this) abripiatur, i.e., quasi turbine auferatur et perdatur; the word reminds us of סופה, whirlwind, but in itself it means only something smooth and altogether carried off. The בּ is here as at Gen 19:15; elsewhere בּלא משׁפּט means with injustice (properly, not-right), Pro 16:8, Jer 22:13; Eze 22:29; here it is not the ב of the means, but of the mediate cause. While the (industrious and God-fearing) poor man is richly nourished from the piece of ground which he cultivates, many a one who has incomparably more than he comes by his unrighteousness down to a state of beggary, or even lower: he is not only in poverty, but along with this his honour, his freedom, and the very life of his person perish.

Verse 24

Pro 13:24 24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son, And he who loveth him visits him early with correction.
The paedagogic rule of God, Pro 3:12, avails also for men, Pro 23:13., Pro 29:15. The rod represents here the means of punishment, the patria potestas. He who spareth or avoideth this, and who does this even from love, has yet no true right love for his son; he who loveth him correcteth him early. With ἐπιμελῶς παιδεύει of the lxx (cf. Sir. 30:1, ἐνδελεχήσει μάστιγας) the thought is in general indicated, but the expression is not explained. Many erroneously regard the suffix of שׁחרו as referring to the object immediately following (de Dieu, Ewald, Bertheau, Zöckler); Hitzig, on the contrary, rightly remarks, that in this case we should expect the words to be, after Pro 5:22 (cf. Exo 2:6), את־המּוּסר. He himself, without any necessity, takes שׁחר in the sense of the Arab. skhar, compescere. Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2. 402) is right in saying that “שׁחר is connected with a double accusative as elsewhere קדּם occurs; and the meaning is, that one ought much more to anticipate correction than restrain it where it is necessary.” שׁחר means to go out early to anything, according to which a Greek rendering is ὀρθρίζει (Venet. ὀρθριεῖ) αὐτῷ παιδείαν: maturat ei castigationem = mature eum castigat (Fl.). שׁחר does not denote the early morning of the day (as Rashi, לבקרים), but the morning of life (as Euchel, בשׁחר ימיו). “The earlier the fruit, the better the training.” A father who truly wishes well to his son keeps him betimes under strict discipline, to give him while he is yet capable of being influenced the right direction, and to allow no errors to root themselves in him; but he who is indulgent toward his child when he ought to be strict, acts as if he really wished his ruin.

Verse 25

Pro 13:25 25 The righteous has to eat to the satisfying of his soul; But the body of the godless must suffer want.
Jerome translates תחסר freely by insaturabilis (he has want = has never enough), but in that case we would have expected תחסר תּמיד; also in 25a עד־שׂבע would have been used. We have thus before us no commendation of temperance and moderation in contrast to gluttony, but a statement regarding the diversity of fortune of the righteous and the godless - another way of clothing the idea of Pro 10:3. שׂבע is a segolate form, thus an infin. formation, formally different from the similar שׂבע, Pro 3:10. Regarding בּטן, vid., Psychol. p. 265f.; it is a nobler word than “Bauch” [belly], for it denotes not the external arch, but, like κοιλία (R. בט, concavus), the inner body, here like Pro 18:20, as that which receives the nourishment and changes it in succum et sanguinem. That God richly nourishes the righteous, and on the contrary brings the godless to want and misery, is indeed a rule with many exceptions, but understood in the light of the N.T., it has deep inward everlasting truth.

Chap. 14

Verse 1

Pro 14:1 1 The wisdom of the woman buildeth her house, And folly teareth it down with its own hands.
Were it חכמות נשׁים, after Jdg 5:29, cf. Isa 19:11, then the meaning would be: the wise among women, each of them buildeth her house. But why then not just אשּׁה חכמה, as 2Sa 14:2, cf. Exo 35:25? The Syr., Targum, and Jerome write sapiens mulier. And if the whole class must be spoken of, why again immediately the individualizing in בּנתה? The lxx obliterates that by its ᾠκοδόμησαν. And does not אוּלת [folly] in the contrasted proverb (1b) lead us to conclude on a similar abstract in 1a? The translators conceal this, for they translate אולת personally. Thus also the Venet. and Luther; אוּלת is, says Kimchi, an adj. like עוּרת, caeca. But the linguistic usage does not point אויל with אוילי to any אוּל. It is true that a fem. of אויל does not occur; there is, however, also no place in which אולת may certainly present itself as such. Thus also חכמות must be an abstr.; we have shown at Pro 1:20 how חכמות, as neut. plur., might have an abstr. meaning. But since it is not to be perceived why the poet should express himself so singularly, the punctuation חכמות is to be understood as proceeding from a false supposition, and is to be read חכמות, as at Pro 9:1 (especially since this passage rests on the one before us). Fleischer says: “to build the house is figuratively equivalent to, to regulate well the affairs of a house, and to keep them in a good condition; the contrary, to tear down the house, is the same contrast as the Arab. 'amârat âlbyt and kharab albyt. Thus e.g., in Burckhardt's Sprüchw. 217, harrt ṣabrt bythâ 'amârat, a good woman (ein braves Weib) has patience (with her husband), and thereby she builds up her house (at the same time an example of the use of the preterite in like general sentences for individualizing); also No. 430 of the same work: 'amârat âlbyt wla kharâbt, it is becoming to build the house, not to destroy it; cf. in the Thousand and One Nights, where a woman who had compelled her husband to separate from her says: âna âlty 'amalt hadhâ barwḥy wâkhrnt byty bnfsy. Burckhardt there makes the remark: 'amârat âlbyt denotes the family placed in good circumstances - father, mother, and children all living together happily and peacefully.” This conditional relation of the wife to the house expresses itself in her being named as house-wife (cf. Hausehre [= honour of a house] used by Luther, Psa 68:13), to which the Talmudic דּביתי (= uxor mea) answers; the wife is noted for this, and hence is called עיקר הבית, the root and foundation of the house; vid., Buxtorf's Lex. col. 301. In truth, the oneness of the house is more dependent on the mother than on the father. A wise mother can, if her husband be dead or neglectful of his duty, always keep the house together; but if the house-wife has neither understanding nor good-will for her calling, then the best will of the house-father cannot hinder the dissolution of the house, prudence and patience only conceal and mitigate the process of dissolution - folly, viz., of the house-wife, always becomes more and more, according to the degree in which this is a caricature of her calling, the ruin of the house.

Verse 2

Pro 14:2 2 He walketh in his uprightness who feareth Jahve, And perverse in his ways is he that despiseth Him.
That which syntactically lies nearest is also that which is intended; the ideas standing in the first place are the predicates. Wherein it shows itself, and whereby it is recognised, that a man fears God, or stands in a relation to Him of indifference instead of one of fear and reverence, shall be declared: the former walketh in his uprightness, i.e., so far as the consciousness of duty which animates him prescribes; the latter in his conduct follows no higher rule than his own lust, which drives him sometimes hither and sometimes thither. הולך בּישׁרו .rehtih (cf. ישׁר הולך, Mic 2:7) is of kindred meaning with הולך בּתמּו, Pro 28:6 (הולך בּתּום, Pro 10:9), and הולך נכחו, Isa 57:2. The connection of נלוז דּרכיו follows the scheme of 2Ki 18:37, and not 2Sa 15:32, Ewald, §288c. If the second word, which particularizes the idea of the first, has the reflexive suff. as here, then the accusative connection, or, as Pro 2:15, the prepositional, is more usual than the genitive. Regarding לוּז, flectere, inclinare (a word common to the author of chap. 1-9), vid., at Pro 2:15. With בּוזהוּ, cf. 1Sa 2:30; the suffix without doubt refers to God, for בוזהו is the word that stands in parallel contrast to 'ירא ה.

Verse 3

Pro 14:3 3 In the mouth of the fool is a switch of pride; But the lips of the wise preserve them.
The noun חטר (Aram. חוּטרא, Arab. khiṭr), which besides here occurs only at Isa 11:1, meaning properly a brandishing (from חטר = Arab. khatr, to brandish, to move up and down or hither and thither, whence âlkhṭtâr, the brandisher, poet. the spear), concretely, the young elastic twig, the switch, i.e., the slender flexible shoot. Luther translates, “fools speak tyrannically,” which is the briefer rendering of his earlier translation, “in the mouth of the fool is the sceptre of pride;” but although the Targum uses חוטרא of the king's sceptre and also of the prince's staff, yet here for this the usual Hebr. שׁבט were to be expected. In view of Isa 11:1, the nearest idea is, that pride which has its roots in the heart of the fool, grows up to his mouth. But yet it is not thus explained why the representation of this proceeding from within stops with חטר cf. Pro 11:30). The βακτηρία ὕβρεως (lxx, and similarly the other Greek versions) is either meant as the rod of correction of his own pride (as e.g., Abulwalîd, and, among the moderns, Bertheau and Zöckler) or as chastisement for others (Syr., Targum: the staff of reviling). Hitzig is in favour of the former idea, and thinks himself warranted in translating: a rod for his back; but while גּוה is found for גּאוה, we do not (cf. under Job 41:7 : a pride are the, etc.) find גאוה for גוה, the body, or גּו, the back. But in general it is to be assumed, that if the poet had meant חטר as the means of correction, he would have written גּאותו. Rightly Fleischer: “The tongue is often compared to a staff, a sword, etc., in so far as their effects are ascribed to it; we have here the figure which in Rev 1:16 passes over into plastic reality.” Self-exaltation (R. גא, to strive to be above) to the delusion of greatness is characteristic of the fool, the אויל [godless], not the כּסיל [stupid, dull] - Hitzig altogether confounds these two conceptions. With such self-exaltation, in which the mind, morally if not pathologically diseased, says, like Nineveh and Babylon in the prophets, I am alone, and there is no one with me, there is always united the scourge of pride and of disgrace; and the meaning of 3b may now be that the lips of the wise protect those who are exposed to this injury (Ewald), or that they protect the wise themselves against such assaults (thus most interpreters). But this reference of the eos to others lies much more remote than at Pro 12:6; and that the protection of the wise against injury inflicted on them by words is due to their own lips is unsatisfactory, as in this case, instead of Bewahrung [custodia], we would rather expect Vertheidigung [defensio], Dämpfung [damping, extinguishing], Niederduckung [stooping down, accommodating oneself to circumstances]. But also it cannot be meant that the lips of the wise preserve them from the pride of fools, for the thought that the mouth preserves the wise from the sins of the mouth is without meaning and truth (cf. the contrary, Pro 13:3). Therefore Arama interprets the verb as jussive: the lips = words of the wise mayest thou keep i.e., take to heart. And the Venet. translates: χείλη δὲ σοφῶν φυλάξεις αὐτά, which perhaps means: the lips of the wise mayest thou consider, and that not as a prayer, which is foreign to the gnome, but as an address to the hearer, which e.g., Pro 20:19 shows to be admissible. but although in a certain degree of similar contents, yet 3a and 3b clash. Therefore it appears to us more probable that the subject of 3b is the חכמה contained in חכמים; in Pro 6:22 wisdom is also the subject to תשׁמר עליך without its being named. Thus: while hurtful pride grows up to the throat of the fool, that, viz., wisdom, keeps the lips of the wise, so that no word of self-reflection, especially none that can wound a neighbour, escapes from them. The form תּשׁמוּרם is much more peculiar than ישׁפּוּטוּ, Exo 18:26, and תעבוּרי, Rth 2:8, for the latter are obscured forms of ישׁפּטוּ and תעברי, while on the contrary the former arises from תּשׁמרם.^[68]
If, according to the usual interpretation, we make שׂפתי the subject, then the construction follows the rule, Gesen. §146, 2. The lxx transfers it into Greek: χείλη δὲ σοφῶν φυλάσσει αὐτούς. The probable conjecture, that תשׁמורם is an error in transcription for תּשׁמרוּם = תּשׁמרנה אתם (this is found also in Luzzatto's Gramm. §776; and Hitzig adduces as other examples of such transpositions of the ו Jer 2:25; Jer 17:23; Job 26:12, and Jos 2:4, ותצפנו for ותצפון), we do not acknowledge, because it makes the lips the subject with an exclusiveness the justification of which is doubtful to us.

Verse 4

The switch and the preserving, Pro 14:3, may have given occasion to the collector, amid the store of proverbs before him, now to present the agricultural figure:
Without oxen the crib is empty;
But rich increase is by the strength of the plough-ox.
This is a commendation of the breeding of cattle, but standing here certainly not merely as useful knowledge, but as an admonition to the treatment in a careful, gentle manner, and with thankful recompense of the ox (Pro 12:10), which God has subjected to man to help him in his labour, and more generally, in so far as one seeks to gain an object, to the considerate adoption of the right means for gaining it. אלפים (from אלף, to cling to) are the cattle giving themselves willingly to the service of men (poet. equivalent to בּקרים). שׁור (תּור, Arab. thwr), Ved. sthûras, is the Aryan-Semitic name of the plough-ox. The noun אבוּס (= אבוּס like אטוּן, אמוּן) denotes the fodder-trough, from אבס, to feed, and thus perhaps as to its root-meaning related to φάτνη (πάτνη), and may thus also designate the receptacle for grain where the corn for the provender or feeding of the cattle is preserved - מאבוּס, Jer 50:26, at least has this wider signification of the granary; but there exists no reason to depart here from the nearest signification of the word: if a husbandman is not thoughtful about the care and support of the cattle by which he is assisted in his labour, then the crib is empty - he has nothing to heap up; he needs not only fodder, but has also nothing. בּר (in pause בּר), clean (synon. נקי, cf. at Pro 11:26), corresponds with our baar [bare] = bloss [nudus]. Its derivation is obscure. The בּ, 4b, is that of the mediating cause: by the strength of the plough-ox there is a fulness of grain gathered into the barn (תּבוּאות, from בּוא, to gather in, anything gathered in). רב־ is the inverted בּר. Striking if also accidental is the frequency of the א and ב in Pro 14:4. This is continued in Pro 14:5, where the collector gives two proverbs, the first of which commences with a word beginning with א, and the second with one beginning with ב:

Verse 5

Striking if also accidental is the frequency of the א and ב in Pro 14:4. This is continued in Pro 14:5, where the collector gives two proverbs, the first of which commences with a word beginning with א, and the second with one beginning with ב: 5 A faithful witness does not speak untruth; But a lying witness breathes out falsehoods.
The right vocalization and sequence of the accents is בּקּשׁ לץ חכמה (ק with Tsere and the servile Mahpach, חכמה with Munach, because the following Athnach-word has not two syllables before the tone). As in 5a עד אמוּנים, so in 5b עד שׁקר is the subject. Different is the relation of subject and predicate in the second line of the parallel proverbs, Pro 14:25, Pro 19:5. With 5a cf. ציר אמוּנים, Pro 13:17; and regarding יפיח (one who breathes out), vid., at Pro 6:19; Pro 12:17.

Verse 6

Pro 14:6 6 In vain the scorner seeketh wisdom; But to the man of understanding knowledge is easy.
The general sentence is concrete, composed in the common historical form. Regarding ואין, necquidquam, vid., at Pro 13:4. The participle נקל is here neut. for נקלּה, something which makes itself easy or light. The frivolous man, to whom truth is not a matter of conscience, and who recognises no authority, not even the Supreme, never reaches to truth notwithstanding all his searching, it remains veiled to him and far remote; but to the man of understanding, who knows that the fear of God and not estrangement from God leads to truth, knowledge is an easy matter - he enters on the right way to this end, he brings the right receptivity, brings to bear on it the clear eye, and there is fulfilled to him the saying, “To him that hath it is given.”

Verse 7

Three proverbs regarding fools: 7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, And surely thou hast not known lips of knowledge;i.e., surely hast not brought into experience that he possesses lips which express experimental knowledge, or: surely thou must confess on reflection that no prudent word has come forth from his mouth. If 7b were intended to assign a motive, then the expression would be כּי בל־תּדע or וּבל־תּדע (Isa 44:9), according to which Aquila and Theodotion translate, καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς. נגד is the sphere of vision, and מנּגד denotes either away from the sphere of vision, as e.g., Isa 1:16, or, inasmuch as מן is used as in מעל, מתּחת, and the like: at a certain distance from the sphere of vision, but so that one keeps the object in sight, Gen 21:16. נגד ל denotes, as the inverted expression Deu 28:66 shows, over against any one, so that he has the object visibly before him, and מנּגד ל, Jdg 20:34, from the neighbourhood of a place where one has it in view. So also here: go away from the vis-à-vis (vis = visûs) of the foolish man, if thou hast to do with such an one; whence, 7b, follows what he who has gone away must on looking back say to himself. בל (with the pret. as e.g., Isa 33:23) expresses a negative with emphasis. Nolde and others, also Fleischer, interpret 7b relatively: et in quo non cognoveris labia scientiae. If וּבל־ידע were the expression used, then it would be explained after Pro 9:13, for the idea of the foolish man is extended: and of such an one as absolutely knows not how to speak anything prudent. But in וּבל־ידעתּ the relative clause intended must be indicated by the added בּו: and of such an one in whom... Besides, in this case וּלא (vid., Psa 35:15) would have been nearer than וּבל. The lxx has modified this proverb, and yet has brought out nothing that is correct; not only the Syr., but also Hitzig follows it, when he translates, “The foolish man hath everything before him, but lips of knowledge are a receptacle of knowledge” (וּכלי דּעת). It racks one's brains to find out the meaning of the first part here, and, as Böttcher rightly says, who can be satisfied with the “lips of knowledge” as the “receptacle of knowledge”?

Verse 8

Pro 14:8 8 The wisdom of the prudent is to observe his way, And the folly of fools is deceit.
The nearest idea is that of self-deceit, according to which the lxx, Syr., and Jerome render the word error (“Irrsal”). But מרמה is nowhere else used of self-deception, and moreover is not the suitable word for such an idea, since the conception of the dolus malus is constantly associated with it. Thus the contrast will be this: the wisdom of the prudent shows itself in this, that he considers his conduct (הבין as Pro 7:7, cf. Psa 5:2), i.e., regulates it carefully, examining and considering (Pro 13:16) it according to right and duty; and that on the contrary the folly of fools shows itself in this, that they aim at the malevolent deception of their neighbour, and try all kinds of secret ways for the gaining of this end. The former is wisdom, because from the good only good comes; the latter is folly or madness, because deception, however long it may sneak in darkness, yet at last comes to light, and recoils in its destructive effects upon him from whom it proceeds.

Verse 9

Pro 14:9 9 The sacrificial offering of fools mocketh; But between upright men there is good understanding
We may not give to the Hiph. הליץ any meaning which it nowhere has, as, to excuse (Kimchi), or to come to an agreement by mediation (Schultens). So we may not make אוילים the subject (Targ., Symmachus, Jerome, Luther, “fools make sport with sin”), for one is persuaded that אוילים is equivalent to כל אחר מן האוילים (Immanuel, Meîri, and others), which would be more admissible if we had מליץ (vid., Pro 3:35), or if יליץ did not immediately follow (vid., Pro 28:1). Aquila and Theodotion rightly interpret the relation of the component parts of the sentence: ἄφρονας χλευάζει πλημμέλια; and this translation of אשׁם also is correct is we take πλημμέλεια in the sense of a θυσία περὶ πλημμελείας (Sir. 7:31), in which the Judaeo-Hellenic actually uses it (vid., Schleusner's Lex.). The idea of sacrificial offering is that of expiation: it is a penitential work, it falls under the prevailing point of view of an ecclesiastical punishment, a satisfactio in a church-disciplinary sense; the forgiveness of sins is conditioned by this, (1) that the sinner either abundantly makes good by restitution the injury inflicted on another, or in some other way bears temporal punishment for it, and (2) that he willingly presents the sacrifices of rams or of sheep, the value of which the priest has to determine in its relation to the offence (by a tax-scale from 2 shekels upwards). The Torâ gives accurately the offences which are thus to be atoned for. Here, with reference to 9b, there particularly comes into view the offence against property (Lev. 5:20ff.) and against female honour (Lev 19:20-22). Fools fall from one offence into another, which they have to atone for by the presentation of sacrificial offerings; the sacrificial offering mocketh them (הליץ with accus.-object, as Pro 19:28; Psa 119:51), for it equally derides them on account of the self-inflicted loss, and on account of the efforts with which they must make good the effects of their frivolity and madness; while on the contrary, among men of upright character, רצון, a relation of mutual favour, prevails, which does not permit that the one give to the other an indemnity, and apply the Asham- [אשׁם = trespass-offering] Torâ. Symmachus rightly: καὶ ἀνάμεσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία. But the lxx confuses this proverb also. Hitzig, with the Syr., follows it and translates:
The tents of the foolish are in punishment overthrown [verfällt];
The house of the upright is well-pleasing [wolgefällt].
Is not this extravagant [ungereimt = not rhymed] in spite of the rhyme? These אהלי [tents] extracted from אוילים, and this בית [house] formed out of בין, are nothing but an aimless and tasteless flourish.

Verse 10

Four proverbs of joy and sorrow in the present and the future: 10 The heart knoweth the trouble of its soul, And no stranger can intermeddle with its joy.
The accentuation לב יודע seems to point out יודע as an adjective (Löwenstein: a feeling heart), after 1Ki 3:9, or genit. (of a feeling heart); but Cod. 1294 and the Jemen Cod., and others, as well as the editions of Jablonsky and Michaelis, have לב with Rebia, so that this is by itself to be taken as the subject (cf. the accentuation Pro 15:5 and under at 16a). מרּת has the ר with Dagesh, and consequently the short Kametz (Michlol 63b), like שׁרּך Pro 3:8, cf. כּרתה, Jdg 6:28, and on the contrary כרּת, Eze 16:4; it is the fem. of mōr = morr, from מרר, adstringere, amarum esse. Regarding לב, in contradistinction to נפשׁ, vid., Psychol. p. 251. “All that is meant by the Hellenic and Hellenistic νοῦς, λόγος, συνείδησις, θυμός, is comprehended in καρδία, and all by which the בשׂר and נפשׁ are affected comes in לב into the light of consciousness.”
The first half of the proverb is clear: the heart, and only it, i.e., the man in the centre of his individuality, knows what brings bitterness to his soul, i.e., what troubles him in the sphere of his natural life and of the nearest life-circle surrounding him. It thus treats of life experiences which are of too complex a nature to be capable of being fully represented to others, and, as we are wont to say, of so delicate a nature that we shrink from uncovering them and making them known to others, and which on this account must be kept shut up in our own hearts, because no man is so near to us, or has so fully gained our confidence, that we have the desire and the courage to pour out our hearts to him from their very depths. Yet the saying, “Every one knows where the shoe pinches him” (1Ki 8:38), stands nearer to this proverb; here this expression receives a psychological, yet a sharper and a deeper expression, for the knowledge of that which grieves the soul is attributed to the heart, in which, as the innermost of the soul-corporeal life, it reflects itself and becomes the matter-of-fact of the reflex consciousness in which it must shut itself up, but also for the most part without external expression. If we now interpret לא־יתערב as prohibitive, then this would stand (with this exception, that in this case אל instead of לא is to be expected) in opposition, certainly not intended, to the exhortation, Rom 12:15, “Rejoice with them that do rejoice,” and to the saying, “Distributed joy is doubled joy, distributed sorrow is half sorrow;” and an admonition to leave man alone with his joy, instead of urging him to distribute it, does not run parallel with 10a. Therefore we interpret the fut. as potentialis. As there is a soul-sorrow of the man whose experience is merely a matter of the heart, so there is also a soul-joy with which no other (vid., regarding זר, p. 135, and cf. here particularly Job 19:27) intermeddleth (ההערב בּ like Psa 106:35), in which no other can intermeddle, because his experience, as e.g., of blessed spiritual affection or of benevolent feeling, is purely of a personal nature, and admits of no participation (cf. on ἔκρυψε, Mat 13:44), and thus of no communication to others. Elster well observes: “By this thought, that the innermost feelings of a man are never fully imparted to another man, never perfectly cover themselves with the feelings of another, yea, cannot at all be fully understood by another, the worth and the significance of each separate human personality is made conspicuous, not one of which is the example of a species, but each has its own peculiarity, which no one of countless individuals possesses. At the same time the proverb has the significance, that it shows the impossibility of a perfect fellowship among men, because one never wholly understands another. Thereby it is indicated that no human fellowship can give true salvation, but only the fellowship with God, whose love and wisdom are capable of shining through the most secret sanctuary of human personality.” Thus also Dächsel (but he interprets 10b admonitorily): “Each man is a little world in himself, which God only fully sees through and understands. His sorrow appertaining to his innermost life, and his joy, another is never able fully to transfer to himself. Yea, the most sorrowful of all experiences, the most inward of all joys, we possess altogether alone, without any to participate with us.”

Verse 11

Pro 14:11 11 The house of the wicked is overthrown; But the tent of the upright flourishes.
In the cogn. proverb, Pro 12:7, line 2 begins with וּבית, but here the apparently firmly-founded house is assigned to the godless, and on the contrary the tent, easily destroyed, and not set up under the delusion of lasting for ever, is assigned to the righteous. While the former is swept away without leaving a trace behind (Isa 14:23), the latter has blossoms and shoots (הפריח as inwardly transitive, like Job 14:9; Psa 92:14); the household of such remains not only preserved in the same state, but in a prosperous, happy manner it goes forward and upward.

Verse 12

Pro 14:12 12 There is a way that seemeth right to one, But the end thereof are the ways of death.
This is literally repeated in Pro 16:25. The rightness is present only as a phantom, for it arises wholly from a terrible self-deception; the man judges falsely and goes astray when, without regard to God and His word, he follows only his own opinions. It is the way of estrangement from God, of fleshly security; the way of vice, in which the blinded thinks to spend his life, to set himself to fulfil his purposes; but the end thereof (אחריתהּ with neut. fem.: the end of this intention, that in which it issues) are the ways of death. He who thus deceives himself regarding his course of life, sees himself at last arrived at a point from which every way which now further remains to him leads only down to death. The self-delusion of one ends in death by the sentence of the judge, that of another in self-murder; of one in loathsome disease, of another in a slow decay under the agony of conscience, or in sorrow over a henceforth dishonoured and distracted life.

