figure 200: as he who pours vinegar (Syr. chalo) on nitre; the Peshito, however, and here and there also the Targum, has jathro (arrow-string) instead of nethro (nitre). Hitzig adopts this, and changes the tristich into the distich: He that meeteth archers with arrow on the string, Is like him who singeth songs with a sad heart. The Hebrew of this proverb of Hitzig’s (an->Y mp O09) is unhebraic, the meaning dark as an oracle, and its moral contents nil. Ver. 21 If thine enemy hunger, feed him with bread; And if he thirst, give him water to drink.
Ver. 22 For thereby thou heapest burning coals on his head, And Jahve will recompense it to thee.
The translation of this proverb by the L_XX. is without fault; Paul cites therefrom Rom. xii. 20. The participial construction of 22a, the LXX., rightly estimating it, thus renders: for, doing this, thou shalt heap coals on his head. The expression, “thou shalt heap” (σωρεύσεις), is also appropriate; for NN certainly means first only to fetch or bring fire (vid. vi. 27); but here, by virtue of the constructio pregnans with 5y, to fetch, and hence to heap up,—to pile upon. Burning pain, as commonly observed, is the figure of burning shame, on account of undeserved kindness shown by an enemy (Fleischer). But how burning coals heaped on the head can denote burning shame, is not to be perceived, for the latter is a burning on the cheeks; wherefore Hitzig and Rosenmiiller explain: thou wilt thus bring on him the greatest pain, and appease thy vengeance, while at the same time Jahve will reward thy generosity. Now we say, indeed, that he who rewards evil with good takes the noblest revenge; but if this doing of good proceed from a revengeful aim, and is intended sensibly to humble an adversary, then it loses all its moral worth, and is changed into selfish, malicious wickedness. Must the proverb then be understood in this ignoble sense? The Scriptures elsewhere say that guilt and punishment are laid on the head of any one when he is made to experience and to bear them. Chrysostom and others therefore explain after Ps. cxl. 10 and similar passages, but thereby the proverb is morally falsified, and ver. 22 accords with ver. 21, which counsels not to the avenging of oneself, but to the requital of evil with good. The burning of coals laid on the head must be a painful but wholesome consequence} it is a figure of self-accusing repentance (Augustine, Zockler), for the producing of which the showing of good to an enemy is a noble motive. That God rewards such magnanimity may not be the special motive; but this view might contribute to it, for otherwise such promises of God as Isa. lviii. 8-12 were without moral right. The proverb also requires one to show himself gentle and liberal toward a needy enemy, and present a twofold reason for this: first, that thereby his injustice is brought home to his conscience; and, secondly, that thus God is well-pleased in such practical love toward an enemy, and will reward it;—by such conduct, apart from the performance of a law grounded in our moral nature, one advances the happiness of his neighbour and his own.
Ver. 23 Wind from the north produceth rain; And a secret tongue a troubled countenance.
The north is called }i®¥, from }B¥, to conceal, from the firmament darkening itself for a longer time, and more easily, like the old Persian apdakhtara, as (so it appears) the starless, and, like aquilo, the north wind, as bringing forward the black clouds. But properly the “fathers of rain * are, in Syria, the west and the south-west; and so little can pp¥ here mean the pure north wind, that Jerome, who knew from his own experience the changes of weather in Palestine, helps himself, after Symmachus (Sadver βροχήν), with a quid pro quo out of the difficulty: ventus aquilo dissipat pluvias; the Jewish interpreters (Aben Ezra, Joseph Kimchi, and Meiri) also thus explain, for they connect together Stinn, in the meaning y30n, with the unintelligible n>on (far be it!). But pay may also, perhaps like ζόφος (Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitsch. xxi. 600 f.), standing not without connection therewith, denote the northwest; and probably the proverb emphasized the northern direction of the compass, because, according to the intention of the similitude, he seeks to designate such rain as is associated with raw, icy-cold weather, as the north wind (xxvii. 16, LXX., Sir. xliii. 20) brings along with it. The names of the winds are gen. fem., e.g. Isa. xiii. 6. 2pinn (Aquila, ὠδίνει;
ef. vili. 24, ὠδινηθην) has in Codd., e.g. the Jaman., the tone on the penult, and with Tsere Metheg (Thorath Emeth, p. 21) serving as myn. So also the Arab. naiaj is used of the wind, as helping the birth of the rain-clouds. Manifestly D’yr D322, countenances manifesting extreme displeasure (vid. the Kal by, xxiv. 24), are compared to rain. With justice Hitzig renders nb, as 6.0. John 11. 6, in the plur. sense; because, for the influence which the tongue slandering in secret (Ps. ci. 5) has on the slandered, the “sorrowful countenance” would not be so characteristic as for the influence which it exercises on the mutual relationships of men: the secret babbler, the confidential communication throwing suspicion, now on this one and now on that one, behind their backs, excites men against one another, so that one shows to another a countenance in which deep displeasure and suspicion express themselves. Ver. 24 Better to sit on the top of a roof, Than a quarrelsome woman and a house in common. A repetition of xxi. 9. Ver. 25 Fresh water to a thirsty soul; And good news from a far country.
Vid. regarding the form of this proverb, vol. i. p. 9; we have a similar proverb regarding the influence of good news at xv. 30. Fresh cold water is called at Jer. xviii. 14 DMP Ὁ; wid. regarding ἼΡ, xviii. 27. “ἘΝ, cogn. 4" and Ay, properly to become darkened, therefore figuratively like (Arab.) gushiya ’alyh, to become faint, to become feeble unto death, of the darkness which spreads itself over the eyes” (Fleischer).
This proverb, with the figure of “ fresh water,’ is now followed by one with the figure of a “ fountain”:
Ver. 26 A troubled fountain and a ruined spring— A righteous man yielding to a godless man.
For the most part, in 02 one thinks of a yielding in consequence of being forced. Thus 6.9. Fleischer: as a troubled ruined spring is a misfortune for the people who drink out of it, or draw from it, so is it a misfortune for the surrounding of the righteous, when he is driven from his dwelling or his possession by an unrighteous man. And it is true: the righteous can be compared to a well (pyp, well-spring, from ἢ), a well, as an eye of the earth, and 1p», fountain, from “Vp, R. Ὁ,
73, to round out, to dig out), with reference to the blessing which flows from it to its surroundings (cf. x. 11 and John vii. 38). But the words “ yielding to” (contrast “ stood before,” 2 Kings x. 4, or Josh. vii. 12), in the phrase “ yielding to the godless,” may be understood of a spontaneous as well as of a constrained, forced, wavering and yielding, as the expression in the Psalm bitN~2 [non movebor, Ps. x. 6] affirms the certainty of being neither inwardly nor outwardly ever moved or shaken. The righteous shall stand fast and strong in God without fearing the godless (Isa. li. 12 f.), unmoveable and firm as a brazen wall (Jer. i.17f.). If, however, he is wearied with resistance, and from the fear of man, or the desire to please man, or from a false love of peace he yields before it, and so gives way,—then he becomes like to a troubled fountain (5, cogn. D1, Ezek. xxxiv. 18; Isa. xli. 25; Jerome: fons turbatus pede), a ruined spring; his character, hitherto pure, is now corrupted by his own guilt, and now far from being a blessing to others, his wavering is a cause of sorrow te the righteous, and an offence to the weak—he is useful no longer, but only injurious. Rightly Lagarde: “The verse, one of the most profound of the whole book, does not speak of the misfortune, but of the fall of the righteous, whose sin compromises the holy cause which he serves, 2 Sam. xii. 14.” Thus also e.g. Lowenstein, with reference to the proverb Sanhedrin 926: also in the time of danger let not a man disown his honour. Bachja, in his Ethics, referring to this figure, 26a, thinks of the possibility of restoration: the righteous wavers only for the moment, but at last he comes right (dyn ΘΠ). But this interpretation of the figure destroys the point of the proverb.
Ver. 27. This verse, as it stands, is scarcely to be understood. The Venet. translates 270 literally: ἔρευνά te δόξας αὐτῶν δόξα; but what is the reference of this 0723? Euchel and others refer it to men, for they translate: “ to set a limit to the glory of man is true glory;” but the “glory of man” is denoted by the phrase D78 723, not by 0723; and, besides, ἽΡΠ does not mean measure and limit. Odcetinger explains: “To eat too much honey is not good; whereas the searching after their glory, viz. of pleasant and praiseworthy things, which are likened to honey, is glory, cannot be too much done, and is never without utility and honour;” but how can 0735 be of the same meaning as WW O70 723 or 0213 pSvinn— such an abbreviation of the expression is impossible. Schultens, according to Rashi: vestigatio gravitatis eorum est gravitas, 1.6. the searching out of their difficulty is a trouble; better Vitringa (since 1123 nowhere occurs in this sense of gravitas molesta ac pondere oppressura): investigatio prestantie eorum est gloriosa; but Vitringa, in order to gain a connection to 27a, needs to introduce etiamst, and in both explanations the reference of the D733 is imaginary, and it by no means lies near, since the Scripture uses the word 1123 of God, and His kingdom and name, but never of His law or His revelation. This also is an argument against Bertheau, who translates: the searching out of their glory (viz. of the divine law and revelation) is a burden, a strenuous occupation of the mind, since ἽΡΠ does not in itself mean searching out, and is equivocally, even unintelligibly, expressed, since 7)23 denotes, it is true, here and there, a great multitude, but never a burden (as 725). The thought which Jerome finds in 270: qui scrutator est majestatis opprimetur a gloria, is judicious, and connects itself synonym. with 27a; but such a thought is unwarranted, for he disregards the suff. of n723, and renders 7123 in the sense of difficulty (oppression). Or sould it perhaps be vocalized 0723 (Syr., Targ... Theodotion, δεδοξασμένα — ΓΛ 133)) ἢ Thus vocalized, Wiabirett renders it in the sense of honores; Elster and Zéckler in the sense of difficultates (diffictlia); but this plur., neither the biblical, nor, so far as I know, the post-bibl. usage of the word has ever adopted. However, the sense of the proverb which Elster and Zockler gain is certainly that which is aimed at. We accordingly translate: To surfeit oneself in eating honey is not good, But as an inquirer to enter on what is difficult is honour.
