true; yet, as we have seen, Pro 12:26, they are sometimes to be met with in the collection. This is one of the few that are of such a character; for that the lxx and others translate ὁ κρύπτων, which gives for רעתו a more appropriate reference, does not require us to agree with Hitzig in reading הכּסה (Pro 12:16, Pro 12:23) - the two clauses rendered fut. stand in the same syntactical relation, as e.g., Job 20:24. Still less can the rendering of במשׁאון by συνίστησι δόλον, by the lxx, induce us to read with Hitzig חרשׁ און, especially since it is doubtful whether the Heb. words which floated before those translators (the lxx) have been fallen upon. משּׁאון (beginning and ending with a formative syllable) is certainly a word of rare formation, to be compared only to מסדּרון, Jdg 3:23; but since the nearest-lying formation משּׁא signifies usury (from נשׁא, to credit) (according to which Symmachus, διὰ λήμματα, to desire gain), it is obvious that the language preferred this double formation for the meaning deceiving, illusion, or, exactly: fraud. It may also be possible to refer it, like משּׁוּאות (vid., under Psa 23:1-6 :18), to שׁוא = שׁאה, to be confused, waste, as this is done by Parchon, Kimchi (Venet. ἐν ἐρημίᾳ), Ralbag, and others; משׁאון, in this sense of deepest concealment, certainly says not a little as the contrast of קהל [an assembly], but ישׁימום [a desert] stood ready for the poet to be used in this sense; he might also have expressed himself as Job 30:3; Job 38:27. The selection of this rare word is better explained if it denotes the superlative of deceit - a course of conduct maliciously directed toward the deception of a neighbour. That is also the impression which the word has made on Jerome (fraudulenter), the Targ. (בּמוּרסתא, in grinding), Luther (to do injury), and according to which it has already been explained, e.g., by C. B. Michaelis and Oetinger (“with dissembled, deceitful nature”). The punctuation of תכסה, Codd. and editions present in three different forms. Buxtorf in his Concordance (also Fürst), and the Basel Biblia Rabbinica, have the form תּכסּה; but this is a mistake. Either תּכּסה (Niph.) תּכּסּה (Hithpa., with the same assimilation of the preformative ת as in הכּבּס, Lev 13:55; נכּפּר, Deu 21:8) is to be read; Kimchi, in his Wörterbuch, gives תּכּסּה, which is certainly better supported. A surer contrast of במשׁאון and בקהל remains in our interpretation; only we translate not