Verse 13

Pro 14:13 13 Even in the midst of laughter the heart experiences sadness; And to it, joy, the end is sorrow.
Every human heart carries the feeling of disquiet and of separation from its true home, and of the nothingness, the transitoriness of all that is earthly; and in addition to this, there is many a secret sorrow in every one which grows out of his own corporeal and spiritual life, and from his relation to other men; and this sorrow, which is from infancy onward the lot of the human heart, and which more and more depends and diversifies itself in the course of life, makes itself perceptible even in the midst of laughter, in spite of the mirth and merriment, without being able to be suppressed or expelled from the soul, returning always the more intensely, the more violently we may have for a time kept it under and sunk it in unconsciousness. Euchel cites here the words of the poet, according to which 13a is literally true: “No, man is not made for joy;
Why weep his eyes when in heart he laughs?”^[69]
From the fact that sorrow is the fundamental condition of humanity, and forms the background of laughter, it follows, 13b, that in general it is not good for man to give himself up to joy, viz., sensual (worldly), for to it, joy, the end (the issue) is sorrow. That is true also of the final end, which according to that saying, μακάριοι οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν ὅτι γελάσετε, changes laughter into weeping, and weeping into laughter. The correction אחרית השּׂמחה (Hitzig) presses upon the Mishle style an article in such cases rejected, and removes a form of expression of the Hebr. syntaxis ornata, which here, as at Isa 17:6, is easily obviated, but which is warranted by a multitude of other examples, vid., at Pro 13:4 (also Pro 5:22), and cf. Philippi's Status Const. p. 14f., who regards the second word, as here שׂמהה, after the Arab., as accus. But in cases like שׂנאי שׁקר, although not in cases such as Ezr 2:62, the accus. rendering is tenable, and the Arab. does not at all demand it.^[70]
In the old Hebr. this solutio of the st. constr. belongs to the elegances of the language; it is the precursor of the vulgar post-bibl. אחרייהּ שׂל־שׂמחה. That the Hebr. may also retain a gen. where more or fewer parts of a sentence intervene between it and its governing word, is shown by such examples as Isa 48:9; Isa 49:7; Isa 61:7.^[71]

Verse 14

There follows a series of proverbs which treat of the wicked and the good, and of the relation between the foolish and the wise: 14 He that is of a perverse heart is satisfied with his own ways; And a good man from himself.
We first determine the subject conception. סוּג לב (one turning aside τῆς καρδίας or τὴν καρδίαν) is one whose heart is perverted, נסוג, turned away, viz., from God, Psa 44:19. The Book of Proverbs contains besides of this verb only the name of dross (recedanea) derived from it; סוּג, separated, drawn away, is such a half passive as סוּר, Isa 49:21, שׁוּב, Mic 2:8, etc. (Olsh. §245a). Regarding אישׁ טוב, vid., at Pro 12:2, cf. Pro 13:22 : a man is so called whose manner of thought and of action has as its impulse and motive self-sacrificing love. When it is said of the former that he is satisfied with his own ways, viz., those which with heart turned away from God he enters upon, the meaning is not that they give him peace or bring satisfaction to him (Löwenstein), but we see from Pro 1:31; Pro 18:20, that this is meant recompensatively: he gets, enjoys the reward of his wandering in estrangement from God. It is now without doubt seen that 14b expresses that wherein the benevolent man finds his reward. We will therefore not explain (after Pro 4:15, cf. Num 16:26; 2Sa 19:10): the good man turns himself away from him, or the good man stands over him (as Jerome, Venet., after Ecc 5:7); - this rendering gives no contrast, or at least a halting one. The מן of מעליו must be parallel with that of מדּרכיו. From the lxx, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν διανοημάτων αὐτοῦ, the Syr. rightly: from the fruit (religiousness) of his soul; the Targ.: from his fruit. Buxtorf, against Cappellus, has already perceived that here no other phrase but the explanation of מעליו by ex eo quod penes se est lies at the foundation. We could, after Pro 7:14, also explain: from that which he perceives as his obligation (duty); yet that other explanation lies proportionally nearer, but yet no so that we refer the suffix to the backslider of 14a: in it (his fate) the good man is satisfied, for this contrast also halts, the thought is not in the spirit of the Book of Proverbs (for Pro 29:16 does not justify it); and in how totally different a connection of thought מעליו is used in the Book of Proverbs, is shown by Pro 24:17; but generally the Scripture does not use שׂבע of such satisfaction, it has, as in 14a, also in 14b, the recompensative sense, according to the fundamental principle, ὃ ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος τοῦτο καὶ θερίσει (Gal 6:7). The suffix refers back to the subject, as we say: רוּחי עלי, נפשׁי עלי (Psychol. p. 152). But considerations of an opposite kind also suggest themselves. Everywhere else מעל refers not to that which a man has within himself, but that which he carries without; and also that מעליו can be used in the sense of משּׁעליו, no evidence can be adduced: it must be admitted to be possible, since the writer of the Chronicles (2Ch 1:4) ventures to use בהכין. Is מעליו thus used substantively: by his leaves (Aben Ezra and others)? If one compares Pro 11:28 with Psa 1:3, this explanation is not absurd; but why then did not the poet rather use מפּריו? We come finally to the result, that ומעליו, although it admits a connected interpretation, is an error of transcription. But the correction is not וּמעלּיו (Elster) nor וּמעלליו (Cappellus), for עלּים and עללים, deeds, are words which do not exist; nor is it וּמפּעליו (Bertheau) nor וּמגּמליו (Ewald), but וּממּעלליו (which Cappellus regarded, but erroneously, as the lxx phrase); for (1) throughout almost the whole O.T., from Jdg 2:19 to Zec 1:18, דרכים and מעללים are interchangeable words, and indeed almost an inseparable pair, cf. particularly Jer 17:10; and (2) when Isaiah (Isa 3:10) says, אמרו צדיק כי־טוב כּי־פרי מעלליהם יאכלוּ, this almost sounds like a prophetical paraphrase of the second line of the proverb, which besides by this emendation gains a more rhythmical sound and a more suitable compass.^[72]

Verse 15

Pro 14:15 15 The simple believeth every word; But the prudent takes heed to his step.
We do not translate, “every thing,” for “word” and faith are correlates, Psa 106:24, and פּתי is the non-self-dependent who lets himself be easily persuaded by the talk of another: he believes every word without proving it, whether it is well-meant, whether it is true, whether it is salutary and useful, so that he is thus, without having any firm principle, and without any judgment of his own, driven about hither and thither; the prudent, on the other hand, considers and marks his step, that he may not take a false step or go astray, he proves his way (8a), he takes no step without thought and consideration (בּין or הבין with ל, to consider or reflect upon anything, Psa 73:17, cf. Psa 33:15) - he makes sure steps with his feet (Heb 12:13), without permitting himself to waver and sway by every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14).

Verse 16

Pro 14:16 16 The wise feareth and departeth from evil; But the fool loseth his wits and is regardless.
Our editions have ירא with Munach, as if חכם ירא were a substantive with its adjective; but Cod. 1294 has חכם with Rebia, and thus it must be: חכם is the subject, and what follows is its complex predicate. Most interpreters translate 16b: the fool is over-confident (Zöckler), or the fool rushes on (Hitzig), as also Luther: but a fool rushes wildly through, i.e., in a daring, presumptuous manner. But התעבּר denotes everywhere nothing else than to fall into extreme anger, to become heated beyond measure, Pro 26:17 (cf. Pro 20:2), Deu 3:26, etc. Thus 16a and 16b are fully contrasted. What is said of the wise will be judged after Job 1:1, cf. Psa 34:15; Psa 37:27 : the wise man has fear, viz., fear of God, or rather, since האלהים is not directly to be supplied, that careful, thoughtful, self-mistrusting reserve which flows from the reverential awe of God; the fool, on the contrary, can neither rule nor bridle his affections, and without any just occasion falls into passionate excitement. But on the other side he is self-confident, regardless, secure; while the wise man avoids the evil, i.e., carefully goes out of its way, and in N.T. phraseology “works out his own salvation with fear and trembling.”

Verse 17

This verse, as if explanatory of מתעבר, connects itself with this interpretation of the contrasts, corresponding to the general usus loquendi, and particularly to the Mishle style.
One who is quick to anger worketh folly,
And a man of intrigues is hated.
Ewald finds here no right contrast. He understands אישׁ מזמּה in a good sense, and accordingly corrects the text, substituting for ישׂנא, ישׁוּא (ישׁוּא), for he translates: but the man of consideration bears (properly smooths, viz., his soul). On the other hand it is also to be remarked, that אישׁ מזמה, when it occurs, is not to be understood necessarily in a good sense, since מזמה is used just like מזמות, at one time in a good and at another in a bad sense, and that we willingly miss the “most complete sense” thus arising, since the proverb, as it stands in the Masoretic text, is good Hebrew, and needs only to be rightly understood to let nothing be missed in completeness. The contrast, as Ewald seeks here to represent it (also Hitzig, who proposes ישׁאן: the man of consideration remains quiet; Syr. ramys, circumspect), we have in Pro 14:29, where the μακρόθυμος stands over against the ὀξύθυμος (אף or אפּים of the breathing of anger through the nose, cf. Theocritus, i. 18: καὶ οἱ ἀεὶ δριμεῖα χολὰ ποτὶ ῥινὶ κάθηται). Here the contrast is different: to the man who is quick to anger, who suddenly gives expression to his anger and displeasure, stands opposed the man of intrigues, who contrives secret vengeance against those with whom he is angry. Such a deceitful man, who contrives evil with calculating forethought and executes it in cold blood (cf. Psa 37:7), is hated; while on the contrary the noisy lets himself rush forward to inconsiderate, mad actions, but is not hated on that account; but if in his folly he injures or disgraces himself, or is derided, or if he even does injury to the body and the life of another, and afterwards with terror sees the evil done in its true light, then he is an object of compassion. Theodotion rightly: (ἀνὴρ δὲ) διαβουλιῶν μισηθήσεται, and Jerome: vir versutus odiosus est (not the Venet. ἀνὴρ βδελυγμῶν, for this signification has only זמּה, and that in the sing.); on the contrary, the lxx, Syr., Targum, and Symmachus incorrectly understand איש מזמות in bonam partem.

Verse 18

Pro 14:18 18 The simple have obtained folly as an inheritance; But the prudent put on knowledge as a crown.
As a parallel word to נחלוּ, יכתּרוּ (after the Masora defective), also in the sense of Arab. âkthar, multiplicare, abundare (from Arab. kathura, to be much, perhaps^[73] properly comprehensive, encompassing), would be appropriate, but it is a word properly Arabic. On the other hand, inappropriate is the meaning of the Heb.-Aram. כּתּר, to wait (properly waiting to surround, to go round any one, cf. manere aliquem or aliquod), according to which Aquila, ἀναμενούσιν, and Jerome, expectabunt. Also הכתּיר, to encompass in the sense of to embrace (lxx κρατήσουσιν), does not suffice, since in the relation to נחלו one expects an idea surpassing this. Certainly there is a heightening of the idea in this, that the Hiph. in contradistinction to נחל would denote an object of desire spontaneously sought for. But far stronger and more pointed is the heightening of the idea when we take יכתרו as the denom. of כּרת (Gr. κίταρις, κίδαρις, Babyl. כדר, cudur, cf. כּדּוּר, a rounding, sphaera). Thus Theodotion, στεφθήσονται. The Venet. better actively, ἐστέψαντο (after Kimchi: ישׂימו הדעת ככתר על ראשם), the Targ., Jerome, Luther (but not the Syr., which translates נחלו by “to inherit,” but יכתרו by μεριοῦνται, which the lxx has for נחלו). The bibl. language has also (Ps. 142:8) הכתיר in the denom. signification of to place a crown, and that on oneself; the non-bibl. has מכתיר (like the bibl. מעטיר) in the sense of distributor of crowns,^[74] and is fond of the metaphor כתר הדעת, crown of knowledge. With those not self-dependent (vid., regarding the plur. form of פּתי, p. 56), who are swayed by the first influence, the issue is, without their willing it, that they become habitual fools: folly is their possession, i.e., their property. The prudent, on the contrary, as Pro 14:15 designates them, have thoughtfully to ponder their step to gain knowledge as a crown (cf. העשׁיר, to gain riches, הפריח, 11b, to gain flowers, Gesen. §53, 2). Knowledge is to them not merely an inheritance, but a possession won, and as such remains with them a high and as it were a kingly ornament.

Verse 19

Pro 14:19 19 The wicked must bow before the good, And the godless stand at the doors of the righteous.
The good, viz., that which is truly good, which has love as its principle, always at last holds the supremacy. The good men who manifest love to men which flows from love to God, come finally forward, so that the wicked, who for a long time played the part of lords, bow themselves willingly or unwillingly before them, and often enough it comes about that godless men fall down from their prosperity and their places of honour so low, that they post themselves at the entrance of the stately dwelling of the righteous (Pro 13:22), waiting for his going out and in, or seeking an occasion of presenting to him a supplication, or also as expecting gifts to be bestowed (Psa 37:25). The poor man Lazarus πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα of the rich man, Luk 16:20, shows, indeed, that this is not always the case on this side of the grave. שׁחוּ has, according to the Masora (cf. Kimchi's Wörterbuch under שׁחח), the ultima accented; the accentuation of the form סכּוּ wavers between the ult. and penult. Olsh. p. 482f., cf. Gesen. 68, Anm. 10. The substantival clause 19b is easily changed into a verbal clause: they come (Syr.), appear, stand (incorrectly the Targ.: they are judged in the gates of the righteous).

Verse 20

Three proverbs on the hatred of men: 20 The poor is hated even by his neighbour; But of those who love the rich there are many.
This is the old history daily repeating itself. Among all people is the saying and the complaint:Donec eris felix multos numerabis amicos,Tempora si fuerint nubilia solus eris.^[75]
The Book of Proverbs also speaks of this lamentable phenomenon. It is a part of the dark side of human nature, and one should take notice of it, so that when it goes well with him, he may not regard his many friends as all genuine, and when he becomes poor, he may not be surprised by the dissolution of earlier friendship, but may value so much the higher exceptions to the rule. The connection of the passive with ל of the subject (cf. Pro 13:13), as in the Greek with the dative, is pure Semitic; sometimes it stands with מן, but in the sense of ἀπό, Sol 3:10, before the influence of the West led to its being used in the sense of ὑπό (Ges. §143, 2); ישּׂנא, is hated (Cod. 1294: ישּׂנא, connects with the hatred which is directed against the poor also the indifference which makes him without sympathy, for one feels himself troubled by him and ashamed.

Verse 21

Pro 14:21 21 Whoever despiseth his neighbour committeth sin; But whoever hath compassion on the suffering - blessings on him!
One should regard every human being, especially such as God has placed near to him, as a being having the same origin, as created in the image of God, and of the same lofty destination, and should consider himself as under obligation to love him. He who despiseth his neighbour (write בּז with Metheg, and vid., regarding the constr. with dat. object. Pro 6:30, cf. Pro 11:12; Pro 13:13) sins in this respect, that he raises himself proudly and unwarrantably above him; that the honour and love he shows to him he measures not by the rule of duty and of necessity, but according to that which is pleasing to himself; and in that he refuses to him that which according to the ordinance of God he owes him. In Pro 14:21 the Chethı̂b עניּים and the Kerı̂ ענוים (vid., at Psa 9:13) interchange in an inexplicable way; עני is the bowed down (cf. Arab. ma'nuww, particularly of the prisoner, from 'ana, fut. ya'nw, to bow, bend), ענו (Arab. 'anin, with the art. âl'niy, from the intrans. 'aniya, to be bowed down) the patient bearer who in the school of suffering has learned humility and meekness. One does not see why the Kerı̂ here exchanges that passive idea for this ethical one, especially since, in proving himself to be מחונן (compassionate) (for which elsewhere the part. Kal חונן, Pro 14:31; Pro 19:17; Pro 28:8), one must be determined only by the needy condition of his neighbour, and not by his (the neighbour's) moral worthiness, the want of which ought to make him twofold more an object of our compassion. All the old translators, from the lxx to the Venet. and Luther, on this account adopt the Chethı̂b.

Verse 22

The proverb terminating (Pro 14:21) with אשׁריו (cf. Pro 16:20) is now followed by one not less singularly formed, commencing with הלא (cf. Pro 8:1).
Will they not go astray who devise evil,
And are not mercy and truth to those who devise good?
The part. חרשׁ signifies both the plougher and the artisan; but on this account to read with Hitzig both times חרשׁי, i.e., machinatores, is nothing less than advisable, since there is connected with this metaphorical חרשׁ, as we have shown at Pro 3:29, not only the idea of fabricating, but also that of ploughing. Just so little is there any reason for changing with Hitzig, against all old translators, יתעוּ into ירעוּ: will it not go ill with them...; the fut. יתעו (cf. Isa 63:17) is not to be touched; the perf. תעו (e.g., Psa 58:4) would denote that those who contrive evil are in the way of error, the fut. on the contrary that they will fall into error (cf. Pro 12:26 with Job 12:24). But if הלא יתעו is the expression of the result which shall certainly come to such, then 22b stands as a contrast adapted thereto: and are not, on the contrary, mercy and truth those who contrive that which is good, i.e., (for that which befalls them, as Pro 13:18, cf. Pro 14:35, is made their attribute) are they not an object of mercy and truth, viz., on the part of God and of men, for the effort which proceeds from love and is directed to the showing forth of good is rewarded by this, that God and men are merciful to such and maintain truth to them, stand in truth to them; for חסד ואמת is to be understood here, as at Pro 3:3, neither of God nor of men exclusively, but of both together: the wicked who contrive evil lose themselves on the way to destruction, but grace and truth are the lot of those who aim at what is good, guarded and guided by which, they reach by a blessed way a glorious end.

Verse 23

There now follows a considerable series of proverbs (Pro 14:23-31) which, with a single exception (Pro 14:24), have all this in common, that one or two key-words in them begin with מ. 23 In all labour there is gain, But idle talk leadeth only to loss.
Here the key-words are מותר and מחסור (parallel Pro 21:5, cf. with Pro 11:24), which begin with מ. עצב is labour, and that earnest and unwearied, as at Pro 10:22. If one toils on honestly, then there always results from it something which stands forth above the endeavour as its result and product, vid., at Job 30:11, where it is shown how יתר, from the primary meaning to be stretched out long, acquires the meaning of that which hangs over, shoots over, copiousness, and gain. By the word of the lips, on the contrary, i.e., purposeless and inoperative talk (דּבר שׂפתים as Isa 36:5, cf. Job 11:2), nothing is gained, but on the contrary there is only loss, for by it one only robs both himself and others of time, and wastes strength, which might have been turned to better purpose, to say nothing of the injury that is thereby done to his soul; perhaps also he morally injures, or at least discomposes and wearies others.

Verse 24

Pro 14:24 24 It is a crown to the wise when they are rich; But the folly of fools remains folly.
From Pro 12:4, 31; Pro 17:6, we see that עטרת חכמים is the predicate. Thus it is the riches of the wise of which it is said that they are a crown or an ornament to them. More than this is said, if with Hitzig we read, after the lxx, ערמם, their prudence, instead of עשׁרם. For then the meaning would be, that the wise need no other crown than that which they have in their prudence. But yet far more appropriately “riches” are called the crown of a wise man when they come to his wisdom; for it is truly thus that riches, when they are possessed along with wisdom, contribute not a little to heighten its influence and power, and not merely because they adorn in their appearance like a crown, or, as we say, surround as with a golden frame, but because they afford a variety of means and occasions for self-manifestation which are denied to the poor. By this interpretation of 24a, 24b comes out also into the light, without our requiring to correct the first אוּלת, or to render it in an unusual sense. The lxx and Syr. translate the first אולת by διατριβή (by a circumlocution), the Targ. by gloria, fame - we know not how they reach this. Schultens in his Com. renders: crassa opulentia elumbium crassities, but in his Animadversiones he combines the first אולת with the Arab. awwale, precedence, which Gesen. approves of. But although the meaning to be thick (properly coalescere) appertains to the verbal stem אול as well as the meaning to be before (Arab. âl, âwila, wâl), yet the Hebr. אוּלת always and everywhere means only folly,^[76] from the fundamental idea crassities (thickness). Hitzig's אוּלת (which denotes the consequence with which the fool invests himself) we do not accept, because this word is Hitzig's own invention. Rather לוית is to be expected: the crown with which fools adorn themselves is folly. But the sentence: the folly of fools is (and remains) folly (Symmachus, Jerome, Venet., Luther), needs the emendation as little as Pro 16:22, for, interpreted in connection with 24a, it denotes that while wisdom is adorned and raised up by riches, folly on the other hand remains, even when connected with riches, always the same, without being either thereby veiled or removed - on the contrary, the fool, when he is rich, exhibits his follies always more and more. C. B. Michaelis compares Lucian's simia est simia etiamsi aurea gestet insignia.

Verse 25

Pro 14:25 25 A witness of truth delivereth souls; But he who breathes out lies is nothing but deception.
When men, in consequence of false suspicions or of false accusations, fall into danger of their lives (דיני נפשׁות is the designation in the later language of the law of a criminal process), then a tongue which, pressed by conscientiousness and not deterred by cowardice, will utter the truth, saves them. But a false tongue, which as such (vid., Pro 14:5) is a יפח כזבים (after the Masora at this place ויפח, defective), i.e., is one who breathes out lies (vid., regarding יפיח at Pro 6:19), is mere deception (lxx, without reading מרמּה [as Hitzig does]: δόλιος). In Pro 12:17 מרמה is to be interpreted as the object. accus. of יגיד carried forward, but here to carry forward מצּיל (Arama, Löwenstein) is impracticable - for to deliver deceit = the deceiver is not expressed in the Hebr. - מרמה is, as possibly also Heb 12:16 (lxx δόλιος), without אישׁ or עד being supplied, the pred. of the substantival clause: such an one is deception (in bad Latin, dolositas), for he who utters forth lies against better knowledge must have a malevolent, deceitful purpose.

Verse 26

Pro 14:26 26 In the fear of Jahve lies a strong ground of confidence, And the children of such an one have a refuge.
The so-called בּ essentiae stands here, as at Psa 68:5; Psa 55:19; Isa 26:4, before the subject idea; the clause: in the fear of God exists, i.e., it is and proves itself, as a strong ground of confidence, does not mean that the fear of God is something in which one can rely (Hitzig), but that it has (Pro 22:19; Jer 17:7, and here) an inheritance which is enduring, unwavering, and not disappointing in God, who is the object of fear; for it is not faith, nor anything else subjective, which is the rock that bears us, but this Rock is the object which faith lays hold of (cf. Isa 28:16). Is now the וּלבניו to be referred, with Ewald and Zöckler, to 'ה? It is possible, as we have discussed at Gen 6:1.; but in view of parallels such as Pro 20:7, it is not probable. He who fears God entails in the Abrahamic way (Gen 18:19) the fear of God on his children, and in this precious paternal inheritance they have a מחסה (not מחסה, and therefore to be written with Masoretic exactness מחסּה), a fortress or place of protection, a refuge in every time of need (cf. Psa 71:5-7). Accordingly, ולבניו refers back to the 'ירא ה, to be understood from 'ביראת ה (lxx, Luther, and all the Jewish interpreters), which we find not so doubtful as to regard on this account the explanation after Psa 73:15, cf. Deu 14:1, as necessary, although we grant that such an introduction of the N.T. generalization and deepening of the idea of sonship is to be expected from the Chokma.

Verse 27

Pro 14:27 27 The fear of Jahve is a fountain of life, To escape the snares of death.
There springs up a life which makes him who carries in himself (cf. Joh 4:14, ἐν αὐτῷ) this welling life, penetrating and strong of will to escape the snares (write after the Masora ממּקשׁי defective) which death lays, and which bring to an end in death - a repetition of Pro 13:4 with changed subject.

Verse 28

Pro 14:28 28 In the multitude of the people lies the king's honour; And when the population diminishes, it is the downfall of his glory.
The honour or the ornament (vid., regarding הדר, tumere, ampliari, the root-word of הדר and הדרה at Isa 63:1) of a king consists in this, that he rules over a great people, and that they increase and prosper; on the other hand, it is the ruin of princely greatness when the people decline in number and in wealth. Regarding מחתּה, vid., at Pro 10:14. בּאפס signifies prepositionally “without” (properly, by non-existence), e.g., Pro 26:20, or adverbially “groundless” (properly, for nothing), Isa 52:4; here it is to be understood after its contrast בּרב־: in the non-existence, but which is here equivalent to in the ruin (cf. אפס, the form of which in conjunction is אפס, Gen 47:15), lies the misfortune, decay, ruin of the princedom. The lxx ἐν δὲ ἐκλείψει λαοῦ συντριβὴ δυνάστου. Certainly רזון (from רזן, Arab. razuna, to be powerful) is to be interpreted personally, whether it be after the form בּגוד with a fixed, or after the form יקושׁ with a changeable Kametz; but it may also be an abstract like שׁלום (= Arab. selâm), and this we prefer, because in the personal signification רזן, Pro 8:15; Pro 31:4, is used. We have not here to think of רזון (from רזה), consumption (the Venet. against Kimchi, πενίας); the choice of the word also is not determined by an intended amphibology (Hitzig), for this would be meaningless.

Verse 29

Pro 14:29 29 He that is slow to anger is rich in understanding; But he that is easily excited carries off folly. ארך אפּים (constr. of ארך) is he who puts off anger long, viz., the outbreak of anger, האריך, Pro 19:11, i.e., lets it not come in, but shuts it out long (μακρόθυμος = βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν, Jam 1:19); and קצר־רוּח, he who in his spirit and temper, viz., as regards anger (for רוּח denotes also the breathing out and snorting, Isa 25:4; Isa 33:11), is short, i.e., (since shortness of time is meant) is rash and suddenly (cf. quick to anger, praeceps in iram, 17a) breaks out with it, not ὀλιγόψυχος (but here ὀξύθυμος), as the lxx translate 17a. The former, who knows how to control his affections, shows himself herein as “great in understanding” (cf. 2Sa 23:20), or as a “man of great understanding” (Lat. multus prudentiâ); the contrary is he who suffers himself to be impelled by his affections into hasty, inconsiderate action, which is here expressed more actively by מרים אוּלת. Does this mean that he bears folly to the view (Luther, Umbreit, Bertheau, Elster, and others)? But for that idea the Mishle style has other expressions, Pro 12:23; Pro 13:16; Pro 15:2, cf. Pro 14:17. Or does it mean that he makes folly high, i.e., shows himself highly foolish (lxx, Syr., Targum, Fleischer, and others)? But that would be expressed rather by הגדּיל or הרבּה. Or is it he heightens folly (Löwenstein, Hitzig)? But the remark that the angry ebullition is itself a gradual heightening of the foolish nature of such an one is not suitable, for the choleric man, who lets the evenness of his disposition be interrupted by a breaking forth of anger, is by no means also in himself a fool. Rashi is right when he says, מפרישה לחלקו, i.e., (to which also Fleischer gives the preference) aufert pro portione sua stultitiam. The only appropriate parallel according to which it is to be explained, is Pro 3:35. But not as Ewald: he lifts up folly, which lies as it were before his feet on his life's path; but: he takes off folly, in the sense of Lev 6:8, i.e., he carries off folly, receives a portion of folly; for as to others, so also to himself, when he returns to calm blood, that which he did in his rage must appear as folly and madness.