We read 0733 instead of D733, This change commends itself far more than i239 733 (apm), according to which Gesenius explains: nimium studium honoris est sine honore—impossible, for 1PM does not signify nimium studium, in the sense of striving, but only that of inquiry: one strives after honour, but does not study it. Hitzig and Ewald, after the example of J. 1), Michaelis, Arnoldi, and Ziegler, betake themselves therefore to the Arabic; Ewald explains, for he leaves the text unchanged: “To despise their honour (that is, of men) is honour (true, real honour);” Hitzig, for he changes the text like Gesenius: “To despise honour is more than honour,” with the ingenious remark: To obtain an order [insigne ordinis] is an honour, but not to wear it then for the first time is its bouquet. Nowhere any trace either in Hebrew or in Aramaic is to be found of the verb 1pn, to Reapiag (to be despised), and so it must here remain without example.’ Nor have we any need of it. The change of 0733 into 0723 is enough. The proverb is an antithetic distich; 27a warns against inordinate longing after enjoyments, 27b praises earnest labour. Instead of ΠΙΞῚΠ 31, if honey in the mass were intended, the words would have ‘hea naw was (Eccles. Feds id kines x. 10), or at least ack naw (Amos iv. 9); main can only hs a n.actionis, and 033 238 its inverted object (cf. Jer. ix. 4), as Béttcher has discerned: to make much of the eating of honey, to do much therein is not good (cf. ver. 16). In 27} Luther also partly hits on the correct rendering: “and he who searches into difficult things, to him it is too difficult,” for which it ought to be said: to him it is an honour. 0735, viz. 037, signifies difficult things, as Ὁ, xii. 11, vain ines: The Heb. 123, however, never means difficult to be understood or comprehended (although more modern lexicons say this),” but always only burdensome and heavy, gravis, not dificilis. 0723 are also things of which the PN, i.e. the fundamental searching into them (xviii. 17, xxv. 2 f.), costs an earnest effort, which perhaps, according to the first impression, appears to surpass the available strength (cf. Ex. xviii. 18). To overdo oneself in eating honey is not good; on the contrary, the searching into difficult subjects is nothing less than an eating of honey, but anhonour. There is here a paronomasia. Fleischer translates it: explorare gravia grave est; but we render grave
1 The Hebrew meaning investigare, and the equivalent Arabic hakr, contemnere (contemtui esse), are derivations from the primary meaning (R. pn): to go down from above firmly on anything, and thus to press in (to cut in), or also to press downward.
2 Of. Sir. iii. 20f. with Ben-Sira’s Heb. text in my Gesch. der jiid. Poesie, p- 204 (vers. 30-32); nowhere does this adj. 435 appear here in this warning against meditating over the transcendental.
est not in the sense of molestiam creat, but gravitatem parit (weight = respect, honour).
Ver. 28. This verse, counselling restraint as to the spirit, is connected with the foregoing, which counsels to self-control as to enjoyment:
A city broken through, now without walls— A man without self-control over his spirit. A “city broken down” is one whose wall is “ broken,” 2 Chron. xxxll. 5, whether it has met with breaches (O°S75), or is wholly broken; in the former case also the city is incapable of being defended, and it is all one as if it had no wall. Such a city is like aman “ who hath no control over his own spirit” (for the accentuation of the Heb. words here, vid. Thorath Emeth, p- 10): cujus sptritui nulla cohibitio (Schultens), 1.6. gui animum suum cohibere non potest (Fleischer: sy, R. Ἢν, to press together, to oppress, and thereby to hold back). As sucha city can be plundered and laid waste without trouble, so a man who knows not to hold in check his desires and affections is in constant danger of blindly following the impulse of his unbridled sensuality, and of being hurried forward to outbreaks of passion, and thus of bringing unhappiness upon himself. There are sensual passions (e.g. drunkenness), intellectual (e.g. ambition), mingled (e.g. revenge); but in all of these a false ego rules, which, instead of being held down by the true and better ego, rises to unbounded supremacy.’ Therefore the expression used is not WwiDD, but im?; desire has its seat in the soul, but in the spirit it grows into passion, which in the root of all its diversities is selfishness (Psychol. p. 199); self-control is accordingly the ruling of the spirit, ze. the restraining (keeping down) of the false enslaved ego-life by the true and free, and powerful in God Himself.
xxvi. 1. There now follows a group of eleven proverbs of the fool; only the first of the group has after it a proverb of different contents, but of similar form:
As snow in summer, and rain in harvest; So honour befitteth not a fool. If there is snow in high summer (}*?, to be glowing hot), it is contrary to nature; and if there is rain in harvest, it is (accord- 1 Vid. Drbal’s Empirische Psychologie, § 137.
ing to the alternations of the weather in Palestine) contrary to what is usually the case, and is a hindrance to the ingathering of the fruits of the field. Evenso a fool and respect, or a place of honour, are incongruous things; honour will only injure him (as according to xix. 10, luxury); he will make unjust use of it, and draw false conclusions from it; it will strengthen him in his folly, and only increase it. ΠΝ) (= 82) is the adj. to the Pil. ms), Ps. xcili. 5 (plur. 82); 78), xix. 10, and 7183, xvii. 7, are also masc. and fem. of the adj., according to which, that which is said under xix. 10 is to be corrected. Symmachus and Theodotion have translated οὐκ ἔπρεψεν, and have therefore read M82, The root word is ΠΣ (as ANY to MnNY)=M3, to aim at something (vid. Hupfeld under Ps. xxiii. 2).
As the sparrow in its fluttering, as the swallow in its flying, So the curse that is groundless: it cometh not.
This passage is one of those fifteen (vid. under Ps. c. 3) in which the xd of the text is changed by the Kert into 15; the Talm., Midrash, and Sohar refer this i> partly to him who utters the curse himself, against whom also, if he is a judge, such inconsiderate cursing becomes an accusation by God; partly to him who is cursed, for they read from the proverb that the curse of a private person also (uy In, ἰδιώτης) is not wont to fall to the ground, and that therefore one ought to be on his guard against giving any occasion for it (vid. Norzi). But Aben Ezra supposes that xd and 15 interchange, as much as to say that the undeserved curse falls on him (15) who curses, and does not fall (x5) on him who is cursed. The figures in 2a harmonize only with x3, according to which the LXX., the Syr., Targ., Venet., and Luther (against Jerome) translate, for the principal matter, that the sparrow and the swallow, although flying out (xxvii. 8), return home again to their nest (Ralbag), would be left out of view in the comparison by ν, This emphasizes the fluttering and flying, and is intended to affirm that a groundless curse is a 182 75, aimless, 1.6. a thing hovering in the air, that it fails and does not take effect. Most interpreters explain the two Lameds as declaring the destination: ut passer (sc. natus est) ad vagandum, as the sparrow, through necessity of nature, roves about... (Fleischer). But from xxv. 3 it is evident that the Zamed in both cases declares the reference or the point of comparison: as the sparrow in respect to its fluttering about, etc. The names of the two birds are, according to Aben Ezra, like dreams without a meaning; but the Romanic exposition explains rightly W8¥ by passereau, and Wt by hirondelle, for ex (Arab. ’usfuwr), twitterer, designates at least preferably the sparrow, and 7115 the swallow, from its flight shooting straight out, as it were radiating (vid. under Ps. Ixxxiv. 4); the name of the sparrow, dért (found in courtyards), which Wetstein, after Saadia, compares to 1174, is etymologically different." Regarding 037, wid. under xxiv. 28. Rightly the accentuation separates the words rendered, “ so the curse undeserved ” (n22p, after Kimchi, Michlol 79d, np), from those which follow; δὲ3 ἢ ND is the explication of j2: thus hovering in the air isa groundless curse—it does not come (s)3, like e.g. Josh. xxi. 43). After this proverb, which is formed like ver. 1, the series now returns to the “ fool.” Ver. 3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, And a rod for the back of fools. J.D. Michaelis supposes that the order should be reversed: a bridle for the horse, a whip for the ass; but Arnoldi has here discovered the figure of speech merismus (cf. x. 1); and Hitzig, in the manner of the division, the rhythmical reason of the combination (cf. ΠΡ on ov for om np ov): whip and bridle belong to both, for one whips a horse (Neh. iii. 2) and also bridles him; one bridles an ass (Ps. xxxii. 9) and also whips him (Num. xxii. 28f.). As whip and bridle are both serviceable and necessary, so also serviceable and necessary is a rod, DDD 29, x. 13, xix. 29. Ver. 4 Answer not the fool according to his folly, Lest thou thyself also become like unto him.
After, or according to his folly, is here equivalent to recognising the foolish supposition and the foolish object of his question, and thereupon considering it, as if, e.g., he asked why the ignorant man was happier than the man who had much knowledge, or how one may acquire the art of making gold; for “a
1 It is true that the Gemara to Negaim, xiv. 1, explains the Mishnic D> DY “115, ‘‘ house-birds,” for it derives 7)77 from Ἢ, to dwell.
fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer.” He who recognises such questions as justifiable, and thus sanctions them, places himself on an equality with the fool, and easily himself becomes one. The proverb that follows affirms apparently the direct contrary: Ver. 5 Answer the fool according to his folly, Lest he regard himself as wise. DIY. (with Makkeph, and Gaja, and Chatef") here stands opposed to S:p> yyn-by. The Gospel of John, e.g. v. 31, cf. viii. 31,’ is rich in such apparently contradictory sayings. The sic Ὁ et non here lying before us is easily explained; after, or according to his folly, is this second time equivalent to, as is due to his folly: decidedly and firmly rejecting it, making short work with it (returning a sharp answer), and promptly replying in a way fitted, if possible, to make him ashamed. ‘Thus one helps him, perhaps, to self-knowledge; while, in the contrary case, one gives assistance to his self-importance. The Talmud, Schabbath 30b, solves the contradiction by referring ver. 4 to worldly things, and ver. 5 to religious things; and it is true that, especially in the latter case, the answer is itself a duty toward the fool, and toward the truth. Otherwise the Midrash: one ought not to answer when one knows the fool as such, and to answer when he does not so know him; for in the first instance the wise man would dishonour himself by the answer, in the latter case he would give to him who asks the importance appertaining to a superior. Ver. 6 He cutteth off the feet, he drinketh injury, Who transacteth business by a fool.
He cutteth off, ze. his own feet, as we say: he breaks his neck, zl se casse le cou; Lat. frangere brachium, crus, cozam; frangere navem (Fleischer). He thinks to supplement his own two legs by those of the messenger, but in reality he cuts them off; for not only is the commission not carried out, but it is even badly carried out, so that instead of being refreshed (xiii.
_1Thus after Ben Asher; while, on the contrary, Ben Naphtali writes Sy nay with Munach, vid. Thorath Emeth, p. 41. 2 Vid. ‘my dissertation on three little-observed passages in the Gospel of
17, xxv. 13) by the quick, faithful execution of it, he has to swallow nothing but damage; cf. Job xxxiv. 7, where, however, drinking scorn is meant of another (LX X.), not his own; on the contrary, 597 here refers to injury suffered (as if it were ipon, for the suff. of pon is for the most part objective); cf. the similar figures x. 26. So 3 new, to accomplish anything by the mediation of another, cf. Ex. iv. 13; with 725 (8521), 2 Sam. xv. 36. The reading ΠΥ (Jerome, Luther, claudus) is unnecessary; since, as we saw, ΠΙΣΡ includes it in the siz. The Syr. reads, after the LX X. (the original text of which was ἐκ τῶν ποδῶν ἑαυτοῦ), TSP, for he errs, as also does the Targumist, in thinking that ΠΥ͂Ρ can be used for yypo; but Hitzig adopts this reading, and renders: “ from the end of the legs he swallows injury who sends messages by a fool.” The end of the legs are the feet, and the feet are those of the foolish messenger. The proverb in this form does not want in boldness, but the wisdom which Hitzig finds in it is certainly not mother-wit.' Béttcher, on his part, also with ΠΡΟ, renders: “ from the end of his feet he drinks in that which is bitter.. —that also is too artificial, and is unintelligible without the explanation of its discoverer. But that he who makes a fool his messenger becomes himself like unto one who cuts off his own legs, is a figure altogether excellent. Ver. 7 The hanging down of the legs of a lame man; And a proverb in a fool’s mouth.
