And the representation of the rich, which, for 1b certainly arises out of 1a, does not amalgamate with כסיל htiw , but with עקּשׁ שׂפתיו. Arama is on the right track, for he translates: the rich who distorts his mouth, for he gives to the poor suppliant a rude refusal. Better Zöckler: a proud man of perverse lips and haughty demeanour. If one with haughty, scornful lips is opposed to the poor, then it is manifestly one not poor who thinks to raise himself above the poor, and haughtily looks down on him. And if it is said that, in spite of this proud demeanour, he is a fool, then this presents the figure of one proud of his wealth, who, in spite of his emptiness and nequitia, imagines that he possesses a greatness of knowledge, culture, and worth corresponding to the greatness of his riches. How much better is a poor man than such an one who walketh (vid., on תּם, vol. i, p. 79) in his innocence and simplicity, with his pure mind wholly devoted to God and to that which is good! - his poverty keeps him in humility which is capable of no malicious conduct; and this pious blameless life is of more worth than the pride of wisdom of the distinguished fool. There is in contrast to עקּשׁוּת a simplicity, ἁπλότης, of high moral worth; but, on the other side, there is also a simplicity which is worthless. This is the connecting thought which introduces the next verse.
Verse 2
Pro 19:2 2 The not-knowing of the soul is also not good, And he who hasteneth with the legs after it goeth astray.
Fleischer renders נפשׁ as the subj. and לא־טוב as neut. pred.: in and of itself sensual desire is not good, but yet more so if it is without foresight and reflection. With this explanation the words must be otherwise accentuated. Hitzig, in conformity with the accentuation, before us: if desire is without reflection, it is also without success. But where נפשׁ denotes desire or sensuality, it is always shown by the connection, as e.g., Pro 23:2; here דּעת, referring to the soul as knowing (cf. Psa 139:14), excludes this meaning. But נפשׁ is certainly gen. subjecti; Luzzatto's “self-knowledge” is untenable, for this would require דעת נפשׁו; Meîri rightly glosses נפשׁ דעת by שׂכל. After this Zöckler puts Hitzig's translation right in the following manner: where there is no consideration of the soul, there is no prosperity. But that also is incorrect, for it would require אין־טוב; לא־טוב is always pred., not a substantival clause.