Verse 30

Pro 14:30 30 A quiet heart is the life of the body, But covetousness is rottenness in the bones.
Heart, soul, flesh, is the O.T. trichotomy, Psa 84:3; Psa 16:9; the heart is the innermost region of the life, where all the rays of the bodily and the soul-life concentrate, and whence they again unfold themselves. The state of the heart, i.e., of the central, spiritual, soul-inwardness of the man, exerts therefore on all sides a constraining influence on the bodily life, in the relation to the heart the surrounding life. Regarding לב מרפּא, vid., at Pro 12:18. Thus is styled the quiet heart, which in its symmetrical harmony is like a calm and clear water-mirror, neither interrupted by the affections, nor broken through or secretly stirred by passion. By the close connection in which the corporeal life of man stands to the moral-religious determination of his intellectual and mediately his soul-life - this threefold life is as that of one personality, essentially one - the body has in such quiet of spirit the best means of preserving the life which furthers the well-being, and co-operates to the calming of all its disquietude; on the contrary, passion, whether it rage or move itself in stillness, is like the disease in the bones (Pro 12:4), which works onward till it breaks asunder the framework of the body, and with it the life of the body. The plur. בּשׂרים occurs only here; Böttcher, §695, says that it denotes the whole body; but בּשׂר also does not denote the half, בשׂרים is the surrogate of an abstr.: the body, i.e., the bodily life in the totality of its functions, and in the entire manifoldness of its relations. Ewald translates bodies, but בשׂר signifies not the body, but its material, the animated matter; rather cf. the Arab. âbshâr, “corporeal, human nature,” but which (leaving out of view that this plur. belongs to a later period of the language) has the parallelism against it. Regarding קנאה (jealousy, zeal, envy, anger) Schultens is right: affectus inflammans aestuque indignationis fervidus, from קנא, Arab. ḳanâ, to be high red.

Verse 31

Pro 14:31 31 He who oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker; And whosoever is merciful to the poor, it is an honour to him.
Line first is repeated in Pro 17:5 somewhat varied, and the relation of the idea in 31b is as Pro 19:17, according to which וּמכבּדו is the predicate and חונן אביון the subject (Symmachus, Targ., Jerome, Venet., Luther), not the reverse (Syr.); חונן is thus not the 3 per. Po. (lxx), but the part. Kal (for which 21b has the part. Po. מחונן). The predicates חרף עשׂהוּ (vid., regarding the perf. Gesen. §126, 3) and ומכבדו follow one another after the scheme of the Chiasmus. עשׁק has Munach on the first syllable, on which the tone is thrown back, and on the second the העמדה sign (vid., Torath Emeth, p. 21), as e.g., פּוטר, Pro 17:14, and אהב, Pro 17:19. The showing of forbearance and kindness to the poor arising from a common relation to one Creator, and from respect towards a personality bearing the image of God, is a conception quite in the spirit of the Chokma, which, as in the Jahve religion it becomes the universal religion, so in the national law it becomes the human. Thus also Job 31:15, cf. Pro 3:9 of the Epistle of James, which in many respects has its roots in the Book of Proverbs. Mat 25:40 is a New Testament side-piece to 31b.

Verse 32

This verse also contains a key-word beginning with מ, but pairs acrostically with the proverb following:
When misfortune befalls him, the godless is overthrown;
But the righteous remains hopeful in his death.
When the subject is רעה connected with רשׁע (the godless), then it may be understood of evil thought and action (Ecc 7:15) as well as of the experience of evil (e.g., Pro 13:21). The lxx (and also the Syr., Targ., Jerome, and Venet.) prefers the former, but for the sake of producing an exact parallelism changes במותו [in his death] into בתמּו [in his uprightness], reversing also the relation of the subject and the predicate: ὁ δὲ πεποιθὼς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ὁσιότητι (the Syr.: in this, that he has no sin; Targ.: when he dies) δίκαιος. But no Scripture word commends in so contradictory a manner self-righteousness, for the verb חסה never denotes self-confidence, and with the exception of two passages (Jdg 9:15; Isa 30:2), where it is connected with בּצל, is everywhere the exclusive (vid., Psa 118:8.) designation of confidence resting itself in God, even without the 'בה, as here as at Psa 17:7. The parallelism leads us to translate ברעתו, not on account of his wickedness, but with Luther, in conformity with במותו, in his misfortune, i.e., if it befall him. Thus Jeremiah (Jer 23:12) says of the sins of his people: בּאפלה ידּחוּ, in the deep darkness they are driven on (Niph. of דחח = דחה), and Pro 24:16 contains an exactly parallel thought: the godless stumble ברעה, into calamity. Ewald incorrectly: in his calamity the wicked is overthrown - for what purpose then the pronoun? The verb דחה frequently means, without any addition, “to stumble over heaps,” e.g., Psa 35:5; 36:13. The godless in his calamity is overthrown, or he fears in the evils which befall him the intimations of the final ruin; on the contrary, the righteous in his death, even in the midst of extremity, is comforted, viz., in God in whom he confides. Thus understood, Hitzig thinks that the proverb is not suitable for a time in which, as yet, men had not faith in immortality and in the resurrection. Yet though there was no such revelation then, still the pious in death put their confidence in Jahve, the God of life and of salvation - for in Jahve^[77] there was for ancient Israel the beginning, middle, and end of the work of salvation - and believing that they were going home to Him, committing their spirit into His hands (Psa 31:6), they fell asleep, though without any explicit knowledge, yet not without the hope of eternal life. Job also knew that (Job 27:8.) between the death of those estranged from God and of those who feared God there was not only an external, but a deep essential distinction; and now the Chokma opens up a glimpse into the eternity heavenwards, Pro 15:24, and has formed, Pro 12:28, the expressive and distinctive word אל־מות, for immortality, which breaks like a ray from the morning sun through the night of the Sheol.

Verse 33

Pro 14:33 33 Wisdom rests in the heart of the man of understanding; But the heart of fools it maketh itself known.
Most interpreters know not what to make of the second line here. The lxx (and after it the Syr.), and as it appears, also Aquila and Theodotion, insert οὐ; the Targ. improves the Peshito, for it inserts אוּלת (so that Pro 12:23; Pro 13:16, and Pro 15:2 are related). And Abulwalîd explains: in the heart of fools it is lost; Euchel: it reels about; but these are imaginary interpretations resting on a misunderstanding of the passages, in which ידע means to come to feel, and הודיע to give to feel (to punish, correct). Kimchi rightly adheres to the one ascertained meaning of the words, according to which the Venet. μέσον δὲ ἀφρόνων γνωσθήσεται. So also the translation of Jerome: et indoctos quosque (quoque) erudiet, is formed, for he understands the “and is manifest among fools” (Luther) not merely, as C. B. Michaelis, after the saying: opposita juxta se posita magis elucescunt, but of a becoming manifest, which is salutary to these. Certainly בּקרב can mean among = in the circle, of Pro 15:31; but if, as here and e.g., Jer 31:31, בקרב is interchanged with בלב, and if חכמה בקרב is the subject spoken of, as 1Ki 3:28, then בקרב does not mean among (in the midst of), but in the heart of the fool. According to this, the Talmud rightly, by comparison with the current proverb (Mezîa 85b): אסתירא בלגינא קישׁ קישׁ קריא, a stater in a flaggon cries Kish, Kish, i.e., makes much clatter. In the heart of the understanding wisdom rests, i.e., remains silent and still, for the understanding feels himself personally happy in its possession, endeavours always the more to deepen it, and lets it operate within; on the contrary, wisdom in the heart of fools makes itself manifest: they are not able to keep to themselves the wisdom which they imagine they possess, or the portion of wisdom which is in reality theirs; but they think, as it is said in Persius: Scire tuum nihil est nisi scire hoc te sciat alter. They discredit and waste their little portion of wisdom (instead of thinking on its increase) by obtrusive ostentatious babbling.

Verse 34

Two proverbs follow regarding the state and its ruler: 34 Righteousness exalteth a nation, And sin is a disgrace to the people.
The Hebr. language is richer in synonyms of “the people” than the German. גּוי (formed like the non-bibl. מוי, water, and נוי, corporealness, from גּוה, to extend itself from within outward; cf. Pro 9:3, גּפּי, Pro 10:13, גּו) is, according to the usus loq., like natio the people, as a mass swollen up from a common origin, and עם, 28a (from עמם, to bind), the people as a confederation held together by a common law; לאם (from לאם, to unite, bind together) is the mass (multitude) of the people, and is interchanged sometimes with גוי, Gen 25:23, and sometimes with עם, Pro 14:28. In this proverb, לאמּים stands indeed intentionally in the plur., but not גוי, with the plur. of which גּוים, the idea of the non-Israelitish nations, too easily connects itself. The proverb means all nations without distinction, even Israel (cf. under Isa 1:4) not excluded. History everywhere confirms the principle, that not the numerical, nor the warlike, nor the political, nor yet the intellectual and the so-called civilized greatness, is the true greatness of a nation, and determines the condition of its future as one of progress; but this is its true greatness, that in its private, public, and international life, צדקה, i.e., conduct directed by the will of God, according to the norm of moral rectitude, rules and prevails. Righteousness, good manners, and piety are the things which secure to a nation a place of honour, while, on the contrary, חטּאת, sin, viz., prevailing, and more favoured and fostered than contended against in the consciousness of the moral problem of the state, is a disgrace to the people, i.e., it lowers them before God, and also before men who do not judge superficially or perversely, and also actually brings them down. רומם, to raise up, is to be understood after Isa 1:2, cf. Pro 23:4, and is to be punctuated תּרומם, with Munach of the penult., and the העמדה-sign with the Tsere of the last syllable. Ben-Naphtali punctuates thus: תּרומם. In 34b all the artifices of interpretation (from Nachmani to Schultens) are to be rejected, which interpret חסד as the Venet. (ἔλεος δὲ λαῶν ἁμαρτία) in its predominant Hebrew signification. It has here, as at Lev 20:17 (but not Job 6:14), the signification of the Syr. chesdho, opprobrium; the Targ. חסדּא, or more frequently חסּוּדא, as among Jewish interpreters, is recognised by Chanan'el and Rashbam. That this חסד is not foreign to the Mishle style, is seen from the fact that חסּד, Pro 25:10, is used in the sense of the Syr. chasedh. The synon. Syr. chasam, invidere, obtrectare, shows that these verbal stems are formed from the R. הס, stringere, to strike. Already it is in some measure perceived how חסד, Syr. chasadh, Arab. hasada, may acquire the meaning of violent love, and by the mediation of the jealousy which is connected with violent love, the signification of grudging, and thus of reproach and of envy; yet this is more manifest if one thinks of the root-signification stringere, in the meaning of loving, as referred to the subject, in the meanings of disgrace and envy, as from the subject directed to others. Ewald (§51c) compares חסל and חסר, Ethiop. chasra, in the sense of carpere, and on the other side חסה in the sense of “to join;” but חסה does not mean to join (vid., Psa 2:12) and instead of carpere, the idea more closely connected with the root is that of stringere, cf. stringere folia ex arboribus (Caesar), and stringere (to diminish, to squander, strip) rem ingluvie (Horace, Sat. i. 2. 8). The lxx has here read חסר (Pro 28:22), diminution, decay, instead of חסד (shame); the quid pro quo is not bad, the Syr. accepts it, and the miseros facit of Jerome, and Luther's verderben (destruction) corresponds with this phrase better than with the common traditional reading which Symmachus rightly renders by ὄνειδος.

Verse 35

Pro 14:35 35 The king's favour is towards a prudent servant, And his wrath visits the base.
Regarding the contrasts משׂכּיל and מבישׁ, vid., at Pro 10:5; cf. Pro 12:4. The substantival clause 35a may mean: the king's favour has (possesses)..., as well as: it is imparted to, an intelligent servant; the arrangement of the words is more favourable to the latter rendering. In 35b the gender of the verb is determined by attraction after the pred., as is the case also at Gen 31:8; Job 15:31, Ewald, §317c. And “his wrath” is equivalent to is the object of it, cf. 22b, Pro 13:18. The syntactical character of the clause does not permit the supplying of ל from 35a. Luther's translation proceeds only apparently from this erroneous supposition.
We take these verses together as forming a group which begins with a proverb regarding the good and evil which flows from the tongue, and closes with a proverb regarding the treasure in which blessing is found, and that in which no blessing is found.

Chap. 15

Verse 1

Pro 15:1 1 A soft answer turneth away wrath, And a bitter word stirreth up anger.
In the second line, the common word for anger (אף, from the breathing with the nostrils, Pro 14:17) is purposely placed, but in the first, that which denotes anger in the highest degree (חמה from יחם, cogn. חמם, Arab. hamiya, to glow, like שׁנה from ישׁן): a mild, gentle word turns away the heat of anger (excandescentiam), puts it back, cf. Pro 25:15. The Dagesh in רּך follows the rule of the דחיק, i.e., of the close connection of a word terminating with the accented eh, aah, ah with the following word (Michlol 63b). The same is the meaning of the Latin proverb:Frangitur ira gravis Quando est responsio suavis.
The דבר־עצב produces the contrary effect. This expression does not mean an angry word (Ewald), for עצב is not to be compared with the Arab. ghaḍab, anger (Umbreit), but with Arab. 'aḍb, cutting, wounding, paining (Hitzig), so that דבר מעציב is meant in the sense of Psa 78:40 : a word which causes pain (lxx λυπηρός, Theod. πονικός), not after the meaning, a word provoking to anger (Gesenius), but certainly after its effect, for a wounding word “makes anger arise.” As one says of anger שׁב, “it turns itself” (e.g., Isa 9:11), so, on the other hand, עלה, “it rises up,” Ecc 10:4. The lxx has a third line, ὀργὴ ἀπόλλυσι καὶ φρονίμους, which the Syr. forms into a distich by the repetition of Pro 14:32, the untenableness of which is at once seen.

Verse 2

The πραΰ́της σοφίας (Jam 3:13) commended in Pro 15:1 is here continued:
The tongue of the wise showeth great knowledge,
And the mouth of fools poureth forth folly.
As היטיב נגּן, Isa 23:16, means to strike the harp well, and היטיב לכת, Isa 30:29, to go along merrily, so היטיב דּעת, to know in a masterly manner, and here, where the subject is the tongue, which has only an instrumental reference to knowledge: to bring to light great knowledge (cf. 7a). In 2b the lxx translate στόμα δὲ ἀφρόνων ἀναγγέλλει κακά. From this Hitzig concludes that they read רעות as 28b, and prefers this phrase; but they also translated in Pro 13:16; Pro 14:28; Pro 26:11, אוּלת by κακίαν, for they interpreted the unintelligible word by combination with עולת, and in Pro 12:23 by ἀραῖς, for they thought they had before them אלות (from אלה).

Verse 3

Pro 15:3 3 The eyes of Jahve are in every place, Observing the evil and the good.
The connection of the dual עינים with the plur. of the adjective, which does not admit of a dual, is like Pro 6:17, cf. 18. But the first line is a sentence by itself, to which the second line gives a closer determination, as showing how the eyes of God are everywhere (cf. 2Ch 16:9, after Zec 4:10) abroad over the whole earth, viz., beholding with penetrating look the evil and the good (צפה, to hold to, to observe, cf. ἐπιβλέποντες, Sir. 23:19), i.e., examining men whether they are good or evil, and keeping them closely before His eyes, so that nothing escapes him. This universal inspection, this omniscience of God, has an alarming but also a comforting side. The proverb seeks first to warn, therefore it speaks first of the evil.

Verse 4

Pro 15:4 4 Gentleness of the tongue is a tree of life; But falseness in it is a wounding to the spirit.
Regarding מרפּא, vid., at Pro 12:18, and regarding סלף, at Pro 11:3; this latter word we derive with Fleischer from סלף, to subvert, overthrow, but not in the sense of “violence, asperitas, in as far as violent speech is like a stormy sea,” but of perversity, perversitas (Venet. λοξότης), as the contrast to truthfulness, rectitude, kindness. Gentleness characterizes the tongue when all that it says to a neighbour, whether it be instruction or correction, or warning or consolation, it says in a manner without rudeness, violence, or obtrusiveness, by which it finds the easiest and surest acceptance, because he feels the goodwill, the hearty sympathy, the humility of him who is conscious of his own imperfection. Such gentleness is a tree of life, whose fruits preserve life, heal the sick, and raise up the bowed down. Accordingly, שׁבר בּרוּח is to be understood of the effect which goes forth from perversity or falseness of the tongue upon others. Fleischer translates: asperitas autem in ea animum vulnerat, and remarks, “שׁבר ברוח, abstr. pro concreto. The verb שׁבר, and the n. verbale שׁבר derived from it, may, in order to render the meaning tropical, govern the prep. בּ, as the Arab. kaser baḳlby, he has broken my heart (opp. Arab. jabar baḳlaby), cf. בּפניו, Pro 21:29, vid., De Glossis Habichtianis, p. 18; yet it also occurs with the accus., Psa 69:21, and the corresponding gen. שׁבר רוּח, Isa 65:14.” In any case, the breaking (deep wounding) is not meant in regard to his own spirit, but to that of the neighbour. Rightly Luther: but a lying (tongue) makes heart-sorrow (elsewhere, a false one troubles the cheerful); Euchel: a false tongue is soul-wounding; and the translation of the year 1844: falsehood is a breach into the heart. Only for curiosity's sake are two other interpretations of 4a and 4b mentioned: the means of safety to the tongue is the tree of life, i.e., The Torâ (Erachin 15b); and: perversity suffers destruction by a breath of wind, after the proverb, כל שׁישׁ בו גסות רוח רוח קימעא שׁוברתו, a breath of wind breaks a man who is puffed up^[78] (which Meîri presents for choice, vid., also Rashi, who understands רוח of the storm of judgment). The lxx translates, in 4b, a different text: ὁ δὲ συντηρῶν αὐτὴν πλησθήσεται πνεύματος; but the ישׂבּע רוּח here supposed cannot mean “to be full of spirit,” but rather “to eat full of wind.” Otherwise the Syr. and Targ.: and he who eateth of his own fruit is satisfied (Heb. ואכל מפּריו ישׂבּע) - an attempt to give to the phrase ישׂבע a thought correct in point of language, but one against which we do not give up the Masoretic text.

Verse 5

Pro 15:5 5 A fool despiseth his father's correction; But he that regardeth reproof is prudent.
We may with equal correctness translate: he acts prudently (after 1Sa 23:22); and, he is prudent (after Pro 19:25). We prefer, with Jerome, Venet., and Luther, the latter, against the lxx, Syr., and Targ., because, without a doubt, the יערם is so thought of at Pro 19:25 : the contrast is more favourable to the former. It is true that he who regardeth reproof is not only prudent, but also that he is prudent by means of observing it. With line first cf. Pro 1:7 and Pro 1:30, and with line second, Pro 12:1. Luther translates: the fool calumniates...; but of the meanings of abuse (properly pungere) and scorn, the second is perhaps here to be preferred.

Verse 6

Pro 15:6 6 The house of the righteous is a great treasure-chamber; But through the gain of the wicked comes trouble.
The contrast shows that חסן does not here mean force or might (lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, and Venet.), which generally this derivative of the verb חסן never means, but store, fulness of possession, prosperity (Luther: in the house of the righteous are goods enough), in this sense (cf. Pro 27:24) placing itself, not with the Arab. ḥasuna, to be firm, fastened (Aram. ḥsn, חסן), but with Arab. khazan, to deposit, to lay up in granaries, whence our “Magazin.” חסן may indeed, like חיל, have the meaning of riches, and חסן does actually mean, in the Jewish-Aram., to possess, and the Aphel אחסן, to take into possession (κρατεῖν); but the constant use of the noun חסן in the sense of store, with the kindred idea of laying up, e.g., Jer 20:5, and of the Niph. נחסן, which means, Isa 23:18, with נאצר, “to be magazined,” gives countenance to the idea that חסן goes back to the primary conception, recondere, and is to be distinguished from חסון, חסין, and other derivatives after the fundamental conception. We may not interpret בּית, with Fleischer, Bertheau, and Zöckler, as accus.: in the house (cf. בּית, Pro 8:2), nor prepositionally as chez = casa; but: “the house of the righteous is a great store,” equivalent to, the place of such. On the contrary, destruction comes by the gain of the wicked. It is impossible that נעכּרת can have the house as the subject (Löwenstein), for בּית is everywhere mas. Therefore Abulwalîd, followed by Kimchi and the Venet. (ὄλεθρος), interprets נעכרת as subst., after the form of the Mishnic נברכת, a pool, cf. נחרצה, peremptorily decided, decreed; and if we do not extinguish the ב of וּבתבוּאת (the lxx according to the second translation of this doubly-translated distich, Syr., and Targ.), there remains then nothing further than to regard נעכרת either as subst. neut. overturned = overthrow (cf. such part. nouns as מוּסדה, מוּעקה, but particularly נסבּה, 2Ch 10:15), or as impers. neut. pass.: it is overthrown = there is an overthrow, like נשׂערה, Psa 50:3 : it is stormed = a storm rages. The gain of the wicked has overthrow as its consequence, for the greed of gain, which does not shrink from unrighteous, deceitful gain, destroys his house, עכר בּיתו, Pro 15:27 (vid., regarding עצר, Pro 11:29). Far from enriching the house, such gain is the cause of nothing but ruin. The lxx, in its first version of this distich, reads, in 6a, בּרבות צדק (ἐν πλεοναζούσῃ δικαιοσύνῃ), and in 6b, וּבתבוּאת רשׁע נעכּר (and together with the fruit the godless is rooted out, ὁλόῤῥιζοι ἐκ γῆς ἀπολοῦνται); for, as Lagarde has observed, it confounds עכר with עקר (to root, privativ: to root up).
A second series which begins with a proverb of the power of human speech, and closes with proverbs of the advantages and disadvantages of wealth.

Verse 7

Pro 15:7 7 The lips of the wise spread knowledge; But the direction is wanting to the heart of fools.
It is impossible that לא־כן can be a second object. accus. dependent on יזרוּ (dispergunt, not יצּרוּ, Pro 20:28; φυλάσσουσι, as Symmachus translates): but the heart of fools is unrighteous (error or falsehood) (Hitzig after Isa 16:6); for then why were the lips of the wise and the heart of the fools mentioned? לא־כן also does not mean οὐχ οὕτως (an old Greek anonymous translation, Jerome, Targ., Venet., Luther): the heart of the fool is quite different from the heart of the wise man, which spreads abroad knowledge (Zöckler), for it is not heart and heart, but lip and heart, that are placed opposite to each other. Better the lxx οὐκ ἀσφαλεῖς, and yet better the Syr. lo kinı̂n (not right, sure). We have seen, at Pro 11:19, that כן as a participial adj. means standing = being, continuing, or also standing erect = right, i.e., rightly directed, or having the right direction; כּן־צדקה means there conducting oneself rightly, and thus genuine rectitude. What, after 7a, is more appropriate than to say of the heart of the fool, that it wants the receptivity for knowledge which the lips of the wise scatter abroad? The heart of the fool is not right, it has not the right direction, is crooked and perverse, has no mind for wisdom; and that which proceeds from the wise, therefore, finds with him neither estimation nor acceptance.

Verse 8

Pro 15:8 8 The sacrifice of the godless is an abhorrence to Jahve; But the prayer of the upright is His delight.
Although the same is true of the prayer of the godless that is here said of their sacrifice, and of the sacrifice of the righteous that is here said of their prayer (vid., Pro 28:9, and cf. Psa 4:6 with Psa 27:6), yet it is not by accident that here (line first = Pro 21:27) the sacrifice is ascribed to the godless and the prayer to the upright. The sacrifice, as a material and legally-required performance, is much more related to dead works than prayer freely completing itself in the word, the most direct expression of the personality, which, although not commanded by the law, because natural to men, as such is yet the soul of all sacrifices; and the Chokma, like the Psalms and Prophets, in view of the ceremonial service which had become formal and dead in the opus operatum, is to such a degree penetrated by the knowledge of the incongruity of the offering up of animals and of plants, with the object in view, that a proverb like “the sacrifice of the righteous is pleasing to God” never anywhere occurs; and if it did occur without being expressly and unavoidably referred to the legal sacrifice, it would have to be understood rather after Psa 51:18. than Ps. 51:20f., rather after 1Sa 15:22 than after Psa 66:13-15. זבח, which, when it is distinguished from עולה, means (cf. Pro 7:14) the sacrifice only in part coming to the altar, for the most part applied to a sacrificial feast, is here the common name for the bloody, and, per synecdochen, generally the legally-appointed sacrifice, consisting in external offering. The לרצין, Lev 1:3, used in the Tôra of sacrifices, is here, as at Ps. 19:15, transferred to prayer. The fundamental idea of the proverb is, that sacrifices well-pleasing to God, prayers acceptable to God (that are heard, Pro 15:29), depend on the relations in which the heart and life of the man stand to God.

Verse 9

Another proverb with the key-word תועבת
An abomination to Jahve is the way of the godless;
But He loveth him who searcheth after righteousness.
The manner and rule of life is called the way. מרדּף is the heightening of רדף, Pro 21:21, and can be used independently in bonam, as well as in malam partem (Pro 11:19, cf. Pro 13:21). Regarding the form יאהב, vid., Fleischer in Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitsch. xv. 382.

Verse 10

Pro 15:10 10 Sharp correction is for him who forsaketh the way; Whoever hateth instruction shall die.
The way, thus absolute, is the God-pleasing right way (Pro 2:13), the forsaking of which is visited with the punishment of death, because it is that which leadeth unto life (Pro 10:17). And that which comes upon them who leave it is called מוּסר רע, castigatio dura, as much as to say that whoever does not welcome instruction, whoever rejects it, must at last receive it against his will in the form of peremptory punishment. The sharp correction (cf. Isa 28:28, Isa 28:19) is just the death under which he falls who accepts of no instruction (Pro 5:23), temporal death, but that as a token of wrath which it is not for the righteous (Pro 14:32).

Verse 11

Pro 15:11 11 The underworld [Sheol] and the abyss are before Jahve; But how much more the hearts of the children of men!
A syllogism, a minori ad majus, with אף כּי (lxx τῶς οὐχὶ καὶ, Venet. μᾶλλον οὖν), like 12:32.^[79] אבדּון has a meaning analogous to that of τάρταρος (cf. ταρταροῦν, 2Pe 2:4, to throw down into the τάρταρος), which denotes the lowest region of Hades (שׁאול תּחתּית or תּחתּיּה 'שׁ), and also in general, Hades. If אבדון and מות are connected, Job 37:22, and if אבדון is the parallel word to קבר, Psa 88:12, or also to שׁאול, as in the passage similar to this proverb, Job 26:6 (cf. Job 38:17): “Sheôl is naked before Him, and Abaddon has no covering;” since אבדון is the general name of the underworld, including the grave, i.e., the inner place of the earth which receives the body of the dead, as the kingdom of the dead, lying deeper, does the soul. But where, as here and at Pro 27:10, שׁאול and אבדון stand together, they are related to each other, as ᾅδης and ταρταρος or ἅβυσσος, Rev 9:11 : אבדון is the lowest hell, the place of deepest descent, of uttermost destruction. The conclusion which is drawn in the proverb proceeds from the supposition that in the region of creation there is nothing more separated, and by a wide distance, from God, than the depth, and especially the undermost depth, of the realm of the dead. If now God has this region in its whole compass wide open before Him, if it is visible and thoroughly cognisable by Him (נגד, acc. adv.: in conspectu, from נגד, eminere, conspicuum esse) - for He is also present in the underworld, Psa 139:8 - then much more will the hearts of the children of men be open, the inward thoughts of men living and acting on the earth being known already from their expressions. Man sees through man, and also himself, never perfectly; but the Lord can try the heart and prove the reins, Jer 17:10. What that means this proverb gives us to understand, for it places over against the hearts of men nothing less than the depths of the underworld in eternity.