1 The Venet. translates ΠΤ by ἄνους, so NYY (the post-bibl. designation of a fool)—one of the many indications that this translator is a Jew, and as such is not confined in his knowledge of language only to the bibl. Hebrew.
κνήμας χωλοῦ; and Bertheau and Zéckler explain: always take away his legs from the lame, since they are in reality useless to him, just as a proverb in the mouth of the fool is useless,—something that without loss might be never there.” But why did not the poet write 327, or 11D, or 37), or the like? ‘1, to carry away, to dispense with, is Syriac (Targ. Jer. I., under Deut. xxxil. 50), but not Hebrew. And how meaningless is this expression! A lame man would withstand a surgeon (as he would a murderer) who would amputate his legs; for lame legs are certainly better than none, especially — since there is a great distinction between a lame man (NDB, from NDB, luxare; cf. (Arab.) fasah, lazare, vid. Schultens) who halts or goes on crutches (2 Sam. 11. 29), and one who is maimed (paralytic), who needs to be carried. It comes to this, that by this rendering of 7a one must, as a consequence, with the LXX., regard Ὀυ Ὁ) [and a proverb] as object. accus. parallel to ΟΡ [legs]; but “to draw a proverb from one’s mouth” is, after xx. 5, something quite different from to tear a proverb away from him, besides which, one cannot see how it is to be caught. Rather one would prefer: attollite crura claudi (ut incedat, et nihil promovebitis); but the {> of NDE! does not accord with this, and 7b does not connect itself with it. But the explanation: “take away the legs from a lame man who has none, at least none to use, and a proverb in the mouth of fools, when there is none,” is shattered against the “ leg-taking-away,” which can only be used perhaps of frogs’ legs. (2) Symmachus translates: ἐξέλιπον κνῆμαι ἀπὸ χωλοῦ; and Chajig explains νη as 3 pret. Kal, to which Kimchi adds the remark, that he appears to have found S77, which indeed is noted by Norzi and J. H. Michaelis as a variant. But the Masoretic reading is νη, and this, after Gesenius and- Béttcher (who in this, without any reason, sees an Ephraimitic form of uttering the word), is a softened variation from *>7, Only it is a pity that this softening, while it is supported by alius = ἄλλος, folium = φύλλον, faillir = fallere, and the like, has yet not a single Hebrew or Semitic example in its favour. (3) Therefore Ewald finds, “all things considered,” that it is best to read 123, “the legs are too loose for the lame man to use them.” But, with Dietrich, we cannot concur in this, nor in the more appropriate translation: “the legs of the lame hang down loose,” to say nothing of the clearly impossible: “high are the legs of the lame (one higher than the other),” and that because this form 203 for 3 also occurs without pause, Ps. lvii. 2, Ixxiii. 2, exxii. 6, Isa. xxi. 12; but although thus, as at Ps. xxxvi. 9, Ixvili. 32, at the beginning of a clause, yet always only in connection, never at the beginning of an address. (4) It has also been attempted to interpret a as abstr., e.g. Euchel: “ he learns from a cripple to dance, who seeks to learn proverbs from the mouth of a fool.” oOp¥ va must mean the lifting up of the legs = springing and dancing. Accordingly Luther translates: ‘* As dancing to a cripple, So does it become a fool to speak of wisdom.”
The thought is agreeable, and according to fact; but these words do not mean dancing, but much rather, as the Arabic shows (vid. Schultens at xx. 5, and on the passage before us), a limping, waddling walk, like that of ducks, after the manner of a well-bucket dangling to and fro. And 27, after the form 1270, would be an unheard-of Aramaism. For forms such as 30¥, swimming, and PU, security, Ps. xxx. 7, on which C. B. Michaelis and others rest, cannot be compared, since they are modified from suchw, salw, while in *21 the ὦ ending must be, and besides the Aramaic 177 must in st. constr. be m7, Since none of these explanations are grammatically satisfactory, and besides 977 = 3007 =a gives a parallel member which is heterogeneous and not conformable to the nature of an emblematical proverb, we read "3 after the forms “2, “pv (cf. Pan, vi. 10, xxiv. 33), and this signifies loose, hanging down, from nea, to hang at length and loosely down, or transitively: to hang, particularly of the hanging down at length of the bucket-rope, and of the bucket itself, to draw water from the well. The jp is similar to that of Job xxviii. 4, only that here the connecting of the hanging down, and of that from which it hangs down, is clear. Were we to express the purely nominally expressed emblematical proverb in the form of a comparative one, it would thus stand as Fleisclier translates it: ut laa et flaccida dependent (torpent) erura a claudo, sic sententia in ore stultorum (sc. torpet h. 6. inutilis est). The fool can as little make use of an intelligent proverb, or moral maxim (dictum sententiosum), as a lame man can of his feet; the word, which in itself is full of thought, and excellent, becomes halting, lame, and loose in his mouth (Schultens: deformiter claudicat); it has, as spoken and applied by him, neither hand nor foot. Strangely, yet without missing the point, Jerome: quomodo pulcras frustra habet claudus tibias, ste indecens est in ore stultorum parabola. The lame man possibly has limbs that appear sound; but when he seeks to walk, they fail to do him service,—so a bon-mot comes forth awkwardly when the fool seeks to make use of it. Hitzig’s conjecture: as leaping of the legs on the part of a Jame man..., Bottcher has already shown sufficient reasons for rejecting; leaping on the part of any one, for the leaping of any one, were a court style familiar to no poet. Ver. 8. This proverb presents to us a new difficulty.
As one binds a stone in a sling, So is he who giveth honour to a fool.
This translation is warranted by tradition, and is 1n accordance with the actual facts. A sling is elsewhere called yop; but that m3 also in the passage before us signifies a sling (from D1, to throw with stones=to stone or to throw stones = to sling, cf. Targ. Esth. v. 14 039, of David’s slinging stones against Goliath), is supported by the LX X., Syr., and Targ. on the one side, and the Jewish Glossists on the other (Rashi: fronde, Ital. frombola). Rightly the LXX. renders ¥3 as a verb: ὡς ἀποδεσμεύει; on the contrary, the Syr. and Targ. regard it as a substantive: as a piece of stone; but ΙΝ as a substantive does not mean a piece, as one would put into a sling to use as a weapon, but a grain, and thus a little piece, 2 Sam. xvii. 13; cf. Amos ix. 9. Erroneously Ewald: “ if one binds to the sling the stone which he yet seeks to throw, then all his throwing and aiming are in vain; so it is in vain to give to a fool honour which does not reach him.” If one seeks to sling a stone, he must lay the lapis missilis so in the sling that it remains firm there, and goes forth only by the strong force of the slinging; this fitting in (of the stone), so that it does not of itself fall out, is expressed by 3 17¥ (ef.
xxx. 4; Job xxvi. 8). The giving is compared to the binding, the stones to the honour, and the sling to the fool: the fool is related to the honour which one confers on him, as the stone to the sling in which one lays it—the giving of honour is a slinging of honour. Otherwise (after Kimchi) the Venet. ὡς συνδεσμὸς λίθου ἐν λυθάδι, 1.6. as Fleischer translates: ut gui crumenam gemmarum plenam in acervum lapidum conjicit. Thus also Ralbag, Ahron Ὁ. Josef, and others, and lastly Zéckler. The figure is in the form of an address, and 1237) (from 5H, accumulare, congerere, vid. under Ps. Ixvii. 28) might certainly mean the heaping of stones. But j28 is not used in the sense of 112" j28 (precious stone); also one does not see why one precious stone is not enough as the figure of honour, and a whole heap is named; but in the third place, ji) [3 requires for 1 ¥3 a verbal signification. Therefore Jerome translates: sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mercurii; in this the echo of his Jewish teacher, for the Midrash thus explains literally: every one who gives honour to a fool is like one who throws a stone on a heap of stones consecrated to Mercury. Around the Hermes (ἑρμαΐ), i.¢. pillars with the head of Mercury (statue mercuriules or viales), were heaps of stones (€ppaxes), to which the passer-by was wont to throw a stone; it was a mark of honour, and served at the same time to improve the way, whose patron was Mercurius (p‘iprp). It is self-evident that this Graeco-Roman custom to which the Talm. make frequent reference, cannot be supposed to have existed in the times of Solomon. Luther translates independently, and apparently rendering into German that in acervum Mercurii: that is as if one threw a precious stone on the “ Rabenstein,” i.e. the heap of stones raised at the foot of the gallows. This heap of stones is more natural and suitable to the times of Solomon than the heap of stones dedicated to Mercury, if, like Gussetius, one understands ADD of a heap of stones, supra corpus lapidatum. But against this and similar interpretations it is enough to remark that 1¥3 cannot signify sicwt gui mittit. Had such a meaning been intended, the word would have been 7¥72 or P22. Still different is the rendering of Joseph Kimchi, Aben Ezra, and finally Lowenstein: as when one wraps up a stone in a piece of purple stuff. But #2298, purple, has nothing to do with the verb
DIN; it is, as the Aramaic {398 shows, a compound word; the supposition of a denom. 37) thus proceeds from a false etymological supposition. And Hitzig’s combination of noms with (Arab.) munjam, handle and beam of a balance (he translates: as a stone on the beam of a balance, 1.6. lies on it), is nothing but refined ingenuity, since we have no need at all of such an Arab. word for a satisfactory clearing up of ADM. We abide by the rendering of the sling. Bdottcher translates: a sling that scatters; perhaps ΠΣ in reality denotes such a sling as throws many stones at once. Let that, however, be as it may: that he who confers a title of honour, a place of honour, and the like, on a fool, is like one who lays a stone in a sling, is a true and intelligibly formed thought: the fool makes the honour no honour; he is not capable of maintaining it; that which is conferred on him is uselessly wasted.