Verse 12

Pro 15:12 12 The scorner liketh not that one reprove him, To wise men he will not go.
The inf. absol., abruptly denoting the action, may take the place of the object, as here (cf. Job 9:18; Isa 42:24), as well as of the subject (Pro 25:27, Job 6:25). Thus הוכיח is (Pro 9:7) construed with the dat. obj. Regarding the probable conclusion which presents itself from passages such as Pro 15:12 and Pro 13:20, as to the study of wisdom in Israel, vid., p. 39. Instead of אל, we read, Pro 13:20 (cf. Pro 22:24), את־; for לכת את־ means to have intercourse with one, to go a journey with one (Mal 2:6, cf. Gen 5:24, but not 2Sa 15:22, where we are to translate with Keil), according to which the lxx has here μετὰ δὲ σοφῶν οὐχ ὁμιλήσει. The mocker of religion and of virtue shuns the circle of the wise, for he loves not to have his treatment of that which is holy reproved, nor to be convicted of his sin against truth; he prefers the society where his frivolity finds approbation and a response.

Verse 13

Pro 15:13 13 A joyful heart maketh the countenance cheerful; But in sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken.
The expression of the countenance, as well as the spiritual habitus of a man, is conditioned by the state of the heart. A joyful heart maketh the countenance טוב, which means friendly, but here happy-looking = cheerful (for טוב ro is the most general designation of that which makes an impression which is pleasant to the senses or to the mind); on the contrary, with sorrow of heart (עצּבת, constr. of עצּבת, Pro 10:10, as חטאת = חטּאת, from חטּאה) there is connected a stricken, broken, downcast heart; the spiritual functions of the man are paralyzed; self-confidence, without which energetic action is impossible, is shattered; he appears discouraged, whereby רוּח is thought of as the power of self-consciousness and of self-determination, but לב, as our “Gemüt” [animus], as the oneness of thinking and willing, and thus as the seat of determination, which decides the intellectual-corporeal life-expression of the man, or without being able to be wholly restrained, communicates itself to them. The ב of וּבעצּבת is, as Pro 15:16., Pro 16:8; Pro 17:1, meant in the force of being together or along with, so that רוּח נכאה do not need to be taken separate from each other as subject and predicate: the sense of the noun-clause is in the ב, as e.g., also Pro 7:23 (it is about his life, i.e., it concerns his life). Elsewhere the crushed spirit, like the broken heart, is equivalent to the heart despairing in itself and prepared for grace. The heart with a more clouded mien may be well, for sorrow has in it a healing power (Ecc 7:3). But here the matter is the general psychological truth, that the corporeal and spiritual life of man has its regulator in the heart, and that the condition of the heart leaves its stamp on the appearance and on the activity of the man. The translation of the רוח נכאה by “oppressed breath” (Umbreit, Hitzig) is impossible; the breath cannot be spoken of as broken.

Verse 14

Pro 15:14 14 The heart of the understanding seeketh after knowledge, And the mouth of fools practiseth folly.
Luther interprets רעה as metaphor. for to govern, but with such ethical conceptions it is metaphor. for to be urgently circumspect about anything (vid., Pro 13:20), like Arab. ra'y and r'âyt, intentional, careful, concern about anything. No right translation can be made of the Chethib פני, which Schultens, Hitzig, Ewald, and Zöckler prefer; the predicate can go before the פּני, after the Semitic rule in the fem. of the sing., 2Sa 10:9, cf. Job 16:16, Chethib, but cannot follow in the masc. of the sing.; besides, the operations of his look and aspect are ascribed to his face, but not spiritual functions as here, much more to the mouth, i.e., to the spirit speaking through it. The heart is within a man, and the mouth without; and while the former gives and takes, the latter is always only giving out. In Pro 18:15, where a synonymous distich is formed from the antithetic distich, the ear, as hearing, is mentioned along with the heart as appropriating. נבון is not an adj., but is gen., like צדיק, 28a (opp. ופי). חכם, Pro 16:23. The φιλοσοφία of the understanding is placed over against the μωρολογία of the fools. The lxx translates καρδία ὀρθὴ ζητεῖ αἲσθησιν (cf. Pro 14:10, καρδία ἀδρὸς αἰσθητική); it uses this word after the Hellenistic usus loq. for דעת, of experimental knowledge.

Verse 15

Pro 15:15 15 All the days of the afflicted are evil; But he who is of a joyful heart hath a perpetual feast.
Regarding עני (the afflicted), vid., 21b. They are so called on whom a misfortune, or several of them, press externally or internally. If such an one is surrounded by ever so many blessings, yet is his life day by day a sad one, because with each new day the feeling of his woe which oppresses him renews itself; whoever, on the contrary, is of joyful heart (gen. connection as Pro 11:13; Pro 12:8), such an one (his life) is always a feast, a banquet (not משׁתּה, as it may be also pointed, but משׁתּה and תּמיד thus adv., for it is never adj.; the post-bib. usage is תּמידין for עולות תּמיד). Hitzig (and also Zöckler) renders 15b: And (the days) of one who is of a joyful heart are.... Others supply לו (cf. Pro 27:7), but our rendering does not need that. We have here again an example of that attribution (Arab. isnâd) in which that which is attributed (musnad) is a condition (hal) of a logical subject (the musnad ilêhi), and thus he who speaks has this, not in itself, but in the sense of the condition; the inwardly cheerful is feasts evermore, i.e., the condition of such an one is like a continual festival. The true and real happiness of a man is thus defined, not by external things, but by the state of the heart, in which, in spite of the apparently prosperous condition, a secret sorrow may gnaw, and which, in spite of an externally sorrowful state, may be at peace, and be joyfully confident in God.

Verse 16

Pro 15:16 16 Better is little with the fear of Jahve, Than great store and trouble therewith.
The ב in both cases the lxx rightly renders by μετά. How מהוּמה (elsewhere of wild, confused disorder, extreme discord) is meant of store and treasure, Psa 39:7 shows: it is restless, covetous care and trouble, as the contrast of the quietness and contentment proceeding from the fear of God, the noisy, wild, stormy running and hunting about of the slave of mammon. Theodotion translates the word here, as Aquila and Symmachus elsewhere, by words which correspond (φαγέδαινα = φάγαινα or ἀχορτασία) with the Syr. יענותא, greed or insatiability.

Verse 17

Pro 15:17 17 Better a dish of cabbage, and love with it, Than a fatted ox together with hatred.
With בו is here interchanged שׁם, which, used both of things and of persons, means to be there along with something. Both have the Dag. forte conj., cf. to the contrary, Deu 30:20; Mic 1:11; Deu 11:22; the punctuation varies, if the first of the two words is a n. actionis ending in ה. The dish (portion) is called ארחה, which the lxx and other Greek versions render by ξενισμός, entertainment, and thus understand it of that which is set before a guest, perhaps rightly so, for the Arab. ârrakh (to date, to determine), to which it is compared by Gesenius and Dietrich, is equivalent to warrh, a denom. of the name of the moon. Love and hatred are, according to circumstances, the disposition of the host, or of the participant, the spirit of the family:Cum dat oluscula mensa minuscula pace quietâ,Ne pete grandia lautaque prandia lite repleta.

Verse 18

Two proverbs of two different classes of men, each second line of which terminates with a catchword having a similar sound (וארך, וארח). 18 A passionate man stirreth up strife, And one who is slow to anger allayeth contention.
Pro 28:25 and Pro 29:22 are variations of the first line of this proverb. The Pih. גּרה occurs only these three times in the phrase גּרה מדון, R. גר, to grind, thus to strike, to irritate, cogn. to (but of a different root from) the verb עורר, to excite, Pro 10:12, and חרחר, to set on fire, Pro 26:21, cf. שׁלּח, Pro 6:14. Regarding חמה, vid., Pro 15:1; we call such a man a “hot-head;” but the biblical conception nowhere (except in the Book of Daniel) places the head in connection with spiritual-psychical events (Psychologie, p. 254). Regarding ארך אפּים, vid., Pro 14:29; the lxx (which contains a translation of this proverb, and after it of a variation) translates μακρόθυμος δὲ καὶ τὴν μέλλουσαν καταπρᾳύνει, i.e., (as the Syr. render it) he suppresses the strife in its origin, so that it does not break out. But both are true: that he who is slow to anger, who does not thus easily permit himself to become angry, allayeth the strife which one enters into with him, or into which he is drawn, and that he prevents the strife, for he places over against provoking, injurious conduct, patient gentleness (מרפּא, Ecc 10:4).

Verse 19

Pro 15:19 19 The way of the slothful is as hedged with thorns; But the path of the righteous is paved.
Hitzig misses the contrast between אצל (slothful) and ישׁרים (upright), and instead of the slothful reads עריץ, the tyrannical. But is then the slothful ישׁר? The contrast is indeed not that of contradiction, but the slothful is one who does not act uprightly, a man who fails to fulfil the duty of labour common to man, and of his own special calling. The way of such an one is כּמשׂכת חדק, like a fencing with thorns (from חדק, R. חד, to be pointed, sharp, distinguished from Arab. hadḳ, to surround, and in the meaning to fix with the look, denom. of khadaḳt, the apple of the eye), so that he goes not forwards, and sees hindrances and difficulties everywhere, which frighten him back, excusing his shunning his work, his remissness of will, and his doing nothing; on the contrary, the path of those who wait truly and honestly on their calling, and prosecute their aim, is raised up like a skilfully made street, so that unhindered and quickly they go forward (סלוּלה, R. סל, aggerare, cf. Jer 18:15 with Isa 49:11 and Isa 49:4 :8, סלסל, which was still in use in the common language of Palestine in the second cent., Rosch haschana, 26b).

Verses 20-23

This collection of Solomonic proverbs began, Pro 10:1, with a proverb having reference to the observance of the fourth commandment,^[80] and a second chief section, Pro 13:1, began in the same way. Here a proverb of the same kind designates the beginning of a third chief section. That the editor was aware of this is shown by the homogeneity of the proverbs, Pro 15:19; Pro 12:28, which form the conclusion of the first and second sections. We place together first in this new section, Pro 15:20-23, in which (with the exception of Pro 15:25) the ישׂמח [maketh glad] of the first (Pro 10:1) is continued.

Verse 20

Pro 15:20 20 A wise son maketh a glad father, And a fool of a man despiseth his mother.
Line first = Pro 10:1. The gen. connection of כּסיל אדם (here and at Pro 21:20) is not superlative the most foolish of men, but like פּרא אדם, Gen 16:12; the latter: a man of the wild ass kind; the former: a man of the fool kind, who is the exemplar of such a sort among men. Piety acting in willing subordination is wisdom, and the contrary exceeding folly.

Verse 21

Pro 15:21 21 Folly is joy to him that is devoid of understanding; But a man of understanding goeth straight forward.
Regarding חסר־לב, vid., at Pro 6:32 (cf. libı̂b, which in the Samaritan means “dearly beloved,” in Syr. “courageous,” in Arab. and Aethiop. cordatus); אישׁ תּבוּנה, Pro 10:23, and ישּׁר, with the accus. of the way, here of the going, Pro 3:6 (but not Pro 11:5, where the going itself is not the subject). In consequence of the contrast, the meaning of 21a is different from that of Pro 10:23, according to which sin is to the fool as the sport of a child. Here אוּלת is folly and buffoonery, drawing aside in every kind of way from the direct path of that which is good, and especially from the path of one's duty. This gives joy to the fool; he is thereby drawn away from the earnest and faithful performance of the duties of his calling, and thus wastes time and strength; while, on the contrary, a man of understanding, who perceives and rejects the vanity and unworthiness of such trifling and such nonsense, keeps the straight direction of his going, i.e., without being drawn aside or kept back, goes straight forward, i.e., true to duty, prosecutes the end of his calling. לכת is accus., like Pro 30:29, Mic 6:8.

Verse 22

Pro 15:22 22 A breaking of plans where no counsel is; But where many counsellors are they come to pass.
On the other side it is also true according to the proverbs, “so viel Köpfe so viel Sinne” [quot homines, tot sententiae], and “viel Rath ist Unrath” [ne quid nimis], and the like. But it cannot become a rule of morals not to accept of counsel that we may not go astray; on the contrary, it is and remains a rule of morals: not stubbornly to follow one's own heart (head), and not obstinately to carry out one's own will, and not in the darkness of wisdom to regard one's own plans as unimproveable, and not needing to be examined; but to listen to the counsel of intelligent and honest friends, and, especially where weighty matters are in hand, not affecting one's own person, but the common good, not to listen merely to one counsellor, but to many. Not merely the organism of the modern state, but also of old the Mosaic arrangement of the Israelitish community, with its representative organization, its courts and councils, rested on the acknowledged justice and importance of the saying uttered in Pro 11:14, and here generalized. הפר, infin. abs. Hiph. of פּרר, to break, with the accus. following, stands here, like הפוך, Pro 12:7, instead of the finite: the thoughts come to a fracture (failure), irrita fiunt consilia. סוד (= יסוד, cf. נוסד Psa 2:2) means properly the being brought close together for the purpose of secret communication and counsel (cf. Arab. sâwada, to press close together = to walk with one privately). The lxx: their plans are unexecuted, οἱ μὴ τιμῶντες συνέδρια, literally Symmachus, διασκεδάζονται λογισμοὶ μὴ ὄντος συμβουλίου. תּקוּם has, after Jer 4:14; Jer 51:29, מחשׁבות as subject. The lxx (besides perverting ברב [by a multitude] into בלב ἐν καρδίαις]), the Syr. and Targ. introduce עצה (Pro 19:21) as subject.

Verse 23

Pro 15:23 23 A man has joy by the right answer of his mouth; And a word in its season, how fair is it!
If we translate מענה only by “answer,” then 23a sounds as a praise of self-complaisance; but it is used of true correspondence (Pro 29:19), of fit reply (Job 32:3, Job 32:5), of appropriate answer (cf. 28a, Pro 16:1). It has happened to one in his reply to hit the nail on its head, and he has joy from that (שׂמחה ב after שׂמח בּ, e.g., Pro 23:24), and with right; for the reply does not always succeed. A reply like this, which, according to circumstances, stops the mouth or bringeth a kiss (Pro 24:26), is a fortunate throw, is a gift from above. The synonymous parallel line measures that which is appropriate, not to that which is to be answered, but from a general point of view as to its seasonableness; עת (= עדת from יעד) is here “the ethically right, becoming time, determined by the laws of wisdom (moral)” (vid., Orelli, Synonyma der Zeit u. Ewigkeit, p. 48), cf. על־אפניו (translated by Luther 'in its time”), Pro 25:11. With מה־טּוב, cf. Pro 16:16; both ideas lie in it: that such a word is in itself well-conditioned and successful, and also that it is welcome, agreeable, and of beneficial influence.

Verse 24

Four proverbs of fundamentally different doctrines: 24 The man of understanding goeth upwards on a way of life, To depart from hell beneath.
The way of life is one, Pro 5:6; Psa 16:11 (where, notwithstanding the want of the article, the idea is logically determined), although in itself forming a plurality of ארחות, Pro 2:19. “A way of life,” in the translation, is equivalent to a way which is a way of life. למעלה, upwards (as Ecc 3:21, where, in the doubtful question whether the spirit of a man at his death goes upwards, there yet lies the knowledge of the alternative), belongs, as the parallel משּׁאול מטּה shows, to ארח חיּים as virtual adj.: a way of life which leads upwards. And the ל of למשׂכּיל is that of possession, but not as of quiet possession (such belongs to him), but as personal activity, as in דּרך לו, he has a journey = he makes a journey, finds himself on a journey, 1Ki 18:27; for למען סוּר is not merely, as לסוּר, Pro 13:14; Pro 14:27, the expression of the end and consequence, but of the subjective object, i.e., the intention, and thus supposes an activity corresponding to this intention. The O.T. reveals heaven, i.e., the state of the revelation of God in glory, yet not as the abode of saved men; the way of the dying leads, according to the O.T. representation, downwards into Sheôl; but the translations of Enoch and Elijah are facts which, establishing the possibility of an exception, break through the dark monotony of that representation, and, as among the Greeks the mysteries encouraged ἡδυστέρας ἐλπίδας, so in Israel the Chokma appears pointing the possessor of wisdom upwards, and begins to shed light on the darkness of Sheôl by the new great thoughts of a life of immortality, thus of a ζωὴ αἰώνιος (Pro 12:28) (Psychologie, p. 407ff.), now for the first time becoming prominent, but only as a foreboding and an enigma. The idea of the Sheôl opens the way for a change: the gathering place of all the living on this side begins to be the place of punishment for the godless (Pro 7:27; Pro 9:18); the way leading upwards, εἰς τὴν ζωὴν, and that leading downwards, εἰς τὴν ἀπωλειαν (Mat 7:13.), come into direct contrast.

Verse 25

Pro 15:25 25 The house of the proud Jahve rooteth out, And He establisheth the landmark of the widow.
The power unnamed in יסּחוּ, Pro 2:22 (cf. Pro 14:11), is here named יסּח יהוה (thus to be pointed with Mercha and Pasek following). יצּב is the abbreviated fut. form which the elevated style, e.g., Deu 32:8, uses also as indic. - a syntactical circumstance which renders Hitzig's correction ויּצּב superfluous. It is the border of the land-possession of the widows, removed by the גּאים (lxx ὑβριστῶν), that is here meant. The possession of land in Israel was secured by severe punishment inflicted in him who removed the “landmark” (Deu 19:14; Deu 27:17), and the Chokma (Pro 22:28; Pro 24:2) as well as the prophets (e.g., Hos 5:10) inculcate the inviolability of the borders of the possession, as the guardian of which Jahve here Himself appears.

Verse 26

Pro 15:26 26 An abomination to Jahve are evil thoughts; But gracious words are to Him pure.
Not personally (Luther: the plans of the wicked) but neutrally is רע here meant as at Pro 2:14, and in אושׁת רע, Pro 6:24 (cf. Pers. merdi nı̂ku, man of good = good man), vid., Friedr. Philippi's Status Constr. p. 121. Thoughts which are of a bad kind and of a bad tendency, particularly (what the parallel member brings near) of a bad disposition and design against others, are an abomination to God; but, on the contrary, pure, viz., in His eyes, which cannot look upon iniquity (Hab 1:13), are the אמרי־נעם, words of compassion and of friendship toward men, which are (after 26a) the expression of such thoughts, thus sincere, benevolent words, the influence of which on the soul and body of him to whom they refer is described, Pro 16:24. The Syr., Targ., Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Venet. recognise in וּטהורים the pred., while, on the contrary, the lxx, Jerome, and Luther (who finally decided for the translation, “but the pure speak comfortably”) regard it as subject. But that would be an attribution which exceeds the measure of possibility, and for which אמרים or דברי must be used; also the parallelism requires that טהורים correspond with 'תועבת ה. Hence also the reference of וטהורים to the judgment of God, which is determined after the motive of pure untainted law; that which proceeds from such, that and that only, is pure, pure in His sight, and thus also pure in itself.

Verse 27

Pro 15:27 27 Whoever does service to [servit] avarice troubleth his own house; But he that hateth gifts shall live.
Regarding בּצע בּצע, vid., at Pro 1:19, and regarding עכר בּיתו, Pro 11:29, where it is subject, but here object.; Pro 28:16 is a variation of 27b. מתּנות are here gifts in the sense of Ecc 7:7, which pervert judgment, and cause respect of persons. The lxx from this point mingles together a series of proverbs with those of the following chapter.

Verse 28

Two proverbs regarding the righteous and the wicked: 28 The heart of the righteous considereth how to answer right, And the mouth of the godless poureth forth evil.
Instead of לענות, the lxx (Syr. and Targ.) imagines אמוּנות πίστεις; Jerome translates, but falsely, obedientiam (from ענה, to bend oneself); Meîri thinks on לענה, wormwood, for the heart of the righteous revolves in itself the misery and the vanity of this present life; Hitzig corrects this verse as he does the three preceding: the heart of the righteous thinks on ענוות, a plur. of verb ענוה, which, except in this correction, does not exist. The proverb, as it stands, is, in fineness of expression and sharpness of the contrast, raised above such manglings. Instead of the righteous, the wise might be named, and instead of the godless, fools (cf. 2b); but the poet places the proverb here under the point of view of duty to neighbours. It is the characteristic of the righteous that he does not give the reins to his tongue; but as Luther has translated: the heart of the righteous considers [tichtet from dictare, frequently to speak, here carefully to think over] what is to be answered, or rather, since מה־לּענות is not used, he thinks thereupon to answer rightly, for that the word ענות is used in this pregnant sense is seen from 23a. The godless, on the contrary, are just as rash with their mouth as the righteous are of a thoughtful heart: their mouth sputters forth (effutit) evil, for they do not first lay to heart the question what may be right and just in the case that has arisen.

Verse 29

Pro 15:29 29 Jahve is far from the godless; But the prayer of the righteous He heareth.
Line second is a variation of 8b. God is far from the godless, viz., as Polychronius remarks, non spatii intercapedine, sed sententiae diversitate; more correctly: as to His gracious presence - חלץ מהם, He has withdrawn Himself from them, Hos 10:6, so that if they pray, their prayer reaches not to Him. The prayer of the righteous, on the contrary, He hears, He is graciously near to them, they have access to Him, He listens to their petitions; and if they are not always fulfilled according to their word, yet they are not without an answer (Psa 145:18).

Verse 30

Two proverbs regarding the eye and the ear: 30 The light of the eye rejoiceth the heart, And a good message maketh the bones fat.
Hitzig corrects also here: מראה עינים, that which is seen with the eyes, viz., after long desire; and certainly מראה עינים can mean not only that which the eyes see (Isa 11:3), but also this, that the eyes do see. But is it true what Hitzig says in justification of his correction, that מאור never means light, or ray, or brightness, but lamp (φωστήρ)? It is true, indeed, that מאור עינים cannot mean a cheerful sight (Luther) in an objective sense (lxx θεωρῶνὀφθαλμὸς καλά), as a verdant garden or a stream flowing through a landscape (Rashi), for that would be מראה מאיר עינים, and “brightness which the eyes see” (Bertheau); the genitive connection certainly does not mean: the מאור is not the light from without presenting itself to the eyes, but, like אור עינים (Psa 38:11) and similar expressions, the light of the eye itself [bright or joyous eyes]. But מאור does not mean alone the body of light, but also the illumination, Exo 35:14 and elsewhere, not only that which (ὄ, τι) gives light, but also this, that (ὄτι) light arises and is present, so that we might translate it here as at Psa 90:8, either the brightness, or that which gives light. But the clear brightness of one's own eye cannot be meant, for then that were as much as to say that it is the effect, not that it is the cause, of a happy heart, but the brightness of the eyes of others that meet us. That this gladdens the heart of him who has a sight of it is evident, without any interchanging relation of the joy-beaming countenance, for it is indeed heart-gladdening to a man, to whom selfishness has not made the χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων impossible, to see a countenance right joyful in truth. But in connection with Pro 16:15, it lies nearer to think on a love-beaming countenance, a countenance on which joyful love to us mirrors itself, and which reflects itself in our heart, communicating this sense of gladness. The ancient Jewish interpreters understand מאור עינים of the enlightening of the eye of the mind, according to which Euchel translates: “clear intelligence;” but Rashi has remarked that that is not the explanation of the words, but the Midrash. That, in line second of this synonymous distich, שׁמוּעה טובה does not mean alloquium humanum (Fl.), nor a good report which one hears of himself, but a good message, is confirmed by Pro 25:25; שׁמוּעה as neut. part. pass. may mean that which is heard, but the comparison of ישׁוּעה, שׁבוּעה, stamps it as an abstract formation like גּאלּה, גּדלּה (גּדוּלה), according to which the lxx translates it by ἀκοή (in this passage by φήμη). Regarding דּשּׁן, richly to satisfy, or to refresh, a favourite expression in the Mishle, vid., at Pro 11:25; Pro 13:4.

Verse 31

Pro 15:31 31 An ear which heareth the doctrine of life Keeps itself in the circle of the wise.
As, Pro 6:33, תוכחות מוסר means instructions aiming at discipline, so here תּוכחת חיּים means instructions which have life as their end, i.e., as showing how one may attain unto true life; Hitzig's חכם, for חיים, is a fancy. Is now the meaning this, that the ear which willingly hears and receives such doctrine of life will come to dwell among the wise, i.e., that such an one (for אזן is synecdoche partis pro persona, as Job 29:11) will have his residence among wise men, as being one of them, inter eos sedem firmam habebit iisque annumerabitur (Fl.)? By such a rendering, one is surprised at the harshness of the synecdoche, as well as at the circumstantiality of the expression (cf. Pro 13:20, יחכּם). On the contrary, this corresponds with the thought that one who willingly permits to be said to him what he must do and suffer in order that he may be a partaker of life, on this account remains most gladly in the circle of the wise, and there has his appropriate place. The “passing the night” (לין, cogn. ליל, Syr. Targ. בּוּת, Arab. bât) is also frequently elsewhere the designation of prolonged stay, e.g., Isa 1:21. בּקרב is here different in signification from that it had in Pro 14:23, where it meant “in the heart.” In the lxx this proverb is wanting. The other Greek translations have οὖς ἀκοῦον ἐλέγχους χωῆς ἐν μέσῳ σοφῶν αὐλισθήσεται. Similarly the Syr., Targ., Jerome, Venet., and Luther, admitting both renderings, but, since they render in the fut., bringing nearer the idea of prediction (Midrash: זוכה לישׁב בישׁיבת חכמים) than of description of character.

Verse 32

Two proverbs with the catchword מוּסר: 32 He that refuseth correction lightly values his soul; But he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.
Regarding פּורע מוּסר, vid., Pro 13:18, cf. Pro 1:25, and מואס נפשׁו, Pro 8:36. נפשׁו contains more than the later expression עצמו, self; it is equivalent to חיּיו (Job 9:21), for the נפשׁ is the bond of union between the intellectual and the corporeal life. The despising of the soul is then the neglecting, endangering, exposing of the life; in a word, it is suicide (10b). Pro 19:8 is a variation derived from this distich: “He who gains understanding loves his soul,” according to which the lxx translate here ἀγαπᾷ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. לב the Midrash explains by חכמה שׁנתונה בלב; but the correct view is, that לב is not thought of as a formal power, but as operative and carried into effect in conformity with its destination.