Ver. 9 A thorn goeth into the hand of a drunkard, And a proverb in a fool’s mouth;
t.e., if a proverb falls into a fool’s mouth, it is as if a thorn entered into the hand of a drunken man; the one is as dangerous as the other, for fools misuse such a proverb, which, rightly used, instructs and improves, only to the wounding and grieving of another, as a drunken man makes use of the pointed instrument which he has possession of for coarse raillery, and as a welcome weapon of his strife. The LXX., Syr. (Targ.?), and Jerome interpret ney in the sense of shooting up, 1.6. of growing; Bottcher also, after xxiv. 31 and other passages, insists that the thorn which has shot up may be one that has not grown to perfection, and therefore not dangerous. But thorns grow not in the hand of any one; and one also does not perceive why the poet should speak of it as growing in the hand of a drunken man, which the use of the hand with it would only make worse. We have here 3 Moy, ie. it has come into my hand, commonly used in the Mishna, which is used where anything, according to intention, falls into one’s hands, as well as where it comes accidentally and unsought for, eg. Nazir 23a, ta mbyd mona Ὃ ΠΡΌ ra wa ποι wn awa, he who designs to obtain swine’s flesh and (accidentally) obtains lamb’s flesh. Thus rightly Heidenheim, Lowenstein, and the Venet.: ἄκανθα ἀνέβη εἰς
χεῖρα μεθύοντος. MN signifies a thorn bush, 2 Kings xiv. 9, as well as a thorn, Song ii. 2, but where not the thorns of the rose, and indeed no rose at all, is meant. Luther thinks of the rose with the thorn when he explains: “ When a drunkard carries and brandishes in his hand a thorn bush, he scratches more with it than allows the roses to be smelled—so a fool with the Scriptures, or a right saying, often does more harm than good.” This paraphrase of Luther’s interprets 2 n5y more correctly than his translation does; on the other hand, the latter more correctly is satisfied with a thorn twig (as a thorn twig which pierces into the hand of a drunken man); the roses are, however, assumed contrary to the text. This holds good also against Wessely’s explanation: “the Mashal is like a rose not without thorns, but in the mouth of a fool is like a thorn without a rose, as when a drunken man seeks to pluck roses and gains by his effort nothing but being pierced by thorns.” The idea of roses is to be rejected, because at the time when this proverb was formed there were no roses in Palestine. The proverb certainly means that a right Mashal, 1.6. an ingenious excellent maxim, is something more and better than a Min (the prick as of the Jewish thorn, Zizyphus vulgaris, or the Christus-thorn, the Ziz. spina Christi); but in the mouth of a fool such a maxim becomes only a useless and a hurtful thing; for the fool so makes use of it, that he only embarrasses others and recklessly does injury to them. The LXX. translates vin by δουλεία, and the Aram. by ΓΟ; how the latter reached this “ folly” is not apparent; but the L_XX. vocalized vin, according to which Hitzig, at the same time changing "i3¥ into 13”, translates: “thorns shoot up by the hand of the hireling, and tyranny by the mouth of fools.” Although a hired labourer, yet, on this account, heis not devoid of conscience; thus 9a so corrected has something in its favour: one ought, as far as possible, to do all with his own hand; but the thought in 98 is far-fetched, and if Hitzig explains that want of judgment in the state councils creates despotism, so, on the other hand, xxiv. 7 says that the fool cannot give counsel in the gate, and therefore he holds his mouth.
Ver. 10. All that we have hitherto read is surpassed in obscurity by this proverb, which is here connected because of the resemblance of 12% to 13¥. We translate it thus, vocalizing differently only one word:
An unfortunate attempt so to rectify the words that some meaning might be extracted from them. The first line of this translation has been adopted by the Syr. and Targ., omitting only the $3, in which the self-condemnation of this deciphering lies (for 1w2 52 means elsewhere, humanity, not the whole body of each individual); but they translate the second line as if the words were: bY Tay uv
Wilna interpret the proverb as a declaration regarding quarrelsome persons: he causeth woe to all, and hireth fools, hireth transgressors, for his companions; but in that case we must read 21 for 21; Shinn, bringing woe, would be either the Po. of bon, to bore through, or Pilel of Dn (d:n), to put into distress (as with pangs); but 0%3¥, transgressors = sinners, is contrary to the O. T. usus log., xxii. 3 (xxvii. 12) is falsely cited in its favour; besides, for 2) there should have been at least 31 Ux, and why 12% is repeated remains inexplicable. Others take το πὸ as the name of God, the creator of all men and’ things; and truly this is the nearest impression of these two words, for °9in is the usual designation for divine production, 6.9. Ps. xc. 2. Accordingly Kimchi explains: The Lord is the creator of all, and He gives to fools and to transgressors their maintenance; but O39, transgressors, is Mishnic, not bibl.; and 73 means to hire, but not to supply with food. The proverb is thus incapable of presenting a thought like Matt. v. 45 (He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good). Others translate: “The Lord is creator of all, and takes fools, takes idlers, into His service.” Thus rendered, the proverb is offensive; wherefore Rashi, Moses Kimchi, Arama, and others regard the Mashal as in the mouth of fools, and thus they take vers. 9 and 10 together as a tetrastich. Certainly this second collection of proverbs contains also tetrastiches; but vers. 9 and 10 cannot be regarded as together forming a tetrastich, because 21 (which is valid against Kimchi also) cannot mean God the Lord: 31, Lord, is unheard of in bibl. Heb., and at least the word 279 must be used for God. The Venet. on this account does not follow Kimchi, but translates, ἄρχων πλάττει πάντα, καὶ μισθοῦται μωρὸν καὶ μισθοῦται ὡς παραβάτης (ought to have been παραβάτας); but who could this cunning man be? Perhaps the Venet. is to be understood, after Gecatilia (in Rashi): a great (rich) man performs all manner of things; but if he hires a fool, it is as if he hired the first best who pass along the way. But that ὈΡῚΠ is used in the general sense of to execute, to perform, is without example, and improbable. Also the explanation: a ruler brings grief, ie. severe oppression, upon all (Abulwalid, Immanuel, Aben Ezra, who, in his smaller grammar, explains 21 = 3) after Isa. xlix. 9;
C. B. Michaelis: dolore afficit omnes), does not recommend itself; for Stim, whether it be from $n, Isa. li. 9 (to bore through), or from ὉΠ, Ps. xxix. 9 (to bring on the pangs of birth), is too strong a word for hurting; also the clause, thus generally understood, is fortunately untrue. Translated as by Euchel: “the prominent persons destroy all; they keep fools in pay, and favour vagabonds,”—it sounds as if it had been picked up in an assembly of democrats. On the other hand, the proverb, as translated by Luther:
A good master maketh a thing right; But he who hireth a bungler, by him it is spoiled, is worthy of the Book of Proverbs. The second line is here freely rendered, but it is also appropriate, if we abide closer by the words of the text, in this connection. Fleischer: Magister (artifex peritus) effingit omnia (i.e. bene perficit quecunque ei committuntur); qui autem stultum conducit, conducit transeuntes (i.e. idem facit ας si homines ignotos et forte transeuntes ad opus gravius et difficilius conduceret). ‘Thus also Gesenius, Bottcher, and others, who all, as Gecatilia above, explain ὩΣ, τοὺς τυχόντας, the first best. But we are reluctantly constrained to object to this thought, because 21 nowhere in bibl. Hebrew signifies a master; and the } of the second 713%) cannot bear that rendering, ac si. And if we leave it out, we nevertheless encounter a difficulty in Sin, which cannot be used of human production. Many Christian interpreters (Cocceius, Schultens, Schelling, Ewald, Bertheau, Stier, Zockler) give to 2 a meaning which is found in no Jewish interpreter, viz. sagittarius, from 237 (135), Gen. xlix. 23 (and perhaps Ps. xviii. 15), after the forms 7¥, 1%, the plur. of which, 5°29, is found at Job xvi. 13, Jer. ]. 29, but in a connection which removes all doubt from the meaning of the word. Here also 31 may be more closely defined by Pind; but how then does the proverb stand? “an archer who wounds everything, and he who hires a fool, and hires passers-by” (Ewald: street-runners), ὅ.6. they are alike. But if the archer piercing everything is a comic Hercules furens, then, in order to discover the resemblance between the three, there is need of a portion of ingenuity, such as is only particularly assigned to the favoured. But it is also against the form and the usage of the word to interpret pay simply of rogues and vagabonds. Several interpreters have supposed that 35 and 53 must stand in a certain interchangeable relation to each other. Thus, eg., Ahron b. Josef: “ Much makes amazement to all, but especially one who hires a fool....” But this “especially” (before all) is an expression smuggled in. Agreeing with Umbreit and Hitzig, we translate line first; but in translating line second, we follow our own method: Much bringeth all out of it;
t.¢.. where there is much, then one has it in his power, if he begins right, to undertake everything. 21 has by 55 the definition of a neuter, so as to designate not only many men, Ex. xix. 21, but also much ability in a pecuniary and facultative sense (cf. the subst. 3, Isa. Ixiii. 7; Ps. exlv. 7); and of the much which bringeth forth all out of itself, effects all by itself, Sin with equal right might be used, as xxv. 23, of the north wind. The antithesis 106 takes this form:
But the reward (read 43%) and the master (who hires him for wages) of the fool pass away, i.e. perish; O29, as if VY, is used of chaff, Isa. xxix. 5; of stubble, Jer. xiii. 24; of shadow, Ps. cxliv. 4. That which the fool gains passes away, for he squanders it; and he who took him into his service for wages is ruined along with him, for his work is only pernicious, not useful. Although he who possesses much, and has great ability, may be able to effect everything of himself, yet that is not the case when he makes use of the assistance therein of foolish men, who not only do not accomplish anything, but, on the contrary, destroy everything, and are only ruinous to him who, with good intention, associates them with himself in his work. That the word must be more accurately 131, instead of 113%, one may not object, since 120" is perfectly unambiguous, and is manifestly the object.
Like a dog which returneth to his vomit, Is a fool who cometh again with his folly.
aw is like ΠΛ ἢ, particip.; only if the punctuation were 3233, ought “which returneth to his vomit” to be taken as a
Regarding the perf. lypotheticum D'S), vid. at xxii. 29. Line second is repeated, xxix. 20, unchanged. 39, pre eo, is equivalent to the Mishnic 335 M1", plus quam ei. As the conversion of a sinner, who does not regard himself as righteous, is more to be expected than that of a self-righteous man (Matt. ix. 12 f.), so the putting right of a fool, who is conscious that he is not wise (cf. xxiv. 7), is more likely to be effected than that of one deeming himself wise; for the greatest hindrance to any turning toward that which is better lies in the delusion that he does not need it.2 Thus far the group of proverbs regarding fools.
Ver. 13 The slothful saith there is a lion without, A lion in the midst of the streets;
cf. the original of this proverb, xxii. 13. Sy, to say nothing of ones, is not the jackal; Shei is the bibl. name for the lion. 3 is the more general expression for 23, Isa. v. 25; by the streets he thinks of the rows of houses that form them.
The comparison is clear. The door turns itself on its hinges, on which it hangs, in and out, without passing beyond the narrow space of its motion; so is the fool on his bed, where he turns himself from the one side to the other. He is called dyy, because he is fast glued to the place where he is (Arab. ‘aztla), and cannot be free (contrast of the active, cf. Arab. hafyf, moving nimbly, agzlis). But the door offers itself as a comparison, because the diligent goes out by it to begin his work without (xxiv. 27; Ps. civ. 23), while the sluggard rolls himself about on his bed. The hook, the hinge, on which the door is moved, called ὍΝ, from ἭΝ, to turn,’ has thus the name of 2[57,
Ver. 15 The slothful has thrust his hand into the dish, It is hard for him to bring it back to his mouth again.
Ver. 16 The sluggard is wise in his own eyes, More than seven men who give an excellent answer.
Between slothfulness and conceit there exists no inward necessary mutual relation. The proverb means that the sluggard as such regards himself as wiser than seven, who all together answer well at any examination: much labour—he thinks with himself—only injures the health, blunts men for life and its joys, leads only to over-exertion; for the most prudent is, as a general rule, crack-brained. Bdéttcher’s “ maulfaule” [slow to speak] belongs to the German style of thinking; 5uy sv in Syr. is not he who is slow to speak, but he who has a
1 The Arab. verb signifies radically: to turn, like the Persian verbs kashatn and kardydan, and like our ‘ werden” [to grow, turn], accords with vertere (Fleischer).
faltering tongue.’ Seven is the number of manifoldness in completed unfolding (ix. 1). Meiri thinks, after Ezra vii. 14, on the council of seven of the Asiatic ruler. But seven is a round number of plurality, ver. 25, xxiv. 16, vi. 31. Regarding OYb, vid. at xi. 22.
A series of proverbs which recommend the love of peace, for they present caricatures of the opposite:
Ver. 17 He seizeth by the ears a dog passing by, Who is excited by a strife which concerns him not.
According to the accentuation in the text, the proverb is to be translated with Fleischer: Qualis est qui prehendit aures canis, talis est qui forte transiens ira abripitur propter rizam alienam (eique temere se tmmiscet). Since he is cautioned against unwarranted interference, the expression "12 22YND might have been used (xiv. 10), according to which the Syr. translates; but 2y-°y substantiates the originality of (AYN (vid. xiv. 16, xx. 2). Qn the other hand, the placing together, without any connection of the two participles, is perplexing; why not raynio 139? For it is certainly not meant, that falling into a passion he passes by; but that passing by, he falls into a passion; for he stands to this object. The Targumist, feeling this also, renders 13) in the sense of being angry, but contrary to the usus log. Wherefore the conjecture of Euchel and Abramsohn commends itself, that 12 belongs to 253—the figure thereby becomes more distinct. To seize one’s own dog by the ear is not dangerous, but it is not advisable to do this with a strange dog. Therefore 12» belongs as a necessary attribute to the dog. The dog accidentally passing by corresponds to the strife to which one stands in no relation (i2°N9.3%, vid. regarding the Makkeph, Baer’s Genesis, p. 85, not. 9). Whoever is excited to passion about a strife that does not belong to him, is like one who lays hold by the ears (the 1 ΧΟ Χ,, arbitrarily: by the tail) of a dog that is passing by—to the one or to the other it happens right when he brings evil upon himself thereby. Vers. 18, 19. These verses form a tetrastich:
1 The Aram. Shy is the Hebr. Syy, as NOY= Ay; but in Arab. corresponds not to ’atal, but to ’azal.
19 So is the man who deceiveth his neighbour, And saith: I only make sport.
The old translations of abndm are very diverse. Aquila has rendered it by κακοηθιζόμενος; Symmachus: πειρώμενοι; the Syr.: the vainglorious; the Targ.: NOH (from NM), a successor (spiritually); Jerome: nowxius (injurious; for which Luther: secret). There is thus no traditional translation. Kimchi explains the word by yinwn (Venet. ἐξεστώς); Aben Ezra by nonwa (from mv), to behave thoughtlessly, foolishly; but both erroneously, confounding with it TOM, Gen. xlvii. 13, which is formed from 77? and not from ΠΡ, and is related to ND, according to which adabna would designate him who exerts himself (Rashi, yxnon), or who is worn out (Saadia: who does not know what to do, and in weariness passes his time). The root ain (md, whence the reflex form mononm, like H272N7, from md, FD) leads to another primary idea. The root mp presents in (Arab.) dliha (vid. Fleischer in the Comm. zur Genesis, p. 57), waliha, and taliha, formed from the 8th form of this verb (aittalah), the fundamental meaning of internal and external unrest; these verbs are used of the effect of fear (shrinking back from fear), and, generally, the want of self-command; the Syr. otlahlah, to be terrified, obstupescere, confirms this primary conception, connecting itself with the R. m>. Accordingly, he ‘who shoots every possible death-bringing arrow, is thought of as one who is beside himself, one who is of confused mind, in which sense the passive forms of (Arab.) alah and talah are actually used. Schultens’ reference to (Arab.) lah micare, according to which nonbnp> must mean sicut ludicram micationem exercens (Bottcher: one who exerts himself; Malbim: one who scoffs, from ona), is to be rejected, because mdabno must be the direct opposite of ΡΠ; and Ewald’s comparison of (Arab.) wah and akhkh, to be entangled, distorted, lah, to be veiled, confounds together heterogeneous words. Regarding D’p? (from P21), burning arrows, vid. under Isa. }. 11. Death stands third, not as comprehensive (that which is deadly of every kind), but as a climax (yea, even death itself). The 13 of the principal sentence, correlate to 2 of the contiguous clause, has the Makkeph in our editions; but the laws of the metrical Makkeph require 8 13. (with Munach), as it occurs e.g. in Cod. 1294. A man who gives vent to his malice against his neighbour, and then says: seest thou not that... (Non, like Arab. dd), i.e. I am only jesting, I have only a joke with thee: he exhibits himself as being mad, who in blind rage scatters about him deadly arrows.
There now follow proverbs regarding the nirgdn, the slanderer (vid. regarding the formation and import of this word at xvi. 28):
Ver. 20 Where the wood faileth, the fire goeth out; And where no tale-bearer, discord cometh to silence. Wood, as material for building or for burning, is called, with the plur. of its product, D'¥Y. Since DN is the absolute end of a thing, and thus expresses its no longer existing, so it was more appropriate to wood (Fleischer: consumtis lignis) than to the tale-bearer, of whom the proverb says the same thing as xxii. 10 says of the mocker. Ver. 21 Black coal to burning coal, and wood to fire; And a contentious man to stir up strife.
itself; the latter (from °M3, jaham, to set on fire, and intrans. to burn), coal in a glowing state (e.g. xxv. 22; Ezek. i. 13). Black coal is suited to glowing coal, to nourish it; and wood to the fire, to sustain it; and a contentious man is suited for and serves this purpose, to kindle up strife. ὙΠ signifies to be hot, and the Pilpel 177N, to heat, z.e. to make hot or hotter. The three—coal, wood, and the contentious man—are alike, in that they are a means to an end. Ver. 22 The words of the tale-bearer are like dainty morsels; And they glide down into the innermost parts.
The proverbs next following treat of a cognate theme, hypocrisy (the art of dissembling), which, under a shining [gleissen] exterior,’ conceals hatred and destruction:
Ver. 23 Dross of silver spread over an earthen vessel— Lips glowing with love and a base heart.
Dross of silver is the so-called glatte (French, litharge), a combination of lead and oxygen, which, in the old process of producing silver, was separated (Luther: silberschaum, i.e. the silver litharge; Lat. spuma argenti, having the appearance of foam). It is still used to glaze over potter’s ware, which here (Greek, κέραμος) is briefly called #1 for ὉΠ "3; for the vessel is better in appearance than the mere potsherd. The glossing of the earthenware is called #*1N~>y ΠΕΝ, which is applicable to any kind of covering ("8¥, R. ἢν, to spread or lay out broad) of a less costly material with that which is more precious. 23a contains the figure, and 23d its subscription: ¥9 21 pps oneY. Thus, with the taking away of the Makkeph after Codd., to be punctuated: burning lips, and therewith a base heart; burning, that is, with the fire of love (Meiri, pyinn wx), while yet the assurances of friendship, sealed by ardent kisses, serve only to mask a far different heart. The LXX. translate p'po7 [burning] by λεῖα, and thus have read non [smooth], which Hitzig without reason prefers; burning lips (Jerome, incorrectly: tumentia; Luther, after Deut. xxxii. 33, non: Gifftiger mund = a poisonous mouth) are just flattering, and at the same time hypocritical’ lips. Regarding p’nsy as masc., vid. vol. i. p. 119; yn 25 means, at xxv. 20, animus mestus; here, inimicus. The figure is excellent: one may regard a vessel with the silver gloss as silver, and it is still earthen; and that also which gives forth the silver glance is not silver, but only the refuse of silver. Both are suitable to the comparison: the lips only glitter, the heart is false (Heidenheim). Vers. 24 and 25 form a tetrastich. Ver. 24 With his lips the hater dissembleth, And in his heart he museth deceit.
25 If he maketh his voice agreeable, believe him not, For seven abominations are in his heart.
1 Schultens explains the labia flagrantia by volubiliter prompta et diserta. But one sees from the Arab. dhaluka, to be loose, lightly and easily moved (vid. in Fleischer’s Beitrdgen zur arab. Sprachkunde the explanation of the designation of the liquid expressed with the point of the tongue by dhalkiytt, at i. 26, 27; cf. de Sacy’s Grammar), and dalk, to draw out (of the sword from its scabbard), to rinse (of water), that the meaning of the Heb. nbn, to burn, from R. bs, refers to the idea of the flickering, tonguelike movement of the flame.
All the old translators (also the Venet. and Luther) give to 133" the meaning, to become known; but the Miph. as well as the Hithpa. (vid. at xx. 11; Gen. xlvii. 7) unites with this meaning also the meaning to make oneself known: to make oneself unknown, unrecognisable = (Arab.) tanakkr, e.g. by means of clothing, or by a changed expression of countenance.’ The contrast demands here this latter signification: labiis suis alium se simulat osor, intus in pectore autem reconditum habet dolum (Fleischer). This rendering of 727) Nis more correct than Hitzig’s (“in his breast) he prepares treachery;” for nw m7 is to be rendered after nixy NW, Ps. xiii. 3 (vid. Hupfeld’s and also our comm. on this passage), not after Jer. ix. 7; for one says ΟΡ NW, to place snares, 27% N'Y, to lay an ambush, and the like, but not to place or to lay deceit. If such a dissembler makes his voice agreeable (Piel of }29 only here, for the form Ps. ix. 14 is, as it is punctuated, Kal), trust not thyself to him (84, with 3: to put firm trust in anything, vid. Genesis, p. 3127); for seven abominations, ὦ.6. a whole host of abominable thoughts and designs, are in his heart; he is, if one may express it, after Matt. xii. 45, possessed svseesedly of seven devils. The LXX. makes a history of 24a: an enemy who, under complaints, makes all possible allowances, but in his heart τεκταίνεται δόλους. The history is only too true, but it has no place in the text. Ver. 26 Hatred may conceal itself behind deceit: Its wickedness shall be exposed in the assembly.