Verse 33

Pro 15:33 33 The fear of Jahve is a discipline to wisdom, And before honour is humility.
We may regard 'יראת ה (the fear of Jahve) also as pred. here. The fear of Jahve is an educational maxim, and the end of education of the Chokma; but the phrase may also be the subject, and by such a rendering Luther's parallelism lies nearer: “The fear of the Lord is discipline to wisdom;” the fear of God, viz., continually exercised and tried, is the right school of wisdom, and humility is the right way to honour. Similar is the connection מוּסר השׂכּל, discipline binds understanding to itself as its consequence, Pro 1:3. Line second repeats itself, Pro 18:12, “Pride comes before the fall.” Luther's “And ere one comes to honour, he must previously suffer,” renders עני rather than ענוה. But the Syr. reverses the idea: the honour of the humble goeth before him, as also one of the anonymous Greek versions: προπορεύεται δὲ ταπεινοῖς δόξα. But the δόξα comes, as the above proverb expresses it, afterwards. The way to the height lies through the depth, the depth of humility under the hand of God, and, as ענוה expresses, of self-humiliation.

Chap. 16

Verse 1

Four proverbs of God, the disposer of all things: 1 Man's are the counsels of the heart; But the answer of the tongue cometh from Jahve.
Gesen., Ewald, and Bertheau incorrectly understand 1b of hearing, i.e., of a favourable response to what the tongue wishes; 1a speaks not of wishes, and the gen. after מענה (answer) is, as at Pro 15:23; Mic 3:7, and also here, by virtue of the parallelism, the gen. subjecti Pro 15:23 leads to the right sense, according to which a good answer is joy to him to whom it refers: it does not always happen to one to find the fitting and effective expression for that which he has in his mind; it is, as this cog. proverb expresses it, a gift from above (δοθήσεται, Mat 10:19). But now, since מענה neither means answering, nor yet in general an expression (Euchel) or report (Löwenstein), and the meaning of the word at 4a is not here in question, one has to think of him whom the proverb has in view as one who has to give a reason, to give information, or generally - since ענה, like ἀμείβεσθαι, is not confined to the interchange of words - to solve a problem, and that such an one as requires reflection. The scheme (project, premeditation) which he in his heart contrives, is here described as מערכי־לב, from ערך, to arrange, to place together, metaphorically of the reflection, i.e., the consideration analyzing and putting a matter in order. These reflections, seeking at one time in one direction, and at another in another, the solution of the question, the unfolding of the problem, are the business of men; but the answer which finally the tongue gives, and which here, in conformity with the pregnant sense of מענה (vid., at Pro 15:23, Pro 15:28), will be regarded as right, appropriate, effective, thus generally the satisfying reply to the demand placed before him, is from God. It is a matter of experience which the preacher, the public speaker, the author, and every man to whom his calling or circumstances present a weighty, difficult theme, can attest. As the thoughts pursue one another in the mind, attempts are made, and again abandoned; the state of the heart is somewhat like that of chaos before the creation. But when, finally, the right thought and the right utterance for it are found, that which is found appears to us, not as if self-discovered, but as a gift; we regard it with the feeling that a higher power has influenced our thoughts and imaginings; the confession by us, ἡ ἱκανότης ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (2Co 3:5), in so far as we believe in a living God, is inevitable.

Verse 2

Pro 16:2 2 Every way of a man is pure in his own eyes; But a weigher of the spirits is Jahve.
Variations of this verse are Pro 21:2, where ישׁר for זך (according to the root-meaning: pricking in the eyes, i.e., shining clear, then: without spot, pure, vid., Fleischer in Levy's Chald. Wörterbuch, i. 424), לבּות for רוּחות, and כּל־דּרך for כּל־דּרכי, whereupon here without synallage (for כל means the totality), the singular of the pred. follows, as Isa 64:10; Eze 31:15. For the rest, cf. with 2a, Pro 14:12, where, instead of the subj. בּעיני, is used לפני, and with 2b, Pro 24:12, where God is described by תּכן לבּות. The verb תּכן is a secondary formation from כּוּן (vid., Hupfeld on Psa 5:7), like תּכן from Arab. tyaḳn (to be fast, sure), the former through the medium of the reflex. התכּונן, the latter of the reflex. Arab. âitḳn; תּכן means to regulate (from regula, a rule), to measure off, to weigh, here not to bring into a condition right according to rule (Theodotion, ἑδράζων, stabiliens, Syr. Targ. מתקּן, Venet. καταρτίζει; Luther, “but the Lord maketh the heart sure”), but to measure or weigh, and therefore to estimate rightly, to know accurately (Jerome, spiritum ponderator est Dominus). The judgment of a man regarding the cause of life, which it is good for him to enter upon, lies exposed to great and subtle self-deception; but God has the measure and weight, i.e., the means of proving, so as to value the spirits according to their true moral worth; his investigation goes to the root (cf. κριτικός, Heb 4:12), his judgment rests on the knowledge of the true state of the matter, and excludes all deception, so that thus a man can escape the danger of delusion by no other means than by placing his way, i.e., his external and internal life, in the light of the word of God, and desiring for himself the all-penetrating test of the Searcher of hearts (Psa 139:23.), and the self-knowledge corresponding to the result of this test.

Verse 3

Pro 16:3 3 Roll on Jahve thy works, So thy thoughts shall prosper.
The proverbs Pro 16:1-3 are wanting in the lxx; their absence is compensated for by three others, but only externally, not according to their worth. Instead of גּל, the Syr., Targ., and Jerome read גּל, revela, with which the על, Psa 37:5, cf. Psa 55:23, interchanging with אל (here and at Psa 22:9), does not agree; rightly Theodotion, κύλισον ἐπὶ κύριον, and Luther, “commend to the Lord thy works.” The works are here, not those that are executed, Exo 23:16, but those to be executed, as Psa 90:17, where כּונן, here the active to ויכּונוּ, which at Pro 4:26 as jussive meant to be placed right, here with ו of the consequence in the apodosis imperativi: to be brought about, and to have continuance, or briefly: to stand (cf. Pro 12:3) as the contrast of disappointment or ruin. We should roll on God all matters which, as obligations, burden us, and on account of their weight and difficulty cause us great anxiety, for nothing is too heavy or too hard for Him who can overcome all difficulties and dissolve all perplexities; then will our thoughts, viz., those about the future of our duty and our life-course, be happy, nothing will remain entangled and be a failure, but will be accomplished, and the end and aim be realized.

Verse 4

Pro 16:4 4 Jahve hath made everything for its contemplated end; And also the wicked for the day of evil.
Everywhere else מענה means answer (Venet. πρὸς ἀπόκρισιν αὐτοῦ), which is not suitable here, especially with the absoluteness of the כּל; the Syr. and Targ. translate, obedientibus ei, which the words do not warrant; but also propter semet ipsum (Jerome, Theodotion, Luther) give to 4b no right parallelism, and, besides, would demand למענו or למענהוּ. The punctuation למּענהוּ, which is an anomaly (cf. כּגּברתּהּ, Isa 24:2, and בּערינוּ, Ezr 10:14), shows (Ewald) that here we have, not the prepositional למען, but ל with the subst. מענה, which in derivation and meaning is one with the form מעז abbreviated from it (cf. מעל, מער), similar in meaning to the Arab. ma'anyn, aim, intention, object, and end, and mind, from 'atay, to place opposite to oneself a matter, to make it the object of effort. Hitzig prefers למענה, but why not rather למענהוּ, for the proverb is not intended to express that all that God has made serve a purpose (by which one is reminded of the arguments for the existence of God from final causes, which are often prosecuted too far), but that all is made by God for its purpose, i.e., a purpose premeditated by Him, that the world of things and of events stands under the law of a plan, which has in God its ground and its end, and that also the wickedness of free agents is comprehended in this plan, and made subordinate to it. God has not indeed made the wicked as such, but He has made the being which is capable of wickedness, and which has decided for it, viz., in view of the “day of adversity” (Ecc 7:14), which God will cause to come upon him, thus making His holiness manifest in the merited punishment, and thus also making wickedness the means of manifesting His glory. It is the same thought which is expressed in Exo 9:16 with reference to Pharaoh. A praedestinatio ad malum, and that in the supralapsarian sense, cannot be here taught, for this horrible dogma (horribile quidem decretrum, fateor, says Calvin himself) makes God the author of evil, and a ruler according to His sovereign caprice, and thus destroys all pure conceptions of God. What Paul, Rom 9, with reference to Exo 9:16, wishes to say is this, that it was not Pharaoh's conduct that determined the will of God, but that the will of God is always the antecedens: nothing happens to God through the obstinacy and rebellion of man which determines Him to an action not already embraced in the eternal plan, but also such an one must against his will be subservient to the display of God's glory. The apostle adds Rom 9:22, and shows that he recognised the factor of human self-determination, but also as one comprehended in God's plan. The free actions of men create no situation by which God would be surprised and compelled to something which was not originally intended by Himself. That is what the above proverb says: the wicked also has his place in God's order of the world. Whoever frustrates the designs of grace must serve God in this, ἐνδείζασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ (Rom 9:22).

Verse 5

Here follow three proverbs of divine punishment, expiatio [Versühnung] and reconciliatio [Versöhnung]. 5 An abomination of Jahve is every one who is haughty; The hand for it [assuredly] he remains not unpunished.
Proverbs thus commencing we already had at Pro 15:9, Pro 15:26. גּבהּ is a metaplastic connecting form of גּבהּ; on the contrary, גּבהּ, 1Sa 16:7; Psa 103:11, means being high, as גּבהּ, height; the form underlying גּבהּ is not גּבהּ (as Gesen. and Olshausen write it), but גּבהּ. In 5b, Pro 11:21 is repeated. The translators are perplexed in their rendering of יד ליד. Fleischer: ab aetate in aetatem non (i.e., nullo unquam tempore futuro) impunis erit.

Verse 6

Pro 16:6 6 By love and truth is iniquity expiated, And through the fear of Jahve one escapes from evil - literally, there comes (as the effect of it) the escaping of evil (סוּר, n. actionis, as Pro 13:19), or rather, since the evil here comes into view as to its consequences (Pro 14:27; Pro 15:24), this, that one escapes evil. By חסד ואמת are here meant, not the χάρις καὶ ἀλήθεια of God (Bertheau), but, like Pro 20:28, Isa 39:8, love and faithfulness in the relation of men to one another. The ב is both times that of the mediating cause. Or is it said neither by what means one may attain the expiation of his sins, nor how he may attain to the escaping from evil, but much rather wherein the true reverence for Jahve, and wherein the right expiation of sin, consist? Thus von Hofmann, Schriftbew. i. 595. But the ב of בחסד is not different from that of בּזאת, Isa 27:9. It is true that the article of justification is falsified if good works enter as causa meritoria into the act of justification, but we of the evangelical school teach that the fides quâ justificat is indeed inoperative, but not the fides quae justificat, and we cannot expect of the O.T. that it should everywhere distinguish with Pauline precision what even James will not or cannot distinguish. As the law of sacrifice designates the victim united with the blood in the most definite manner, but sometimes also the whole transaction in the offering of sacrifice even to the priestly feast as serving לכפּר, Lev 10:17, so it also happens in the general region of ethics: the objective ground of reconciliation is the decree of God, to which the blood in the typical offering points, and man is a partaker of this reconciliation, when he accepts, in penitence and in faith, the offered mercy of God; but this acceptance would be a self-deception, if it meant that the blotting out of the guilt of sin could be obtained in the way of imputation without the immediate following thereupon of a blotting of it out in the way of sanctification; and therefore the Scriptures also ascribe to good works a share in the expiation of sin in a wider sense - namely, as the proofs of thankful (Luk 7:47) and compassionate love (vid., at Pro 10:2), as this proverb of love and truth, herein according with the words of the prophets, as Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6-8. He who is conscious of this, that he is a sinner, deeply guilty before God, who cannot stand before Him if He did not deal with him in mercy instead of justice, according to the purpose of His grace, cannot trust to this mercy if he is not zealous, in his relations to his fellow-men, to practise love and truth; and in view of the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer, and of the parable of the unmerciful steward rightly understood, it may be said that the love which covers the sins, Pro 10:12, of a neighbour, has, in regard to our own sins, a covering or atoning influence, of “blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” That “love and truth” are meant of virtues practised from religious motives, 6b shows; for, according to this line, by the fear of Jahve one escapes evil. The fear of Jahve is subjection to the God of revelation, and a falling in with the revealed plan of salvation.

Verse 7

Pro 16:7 7 If Jahve has pleasure in the ways of a man, He reconciles even his enemies to him - properly (for השׁלים is here the causative of the transitive, Jos 10:1): He brings it about that they conclude peace with him. If God has pleasure in the ways of a man, i.e., in the designs which he prosecutes, and in the means which he employs, he shows, by the great consequences which flow from his endeavours, that, even as his enemies also acknowledge, God is with him (e.g., Gen 26:27.), so that they, vanquished in heart (e.g., 2Sa 19:9.), abandon their hostile position, and become his friends. For if it is manifest that God makes Himself known, bestowing blessings on a man, there lies in this a power of conviction which disarms his most bitter opponents, excepting only those who have in selfishness hardened themselves.

Verse 8

Five proverbs of the king, together with three of righteousness in action and conduct: 8 Better is a little with righteousness, Than rich revenues with unrighteousness.
The cogn. proverb Pro 15:16 commences similarly. Of רב תּבוּאות, multitude or greatness of income, vid., Pro 14:4 : “unrighteous wealth profits not.” The possessor of it is not truly happy, for sin cleaves to it, which troubles the heart (conscience), and because the enjoyment which it affords is troubled by the curses of those who are injured, and by the sighs of the oppressed. Above all other gains rises ἡ εὐσέβεια μετ ̓ αὐταρκείας (1Ti 6:6).

Verse 9

Pro 16:9 9 The heart of man deviseth his way; But Jahve directeth his steps.
Similar to this is the German proverb: “Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt” [= our “man proposes, God disposes”], and the Arabic el-‛abd (העבד = man) judebbir wallah juḳaddir; Latin, homo proponit, Deus disponit; for, as Hitzig rightly remarks, 9b means, not that God maketh his steps firm (Venet., Luther, Umbreit, Bertheau, Elster), but that He gives direction to him (Jerome, dirigere). Man deliberates here and there (חשּׁב, intens. of חשׁב, to calculate, reflect) how he will begin and carry on this or that; but his short-sightedness leaves much out of view which God sees; his calculation does not comprehend many contingencies which God disposes of and man cannot foresee. The result and issue are thus of God, and the best is, that in all his deliberations one should give himself up without self-confidence and arrogance to the guidance of God, that one should do his duty and leave the rest, with humility and confidence, to God.

Verse 10

Pro 16:10 10 Oracular decision (belongeth) to the lips of the king; In the judgment his mouth should not err.
The first line is a noun clause: קסם, as subject, thus needs a distinctive accent, and that is here, after the rule of the sequence of accents, and manuscript authority (vid., Torath Emeth, p. 49), not Mehuppach legarme, as in our printed copies, but Dechi (קסם). Jerome's translation: Divinatio in labiis regis, in judicio non errabit os ejus, and yet more Luther's: “his mouth fails not in judgment,” makes it appear as if the proverb meant that the king, in his official duties, was infallible; and Hitzig (Zöckler agreeing), indeed, finds here expressed the infallibility of the theocratic king, and that as an actual testimony to be believed, not only is a mere political fiction, like the phrase, “the king can do no wrong.” But while this political fiction is not strange even to the Israelitish law, according to which the king could not be brought before the judgment, that testimony is only a pure imagination. For as little as the N.T. teaches that the Pope, as the legitimate vicarius of Christ, is infallible, cum ex cathedra docet, so little does the O.T. that the theocratic king, who indeed was the legitimate vicarius Dei, was infallible in judicio ferendo. Yet Ewald maintains that the proverb teaches that the word of the king, when on the seat of justice, is an infallible oracle; but it dates from the first bright period of the strong uncorrupted kingdom in Israel. One may not forget, says Dächsel also, with von Gerlach, that these proverbs belong to the time of Solomon, before it had given to the throne sons of David who did evil before the Lord. Then it would fare ill for the truth of the proverb - the course of history would falsify it. But in fact this was never maintained in Israel. Of the idolizing flattering language in which, at the present day, rulers in the East are addressed, not a trace is found in the O.T. The kings were restrained by objective law and the recognised rights of the people. David showed, not merely to those who were about him, but also to the people at large, so many human weaknesses, that he certainly appeared by no means infallible; and Solomon distinguished himself, it is true, by rare kingly wisdom, but when he surrounded himself with the glory of an oriental potentate, and when Rehoboam began to assume the tone of a despot, there arose an unhallowed breach between the theocratic kingdom and the greatest portion of the people. The proverb, as Hitzig translates and expounds it: “a divine utterance rests on the lips of the king; in giving judgment his mouth deceives not,” is both historically and dogmatically impossible. The choice of the word קסם (from קסם, R. קש קם, to make fast, to take an oath, to confirm by an oath, incantare, vid., at Isa 3:2), which does not mean prediction (Luther), but speaking the truth, shows that 10a expresses, not what falls from the lips of the king in itself, but according to the judgment of the people: the people are wont to regard the utterances of the king as oracular, as they shouted in the circus at Caesarea of King Agrippa, designating his words as θεοῦ φωνὴ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπων (Act 12:22). Hence 10b supplies an earnest warning to the king, viz., that his mouth should not offend against righteousness, nor withhold it. לא ימעל is meant as warning (Umbreit, Bertheau), like לא תבא, Pro 22:24, and ב in מעל is here, as always, that of the object; at least this is more probable than that מעל stands without object, which is possible, and that ב designates the situation.

Verse 11

Pro 16:11 11 The scale and balances of a right kind are Jahve's; His work are the weights of the bag.
Regarding פּלס, statera, a level or steelyard (from פּלס, to make even), vid., Pro 4:26; מאזנים (from אזן, to weigh), libra, is another form of the balance: the shop-balance furnished with two scales. אבני are here the stones that serve for weights, and כּים, which at Pro 1:14 properly means the money-bag, money-purse (cf. Pro 7:20), is here, as at Mic 6:11, the bag in which the merchant carries the weights. The genit. משׁפּט belongs also to פּלס, which, in our edition, is pointed with the disjunctive Mehuppach legarme, is rightly accented in Cod. 1294 (vid., Torath Emeth, p. 50) with the conjunctive Mehuppach. משׁפט, as 11b shows, is not like מרמה, the word with the principal tone; 11a says that the balance thus, or thus constructed, which weighs accurately and justly, is Jahve's, or His arrangement, and the object of His inspection, and 11b, that all the weight-stones of the bag, and generally the means of weighing and measuring, rest upon divine ordinance, that in the transaction and conduct of men honesty and certainty might rule. This is the declared will of God, the lawgiver; for among the few direct determinations of His law with reference to trade this stands prominent, that just weights and just measures shall be used, Lev 19:36; Deu 25:13-16. The expression of the poet here frames itself after this law; yet 'ה is not exclusively the God of positive revelation, but, as agriculture in Isa 28:29, cf. Sirach 7:15, so here the invention of normative and normal means of commercial intercourse is referred to the direction and institution of God.

Verse 12

Pro 16:12 12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness, For by righteousness the throne is established.
As 10b uttered a warning to the king, grounded on the fact of 10a, so 12a indirectly contains a warning, which is confirmed by the fact 12b. It is a fact that the throne is established by righteousness (יכּון as expressive of a rule, like הוּכן, Isa 16:5, as expressive of an event); on this account it is an abomination to kings immediately or mediately to commit wickedness, i.e., to place themselves in despotic self-will above the law. Such wicked conduct shall be, and ought to be, an abhorrence to them, because they know that they thereby endanger the stability of their throne. This is generally the case, but especially was it so in Israel, where the royal power was never absolutistic; where the king as well as the people were placed under God's law; where the existence of the community was based on the understood equality of right; and the word of the people, as well as the word of the prophets, was free. Another condition of the stability of the throne is, after Pro 25:5, the removal of godless men from nearness to the king. Rehoboam lost the greater part of his kingdom by this, that he listened to the counsel of the young men who were hated by the people.

Verse 13

History is full of such warning examples, and therefore this proverb continues to hold up the mirror to princes.
Well-pleasing to kings are righteous lips,
And whoever speaketh uprightly is loved.
Rightly the lxx ἀγαπᾶ, individ. plur., instead of the plur. of genus, מלכים; on the contrary, Jerome and Luther give to the sing. the most general subject (one lives), in which case it must be distinctly said, that that preference of the king for the people who speak out the truth, and just what they think, is shared in by every one. צדק, as the property of the שׂפתי, accords with the Arab. ṣidḳ, truth as the property of the lasân (the tongue or speech). ישׁרים, from ישׁר, means recta, as נגידים, principalia, Pro 8:6, and ריקים, inania, Pro 12:11. ישׁרים, Dan 11:10, neut. So neut. וישׁר, Psa 111:8; but is rather, with Hitzig and Riehm, to be read וישׁר. What the proverb ways cannot be meant of all kings, for even the house of David had murderers of prophets, like Manasseh and Joiakim; but in general it is nevertheless true that noble candour, united with true loyalty and pure love to the king and the people, is with kings more highly prized than mean flattery, seeking only its own advantage, and that, though this (flattery) may for a time prevail, yet, at last, fidelity to duty, and respect for truth, gain the victory.

Verse 14

Pro 16:14 14 The wrath of the king is like messengers of death; But a wise man appeaseth him.
The clause: the wrath of the king is many messengers of death, can be regarded as the attribution of the effect, but it falls under the point of view of likeness, instead of comparison: if the king is angry, it is as if a troop of messengers or angels of death went forth to visit with death him against whom the anger is kindled; the plur. serves for the strengthening of the figure: not one messenger of death, but at the same time several, the wrinkled brow, the flaming eye, the threatening voice of the king sends forth (Fleischer). But if he against whom the wrath of the king has thus broken forth is a wise man, or one near the king who knows that ὀργὴ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ οὐ κατεργάζεται (Jam 1:20), he will seek to discover the means (and not without success) to cover or to propitiate, i.e., to mitigate and appease, the king's anger. The Scripture never uses כּפּר, so that God is the object (expiare Deum), because, as is shown in the Comm. zum Hebräerbrief, that were to say, contrary to the decorum divinum, that God's holiness or wrath is covered, or its energy bound, by the offering up of sacrifices or of things in which there is no inherent virtue of atonement, and which are made the means of reconciliation only by the accommodative arrangement of God. On the contrary, כּפּר is used here and at Gen 32:21 of covering = reconciling (propitiating) the wrath of a man.

Verse 15

Pro 16:15 15 In the light on the king's countenance there is life, And his favour is as a cloud of the latter rains.
Hitzig regards אור as the inf. (cf. Pro 4:18), but one says substantively אור פּני, Job 29:24, etc., and in a similar sense מאור עינים, Pro 15:30; light is the condition of life, and the exhilaration of life, wherefore אור החיּים, Ps. 56:14, Job 33:30, is equivalent to a fresh, joyous life; in the light of the king's countenance is life, means that life goes forth from the cheerful approbation of the king, which shows itself in his face, viz., in the showing of favour, which cheers the heart and beautifies the life. To speak of liberality as a shower is so common to the Semitic, that it has in Arab. the general name of nadnâ, rain. 15b conforms itself to this. מלקושׁ (cf. Job 29:23) is the latter rain, which, falling about the spring equinox, brings to maturity the barley-harvest; on the contrary, מורה (יורה) is the early rain, which comes at the time of ploughing and sowing; the former is thus the harvest rain, and the latter the spring rain. Like a cloud which discharges the rain that mollifies the earth and refreshes the growing corn, is the king's favour. The noun עב, thus in the st. constr., retains its Kametz. Michlol 191b. This proverb is the contrast to Pro 16:14. Pro 20:2 has also the anger of the king as its theme. In Pro 19:12 the figures of the darkness and the light stand together as parts of one proverb. The proverbs relating to the king are now at an end. Pro 16:10 contains a direct warning for the king; Pro 16:12 an indirect warning, as a conclusion arising from 12b (cf. Pro 20:28, where יצּרוּ is not to be translated tueantur; the proverb has, however, the value of a nota bene). Pro 16:13 in like manner presents an indirect warning, less to the king than to those who have intercourse with him (cf. Pro 25:5), and Pro 16:14 and Pro 16:15 show what power of good and evil, of wrath and of blessing, is given to a king, whence so much the greater responsibility arises to him, but, at the same time also, the duty of all to repress the lust to evil that may be in him, and to awaken and foster in him the desire for good.

Verse 16

Five proverbs regarding wisdom, righteousness, humility, and trust in God, forming, as it were, a succession of steps, for humility is the virtue of virtues, and trust in God the condition of all salvation. Three of these proverbs have the word טוב in common. 16 To gain wisdom, how much better is it than gold; And to attain understanding to be preferred to silver.
Commendation of the striving after wisdom (understanding) with which all wisdom begins, for one gains an intellectual possession not by inheritance, but by acquisition, Pro 4:7. A similar “parallel-comparative clause” (Fl.), with the interchange of טוב and נבחר, is Pro 22:1, but yet more so is Pro 21:3, where נבחר, as here, is neut. pred. (not, as at Pro 8:10 and elsewhere, adj.), and עשׂה, such an anomalous form of the inf. constr. as here קנה, Gesen. §§75, Anm. 2; in both instances it could also be regarded as the inf. absol. (cf. Pro 25:27) (Lehrgebäude, §109, Anm. 2); yet the language uses, as in the case before us, the form גּלה only with the force of an abl. of the gerund, as עשׂו occurs Gen 31:38; the inf. of verbs 'ה'ל as nom. (as here), genit. (Gen 50:20), and accus. (Psa 101:3), is always either גּלות or גּלה. The meaning is not that to gain wisdom is more valuable than gold, but that the gaining of wisdom exceeds the gaining of gold and silver, the common comparatio decurtata (cf. Job 28:18). Regarding חרוּץ, vid., at Pro 3:14.

Verse 17

Pro 16:17 17 The path of the righteous is the avoiding of evil, And he preserveth his soul who giveth heed to his way.
The meaning of מסלּה, occurring only here in the Proverbs, is to be learned from Pro 15:19. The attribution denotes that wherein the way they take consists, or by which it is formed; it is one, a straight and an open way, i.e., unimpeded, leading them on, because they avoid the evil which entices them aside to the right and the left. Whoever then gives heed to his way, preserveth his soul (שׁמר נפשׁו, as Pro 13:3, on the contrary Pro 25:5, subj.), that it suffer not injury and fall under death, for סוּר מרע and סור ממוקשׁי מות, Pro 14:27, are essentially the same. Instead of this distich, the lxx has three distichs; the thoughts presented in the four superfluous lines are all already expressed in one distich. Ewald and Hitzig find in this addition of the lxx a component part of the original text.

Verse 18

Pro 16:18 18 Pride goeth before destruction, And haughtiness cometh before a fall.
The contrast is לפני כבוד ענוה, Pro 15:33, according to which the “haughtiness comes before a fall” in Pro 18:22 is expanded into the antithetic distich. שׁבר means the fracture of the limbs, destruction of the person. A Latin proverb says, “Magna cadunt, inflata crepant, tumefacta premuntur.”^[81]
Here being dashed in pieces and overthrown correspond. שׁבר means neither bursting (Hitzig) nor shipwreck (Ewald). כשּׁלון (like בּטּחון, זכּרון, etc.), from כּשׁל or נכשׁל, to totter, and hence, as a consequence, to come to ruin, is a ἅπαχ λεγ. This proverb, which stands in the very centre of the Book of Proverbs, is followed by another in praise of humility.