1 Vid. de Goeje’s Fragmenta Hist. Arab. ii. (1871), p. 94. The verb 73), primarily to fix one’s attention, sharply to contemplate anything, whence is derived the meanings of knowing and of not knowing, disowning. The account of the origin of these contrasted meanings, in Gesenius-Dietrich’s Lexicon, is essentially correct; but the Arab. nakar there referred to means, not sharpness of mind, from nakar = 3, but from the negative signification prevailing in the Arab. alone, a property by which one makes himself worthy of being disowned: craftiness, cunning, and then also in bonam partem: sagacity.
2 The fundamental idea of firmness in ΝΠ is always in the subject, not the object. The Arabic interpreters remark that G@man with b expresses recognition, and with ὦ submission (vid. Lane’s Lexicon under Gman); but in Hebr. ΝΠ with 3 jfiducia fidet, with 4 assensus fidei; the relation is thus not altogether the same.
true; yet, as we have seen, xii. 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 κρύπ- των, which gives for NY) a more appropriate reference, does not require us to agree with Hitzig in reading D2 (xii. 16, 23),—the two clauses rendered fut. stand in the same syntactical relation, as eg. Job xx. 24. Still less can the rendering of nxvioa by συνίστησι δόλον, by the LXX., induce us to read with Hitzig δὲ Wh, especially since it is doubtful whether the Heb. words which floated before those translators (the LX X.) have been fallen upon. ἤν Ὁ (beginning and ending with a formative syllable) is certainly a word of rare formation, to be compared only to jit1D0, Judg. iii. 23; but since the nearestlying formation XW? signifies usury (from Xv, 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 Nini (vid. under Ps. xxiii. 18), to xiv = "NY, to be confused, waste, as this is done by Parchon, Kimchi (Venet. ἐν ἐρημίᾳ), Ralbag, and others; pwn, in this sense of deepest concealment, certainly says not a little as the contrast of 97? [an assembly], but ἢ) [a desert] stood ready for the poet to be used in this sense; he might also have expressed himself as Job xxx. 3, xxxvill. 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 (/raudulenter), the Targ. (8ND102, 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 ΠΌΞΠ, Codd. and editions present in three different forms. Buxtorf in his Concordance (also Fiirst), and the Basel Biblia Rabbinica, have the form 1D2h; but this is a mistake. Hither 702m (Miph.) or 103M (AMithpa., with the same assimilation of the preformative Nn as in 032, Lev. xiii. 55; 132, Deut. xxi. 8) is to be read; Kimchi, in his Worterbuch, gives 1D3A, which is certainly better supported. A surer contrast of)xwina and >np2 remains in our interpretation; only we translate not as Ewald: “hatred seeks to conceal itself by hypocrisy,” but: in deceitful work. Also we refer inp, not to pxviea, but to nx’, for hatred is thought of in connection with its personal representative. We see from 266 that hatred is meant which not only broods over evil, but also carries it into execution. Such hatred may conceal itself in cunningly-contrived deception, yet the wickedness of the hater in the end comes out from behind the mask with the light of publicity. Ver. 27 He who diggeth a pit falleth therein; And he that rolleth up a stone, upon himself it rolleth back. The thought that destruction prepared for others recoils upon its contriver, has found its expression everywhere among men in divers forms of proverbial sayings; in the form which it here receives, 27a has its oldest original in Ps. vii. 16, whence it is repeated here and in Kccles. x. 8, and Sir. xxvii. 26. Regarding 13, vid. at xvi. 27. 3 here has the sense of in eam ipsam; expressed in French, the proverb is: celui gui creuse la fosse, y tombera; in Italian: chi cava la fossa, cadera in essa. The second line of this proverb accords with Ps. vii. 17 (vid. Hupfeld and Riehm on this passage). It is natural to think of the rolling as a rolling upwards; cf. Sir. xxvii. 25, ὁ βάλλων λίθον eis ὕψος ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ βάλλει, i.e. throws it on his own head. [38 23 is to be syntactically judged of like xviii. 13. Ver. 28 The lying tongue hateth those whom it bruiseth; And a flattering mouth causeth ruin.
The LXX., Jerome, the Targ., and Syr. render ¥37 8)’ in the sense of non amat veritatem; they appear by 137 to have thought of the Aram. §'37, that which is pure; and thus they gain nothing else but an undeniable plain thought. Many Jewish interpreters gloss: m2, also after the Aram.: Y37= YD; but the Aram. ‘33 does not mean pure in the sense of being right, therefore Elia Wilna understands him whi desires to justify himself, and this violent derivation from the Aram. thus does not lead to the end. Luther, translating: “ a false tongue hates those who punish it,” explains, as also Gesenius, conterentes =castigantes ipsam; but ΤΊ signifies, according to the usage of the language before us, “bruised” (vid. Ps. ix. 10), not: bruising; and the thought that the liar hates him who listens to him, leads ad absurdum; but that he does not love him who bruises (punishes) him, is self-evident. Kimchi sees in "23 another form of 831; and Meiri, Jona Gerundi in his ethical work (nawn “yw= The gates of Repentance), and others, accordingly render 27 in the sense of 1) (%2Y): the lying tongue hates—as Lowenstein translates—the humble [pious]; also that for 31, by the omission of 4, ‘27 = ‘3? may be read, is supposable; but this does not harmonize with the second half of the proverb, according to which "pv tie must be the subject, and 137 83%” must express some kind of evil which proceeds from such a tongue. Ewald: “the lying tongue hates its master (ΣΝ), but that is not in accordance with the Heb. style; the word in that case should have been Oya, Hitzig countenances this 137", with the remark that the tongue is here personified; but personified, the tongue certainly means him who has it (Ps. cxx. 3). Bottcher’s conjecture 127 82%, “ confounds their talk,” is certainly a curiosity. Spoken of the sea, those words would mean, “it changes its surge.” But is it then at all necessary to uncover first the meaning of 28a? Rashi, Arama, and others refer 127 to D'D7=O'ND7) (0°57), Thus also perhaps the Venet., which translates τοὺς ἐπιτριμμοὺς (not: ἐπιτετριμμένους) αὐτῆς. C. B. Michaelis: Lingua falsitatis odio habet contritos suos, h. 6. eos quos falsitate ac mendacio ledit contritosque facit. Hitzig objects that it is more correct to say: conterit perosos sili. And certainly this lay nearer, on which account Fleischer remarks: in 28a there is to be supposed a poetic transposition of the ideas (Hypallage): homo qui lingua ad calumnias abutitur conterit eos quos odit. The poet makes ἐξ) the main conception, because it does not come to him so readily to say that the lying tongue bruises those against whom it is directed, as that it is hatred, which is activein this. To say this was by no means superfluous. There are men who find pleasure in repeating and magnifying scandalously that which is depreciatory and disadvantageous to their neighbour unsubstantiated, without being at all conscious of any particular ill-will or personal enmity against him; but this proverb says that such untruthful tongue-thrashing proceeds always from a transgression of the commandment, “ Thou shalt not hate thy brother,” Lev. xix. 17, and not merely from the want of love, but from a state of mind which is the direct opposite of love (vid. x. 18). Ewald finds it incongruous that 28a speaks of that which others have to suffer from the lying tongue, whereas the whole connection of this proverb requires that the tongue should here be regarded as bringing ruin upon its owner himself. But of the destruction which the wicked tongue prepares for others many proverbs also speak, e.g. xii. 13, cf. xvii. 4, ΤΠ 12; and 285 does not mention that the smooth tongue (written pon-nes with Makkeph) brings injury upon itself (an idea which must be otherwise expressed; cf. xiv. 32), but that it brings injury and ruin on those who have pleasure in its flatteries (nipon, Ps, xii. 3; Isa. xxx. 10), and are befooled thereby: os blandiloquum (blanditiis dolum tegens) ad casum impellit, sc. alios (Fleischer).
xxvii. In the group 1-6 of this chapter every two proverbs form a pair. The first pair is directed against unseemly boasting:
Ver. 1 Boast not thyself of to-morrow, For thou knowest not what a day bringeth forth. The 3 of Of'3 is like, e.g. that in xxv. 14, the 3 of the ground of boasting. One boasts of to-morrow when he boasts of that which he will then do and experience. This boasting is foolish and presumptuous (Luke xii. 20), for the future is God’s; not a moment of the future is in our own power, we know not what a day, this present day or to-morrow (Jas. iv. 13), will bring forth, i.e. (cf. Zeph. ii. 2) will disclose, and cannot therefore order anything beforehand regarding it. Instead of yon-nd (with Kametz and Mugrash), YIN-N? (thus e.g. the Cod. Jaman) is to be written; the Masora knows nothing of that pausal form. And instead of δ)" 127770, we write oO} 133 nD with Zinnorith, "0" before oi has the tone thrown back on the penult., and consequently a shortened ult.; the Masora reckons this word among the twenty-five words with only one 7867.
Ver. 2 Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth; A stranger, and not thine own lips. The negative Nd is with 15, as in (Arab.) ghyra fyk, bound into one compact idea: that which is not thine own mouth (Fleischer), “ not thine own lips,” on the other hand, is not to be interpreted as corresponding to it, like MYO" ON, ΧΙ], 28; since after the prohibitive DN, spoon [praise thee] easily supplies itself. Wt is properly the stranger, as having come from a distance, and 3) he who comes from an unknown country, and is himself unknown (vid. under xxvi. 24); the idea of both words, however, passes from advena and alienigena to alius. There is certainly in rare cases a praising of oneself, which is authorized because it is demanded (2 Oor. xi. 18), which, because it is offered strongly against one’s will, will be measured by truth (x. 13); but in general it is improper to applaud oneself, because it is a vain looking at oneself in a glass; it is indecent, because it places others in the shade; imprudent, because it is of no use to us, but only injures, for propria laus sordet, and as Stobiius says, οὐδὲν οὕτως ἄκουσμα φορτικὸν ὡς ὁ Kal αὑτοῦ ἔπαινος. Compare the German proverb, “ Higenlob stinkt, Freundes Lob hinkt, fremdes Lob klingt” [=self-praise stinks, a friend’s praise is lame, a stranger’s praise sounds].
The second pair of proverbs designates two kinds of violent passion as unbearable:
Ver. 3 The heaviness of a stone, the weight of sand— A fool’s wrath is heavier than both.
We do not translate: Gravis est petra et onerosa arena, so that the substantives stand for strengthening the idea, instead of the corresponding adjective (Fleischer, as the LX X., Jerome, Syr., Targum); the two pairs of words stand, as 4a, in genit. relation (cf. on the contrary, xxxi. 30), and it is as if the poet said: represent to thyself the heaviness of a stone and the weight of sand, and thou shalt find that the wrath of a fool compared thereto is still heavier, viz. for him who has to bear it; thus heavier, not for the fool himself (Hitzig, Zockler, Diichsel), but for others against whom his anger goes forth. A Jewish proverb (vid. Tendlau, No. 901) says, that one knows a man by his wine-glass (p13), his purse (0°), and his anger (DY3), viz. how he deports himself in the tumult; and another says that one reads what is in a man \py2 ova, when he is in an illhumour. Thus also py> is to be here understood: the fool in a state of angry, wrathful excitement is so far not master of himself that the worst is to be feared; he sulks and shows hatred, and rages without being appeased; no one can calculate what he may attempt, his behaviour is unendurable. Sand, Sin, as it appears, as to the number of its grains innumerable, so as to its mass (in weight) immeasurable, Job vi. 3; Sir. xxii. 13. δ) the Venet. translates, with strict regard to the etymology, by ἅρμα. Ver. 4 The madness of anger, and the overflowing of wrath— And before jealousy who keeps his place!
Here also the two pairs of words 4a stand in connection; M38 (for which the Cod. Jaman has incorrectly NY158) is the connecting form; vid. regarding "128, v. 9. Let one imagine the blind, relentless rage of extreme excitement and irritation, a boiling over of anger like a water-flood, which bears everything down along with it—these paroxysms of wrath do not usually continue long, and it is possible to appease them; but jealousy is a passion that not only rages, but reckons calmly; it incessantly ferments through the mind, and when it breaks forth, he perishes irretrievably who is its object. Fleischer generalizes this idea: “enmity proceeding from hatred, envy, or jealousy, it is difficult or altogether impossible to withstand, since it puts into operation all means, both secretly and openly, to injure the enemy.” But after vi. 34 f., cf. Song viii. 8, there is particularly meant the passion of scorned, mortified, deceived love, viz. in the relation of husband and wife.
The third pair of proverbs passes over from this special love between husband and wife to that subsisting between friends:
An integral distich; 73082 has Munach, and instead of the second Metheg Zt urcha, after Thorath Enmeth, p- 11. Zockler, with Hitzig, incorrectly: better than love which, from false indulgence, keeps concealed from his neighbour his faults, when he ought to tell him of them. That would require the phrase NIADD AIX, not NADY. Diachsel, in order to accommodate the text to ἐδῶ meaning, remarks: concealed censure is concealed love; but it is much rather the neglected duty of love,—love without mutual discipline is weak, faint-hearted, and, if it is not too blind to remark in a friend what is worthy of blame, is altogether too forbearing, and essentially without conscience; but it is not “‘ hidden and concealed love.” The meaning of the proverb is different: it is better to be courageously and sternly corrected—on account of some fault committed—by any one, whether he be a foe or a friend, than to be the object of a love which may exist indeed in the heart, but-which fails to make itself manifest in outward act. There are men who continually assure us of the reality and depth of their friendship; but when it is necessary for them to prove their love to be self-denying and generous, they are like a torrent which is dry when one expects to drink water from it (Job vi. 15). Such “secret” love, or, since the word is not NADI, but NAD, love confined to the heart alone, is like a fire which, when it burns secretly, neither lightens nor warms; and before such a friend, any one who frankly and freely tells the truth has by far the preference, for although he may pain us, yet he does us good; while the former deceives us, for he leaves us in the lurch when it is necessary to love us, not merely in word and with the tongue, but in deed and in truth (1 John iii. 18). Rightly Fleischer: Prestat correptio aperta amicitie tecte, 1.6. nulla re probate.
Ver. 6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend, _ And overloaded [plentiful] the kisses of an enemy.
The contrast to 0°82, true, z.e. honourable and good (with the transference of the character of the person to his act), would be fraudulenta (Jerome), or M257), i.e. false (Ralbag); Ewald seeks this idea from “ny, to stumble, make a false step;! Hitzig, from any = (Arab.) dadhr, whence dédhir, perfidus, to gain from; but (1) the comparison does not lie near, since usually the Arab. “> corresponds to the Heb. wv, and the Arab. ὁ to the Heb. 1; (2) the Heb. ny has already three meanings, and it is not advisable to load it with yet another meaning assumed for this passage, and elsewhere not found. The three meanings are the following: (a) to smoke, Aram. by, whence “MY, vapour, Ezek. viii. 11, according to which the Venet., with Kimchi’s and Parchon’s Lez., translates: the kisses of an enemy συνωμίχλωνται, i.e. are fog; (b) to sacrifice, to worship, Arab. atar; according to which Aquila: ἱκετικά (as, with Grabe, it is probably to be read for ἑκούσια of the LX X.); and agreeably to the Niph., but too artificially, Arama: obtained by entreaties = constrained; (c) to heap up, whence Hiph. hyn, Ezek. xxxv. 13, cf. Jer. xxxiii. 6, according to which Rashi, Meiri, Gesenius, Fleischer, Bertheau, and most explain, cogn. with Wy, whose Aram. form is "WY, for WY 15. properly a heap of goods or treasures.' This third meaning gives to the kisses of an enemy a naturai adjective: they are too abundant, so much the more plentiful to veil over the hatred, like the kisses by means of which Judas betrayed his Lord, not merely denoted by φιλεῖν, but by καταφιλεῖν, Matt. xxvi. 49. This, then, is the contrast, that the strokes inflicted by one who truly loves us, although they tear into our flesh (Y¥8, from Y¥B, to split, to tear open), yet are faithful (cf. Ps. exli. 5); on the contrary, the enemy covers over with kisses him to whom he wishes all evil. Thus also nny) forms an indirect contrast to DYN).
In 7-10 there is also visible a weaving of the external with the internal. First, there are two proverbs, in each of which there is repeated a word terminating with 3.
Ver. 7 A satisfied soul treadeth honeycomb under foot; And a hungry soul—everything bitter is (to it) sweet. It is unnecessary to read MIA (Hitzig); 553M is stronger; “ to tread with the feet” is the extreme degree of scornful despite. That satiety and hunger are applicable to the soul, vid. under x. 3. In 7, the adverb 79, relative to the nomin. absol., like xxviii. 7, but not xiii. 18. “‘ Hunger is the best cook,” according to a German proverb; the Hebrew proverb is so formed that it is easily transferred to the sphere of the soul. Let the man whom God has richly satisfied with good things guard himself against ingratitude towards the Giver, and against an undervaluing of the gifts received; and if they are spiritual blessings, let him guard himself against self-satisfaction and self-contentment, which is, in truth, the worst poverty, Rev. iii. 17; for life without God is a constant hunger and thirst. There is in worldly things, even the most pleasing, a dissatisfaction felt, and a dissatisfaction awakening disgust; and in spiritual life, a satiety which supposes itself to be full of life, but which is nothing else than the decay of life, than the changing of life into death.
Ver. 8 As a bird that wandereth from her nest, So is a man that wandereth from his home.
It is not a flying out that is meant, from which at any moment a return is possible, but an unwilling taking to flight (LXX. 8b: ὅταν ἀποξενωθῇ; Venet.: πλανούμενον... πλανούμενος); for Ὑ2) Fiy, Isa. xvi. 2, cf. Jer. iv. 25, birds that have been frightened; and 773, xxi. 15 f., designates the fugitive; cf. 33) ¥3, Gen. iv. 14, and above, xxvi. 2, where 13) designates aimless roving about. Otherwise Fleischer: “ warning against unnecessary roaming about, in journeyings and wanderings far from home: as a bird far from its nest is easily wounded, caught, or killed, so, on such excursions, one easily comes to injury and want. One may think of a journey in the East. The Arabs say, in one of their proverbs: dlsafar kat’ at man alklyym (= journeying is a part of the pains of hell).” But 1) here is not to be understood in the sense of a libere vagari. Rightly C. B. Michaelis: gui vagatur extorris et exul a loco suo sc. natali vel habitationis ordinarie. This proverb mediately recommends the love of one’s fatherland, 1.6. “ love to the land in which our father has his home; on which our paternal mansion stands; in which we have spent the years of our childhood, so significant a part of one’s whole life; from which we have derived our bodily and intellectual nourishment; and in which home we recognise bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.”* But next it says, that to be in a strange land must be an unhappiness, because a man never feels better than at home, as the bird in its nest. We say: Heimat [home]—this beautiful word becomes the German language, which has also coined the expressive idea of Heimweh [longiig for home]; the
Heb. uses, to express the idea of home, the word ‘m1pp; and of fatherland, the word ‘yx or ΠΝ. The Heb. m2% corresponds * to the German Elend, but = Ellend, elilenti, of another land, strange.
The two following proverbs have in common the catchword yo, and treat of the value of friendship:—
Ver. 9 Oil and frankincense rejoice the heart;
Regarding the perfuming with dry aromas, and sprinkling with liquid aromas, as a mark of honour towards guests, and as a © means of promoting joyful social fellowship, vid. at vii. 16 f., xxi. 17. The pred. Πρ) comprehends frankincense or oil as the two sides of one and the same thing; the L XX. introduces, from Ps. civ. 15, also wine. It also reads myn pny as one word, MIPNMA: καταῤῥήγνυται δὲ ὑπὸ συμπτωμάτων ψυχή, which Hitzig regards as original; for he translates, understanding Ny after Ps. xiii. 3, “ but the soul is torn by cares.” But why ayrpnn, this Hithpa. without example, for 7772? and now connected with j® in the sense of ὑπό! And what does one gain by this Alexandrian wisdom [of the LX X.]—a contrast to 9a which is altogether incongruous? Déderlein’s rendering accords far better with 9a: ‘“‘ but the sweetness of a friend surpasses fragrant wood.” But although this rendering of the word [ΠῸ}] by “ fragrant wood” is found in Gesen. Lez., from one edition to another, yet it must be rejected; for the word signifies wood as the contents of trees, the word for aromatic wood must be O°’; and if the poet had not intentionally aimed at dubiety, he ought to have written DW2 ‘¥Y, since 5), with the exception of Isa. iii. 20, where it is bey ond dustthte nowhere means fragrance. If we read nyy and wes meinen then we may suppose that the latter designates the soul, as at Ps, xii. 3; and the former, counsel (from the verb /Y"). But to what does the suffix of *1¥) refer? One may almost conjecture that the words originally were 30) ΠΥ wb? pnd, and the sweetness of the soul (1.6. a sweet relish for it, cf. ver. 7 and xvi. 24) consists in the counsel of a friend, according to which Jerome translates: et bonis amici consilits anima dulcoratur. By this transposition 1737 refers back to wD); for if nephesh denote a person or a living being, it can be construed ad sensum as masc., 6.9. Num. xxxi. 28. But the words may remain in the order in which they are transmitted to us. It is possible that 397 is (Bottcher refers to Job xii. 4) of the same meaning as 37 (the friend of one =the friend), as 13 denotes directly the whole; tn, the half; imy, the right time. Recognising this, Cocceius, Taubreit, Stier, and Zockler explain: sweetness,
1.e. the sweet erg ® pee (Pn, in the sense of “ sweetness (grace) of the lips,” xvi. 21) of a friend, is better than one’s own counsel, than prudence seeking to help oneself, and trusting merely to one’s own resources; thus also Rashi: better than what one’s own soul advises him. But (1) v5) cannot mean one’s own person (oneself) in contrast to another person; and (2) this does not supply a correct antithesis to 9a. Thus yo will not express the preference, but the origin. Accordingly Ewald, e¢.g., explains: the sweetness of a friend whom one has proceedeth from the counsel of soul, z.e. from such counsel as is drawn from a deep, full soul. But no proof can be brought from the usage of the language that we-nyy can be so meant; these words, after the analogy of wp) nys, xix. 2, mean ability to give counsel as a quality of the soul (vii. 14; Job xii. 13), 1.6. its ability to advise. Accordingly, with Bertheau, we explain ab-nne” as the common predicate for 9a and 95: ointment and perfume rejoice the heart, and (the Syr., Targ., well: even so) the sweet exhortation of a friend, from a soul capable of rendering counsel; also, this and this, more than that fragrance. This proverb is formed in the same way as xxvi. 9,14. In this explanation \nyn is well referred back to 25: and (more than) the sweet advice of his friend. But not so that 13% is equivalent to abn yi, for one does not thus speak; but the construction is as when we say, in the German language: Nichts thut einem Herzen woler als wenn sein Freund es mitfiihlend tréstet [nothing does more good to a heart than when a friend sympathizingly comforts it]; or: Zage nicht, tief betriibtes Herz! Dein Freund lebt und wird dir bald sich zeigen [ Be not dismayed, deeply-troubled heart! thy friend lives, and will soon show himself to thee]. In such cases the word “ Herz” [heart] does not designate a distinct part of the person, but, synecdochically, it denotes the whole person.