Verse 19

Pro 16:19 19 Better in humility to dwell among sufferers, Than to divide spoil among the proud.
The form שׁפל is here not adj. as Pro 29:23 (from שׁפל, like חסר, Pro 6:32, from חסר), but inf. (like Ecc 12:14, and חסר, defectio, 10:21). There existed here also no proper reason for changing עניּים (Chethı̂b) into ענוים; Hitzig is right in saying that עני may also be taken in the sense of ענו [the idea “sufferer” is that which mediates], and that here the inward fact of humility and the outward of dividing spoil, stand opposed to one another. It is better to live lowly, i.e., with a mind devoid of earthly pride (Demut [humility] comes from dëo with the deep e, diu, servant), among men who have experience of the vanity of earthly joys, than, intoxicated with pride, to enjoy oneself amid worldly wealth and greatness (cf. Isa 9:2).

Verse 20

Pro 16:20 20 He that giveth heed to the word will find prosperity; And he that trusteth in Jahve, blessed is he!
The “word” here is the word κατ ̓ ἐξ., the divine word, for משׂכּיל על־דּבר is the contrast of בּז לדבר, Pro 13:13, cf. Neh 8:13. טוב is meant, as in Pro 17:20, cf. Pro 13:21, Psa 23:6; to give heed to God's word is the way to true prosperity. But at last all depends on this, that one stand in personal fellowship with God by means of faith, which here, as at Pro 28:25; Pro 29:25, is designated after its specific mark as fiducia. The Mashal conclusion אשׁריו occurs, besides here, only at Pro 14:21; Pro 29:18.

Verse 21

Four proverbs of wisdom with eloquence: 21 The wise in heart is called prudent, And grace of the lips increaseth learning.
Elsewhere (Pro 1:5; Pro 9:9) הוסיף לקח means more than to gain learning, i.e., erudition in the ethico-practical sense, for sweetness of the lips (dulcedo orationis of Cicero) is, as to learning, without significance, but of so much the greater value for reaching; for grace of expression, and of exposition, particularly if it be not merely rhetorical, but, according to the saying pectus disertos facit, coming out of the heart, is full of mind, it imparts force to the instruction, and makes it acceptable. Whoever is wise of heart, i.e., of mind or spirit (לב = the N.T. νοῦς or πνεῦμα), is called, and is truly, נבון [learned, intelligent] (Fleischer compares to this the expression frequent in Isaiah, “to be named” = to be and appear to be, the Arab. du'ay lah); but there is a gift which highly increases the worth of this understanding or intelligence, for it makes it fruitful of good to others, and that is grace of the lips. On the lips (Pro 10:13) of the intelligent wisdom is found; but the form also, and the whole manner and way in which he gives expression to this wisdom, is pleasing, proceeding from a deep and tender feeling for the suitable and the beneficial, and thus he produces effects so much the more surely, and beneficently, and richly.

Verse 22

Pro 16:22 22 A fountain of life is understanding to its possessor; But the correction of fools is folly.
Oetinger, Bertheau, and others erroneously understand מוּסר of the education which fools bestow upon others; when fools is the subject spoken of, מוּסר is always the education which is bestowed on them, Pro 7:22; Pro 1:7; cf. Pro 5:23; Pro 15:5. Also מוסר does not here mean education, disciplina, in the moral sense (Symmachus, ἔννοια; Jerome, doctrina): that which fools gain from education, from training, is folly, for מוסר is the contrast to מקור חיּים, and has thus the meaning of correction or chastisement, Pro 15:10, Jer 30:14. And that the fruits of understanding (Pro 12:8, cf. שׂכל טוב, fine culture, Pro 13:15) represented by מקור חיים (vid., Pro 10:11) will accrue to the intelligent themselves, is shown not only by the contrast, but also by the expression: Scaturigo vitae est intellectus praeditorum eo, of those (= to those) who are endowed therewith (The lxx well, τοῖς κεκτημένοις). The man of understanding has in this intellectual possession a fountain of strength, a source of guidance, and a counsel which make his life secure, deepen, and adorn it; while, on the contrary, folly punishes itself by folly (cf. to the form, Pro 14:24), for the fool, when he does not come to himself (Psa 107:17-22), recklessly destroys his own prosperity.

Verse 23

Pro 16:23 23 The heat of the wise maketh his mouth wise, And learning mounteth up to his lips.
Regarding השׂכּיל as causative: to put into the possession of intelligence, vid., at Gen 3:6. Wisdom in the heart produceth intelligent discourse, and, as the parallel member expresses it, learning mounteth up to the lips, i.e., the learning which the man taketh into his lips (Pro 22:18; cf. Psa 16:4) to communicate it to others, for the contents of the learning, and the ability to communicate it, are measured by the wisdom of the heart of him who possesses it. One can also interpret הוסיף as extens. increasing: the heart of the wise increaseth, i.e., spreads abroad learning, but then בּשׂפתיו (Psa 119:13) would have been more suitable; על־שׂפתיו calls up the idea of learning as hovering on the lips, and thus brings so much nearer, for הוסיף, the meaning of the exaltation of its worth and impression.

Verse 24

Pro 16:24 24 A honeycomb are pleasant words, Sweet to the soul, and healing to the bones.
Honeycomb, i.e., honey flowing from the צוּף, the comb or cell (favus), is otherwise designated, Psa 19:11. מתוק, with מרפּא, is neut. אמרי־נעם are, according to Pro 15:26, words which love suggests, and which breathe love. Such words are sweet to the soul of the hearer, and bring strength and healing to his bones (Pro 15:30); for מרפא is not only that which restores soundness, but also that which preserves and advances it (cf. θεραπεία, Rev 22:2).

Verse 25

A group of six proverbs follows, four of which begin with אישׁ, and five relate to the utterances of the mouth. 25 There is a way which appears as right to a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death.
This verse = Pro 14:12.

Verse 26

Pro 16:26 26 The hunger of the labourer laboureth for him, For he is urged on by his mouth.
The Syr. translates: the soul of him who inflicts woe itself suffers it, and from his mouth destruction comes to him; the Targ. brings this translation nearer the original text (בּיפא, humiliation, instead of אבדנא, destruction); Luther translates thus also, violently abbreviating, however. But עמל (from עמל, Arab. 'amila, to exert oneself, laborare) means, like laboriosus, labouring as well as enduring difficulty, but not, as πονῶν τινα, causing difficulty, or (Euchel) occupied with difficulty. And labour and the mouth stand together, denoting that man labours that the mouth may have somewhat to eat (cf. 2Th 3:10; נפשׁ, however, gains in this connection the meaning of ψυχὴ ὀρεκτική, and that of desire after nourishment, vid., at Pro 6:30; Pro 10:3). אכף also joins itself to this circle of ideas, for it means to urge (Jerome, compulit), properly (related to כּפף, incurvare, כּפה כּפא, to constrain, necessitate), to bow down by means of a burden. The Aramaeo-Arab. signification, to saddle (Schultens: clitellas imposuit ei os suum), is a secondary denom. (vid., at Job 33:7). The Venet. well renders it after Kimchi: ἐπεὶ κύπτει ἐπ ̓ αὐτὸν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ. Thus: the need of nourishment on the part of the labourer works for him (dat. commodi like Isa 40:20), i.e., helps him to labour, for (not: if, ἐάν, as Rashi and others) it presses upon him; his mouth, which will have something to eat, urges him. It is God who has in this way connected together working and eating. The curse in sudore vultus tui comedes panem conceals a blessing. The proverb has in view this reverse side of the blessing in the arrangement of God.

Verse 27

Pro 16:27 27 A worthless man diggeth evil; And on his lips is, as it were, scorching fire.
Regarding אישׁ בּליּעל, vid., Pro 6:12, and regarding כּרה, to dig round, or to bore out, vid., at Gen 49:5; Gen 50:5; here the figure, “to dig for others a pit,” Pro 26:27, Psa 7:16, etc.: to dig evil is equivalent to, to seek to prepare such for others. צרבת Kimchi rightly explains as a form similar to קשּׁבת; as a subst. it means, Lev 13:23, the mark of fire (the healed mark of a carbuncle), here as an adj. of a fire, although not flaming (אשׁ להבה, Isa 4:5, etc.); yet so much the hotter, and scorching everything that comes near to it (from צרב, to be scorched, cogn. שׁרב, to which also שׂרף is perhaps related as a stronger power, like comburere to adurere). The meaning is clear: a worthless man, i.e., a man whose disposition and conduct are the direct contrast of usefulness and piety, uses words which, like an iron glowing hot, scorches and burns; his tongue is φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης (Jam 3:6).

Verse 28

Pro 16:28 28 A man of falsehood scattereth strife, And a backbiter separateth confidential friends.
Regarding תּהפּכות (מדבר) אישׁ, vid., Pro 2:12, and מדון ישׁלּח, Pro 6:14; the thought of 28b is found at Pro 6:19. נרגּן (with ן minusculum, which occurs thrice with the terminal Nun) is a Niphal formation from רגן, to murmur (cf. נזיד, from זיד), and denotes the whisperer, viz., the backbiter, ψίθυρος, Sir. 5:14, ψιθυριστής, susurro; the Arab. nyrj is abbreviated from it, a verbal stem of נרג (cf. Aram. norgo, an axe, Arab. naurag, a threshing-sledge = מורג) cannot be proved. Aquila is right in translating by τονθρυστής, and Theodotion by γόγγυσος, from רגן, Hiph. נרגּן, γογγύζειν. Regarding אלּוּף, confidential friend, vid., p. 82; the sing., as Pro 18:9, is used in view of the mutual relationship, and מפריד proceeds on the separation of the one, and, at the same time, of the other from it. Luther, in translating by “a slanderer makes princes disagree,” is in error, for אלּוּף, φύλαρχος, is not a generic word for prince.

Verse 29

Pro 16:29 29 A man of violence enticeth his neighbour, And leadeth him in a way which is not good.
Cf. Gen 4:8. The subject is not moral enticement, but enticement to some place or situation which facilitates to the violent man the carrying out of his violent purpose (misdemeanour, robbery, extortion, murder). חמס (here with אישׁ at Pro 3:31) is the injustice of club-law, the conduct of him who puts his superior power in godless rudeness in the place of God, Hab 1:11, cf. Job 12:6. “A way not good” (cf. Psa 36:5) is the contradictory contrast of the good way: one altogether evil and destructive.

Verse 30

Pro 16:30 30 He who shutteth his eyes to devise falsehood; He who biteth his lips bringeth evil to pass.
A physiognomical Caveto. The ἁπ. λεγ. עצה is connected with עצם, Isa 33:15 (Arab. transp. ghamḍ), comprimere, formed from it. Regarding קרץ of lips or eyes, vid., p. 144; the biting of the lips is the action of the deceitful, and denotes scorn, malice, knavery. The perf. denotes that he who is seen doing this has some evil as good as accomplished, for he is inwardly ready for it; Hitzig suitably compares 1Sa 20:7, 1Sa 20:33. Our editions (also Löwenstein) have כּלּה, but the Masora (vid., Mas. finalis, p. 1) numbers the word among those which terminate in א, and always writes כּלּא.

Verse 31

Pro 16:31 31 A bright diadem is a hoary head, In the way of righteousness it is found - namely, this bright diadem, this beautiful crown (Pro 4:8), which silver hair is to him who has it as the result of his advanced age (Pro 20:29), for “thou shalt rise up before the hoary head,” Lev 19:32; and the contrast of an early death is to die in a good old age, Gen 15:15, etc., but a long life is on one side a self-consequence, and on another the promised reward of a course of conduct regulated by God's will, God's law, and by the rule of love to God and love to one's neighbour. From the N.T. standpoint that is also so far true, as in all the world there is no better established means of prolonging life than the avoidance of evil; but the clause corresponding to the O.T. standpoint, that evil punishes itself by a premature death, and that good is rewarded by long life, has indeed many exceptions arising from the facts of experience against it, for we see even the godless in their life of sin attaining to an advanced old age, and in view of the veiled future it appears only as a one-sided truth, so that the words, Wisd. 4:9, “discretion is to man the right grey hairs, and an unstained life is the right old age,” which is mediated by life experiences, such as Isa 57:1., stand opposed to the above proverb as its reversed side. That old Solomonic proverb is, however, true, for it is not subverted; and, in contrast to self-destroying vice and wickedness; calling forth the judgment of God, it is and remains true, that whoever would reach an honoured old age, attains to it in the way of a righteous life and conduct.

Verse 32

Pro 16:32 32 Better one slow to anger than a hero in war; And whoever is master of his spirit, than he who taketh a city.
Regarding ארך אפּים, vid., Pro 14:29, where קצר־רוּח was the parallel of the contrast. The comparison is true as regards persons, with reference to the performances expressed, and (since warlike courage and moral self-control may be united in one person) they are properly those in which the טוב determines the moral estimate. In Pirke Aboth iv. 1, the question, “Who is the hero?” is answered by, “he who overcomes his desire,” with reference to this proverb, for that which is here said of the ruling over the passion of anger is true of all affections and passions. “Yet he who reigns within himself, and rules
Passions, desires, and fears, is more a king
Which every wise and virtuous man attains.”^[82]
On the other side, the comparison is suggested:
Break your head, not so sore;
Break your will - that is more.^[83]

Verse 33

Pro 16:33 33 One casts the lot into the lap; But all its decision cometh from Jahve.
The Tôra knows only in one instance an ordeal (a judgment of God) as a right means of proof, Num 5:12-31. The lot is nowhere ordained by it, but its use is supported by a custom running parallel with the Mosaic law; it was used not only in private life, but also in manifold ways within the domain of public justice, as well as for the detection of the guilty, Jos 7:14., 1Sa 14:40-42. So that the proverb Pro 18:18 says the same thing of the lot that is said in the Epistle to the Heb; Heb 6:16, of the oath. The above proverb also explains the lot for an ordeal, for it is God who directs and orders it that it fall out thus and not otherwise. A particular sanction of the use of the lot does not lie in this, but it is only said, that where the lot is cast, all the decision that results from it is determined by God. That is in all cases true; but whether the challenging of the divine decision in such a way be right in this or that case is a question, and in no case would one, on the contrary, venture to make the person of the transgressor discoverable by lot, and let it decide regarding human life. But antiquity judged this matter differently, as e.g., the Book of Jonah (chap. 1) shows; it was a practice, animated by faith, in God's government of the world, which, if it did not observe the boundary between faith and superstition, yet stood high above the unbelief of the “Enlightenment.” Like the Greek κόλπος, חיק (from חוּק, Arab. ḥaḳ, khaḳ, to encompass, to stretch out) means, as it is commonly taken, gremium as well as sinus, but the latter meaning is the more sure; and thus also here it is not the lap as the middle of the body, so that one ought to think on him who casts the lot as seated, but also not the lap of the garment, but, like Pro 6:27, cf. Isa 40:11, the swelling, loose, external part of the clothing covering the bosom (the breast), where the lot covered by it is thrown by means of shaking and changing, and whence it is drawn out. The construction of the passive הוּטל (from טוּל = Arab. tall, to throw along) with the object. accus. follows the old scheme, Gen 4:18, and has its reason in this, that the Semitic passive, formed by the change of vowels, has not wholly given up the governing force of the active. משׁפּט signifies here decision as by the Urim and Thummim, Num 27:21, but which was no lot-apparatus.

Chap. 17

Verse 1

A comparative proverb with טוב, pairing with Pro 16:32 :
Better a dry piece of bread, and quietness therewith,
Than a house full of slain beasts with unquietness.
Similar to this in form and contents are Pro 15:16. and Pro 16:8. פּת חרבה is a piece of bread (פת, fem., as Pro 23:8) without savoury drink (Theodotion, καθ ̓ ἑαυτόν, i.e., nothing with it), cf. Lev 7:10, a meat-offering without the pouring out of oil. זבחים are not sacrificial gifts (Hitzig), but, as always, slain animals, i.e., either offerings or banquets of slain beasts; it is the old name of the שׁלמים (cf. Exo 18:12; Exo 24:5; Pro 7:14), part of which only were offered on the altar, and part presented as a banquet; and זבח (in contradist. to טבח, Lev 9:2; 43:16) denotes generally any kind of consecrated festival in connection with the worship of God, 1Sa 20:29; cf. Gen 31:54. “Festivals of hatred” are festivals with hatred. מלא is part. with object.-accus.; in general מלא forms a constructive, מלא occurs only once (Jer 6:11), and מלאי not at all. We have already, Pro 7:14, remarked on the degenerating of the shelamı̂m feasts; from this proverb it is to be concluded that the merriment and the excitement bordering on intoxication (cf. with Hitzig, 1Sa 1:13 and 1Sa 1:3), such as frequently at the Kirmsen merry-makings, brought quarrels and strife, so that the poor who ate his dry bread in quiet peace could look on all this noise and tumult without envy.

Verse 2

Pro 17:2 2 A prudent servant shall rule over the degenerate son; And he divides the inheritance among the brethren.
Regarding the contrasts of משׂכּיל and מבישׁ, vid., at Pro 10:5; Pro 14:35. The printed editions present בּבן־מבישׁ in genit. connection: a son of the scandalous class, which is admissible; but Cod. 1294 and Cod. Jaman,^[84]
Erf. No. 2, 3, write בּבן מבישׁ (with Tsere and Munach), and that is perhaps right, after Pro 10:5; Pro 17:25. The futures have here also a fut. signification: they say to what it will come. Grotius remarks, with reference to this: manumissus tutor filiis relinquetur; יחלק tutorio officio. But if he is a conscientious, unselfish tutor, he will not enrich himself by property which belongs to another; and thus, though not without provision, he is yet without an inheritance. And yet the supplanting of the degenerate is brought about by this, that he loses his inheritance, and the intelligent servant steps into his place. Has one then to suppose that the master of the house makes his servant a co-heir with his own children, and at the same time names him as his executor? That were a bad anachronism. The idea of the διαθήκη was, at the time when this proverb was coined, one unknown - Israelitish iniquity knows only the intestate right of inheritance, regulated by lineal and gradual succession. Then, if one thinks of the degenerate son, that he is disowned by the father, but that the intelligent servant is not rewarded during the life of his master for his true services, and that, after the death of the master, to such a degree he possesses the esteem and confidence of the family, that he it is who divides the inheritance among the brethren, i.e., occupies the place amongst them of distributor of the inheritance, not: takes a portion of the inheritance, for חלק has not the double meaning of the Lat. participare; it means to divide, and may, with בּ, mean “to give a part of anything” (Job 39:17); but, with the accus., nothing else than to distribute, e.g., Jos 18:2, where it is to be translated: “whose inheritance had not yet been distributed (not yet given to them).” Jerome, haereditatem dividet; and thus all translators, from the lxx to Luther.

Verse 3

Pro 17:3 3 The fining-pot for silver, and the furnace for gold; And a trier of hearts is Jahve.
An emblematical proverb, which means that Jahve is for the heart what the smelting-pot (from צרף, to change, particularly to melt, to refine) is for silver, and what the smelting furnace (כוּר, from כּוּר, R. כר, to round, Exo 22:20) is for gold, that Jahve is for the heart, viz., a trier (בחן, to grind, to try by grinding, here as at Psa 7:10) of their nature and their contents, for which, of the proof of metals, is elsewhere (Pro 16:2; Pro 21:2; Pro 24:12) used the word (cf. בּחון, the essay-master, Jer 6:7) תּכן, weigher, or דּורשׁ, searcher (1Ch 28:9). Wherever the subject spoken of is God, the searcher of hearts, the plur. לבּות, once לבבות ecno ,, is used; the form לבבים occurs only in the status conjunctus with the suffix. In Pro 27:21 there follow the two figures, with which there is formed a priamel, as at Pro 26:3, another tertium comparationis.

Verse 4

Pro 17:4 4 A profligate person giveth heed to perverse lips; Falsehood listeneth to a destructive tongue.
The meaning, at all events, is, that whoever gives ear with delight to words which are morally reprobate, and aimed at the destruction of neighbours, thereby characterizes himself as a profligate. Though מרע is probably not pred. but subj., yet so that what follows does not describe the מרע (the profligate hearkens...), but stamps him who does this as a מרע (a profligate, or, as we say: only a profligate...). מרע, for מרע, is warranted by Isa 9:16, where מרע (not מרע ton, according to which the Venet. here translates ἀπὸ κακοῦ) is testified to not only by correct codd. and editions, but also by the Masora (cf. Michlol 116b). הקשׁיב (from קשׁב, R. קש, to stiffen, or, as we say, to prick, viz., the ear) is generally united with ל or אל, but, as here and at Pro 29:12; Jer 6:19, also with על. און, wickedness, is the absolute contrast of a pious and philanthropic mind; הוּת, from הוּה, not in the sense of eagerness, as Pro 10:3; Pro 11:6, but of yawning depth, abyss, catastrophe (vid., at Psa 5:10), is equivalent to entire destruction - the two genitives denote the property of the lips and the tongue (labium nequam, lingua perniciosa), on the side of that which it instrumentally aims at (cf. Psa 36:4; Psa 52:4): practising mischief, destructive plans. שׁקר beginning the second line is generally regarded as the subj. parallel with מרע, as Luther, after Jerome, “A wicked man gives heed to wicked mouths, and a false man listens willingly to scandalous tongues.” It is possible that שׁקר denotes incarnate falsehood, as רמיּה, Pro 12:27, incarnate slothfulness, cf. מרמה, Pro 14:25, and perhaps also Pro 12:17; צדק, Psa 58:2, תּוּשׁיּה, Mic 6:9; יצר סמוּך, Isa 26:13, etc., where, without supplying אישׁ (אנשׁי), the property stands instead of the person possession that property. The clause, that falsehood listeneth to a deceitful tongue, means that he who listens to it characterizes himself thereby, according to the proverb, simile simili gaudet, as a liar. But only as a liar? The punctuation before us, which represents מרע by Dechi as subj., or also pred., takes שׁקר מזין as obj. with מזין as its governing word, and why should not that be the view intended? The representation of the obj. is an inversion less bold than Isa 22:2; Isa 8:22, and that על here should not be so closely connected with the verb of hearing, as 4a lies near by this, that הקשׁיב על is elsewhere found, but not האזין על. Jewish interpreters, taking שׁקר as obj., try some other meaning of מזין than auscultans; but neither זון, to approach, nor זין, to arm (Venet. ψεῦδος ὁπλίζει), gives a meaning suitable to this place. מזין is equivalent to מאזין. As אאזין, Job 32:11, is contracted into אזין, so must מאזין, if the character of the part. shall be preserved, become מזין, mediated by מיזין.

Verse 5

Pro 17:5 5 He that mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker; He that rejoiceth over calamity remains not unpunished.
Line first is a variation of Pro 14:31. God is, according to Pro 22:2, the creator of the poor as well as of the rich. The poor, as a man, and as poor, is the work of God, the creator and governor of all things; thus, he who mocketh the poor, mocketh Him who called him into existence, and appointed him his lowly place. But in general, compassion and pity, and not joy (שׂמח ל, commonly with ל, of the person, e.g., Obad. Oba 1:12, the usual formula for ἐπιχαιρεκακία), is appropriate in the presence of misfortune (איד, from אוּד, to be heavily burdened), for such joy, even if he on whom the misfortune fell were our enemy, is a peccatum mortale, Job 31:29. There is indeed a hallowed joy at the actual revelation in history of the divine righteousness; but this would not be a hallowed joy if it were not united with deep sorrow over those who, accessible to no warning, have despised grace, and, by adding sin to sin, have provoked God's anger.

Verse 6

With this verse this series of proverbs closes as it began:
A diadem of the old are children's children,
And the glory of children are their parents.
Children are a blessing from God (Ps 127-128); ); thus, a family circle consisting of children and grandchildren (including great-grandchildren) is as a crown of glory surrounding the grey-haired patriarch; and again, children have glory and honour in their parents, for to have a man of an honoured name, or of a blessed memory, as a father, is the most effective commendation, and has for the son, even though he is unlike his father, always important and beneficial consequences. In 6b a fact of experience is expressed, from which has proceeded the rank of inherited nobility recognised among men - one may abnegate his social rights, but yet he himself is and remains a part of the moral order of the world. The lxx has a distich after Pro 17:4 the Vatican text places it after Pro 17:6 : “The whole world of wealth belongs to the faithful, but to the unfaithful not even an obolus.” Lagarde supposes that ὄλος ὁ κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων is a translation of שׁפעת יתר, instead of שׂפת יתר, 7a. But this ingenious conjecture does not amount to the regarding of this distich as a variation of Pro 17:7.
The proverbs following, Pro 17:7-10, appear to be united acrostically by the succession of the letters ש (שׂ, שׁ) and ת.

Verse 7

Pro 17:7 7 It does not become a fool to speak loftily, How much less do lying lips a noble!
As at Isa 32:5., נבל and נדיב are placed opposite to one another; the latter is the nobly magnanimous man, the former the man who thinks foolishly and acts profligately, whom it does not become to use lofty words, who thereby makes the impression of his vulgarity so much the more repulsive (cf. Job 2:10). שּׂפת יתר (not יתר, for the word belongs to those which retain their Pathach or Segol, in pausa) is neither elevated (soaring) (Ewald) nor diffuse (Jo. Ernst Jungius in Oetinger: lingua dicax ac sermonem ultra quam decorum verbis extendere solita), rather imperative (Bertheau), better presumptuous (Hitzig) words, properly words of superfluity, i.e., of superabundant self-consciousness and high pretension (cf. the transitive bearing of the Arab. watr with ὑβρίζειν, from ὑπέρ, Aryan upar, Job, p. 363). Rightly Meîri, שׂפת נאוה ושׂררה. It produces a disagreeable impression, when a man of vulgar mind and of rude conduct, instead of keeping himself in retirement, makes himself of importance, and weighty in a shameless, impudent manner (cf. Ps. 12:9, where זלּוּת, vilitas, in a moral sense); but yet more repulsive is the contrast, when a man in whom one is justified in expecting nobility of mind, in accordance with his life-position and calling, degrades himself by uttering deceitful words. Regarding the אף כּי, concluding a minori ad majus, we have already spoken at Pro 11:31; Pro 15:11. R. Ismael, in Bereschith Rabba, at 44:8, reckons ten such conclusions a minori ad majus in the Scriptures, but there are just as many quanto magis. The right accentuation (e.g., in Cod. 1294) is here אף כי־לנדיב, transformed from אף כי־לנדיב, according to Accentuationssystem, xviii. 2.

Verse 8

Pro 17:8 8 The gift of bribery appears a jewel to its receiver; Whitherso'er he turneth himself he acteth prudently.
How 8b is to be understood is shown by 1Sa 14:47, cf. Jos 1:7; the quoque se vertit, prudenter rem agit, has accordingly in both sentences the person meant by בּעליו as subject, not the gift (Hitzig), of which ישׂכּיל, “it maketh prosperous,” is not said, for השׂכּיל means, used only of persons, prudent, and therefore successful, fortunate conduct. Such is said of him who has to give (Luther): he presses through with it whithersoever he turns. But the making of בּעיני the subj. does not accord with this: this means gift to one who has to give, appears to open doors and hearts, not merely as a golden key, it is truly such to him. Thus בעליו, as at Pro 3:27, will be meant of him to whom the present is brought, or to whom a claim thereto is given. But שׂחד means here not the gift of seasonable liberality (Zöckler), but, as always, the gift of bribery, i.e., a gift by which one seeks to purchase for himself (Pro 17:23) preference on the part of a judge, or to mitigate the displeasure of a high lord (Pro 21:14); here (for one does not let it depend merely on the faithfulness of another to his duty) it is that by which one seeks to secure an advantage to himself. The proverb expresses a fact of experience. The gift of bribery, to which, as to a well-known approved means, השּׂחד, refers, appears to him who receives and accepts it (Targ.) as a stone of pleasantness, a charming, precious stone, a jewel (Juwêl from joie = gaudium); it determines and impels him to apply all his understanding, in order that he may reach the goal for which it shall be his reward. What he at first regarded as difficult, yea, impossible, that he now prudently carries out, and brings to a successful conclusion, wherever he turns himself, overcoming the seemingly insurmountable hindrances; for the enticement of the gift lifts him, as with a charm, above himself, for covetousness is a characteristic feature of human nature - pecuniae obediunt omnia (Ecc 10:19, Vulg.).

Verse 9

Pro 17:9 9 He covereth transgressions who seeketh after love, And he who always brings back a matter separateth friends.
The pred. stands first in the simple clause with the order of the words not inverted. That מכסה פשׁע is also to be interpreted here as pred. (cf. 19a) is shown by Pro 10:12, according to which love covereth all transgressions. We write מכסּה־פּשׂע with Dag. forte conjunctivum of פ (as of ב in Eze 18:6), and Gaja with the Sheva, according to the Meth.-Setzung, §37; the punctuation מכסּה פּשׁע also occurs. What the expression “to seek love” here means, is to be judged, with Hitzig, after Zep 2:3; 1Co 14:1. It is in no case equivalent to seek to gain the love of another, rather to seek to preserve the love of men towards one another, but it is to be understood not after 9b, but after Pro 10:12 : he seeks to prove love who does not strike on the great bell when his neighbour has sinned however grievously against him, does not in a scandal-loving manner make much ado about it, and takes care not thereby to widen the breach between men who stand near to one another, but endeavours by a reconciling, soothing, rectifying influence, to mitigate the evil, instead of making it worse. He, on the contrary, who repeats the matter (שׁנה with ב of the obj., to come back with something, as Pro 26:11), i.e., turns always back again to the unpleasant occurrence (Theodotion, δευτερῶν ἐν λόγῳ; Symmachus, δευτερῶν λόγον, as Sir. 7:14; 19:7), divides friends (vid., Pro 16:28), for he purposely fosters the strife, the disharmony, ill-will, and estrangement which the offence produced; while the noble man, who has love for his motive and his aim, by prudent silence contributes to bring the offence and the division which it occasioned into forgetfulness.

Verse 10

Pro 17:10 10 One reproof maketh more impression on a wise man Than if one reckoned a hundred to the fool
One of the few proverbs which begin with a future, vid., Pro 12:26. It expresses what influence there is in one reproof with a wise man (מבין, Pro 8:9); גּערה is the reproof expressed by the post-bibl. נזיפה .lbib, as the lowest grade of disciplinary punishment, admonitio, connected with warning. The verbal form תהת is the reading of the lxx and Syr. (συντρίβει ἀπειλὴ καρδίαν φρονίμου) for they read תחת גערה לב מבין, derived from חתת, and thus תּחת (from Hiph. החת); thus Luther: reproof alarms more the intelligent, but חחת with ב of the obj. is not Hebr.; on the contrary, the reading of the lxx is in accordance with the usage of the language, and, besides, is suitable. It is, however, first to be seen whether the traditional text stands in need of this correction. As fut. Niph. תּחת, apart from the ult. accent. to be expected, gives no meaning. Also if one derives it from חתה, to snatch away, to take away, it gives no appropriate thought; besides, חתה is construed with the object. accus., and the fut. Apoc., in itself strange here, must be pointed either תּהת or תּחתּ (after יחדּ) (Böttcher, Lehrb. ii. p. 413). Thus יחת, as at Job 21:13; Jer 21:13, will be fut. Kal of נחת = ינחת, Psa 38:3 (Theodotion, Targ., Kimchi). With this derivation, also, תּחת is to be expected; the reference in the Handwörterbuch to Gesen. Lehrgebäude, §51, 1, Anm. 1, where, in an extremely inadequate way, the retrogression of the tone (נסוג אחור) is spoken of, is altogether inappropriate to this place; and Böttcher's explanation of the ult. tone from an intended expressiveness is ungrammatical; but why should not תּחת, from נחת, with its first syllable originating from contraction, and thus having the tone be Milel as well as Milra, especially here, where it stands at the head of the sentence? With ב connected with it, נחת means: to descend into anything, to penetrate; Hitzig appropriately compares altius in pectus descendit of Sallust, Jug. 11. Jerome rightly, according to the sense: plus proficit, and the Venet. ἀνεῖ (read ὀνεῖ) ἀπειλὴ τῷ συνίοντι. In 10b מכּה (cf. Deu 25:3; 2Co 11:24) is to be supplied to מאה, not פאמים (an hundred times, which may be denoted correctly by מאה as well as מאת, Ecc 8:12). With the wise (says a Talmudic proverb) a sign does as much as with the fool a stick does. Zehner, in his Adagia sacra (1601), cites Curtius (vii. 4): Nobilis equus umbra quoque virgae regitur, ignavus ne calcari quidem concitari potest.

Verse 11

Five proverbs of dangerous men against whom one has to be on his guard: 11 The rebellious seeketh only after evil, And a cruel messenger is sent out against him.
It is a question what is subj. and what obj. in 11a. It lies nearest to look on מרי as subj., and this word (from מרה, stringere, to make oneself exacting against any, to oppose, ἀντιτείνειν) is appropriate thereto; it occurs also at Eze 2:7 as abstr. pro concreto. That it is truly subj. appears from this, that בּקּשׁ רע, to seek after evil (cf. Pro 29:10; 1Ki 20:7, etc.), is a connection of idea much more natural than בּקּשׁ מרי to seek after rebellion. Thus אך will be logically connected with רע, and the reading אך מרי will be preferred to the reading אך־מרי; אך (corresponding to the Arab. âinnama) belongs to those particles which are placed before the clause, without referring to the immediately following part of the sentence, for they are much more regarded as affecting the whole sentence (vid., Pro 13:10): the rebellious strives after nothing but only evil. Thus, as neut. obj. רע is rendered by the Syr., Targ., Venet., and Luther; on the contrary, the older Greek translators and Jerome regard רע as the personal subject. If now, in reference to rebellion, the discourse is of a מלאך אכזרי, we are not, with Hitzig, to think of the demon of wild passions unfettered in the person of the rebellious, for that is a style of thought and of expression that is modern, not biblical; but the old unpoetic yet simply true remark remains: Loquendi formula inde petita quod regis aut summi magistratus minister rebelli supplicium nunciat infligitque. מלאך is n. officii, not naturae. Man as a messenger, and the spiritual being as messenger, are both called מלאך. Therefore one may not understand מלאך אכזרי, with the lxx, Jerome, and Luther, directly and exclusively of an angel of punishment. If one thinks of Jahve as the Person against whom the rebellion is made, then the idea of a heavenly messenger lies near, according to Psa 35:5., Psa 78:49; but the proverb is so meant, that it is not the less true if an earthly king sends out against a rebellious multitude a messenger with an unlimited commission, or an officer against a single man dangerous to the state, with strict directions to arrest him at all hazards. אכזרי we had already at Pro 12:10; the root קש חש means, to be dry, hard, without feeling. The fut. does not denote what may be done (Bertheau, Zöckler), which is contrary to the parallelism, the order of the words, and the style of the proverb, but what is done. And the relation of the clause is not, as Ewald interprets it, “scarcely does the sedition seek out evil when an inexorable messenger is sent.” Although this explanation is held by Ewald as “unimprovable,” yet it is incorrect, because אך in this sense demands, e.g., Gen 27:3, the perf. (strengthened by the infin. intensivus). The relation of the clause is, also, not such as Böttcher has interpreted it: a wicked man tries only scorn though a stern messenger is sent against him, but not because such a messenger is called אכזרי, against whom this “trying of scorn” helps nothing, so that it is not worth being spoken of; besides, שׁלּח or משׁלּח would have been used if this relation had been intended. We have in 11a and 11b, as also e.g., at Pro 26:24; Pro 28:1, two clauses standing in internal reciprocal relation, but syntactically simply co-ordinated; the force lies in this, that a messenger who recognises no mitigating circumstances, and offers no pardon, is sent out against such an one.

Verse 12

Pro 17:12 12 Meet a bear robbed of one of her whelps, Only not a fool in his folly.
The name of the bear, as that of the cow, Job 21:10; Psa 144:14, preserves its masculine form, even when used in reference to sexual relationship (Ewald, §174b); the ursa catulis orbata is proverbially a raging beast. How the abstract expression of the action פּגושׁ [to meet], here as e.g., Psa 17:5, with the subj. following, must sound as finite (occurrat, may always meet), follows from ואל = ואל־יפגּשׁ (non autem occurrat). פּגושׁ has on the last syllable Mehuppach, and Zinnorith on the preceding open syllable (according to the rule, Accentssystem, vi. §5d).^[85] שׁכּוּל, in the state of his folly, i.e., when he is in a paroxysm of his anger, corresponds with the conditional noun-adjective שׁכּוּל, for folly morbidly heightened is madness (cf. Hos 11:7; Psychol. p. 291f.).

Verse 13

Pro 17:13 13 He that returneth evil for good, From his house evil shall not depart.
If ingratitude appertains to the sinful manifestations of ignoble selfishness, how much more sinful still is black ingratitude, which recompenses evil for good! (משׁיב, as 1Sa 25:21, syn. גּמל, to requite, Pro 3:30; Pro 31:12; שׁלּם, to reimburse, Pro 20:22). Instead of תמישׁ, the Kerı̂ reads תמוּשׁ; but that this verb, with a middle vowel, may be 'י'ע as well as 'ו'ע, Psa 55:2 shows.

Verse 14

Pro 17:14 14 As one letteth out water is the beginning of a strife; But cease thou from such strife ere it comes to showing teeth.
The meaning of this verb פּטר is certain: it means to break forth; and transitively, like Arab. faṭr, to bring forth from a cleft, to make to break forth, to let go free (Theodotion, ἀπολύων; Jerome, dimittit; Venet. ἀφιείς). The lxx, since it translates by ἐξουσίαν δίδωσι, thinks on the juristic signification, which occurs in the Chronicles: to make free, or to declare so; but here פּוטר מים (vid., regarding the Metheg at Pro 14:31) is, as Luther translates, one who tears away the dam from the waters. And ראשׁית מדון is not accus. dependent on פוטר, to be supplied (Hitzig: he unfetters water who the beginning of strife, viz., unfetters); but the part. is used as at Pro 10:17 : one who unfetters the water is the beginning of strife, i.e., he is thus related to it as when one... This is an addition to the free use of the part. in the language of the Mishna, where one would expect the infin., e.g., בּזורע (= בּזרע), if one sows, בּמזיד (= בּזדון), of wantonness. It is thus unnecessary, with Ewald, to interpret פוטר as neut., which lets water go = a water-outbreak; פוטר is meant personally; it represents one who breaks through a water-dam, withdraws the restraint of the water, opens a sluice, and then emblematically the proverb says: thus conditioned is the beginning of a strife. Then follows the warning to let go such strife (הריב, with the article used in the more elevated style, not without emphasis), to break from it, to separate it from oneself ere it reach a dangerous height. This is expressed by לפני התגּלּע, a verb occurring only here and at Pro 18:1; Pro 20:3, always in the Hithpa. The Targum (misunderstood by Gesenius after Buxtorf; vid., to the contrary, Levy, under the word צדי II) translates it at Pro 18:1; Pro 20:3, as the Syr., by “to mock,” also Aquila, who has at Pro 20:3, ἐξυβρισθήσεται, and the lxx at Pro 18:1, ἐπονείδιστος ἔσται, and Jerome, who has this in all the three passages, render the Hithpa. in this sense, passively. In this passage before us, the Targ., as Hitzig gives it, translates, “before it heats itself,” but that is an error occasioned by Buxtorf; vid., on the contrary, Levy, under the word קריא (κύριος); this translation, however, has a representative in Haja Gaon, who appeals for גלע, to glow, to Nidda viii. 2.^[86]
Elsewhere the lxx, at Pro 20:3, συμπλέκεται (where Jerome, with the amalgamation of the two significations, miscentur contumeliis); Kimchi and others gloss it by התערב, and, according to this, the Venet. translates, πρὸ τοῦ συνχυθῆναι (τὴν ἔριν); Luther, “before thou art mingled therein.” But all these explanations of the word: insultare, excandescere, and commisceri, are etymologically inadmissible. Bertheau's and Zöckler's “roll itself forth” is connected at least with a meaning rightly belonging to the R. גל. But the Arab. shows, that not the meaning volvere, but that of retegere is to be adopted. Aruch^[87] for Nidda viii. 2 refers to the Arab., where a wound is designated as יכולה להגּלע ולהוציא דם, i.e., as breaking up, as it were, when the crust of that which is nearly healed is broken off (Maimuni glosses the word by להתקלף, were uncrusted), and blood again comes forth. The meaning retegere requires here, however, another distinction. The explanation mentioned there by Aruch: before the strife becomes public to thee, i.e., approaches thee, is not sufficient. The verbal stem גלע is the stronger power of גלה, and means laying bare; but here, not as there, in the Mishna of a wound covered with a crust. The Arab. jal' means to quarrel with another, properly to show him the teeth, the Poël or the tendency-stem from jali'a, to have the mouth standing open, so that one shows his teeth; and the Syr. glaṣ, with its offshoots and derivatives, has also this meaning of ringi, opening the mouth to show, i.e., to make bare the teeth. Schultens has established this explanation of the words, and Gesenius further establishes it in the Thesaurus, according to which Fleischer also remarks, “גלע, of showing the teeth, the exposing of the teeth by the wide opening of the mouth, as happens in bitter quarrels.” But הריב does not agree with this. Hitzig's translation, “before the strife shows its teeth,” is as modern as in Pro 17:11 is the passion of the unfettered demon, and Fleischer's prius vero quam exacerbetur rixa renders the Hithpa. in a sense unnecessarily generalized for Pro 18:1 and Pro 20:3. The accentuation, which separates להתגלע from הריב by Rebia Mugrash, is correct. One may translate, as Schultens, antequam dentes stringantur, or, since the Hithpa. has sometimes a reciprocal signification, e.g., Gen 42:1; Psa 41:8 : ere one reciprocally shows his teeth, Hitzig unjustly takes exception to the inversion הריב נטושׁ. Why should not the object precede, as at Hos 12:1-14 :15, the נטוש, placed with emphasis at the end? The same inversion for a like reason occurs at Ecc 5:6.

Verse 15

Pro 17:15 15 He that acquitteth the guilty and condemneth the righteous - An abomination to Jahve are they both.
The proverb is against the partisan judge who is open to bribery, like Pro 24:24, cf. Isa 5:23, where, with reference to such, the announcement of punishment is emphatically made. רשׁע and צדּיק, in a forensic sense, are equivalent to sons (reus) and insons. גּם (cf. the Arab. jmy'na, altogether, but particularly the Pers. ham and the Turkish dkhy standing wholly thus in the numeral) is here, as at Gen 27:45, equivalent to יחדּיו, Jer 46:12 (in its unions = united). Whoever pronounces sentence of justification on the guilty, appears as if he must be judged more mildly than he who condemns the guiltless, but both the one and the other alike are an abhorrence to God.
We take Pro 17:16-21 together. This group beings with a proverb of the heartless, and ends with one of the perverse-hearted; and between these there are not wanting noticeable points of contact between the proverbs that follow one another.

Verse 16

Pro 17:16 16 Why the ready money in the hand of the fool; To get wisdom when he has yet no heart?
The question is made pointed by זה, thus not: why the ready money when...? Is it to obtain wisdom? - the whole is but one question, the reason of which is founded in לבו אין (thus to be accented with Mugrash going before).^[88]
The fool, perhaps, even makes some endeavours, for he goes to the school of the wise, to follow out their admonitions, קנה חכמה (Pro 4:5, etc.), and it costs him something (Pro 4:7), but all to no purpose, for he has no heart. By this it is not meant that knowledge, for which he pays his honorarium, remains, it may be, in his head, but goes not to his heart, and thus becomes an unfruitful theory; but the heart is equivalent to the understanding, in the sense in which the heart appears as the previous condition to the attainment of wisdom (Pro 18:15), and as something to be gained before all (Pro 15:32), viz., understanding, as the fitting intellectual and practical habitus to the reception, the appropriation, and realization of wisdom, the ability rightly to comprehend the fulness of the communicated knowledge, and to adopt it as an independent possession, that which the Greek called νοῦς, as in that “golden proverb” of Democrates: πολλοὶ πολυμαθέες νοῦν οὐκ ἔχουσι, or as in Luk 24:25, where it is said that the Lord opened τὸν νοῦν of His disciples to understand the Scriptures. In the lxx a distich follows Pro 17:16, which is made up of 19b and 20b, and contains a varied translation of these two lines.

Verse 17

Pro 17:17 17 At all times the right friend shows himself loving; And as a brother is he born for adversity.
Brother is more than friend, he stands to one nearer than a friend does, Psa 35:14; but the relation of a friend may deepen itself into a spiritual, moral brotherhood, Psa 18:24, and there is no name of friend that sounds dearer than אחי, 2Sa 1:26. 17a and 17b are, according to this, related to each other climactically. The friend meant in 17a is a true friend. Of no other is it said that he loves בּכל־עת, i.e., makes his love manifest; and also the article in הרע not only here gives to the word more body, but stamps it as an ideal-word: the friend who corresponds to the idea of such an one.^[89]
The inf. of the Hiph., in the sense “to associate” (Ewald), cannot therefore be הרע, because רע is not derived from רעע, but from רעה. Thus there exists no contrast between 17a and 17b, so that the love of a friend is thought of, in contradistinction to that of a brother, as without permanency (Fl.); but 17b means that the true friend shows himself in the time of need, and that thus the friendship becomes closer, like that between brothers. The statements do not refer to two kinds of friends; this is seen from the circumstance that אח has not the article, as הרע has. It is not the subj. but pred., as אדם, Job 11:12 : sooner is a wild ass born or born again as a man. The meaning of הוּלד there, as at Psa 87:5., borders on the notion of regenerari; here the idea is not essentially much less, for by the saying that the friend is born in the time of need, as a brother, is meant that he then for the first time shows himself as a friend, he receives the right status or baptism of such an one, and is, as it were, born into personal brotherly relationship to the sorely-tried friend. The translation comprobatur (Jerome) and erfunden [is found out] (Luther) obliterates the peculiar and thus intentional expression, for נולד is not at all a metaphor used for passing into the light - the two passages in Proverbs and in Job have not their parallel. לצרה is not equivalent to בּצרה (cf. Psa 9:10; Psa 10:1), for the interchange of the prep. in 17a and 17b would then be without any apparent reason. But Hitzig's translation also: as a brother he is born of adversity, is impossible, for ל after נודל and ילּד always designates that for which the birth is an advantage, not that from which it proceeds. Thus ל will be that of the purpose: for the purpose of the need, - not indeed to suffer (Job 5:7) on account of it, but to bear it in sympathy, and to help to bear it. Rightly Fleischer: frater autem ad aerumnam (sc. levandam et removendam) nascitur. The lxx gives this sense to the ל: ἀδελφοὶ δὲ ἐν ἀνάγκαις χρήσιμοι ἔστωσαν, τοῦτο γὰρ χάριν γεννῶνται.

Verse 18

Pro 17:18 18 A man void of understanding is he who striketh hands, Who becometh surety with his neighbour.
Cf. Pro 6:1-5, where the warning against suretyship is given at large, and the reasons for it are adduced. It is incorrect to translate (Gesen., Hitzig, and others) לפני רעהוּ, with the lxx, Jerome, the Syr., Targ., and Luther, “for his neighbour;” to become surety for any one is ערב ל, Pro 6:1, or, with the object. accus. Pro 11:15, another suitable prep. is בּעד; but לפני never means pro (ὑπέρ), for at 1Sa 1:16 it means “to the person,” and 2Sa 3:31, “before Abner's corpse (bier).” רעהוּ is thus here the person with whom the suretyship is entered into; he can be called the רע of him who gives bail, so much the more as the reception of the bail supposes that both are well known to each other. Here also Fleischer rightly translates: apud alterum (sc. creditorem pro debitore).

Verse 19

Pro 17:19 19 He loveth sin who loveth strife; He who maketh high his doors seeketh destruction.
A synthetic distich. Böttcher finds the reason of the pairing of these two lines in the relationship between a mouth and a door (cf. Mic 7:6, פּתחי פיך). Hitzig goes further, and supposes that 19b figuratively expresses what boastfulness brings upon itself. Against Geier, Schultens, and others, who understand פּתחו directly of the mouth, he rightly remarks that הגדּיל פה is not heard of, and that הגדּיל פה taht dn would be used instead. But the two lines harmonize, without this interchangeable reference of os and ostium. Zanksucht [quarrelsomeness] and Prunksucht [ostentation] are related as the symptoms of selfishness. But both bear their sentence in themselves. He who has pleasure in quarrelling has pleasure in evil, for he commits himself to the way of great sinning, and draws others along with him; and he who cannot have the door of his house high enough and splendid enough, prepares thereby for himself, against his will, the destruction of his house. An old Hebrew proverb says, כל העוסק בבנין יתמסכן, aedificandi nimis studiosus ad mendicitatem redigitur. Both parts of this verse refer to one and the same individual, for the insanum aedificandi studium goes only too often hand in hand with unjust and heartless litigation.

Verse 20

Pro 17:20 20 He that is of a false heart findeth no good; And he that goeth astray with his tongue falleth into evil.
Regarding עקּשׁ־לב, vid., Pro 11:20. In the parallel member, נהפּך בּלשׁונו is he who twists or winds (vid., at Pro 2:12) with his tongue, going about concealing and falsifying the truth. The phrase ונהפּך (the connecting form before a word with a prep.) is syntactically possible, but the Masora designates the word, in contradistinction to ונהפּך, pointed with Pathach, Lev 13:16, with לית as unicum, thus requires ונהפּך, as is also found in Codd. The contrast of רעה is here טוב, also neut., as Pro 13:21, cf. Pro 16:20, and רע, Pro 13:17.

Verse 21

The first three parts of the old Solomonic Book of Proverbs ((1) Prov 10-12; (2) 13:1-15:19; (3) 15:20-17:20) are now followed by the fourth part. We recognise it as striking the same keynote as Pro 10:1. In Pro 17:21 it resounds once more, here commencing a part; there, Pro 10:1, beginning the second group of proverbs. The first closes, as it begins, with a proverb of the fool. 21 He that begetteth a fool, it is to his sorrow; And the father of a fool hath no joy.
It is admissible to supply ילדו, developing itself from ילד, before לתוּגה לו (vid., regarding this passive formation, at Pro 10:1, cf. Pro 14:13), as at Isa 66:3, מעלה (Fl.: in maerorem sibi genuit h. e. ideo videtur genuisse ut sibi maerorem crearet); but not less admissible is it to interpret לתוגה לו as a noun-clause corresponding to the ולא־ישׂמח (thus to be written with Makkeph): it brings grief to him. According as one understands this as an expectation, or as a consequence, ילד, as at Pro 23:24, is rendered either qui gignit or qui genuit. With נבל, seldom occurring in the Book of Proverbs (only here and at Pro 17:7), כּסיל, occurring not unfrequently, is interchanged. Schultens rightly defines the latter etymologically: marcidus h. e. qui ad virtutem, pietatem, vigorem omnem vitae spiritualis medullitus emarcuit; and the former: elumbis et mollitie segnitieve fractus, the intellectually heavy and sluggish (cf. Arab. kasal, laziness; kaslân, the lazy).^[90]

Verse 22

Pro 17:22 22 A joyful heart bringeth good recovery; And a broken spirit drieth the bones.
The heart is the centre of the individual life, and the condition and the tone of the heart communicates itself to this life, even to its outermost circumference; the spirit is the power of self-consciousness which, according as it is lifted up or broken, also lifts up or breaks down the condition of the body (Psychol. p. 199), vid., the similar contrasted phrases לב שׂמח and רוּח נכאה, Pro 15:13. The ἄπ. λεγ. גּהה (here and there in Codd. incorrectly written גּיהה) has nothing to do with the Arab. jihat, which does not mean sight, but direction, and is formed from wjah (whence wajah, sight), like עדה, congregation, from ועד (יעד). The Syr., Targ. (perhaps also Symmachus: ἀγαθύνει ἡλικίαν; Jerome: aetatem floridam facit; Luther: makes the life lüstig [cheerful]) translate it by body; but for this גּוה (גּויּה) is used, and that is a word of an entirely different root from גּהה. To what verb this refers is shown by Hos 5:13 : ולא־יגהה מכּם מזור, and healed not for you her ulcerous wound. מזור is the compress, i.e., the bandage closing up the ulcer, then also the ulcer-wound itself; and גּהה is the contrary of עלה, e.g., Jer 8:22; it means the removing of the bandage and the healing of the wound. This is confirmed by the Syr. gho, which in like manner is construed with min, and means to be delivered from something (vid., Bernstein's Lex. Syr. to Kirsch's Chrestomathie). The Aethiop. quadriliteral gâhgěh, to hinder, to cause to cease, corresponds to the causative Syr. agahish. Accordingly גּהה means to be in the condition of abatement, mitigation, healing; and גּהה (as synonym of כּהה, Neh 3:19, with which Parchon combines it), levamen, levatio, in the sense of bodily healing (lxx εὐεκτεῖν ποιεῖ; Venet., after Kimchi, ἀγαθυνεῖ θεραπείαν); and היטיב גּהה (cf. Pro 15:2) denotes, to bring good improvement, to advance powerfully the recovery. Schultens compares the Arab. jahy, nitescere, disserenari, as Menahem has done ננהּ, but this word is one of the few words which are explained exclusively from the Syriac (and Aethiop.). גּרם (here and at Pro 25:15) is the word interchanging with עצם, Pro 15:30; Pro 16:24.

Verse 23

Pro 17:23 23 Bribery from the bosom the godless receiveth, To pervert the ways of justice.
Regarding שׂחד, vid., Pro 17:8. The idea of this word, as well as the clause containing the purpose, demand for the רשׁע a high judicial or administrative post. The bosom, חק (חיק), is, as Pro 16:23, that of the clothing. From the bosom, מחק, where it was kept concealed, the gift is brought forth, and is given into the bosom, בּחק, Pro 21:14, of him whose favour is to be obtained - an event taking place under four eyes, which purposely withdraws itself from the observation of any third person. Since this is done to give to the course of justice a direction contrary to rectitude, the giver of the bribe has not right on his side; and, under the circumstances, the favourable decision which he purchases may be at once the unrighteous sentence of a צדיק, accusing him, or accused by him, Pro 18:5.

Verse 24

Pro 17:24 24 The understanding has his attention toward wisdom; But the eyes of a fool are on the end of the earth.
Many interpreters explain, as Euchel: “The understanding finds wisdom everywhere;
The eyes of the fool seek it at the end of the world.”
Ewald refers to Deu 30:11-14 as an unfolding of the same thought. But although it may be said of the fool (vid., on the contrary, Pro 15:14) that he seeks wisdom, only not at the right place, as at Pro 14:6, of the mocker that he seeks wisdom but in vain, yet here the order of the words, as well as the expression, lead us to another thought: before the eyes of the understanding את־פּניע, as Gen 33:18; 1Sa 2:11, and frequently in the phrase 'את־פני ה, e.g., 1Sa 1:22) wisdom lies as his aim, his object, the end after which he strives; on the contrary, the eyes of the fool, without keeping that one necessary thing in view, wander in alia omnia, and roam about what is far off, without having any fixed object. The fool is everywhere with his thoughts, except where he ought to be. Leaving out of view that which lies nearest, he loses himself in aliena. The understanding has an ever present theme of wisdom, which arrests his attention, and on which he concentrates himself; but the fool flutters about fantastically from one thing to another, and that which is to him precisely of least importance interests him the most.

Verse 25

The series of proverbs, v. 25-18:2, begins and closes in the same way as the preceding, and only Pro 17:26 stands by itself without apparent connection.
This verse begins connecting itself with Pro 17:21 :
A grief to his father is a foolish son,
And a bitter woe for her that bare him.
The ἅπ. λεγ. ממר is formed from מרר (to be bitter, properly harsh), as מכס from כּסס. The Syr. and Targ. change the subst. into participles; some codd. also have ממר (after the forms מחל, מסב, מפר, מרע), but as may be expected in 25a, מבעיס. The dat. obj. instead of the accus. may be possible; the verse immediately following furnishes a sufficient example of this.

Verse 26

Pro 17:26 26 Also to inflict punishment on the righteous is not good; This, that one overthrows the noble on account of his rectitude.
Does the גּם [also] refer to a connection from which the proverb is separated? or is it tacitly supposed that there are many kinds of worthless men in the world, and that one from among them is brought forward? or is it meant, that to lay upon the righteous a pecuniary punishment is also not good? None of all these. The proverb must have a meaning complete in itself; and if pecuniary punishment and corporeal punishment were regarded as opposed to one another, 26b would then have begun with אף כּי (quanto magis percutere ingenuos). Here it is with גם as at Pro 20:11, and as with אך at 11a, and רק at Pro 13:10 : according to the sense, it belongs not to the word next following, but to לצּדּיק; and ענשׁ (whence inf. ענושׁ, as Pro 21:11, with the ǎ in ע, cf. also עבד, Pro 11:10, for אבד) means here not specially to inflict a pecuniary fine, but generally to punish, for, as in mulctare, the meaning is generalized, elsewhere with the accus., Deu 22:19, here to give to any one to undergo punishment. The ruler is the servant of God, who has to preserve rectitude, εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι (Rom 13:14). It is not good when he makes his power to punish to be felt by the innocent as well as by the guilty.
In 26b, instead of הכּות, the proverb is continued with להכּות; לא־טוב, which is to be supplied, takes the inf. alone when it precedes, and the inf. with ל when it follows, Pro 18:5; Pro 28:21; Pro 21:9 (but cf. Pro 21:19). הכּות is the usual word for punishment by scourging, Deu 25:1-3, cf. 2Co 11:24, N.T. μαστιγοῦν, δίρειν, Rabb. מכּות, strokes, or מלקוּת from לקה, vapulare, to receive stripes. נדיבים are here those noble in disposition. The idea of נדיב fluctuates between generosus in an outward and in a moral sense, wherefore על־ישׁר, or rather עלי־ישׁר, is added; for the old editions, correct MSS, and e.g., also Soncin. 1488, present עלי (vid., Norzi). Hitzig incorrectly explains this, “against what is due” (ישׁר, as Pro 11:24); also Psa 94:20, עלי־חק does not mean κατὰ προστάγματος (Symmachus), but ἐπὶ προστάγματι (lxx and Theod.), on the ground of right = praetextu juris (Vatabl.). Thus עלי־ישׁר means here neither against nor beyond what is due, but: on the ground of honourable conduct, making this (of course mistakenly) a lawful title to punishment; Aquila, ἐπὶ εὐθύτητι, cf. Mat 5:10, ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης. Besides, for על after הכּה, the causal signification lies nearest Num 22:32, cf. Isa 1:5 (על־מה, on account of anything). If the power of punishment is abused to the punishing of the righteous, yea, even to the corporeal chastisement of the noble, and their straight, i.e., conscientious, firm, open conduct, is made a crime against them, that is not good - it is perversion of the idea of justice, and an iniquity which challenges the penal rectitude of the Most High (Ecc 5:7 [8]).

Verse 27

Pro 17:27 27 He that keepeth his words to himself hath knowledge, And the cool of temper is a man of understanding.
The first line here is a variation of Pro 10:19. The phrase ידע דּעת (here and at Dan 1:4) means to possess knowledge (novisse); more frequently it is בּינה ידע, e.g., Pro 4:1, where ידע has the inchoative sense of noscere. In 27b the Kerı̂ is יקר־רוח. Jerome translates it pretiosi spiritus, the Venet. τίμιος τὸ πνεῦμα. Rashi glosses יקר here, as at 1Sa 3:1, by מנוע (thus to be read after codd.), retentus spiritu; most interpreters remark that the spirit here comes into view as expressing itself in words. It is scarcely correct to say that יקר דּברים could designate one who is sparing in his words, but יקר־רוּח is, according to the fundamental conception of the verb יקר, gravis spiritu (Schultens), of a dignified, composed spirit; it is a quiet seriousness proceeding from high conscientiousness, and maintaining itself in self-control, which is designated by this word. But the Chethı̂b וקר־רוּח presents almost the same description of character. קר from קרר (of the same root as יקר) means to be firm, unmoveable, καρτερὸν εἶναι, hence to be congealed, frozen, cold (cf. frigus with rigere, rigor), figuratively to be cold-blooded, passionless, quiet, composed (Fl.); cf. post-bibl. קרת רוּח (Arab. ḳurrat‛ain), cooling = refreshing, ἀνάψυξις (Act 3:20).^[91]
Whether we read יקר or קר, in any case we are not to translate rarus spiritu, which, apart from the impossibility of the expression, makes 27b almost a tautological repetition of the thought of 27a. The first line recommends bridling of the tongue, in contrast to inconsiderate and untimely talk; the second line recommends coldness, i.e., equanimity of spirit, in contrast to passionate heat.

Verse 28

Ver. 28 continues the same theme, the value of silence:
Even a fool, when he keeps silence, is counted wise;
When he shutteth his mouth, discreet.
The subj. as well as the pred. of the first line avail for the second. אטם, obturare, occludere, usually of the closing the ear, is here transferred to the mouth. The Hiph. החרישׁ means mutum agere (cf. Arab. khrs, mutum esse), from חרשׁ, which, like κωφός, passes from the meaning surdus to that of mutus (Fl.). The words of Job 13:5, and also those of Alexander: si tacuisses sapiens mansisses, are applicable to fools. An Arab. proverb says, “silence is the covering of the stupid.” In the epigrammatical hexameter, πᾶς τις ἀπαίδευτος φρονιμώτατός ἐστι σιωπῶν, the word σιωπῶν has the very same syntactical position as these two participles.^[92]

1. Fleischer is here reminded of the giraffe in the Jardin des Plantes, the head of which was adorned by its Arabic keeper with strings and jewels, the object of which was to turn aside the ‛ain [the bad, mischievous look] from the precious beast.
2. In the st. constr. Pro 2:19, and with the grave suff. Pro 2:15, ǒ instead of ō is in order; but Ben-Asher's ארחתי, Job 13:27, cf. Job 33:11, is an inconsistency.
3. See my work, Physiologie u. Musik in ihrer Bedeutung für Grammatik besonders die hebräische, pp. 11-13.
4. Here Procop. rightly distinguishes between παιδεία and τιμωρία.
5. Vid., Torath Emeth, p. 19; Accentuationssystem, vi. §6; the differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali in the Appendixes to Biblia Rabbinica; Dachselt's Biblia Accentuata, and Pinner's Prospectus, p. 91 (Odessa, 1845).
6. The root is not תב, to grope, but נת; whence Arab. natt, to bubble up, natâ, to raise oneself, to swell up, etc.
7. According to Malbim, תּקוה is the expectation of good, and כּסל, confidence in the presence of evil.
8. Hitzig rejects Pro 3:22-26 as a later interpolation. And why? Because chap. 3, which he regards as a complete discourse, consists of twice ten verses beginning with בּני. In addition to this symmetry other reasons easily reveal themselves to his penetration. But the discourses contained in chap. 1-9 do not all begin with בני (vid., Pro 1:20); and when it stands in the beginning of the discourse, it is not always the first word (vid., Pro 1:8); and when it occurs as the first word or in the first line, it does not always commence a new discourse (vid., Pro 1:15 in the middle of the first, Pro 3:11 in the middle of the fourth); and, moreover, the Hebr. poetry and oratory does not reckon according to verses terminated by Soph Pasuk, which are always accented distichs, but they in reality frequently consist of three or more lines. The rejected verses are in nothing unlike those that remain, and which are undisputed; they show the same structure of stichs, consisting for the most part of three, but sometimes also only of two words (cf. Pro 3:22 with Pro 1:9, Pro 1:10), the same breadth in the course of the thoughts, and the same accord with Job and Deuteronomy.
9. Accentuate אל־תמנע טוב, not אל־תמנע־טוב. The doubling of the Makkeph is purposeless, and, on the contrary, the separating of טוב from מבעליו by the Dechi (the separating accent subordinate to Athnach) is proper. It is thus in the best MSS.
10. Thus also (Arab.) raj' is used in Thaalebi's Confidential Companion, p. 24, line 3, of Flügel's ed. Admission was prevented to one Haschmid, then angry he sought it once more; he was again rejected, then he sought it not again (Arab. flm yraj'), but says, etc. Flügel has misunderstood the passage. Fleischer explains raj', with reference to Pro 3:28, by revenir à la charge.
11. Accentuate והוא־יושׁב לבטח. It is thus in correct texts. The Rebia Mugrash is transformed, according to the Accentuationssystem, xviii. §2.
12. Jona Gerundi renders it otherwise: “But shame raises the fools high;” i.e., only the infamous, he who has no sense of honour, makes much advancement out of fools.
13. In some editions לבני is noted as Kerı̂ to לפני, but erroneously and contrary to the express evidence of the Masora, which affirms that there are two passages in which we ought to read not לפני, but לבני, viz., Psa 80:3 and Pro 4:3.
14. The writing of -יתמך with the grave Metheg (Gaja) and Kametz-Chatuph (ǒ) is that of Ben Asher; on the other hand, יתמך־ with Cholem (ō) and the permanent Metheg is that of Ben Naphtali; vid., Michlol 21a [under the verbal form 25], §30.
15. According to correct readings in codd. and older editions, ותשמרךּ has also indeed Rebia Mugrash, and אהבה, Mercha (with Zinnorith); vid., Torath Emeth, p. 47, §6; Accentuationssystem, xviii. §1, 2; and regarding the Zinnorith, see Liber Psalmorum Hebraicus by S. Baer, p. xii.
16. Löwenstein has rightly ותרוממך, vid., my preface to Baer's Genesis, p. vii.
17. We read תכבּדך, not תכבּרך (Hahn) or תכבּדך (Löwenstein); the tone lies on the penult., and the tone-syllable has the point Tsere, as in ויגּדך, Deu 32:7; vid., Michlol 66b.
18. R. Nathan ben Jechiel, a.d. 1106, who is usually styled by the Jewish writers בּעל ערוּך, Auctor Aruch, author of a Talmudical Lexicon.
19. Punctuate כּי היא; the Zinnorith represents the place of the Makkeph, vid., Torath Emeth, p. 9.
20. In good MSS and printed copies the כ has the Pathach, as Kimchi states the rule in Michlol 45a: כל כּאפלה פתח, כל כּאבנים פתח.
21. Hitzig inverts the order of Pro 4:18 and Pro 4:19, and connects the כּי of 16a immediately with Pro 4:19 (for the way of the wicked...). He moreover regards Pro 4:16, Pro 4:17 as an interpolation, and explains Pro 4:16 as a gloss transforming the text of Pro 4:19. “That the wicked commit wickedness,” says Hitzig, “is indeed certain (1Sa 24:14), and the warning of Pro 4:15 ought not to derive its motive from their energy in sinning.” But the warning against the way of the wicked is founded not on their energy in sinning, but on their bondage to sin: their sleep, their food and drink - their life both when they sleep and when they wake - is conditioned by sin and is penetrated by sin. This foundation of the warning furnishes what is needed, and is in nothing open to objection. And that in Pro 4:16 and Pro 4:19 לא ירעוּ and לא ידעוּ, יכשׁולוּ and יכּשׁלוּ, נגזלה and כּאפלה seem to be alike, does not prove that Pro 4:16 originated as a parallel text from Pro 4:19 - in the one verse as in the other the thoughts are original.
22. Böttcher, under 2Sa 23:4, explains נגהּ of the brightness striking against, conquering (cf. נגח, נגף) the clouds; but ferire or percutere lies nearer (cf. נגע, Eze 17:10, נכה, Psa 121:6, and the Arab. darb, used of strong sensible impressions), as Silius, iv. 329, says of the light: percussit lumine campos.
23. The correct form here is כּי־ממּנּוּ, with the Makkeph to כי.
24. The Arabic word teflı̂s, said to be of the same signification (a balance), and which is given in the most recent editions of Gesenius' Lexicon, has been already shown under Job 37:16 to be a word devoid of all evidence.
25. The lxx translate ἀπὸ σῶν ἀγγείων, i.e., מכּוריך (vid., Lagarde).
26. The latter idea (vid., under Psa 1:3) lies nearer, after Job 38:25 : the brook as dividing channels for itself, or as divided into such; falj (falaj) signifies, according to the representation Isa 58:8, also like fajr, the morning-light (as breaking forth from a cleft).
27. Many editions have here בּכל־; but this Dagesh, which is contrary to rule, is to be effaced.
28. A translation by R. Joseph Joel of Fulda, 1787, whose autograph MS Baer possesses, renders the passage not badly thus: - “My son, if thou hast become surety for thy friend, and hast given the hand to another, then thou art bound by thy word, held by thy promise. Yet do what I say to thee, my son: Be at pains as soon as thou canst to get free, otherwise thou art in the power of thy friend; shun no trouble, be urgent with thy friend.”
29. For the right succession of the accents here (three serviles before the Pazer), vid., Torath Emeth, p. 30; Accentuationssystem, xii. §4. According to Gen-Naphtali, Mercha is to be given to the זאת.
30. The Zinnorith before the Mahpach in these words represents at the same time the Makkeph and rejects the Zinnorith; vid., Torath Emeth, p. 16, and my Psalmencomm. Bd. ii. (1860), p. 460, note 2.
31. el-Feyroozábádee's Kâmus, a native Arabic Lexicon; vid., Lane's Arab. Lex. Bk. i. pt. 1, p. xvii.
32. There is here no distinction between the Kethîb and the Kerı̂. The Masora remarks, “This is the only passage in the Book of Proverbs where the word is written with Yod (י);” it thus recognises only the undisputed רעיך.
33. Cod. 1294 accentuates לך אל־נמלה; and that, according to Ben-Asher's rule, is correct.
34. Pro 6:7 is commonly halved by Rebia; but for the correct accentuation, vid., Torath Emeth, p. 48, §3.
35. Vid., Goldberg's Chofes Matmonim, Berlin 1845; and Landsberger's Berlin Graduation Thesis, Fabulae aliquot Aramaeae, 1846, p. 28.
36. The root-idea of the Arab. mall is unquietness of motion; the Arab. noun mallt signifies the glow with its flickering light and burning: glowing ashes, inner agitation, external haste; Arab. malil (מלל) is the feverish patient, but also one quickly hastening away, and generally an impatient or hasty person (vid., Wetstein in Baudissin in his Job. Tischendorfianus, vii. 6). The grinding is made by means of a quick movement hither and thither; and so also is speaking, for the instrument of speech, particularly the tongue, is set in motion. Only the meaning praecidere, circumcidere, does not connect itself with that root-idea: מל in this signification appears to be a nüance of מר, stringere.
37. The writing דּם follows the Masoretic rule, vid., Kimchi, Michlol 205b, and Heidenheim under Deu 19:10, where in printed editions of the text (also in Norzi's) the irregular form דּם נקי is found. Besides, the Metheg is to be given to דּם־, so that one may not read it dom, as e.g., שׁשׁ־מאות, Gen 7:11, that one may not read it שׁשׁ־.
38. Isaak Albo thus distinguishes these synonyms in his dogmatic, bearing the title ספר עקרים, ii. 27.
39. The conjecture thrown out by Wetstein, that (Arab.) shykh is equivalent to משׂיח (מסיח), speaker, is untenable, since the verb shakh, to be old, a so-called munsarif, i.e., conjugated throughout, is used in all forms, and thus is certainly the root of the shykh.
40. The παρατακτικὸς χρόνος denotes the imperfect tense, because it is still extended to the future.
41. Behaji ought rather to have referred to Zep 3:19; Eze 7:27; Eze 22:14; but there עשׂה את means agere cum aliquo, as we say: mit jemandem abrechnen (to settle accounts with any one).
42. תפילין, prayer-fillets, phylacteries.
43. = the door-posts, afterwards used by the Jews to denote the passages of Scripture written on the door-posts.
44. Regarding the Targ. of Pro 7:6-7, vid., Perles, Etymologische Studien, 1871, p. 9.
45. Virgil's Aeneid, iv. 1.
46. Eurip. Herac.) - a radt, as they call such a one in Arab. (Wünsche on Hos 12:1
47. Vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 29f., and Psalmen-Commentar under Psa 52:5.
48. Kirmse = anniversary of the dedication of a church, village fête.
49. Hence perhaps the Greek ὀθόνη, which Fick in his Vergl. Wörterbuch connects with the Arab. verb-root vadh, to bind, wind, clothe, but not without making thereto interrogation marks.
50. Myrrh has its name מר from the bitterness of its taste, and קנם appears to be a secondary formation from קנה, whence קנה, reed; cf. the names of the cinnamon, cannella, Fr. cannelle. Cinnamum (κίνναμον) is only a shorter form for cinnamomum. Pliny, Hist. Nat. xii. 19 (42), uses both forms indiscriminately.
51. Vid., the Hebr. Zeitschrift, החלוץ, 1856, p. 112.
52. If the Masoretes had read שׁפטי צדק, then would they have added the remark לית (“it does not further occur”), and inserted the expression in their Register of Expressions, which occurs but once, Masora finalis, p. 62.
53. One of the most ancient and celebrated Codd of the Heb. Scriptures, called Hillel from the name of the man who wrote it. Vid., Streack's Prolegomena, p. 112. It was written about a.d. 600.
54. Biesenthal combines the etymologically obscure הנחיל with נחל: to make to flow into, so that נחל denotes inheritance in contradistinction to acquisition; while נחלה, in contradistinction to ירשּׁה, denotes the inheritance rather of many than of the individual.
55. One might regard it as modified from בחקקו; but that שׁוּרי, Psa 102:12, is modified from שׁררי, or הורי, Gen 49:26, from הררי, is by no means certain.
56. Vid., Spiegel's Grammatik der pârsisprache, p. 162, cf. 182.
57. The lxx has considerable additions introduced after Pro 9:18, as also after Pro 9:12, of which we shall elsewhere speak.
58. Hitzig's comparison of rawaâ, finem respicere, as transposed from waray is incorrect; the former verb, which signifies to consider, thus appears to be original.
59. Elias Levita, in his note to the root פה in Kimchi's Wörterbuch, reads תּצּילם, and so also do 6 codd. in Kennicot. But פּה is masculine.
60. Vid., kindred proverbs by Carl Schulze, Die bibl. Sprichwörter der deutschen Sprache (1860), p. 50, and M. C. Wahl's Das Sprichwort in der heb.-aram. Literatur, u.s.w. (1871), p. 31.
61. Whether ῥάπτειν, explained neither by Curtius nor by Flick, stands in a relation to it, we leave out of view.
62. Vid., Duke's Rabbin. Blumenlese (1844), p. 231.
63. A fragment of an anonymous translation, so called from the place it holds in Origen's Hexapla.
64. That the Targum of the Proverbs is a Jewish elaboration of the Peshito text, vid., Nöldeke in Merx' Archiv, Bd. ii. pp. 246-49.
65. = R. Moses b. Maimum = Rambam, so called by the Jews from the initial letters of his name = Maimonides, d. 1204.
66. Vid., regarding the strong demand which the Hebr. style makes on hearer and reader, my Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie (1863), p. 189.
67. We have said, p. 156, that a Niph. in which the peculiar causative meaning of the Hiph. would be rendered passively is without example; we must here with נהיה add, that the Niph. of intransitive verbs denotes the entrance into the condition expressed by the Kal, and may certainly be regarded, according to our way of thinking, as passive of the Hiphil (Gesen. §51, 2). But the old language shows no ההוה to which נהיה (Arab. âinhaway, in Mutenebbi) stood as passive; in the Arab. also the seventh form, rightly regarded, is always formed from the first, vid., Fleischer's Beiträge, u.s.w., in the Sitzungs-Bericht. d. Sächs. Gesellschaft d. Wiss. 1863, p. 172f.
68. Vid., regarding these forms with ǒ instead of the simple Sheva, Kimchi, Michlol 20ab. He also remarks that these three forms with û are all Milra; this is the case also in a remarkable manner with ישׁפּוּטוּ, vid., Michlol 21b; Livjath Chen ii. 9; and particularly Heidenheim, in his edition of the Pentateuch entitled Meôr Enajim, under Exo 18:26.
69. “Nein, der Mensch ist zur Freude nicht gemacht, Darum weint sein Aug' wenn er herzlich lacht.”
70. Regarding the supplying (ibdâl) of a foregoing genitive or accus. pronoun of the third person by a definite or indefinite following, in the same case as the substantive, Samachscharî speaks in the Mufassal, p. 94ff., where, as examples, are found: raeituhu Zeidan, I have seen him, the Zeid; marartu bihi Zeidin, I have gone over with him, the Zeid; saraftu wugûhahâ awwalihâ, in the flight I smote the heads of the same, their front rank. Vid., regarding this anticipation of the definite idea by an indefinite, with explanations of it, Fleischer's Makkarî, Additions et Corrections, p. xl. col. 2, and Dieterici's Mutanabbi, p. 341, l. 13.
71. These examples moreover do not exceed that which is possible in the Arab., vid., regarding this omission of the mudâf, where this is supplied from the preceding before a genitive, Samachscharî's Mufassal, p. 34, l. 8-13. Perhaps לחמך, Oba 1:7, of thy bread = the (men) of thy bread, is an example of the same thing.
72. As here an ל too few is written, so at Isa 32:1 (ולשׂרים) and Psa 74:14 (לציים) one too many.
73. According to rule the Hebr. ש becomes in Arab. ṯ, as in Aram. ת; but kthar might be from ktar, an old verb rarely found, which derivata with the idea of encircling (wall) and of rounding (bunch) point to.
74. Vid., Wissenschaft, Kunst, Judenthum (1838), p. 240.
75. Ovid, Trist. i. 8.
76. Ewald's derivation of אויל from און = אוין, null, vain, is not much better than Heidenheim's from אולי: one who says “perhaps” = a sceptic, vid., p. 59, note.
77. Vid., my Bibl.-prophet. Theol. (1845), p. 268, cf. Bibl. Psychologie (1861), p. 410, and Psalmen (1867), p. 52f., and elsewhere.
78. Vid., Duke's Rabbinische Blumenlese, p. 176, where the rendering is somewhat different.
79. In Rabbin. this concluding form is called קל וחמר (light and heavy over against one another), and דּין (judgment, viz., from premisses, thus conclusion), κατ ̓ ἐξ. Instead of the biblical אף כי, the latter form of the language has כּל־שׁכּן (all speaks for it that it is so), על־אחת כּמּה וכמּה (so much the more), אינו דּין, or also קל וחמר (as minori ad majus = quanto magis); vid., the Hebr. Römerbrief, p. 14.
80. The fifth commandment of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is named as the fourth in Luther's catechism.
81. An expression of similar meaning is אחרי דרגא תביר = after Darga (to rise up) comes tebı̂r (breaking = destruction); cf. Zunz, in Geiger's Zeitschrift, vi. 315ff.
82. Milton's Paradise Regained, ii. 466-8.
83. “Zerbrich den Kopf dir nicht so sehr; Zerbreich den Willen - das ist mehr.” - Matth. Claudius
84. The Cod. brought by Sapiir from Jemen, of which there is an account in the preface to the edition of Isaiah by Baer and me.
85. In the Torath Emeth, p. 18, the word is irregularly represented as Milel - a closed syllable with Cholem can suffer no retrogression of the tone.
86. Vid., Simon Nascher'sDer Gaon Haja u. seine giest. Thätig. p. 15.
87. Vid., p. 109, note.
88. If we write ולב־ with Makkeph, then we have to accentuate לקנות חכמה with Tarcha Munach, because the Silluk word in this writing has not two syllables before the tone. This sequence of accents if found in the Codd. Ven. 1521, 1615, Basel 1619, while most editions have לקנות חכמה ולב־אין, which is false. But according to MSS we have ולב without Makkeph, and that is right according to the Makkeph rules of the metrical Accentuationssystem; vid., Torath Emeth, p. 40.
89. The Arab. grammarians say that the article in this case stands, l'astfrâgh khsânas âljnas, as an exhaustive expression of all essential properties of the genus, i.e., to express the full ideal realization of the idea in that which is named.
90. Nöldeke's assertion (Art. Orion in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon) that the Arab. kasal corresponds to the Hebr. כּשׁל proceeds from the twofold supposition, that the meaning to be lazy underlies the meaning to totter (vid., also Dietrich in Gesenius' Heb. Wörterbuch), and that the Hebr. ס must correspond with the Arab. š. The former supposition is untenable, the latter is far removed (cf. e.g., כּסּא and kursı̂, ספר and sifr, מסכּן and miskı̂n). The verb כּשׁל, Aram. תּקל, is unknown in the Arab.
91. “He has made my eye glowing” (askhn, cf. שׁחין) is in Arab. equivalent to “he has deeply troubled me.” The eye of the benevolent is bârid, and in the Semitic manner of expression, with deep psychological significance, it is said that the tears of sorrow are hot, but those of joy cold.
92. Cf. C. Schultze's Die bibl. Sprichwörter (1860), p. 60f.