Thine own friend and the friend of thy father forsake not, And into thy brother’s house go not in the day of thy misfortune— Better is a near neighbour than a far-off brother.
In our editions al is incorrectly pointed with Pasek after it, so that the accent is Asla Legarmeh; the Pasek is, after the example of older editions, with Norzi, to be cancelled, so that only the conjunctive Asla remains; “thine own and the friend of thy father” denotes the family friend, like some family heirloom, descending from father to son. Such an old tried friend one must certainly not give up. The Kert changes the second ΠΡ) into YN, but WN (which, after the Masora in st. constr., retains its segol, Ewald, ὃ 2116) is also admissible, for a form of comparison (Hitzig) this 137 is not, but the fuller form of the abbreviated 7, from ΠΡ, to take care of, to tend, a participial. Such a proved friend one ought certainly not to give up, and in the time of heavy trial (vid. regarding 7X, i. 26) one should go to him and not to a brother’s house—it is by this supposed that, as xvili. 24 says, there is a degree of friendship (cf. xvii. 17) which in regard to attachment stands above that of mere fraternal relationship, and it is true; blood-relationship, viewed in itself, stands as a relationship of affection on natural grounds below friendship, which is a relationship of life on moral grounds. But does blood-relationship exclude friendship of soul? cannot my brother be at the same time my heart-friend? and is not friendship all the firmer when it has at the same time its roots in the spirit and in natural grounds? The poet seems to have said this, for in 10c, probably a popular saying (cf. “ Besser Nachbar an der Wand als Bruder iiber Land” [Better a neighbour by one’s side than a brother abroad]), he gives to his advice a foundation, and at the same time a limitation which modifies its ruggedness. But Dichsel places (like Schultens) in 392 and PIM meanings which the words do not contain, for he interprets them of inward nearness and remoteness; and Zockler reads between the lines, for he remarks, a “near neighbour” is one who is near to the oppressed to counsel and help them, and a “distant brother” is one who with an unamiable disposition remains far from the oppressed. The state of the matter is simple. If one has a tried friend in neighbourly nearness, so in the time of distress, when he needs consolation and help, he must go to this friend, and not first to the house of a brother dwelling at a distance, for the former certainly does for us what the latter probably may and probably may not do for us.
Ver.11. This proverb has, in common with the preceding tristich, the form of an address:
That I may give an answer to my accusers. Better than “ be wise” (Luther), we translate “ become wise” (LXX. σοφὸς yivov); for he who is addressed might indeed be wise, though not at present so, so that his father is made to listen to such deeply wounding words as these, “Cursed be he who begat, and who educated this man” (Malbim). The cohortative clause 110 (cf. Ps. cxix. 42) has the force of a clause with a purpose (Gesen. ὃ cxxviii. 1): wt habeam quod us qui me convicientur regerere possim; it does not occur anywhere in the Hezekiah collection except here.
The prudent man seeth the misfortune, hideth himself; The simple pass on, suffer injury.
§ 349a, calls it a “ Steinschrift” [an inscription on a stone]. The perfects united in pairs with, and yet more without, Vav, express the coincidence’ as to time.
Take from him the garment, for he hath become surety for another, And for the sake of a strange matter put him under bonds.
1 The second Munach is at xxii. 3, as well as here, according to the rule xviii. 4 of the Accentuationssystem, the transformation of the Dechi, and preserves its value of interpunction; the Legarmeh of \pyry is, however, a disjunctive of less force than Dechi, so that thus the sequence of the accents denotes that ΠΡ MNT Oy is a clause related to ἽΠ 3) as a hypothetical antecedent: if the prudent sees the calamity, then he hides himself from it. This syntactic relation is tenable at xxii. 3, but not here at xxvii. 12. Here, at least, pry would be better with Rebia, to which the following Dechi would subordinate itself. The prudent seeth the evil, concealeth himself; or also, prudent is he who sees the evil, hides himself. For of two disjunctives before Athnach, the first, according as it is greater or less than the second, retains either Legarmeh (e.g. Ps. i. 5, Ixxxvi. 12, Ixxxviii. 14, cix. 14) or Rebia (xii. 2; Ps. xxv. 2, Ixix. 9, cxlvi. 5).
is taken, and who afterwards leaves him in the lurch with the debts for which he had become security, to show her costly favour to another.
Ver. 14. This proverb, passing over the three immediately intervening, connects itself with vers. 9 and 10. It is directed against cringing, noisy complimenting:
He who blesseth his neighbour with a loud voice, rising early in the
The first line is intentionally very heavy, in order to portray the empressement of the maker of compliments: he calls out to another his good wishes with a loud voice, so as to make the impression of deep veneration, of deeply felt thankfulness, but in reality to gain favour thereby, and to commend himself to greater acts of kindness; he sets himself to meet him, having risen up (Ὁ 3) Π, adverbial inf. abs.; cf. Jer. xliv. 4 with xxv. 4) early in the morning, to offer his captatio benevolentie as speedily as possible; but this salutation of good wishes, the affected zeal in presenting which is a sign of a selfish, calculating, servile soul, is reckoned to him as np, viz. before God and every one who can judge correctly of human nature, also before him who is complimented in so ostentatious and troublesome a manner, the true design of which is thus seen. Others understand the proverb after the example of Berachoth 14a, that one ought to salute no one till he has said his morning’s praver, because honour is due before all to God (the Book of Wisdom, x. 28); and others after Erachin 16a, according to which one is meant who was invited as a guest of a generous lord, and was liberally entertained, and who now on the public streets blesses him, 1.9. praises him for his nobility of mind—such blessing is a curse to him whom it concerns, because this trumpeting of his praise brings upon him a troublesome, importunate crowd. But plainly the particularity of ‘0 “ipa lays the chief emphasis on the servility manifested; and one calls to mind the case of the clients besieging the doors of their patrons, those clientes matutini, each of whom sought to be the first in the salutatio of his distinguished wealthy patron.
Ver. 15. This proverb passes from the complimentarius to its opposite, a shrewish wife:
A continual dropping in a rainy day And a contentious woman are alike.
Thus we have already translated (vol. i. p. 9), where, when treating of the manifold forms of parabolic proverbs, we began with this least poetic, but at the same time remarked that vers. 15 and 16 are connected, forming a tetrastich, which is certainly the case according to the text here lying before us. In verse 15, xix. 13) is expanded into a distich, and made a complete verse. Regarding Tb ADT, vid. the explanation there but the Targumist retains, because it is in common use in the post.-bibl. Heb. (Bereschith rabba, c. 1) and the Jewish Aramaic, signifies violent rain, after the Jewish interpreters, because then the people remain shut up in their houses; more correctly, perhaps, from the unbroken continuousness and thickness (cf. the Arab. insajara, to go behind each other in close column) with which the rain pours down. Regarding DTD, Keri ON, vid. vi. 14; the genit. connection of Ὁ NWS we had already at xxi. 9. The form MAY is doubtful. If accented, with Léwenstein and others, as Mulra, then we would have a Nithkatal before us, as at Num. i. 47, or a Hothkatal—a passive form of the Kal, the existence of which, however, is not fully established. Rather this word is to be regarded as ΠῚ} (Nithpa. as Deut. xxi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 48) without the dagesh, and lengthened; the form of the word 71nW9, as found in the Cod. Jaman., aims at this. But the form nine is better established, e.g. by Cod. 1294, as Afilel. Kimchi, ‘Michlol 1314 (cf. Ewald, § 132c), regards it as a form without the dagesh, made up of the Niph. and Hithpa., leaving the penultima toning unexplained. Bertheau regards it as a voluntative: let us compare (as ΠΡ ΓΙΌΣ, Isa. xli. 23); but as he himself says, the reflexive form does not accord with this sense. Hitzig has adopted the right explanation (cf. Olshausen, § 275, and Bottcher, § 1072, who, however, registers it at random as an Ephraimitism). nw is a Niphal, with a transposition of consonants for nn, since ΠΣ) passes over into ΠΡ), Such is now the genus in the arrangement; the Milra form would be as mase. syntactically inaccurate. ‘“ The finite following the subjects is regulated by the gender and number of that which is next before it, as at 2 Sam. ili. 22, xx. 20; Ps. lv. 6; Job xix. 15” (Hitzig).
Ver. 16. This verse stands in close connection with the preceding, for it speaks of the contentious woman:
The connection of the plur. subject M25¥ = guicungque eam cohibet, with a sing. predicate, is not to be disputed (vid. iii. 18 and xxvill. 16, Chethib); but can jb¥ gain from the meaning of preserving, laying up, also the meanings of keeping, of confining, and shutting up?—for these meanings we have N?2 and 78Y (cf. WS, xxx. 4). In 160 it lies nearer to see in 1° the object of the clause (oil meeteth his right hand) than the subject (his right hand meeteth oil), for the gender of δὴ" directs to " (e.g. Ezek. xv. 65; cf. 6a, where ‘T7182 is as to gender indifferent): it is fem., while on the contrary }D¥ is generally masc. (cf. Song i.3). There is no reason for regarding 1p’ as an adverbial accus. (he meets oil with his right hand), or, with Hitzig, as a second subject (he meets oil, his right hand); the latter, in the order of the words lying before us, is not at all possible. We suppose that δ᾽", as at Gen. xlix. 1, is equivalent to 77?" (Ewald, ὃ 116c), for the explanation oleum deatere ejus preconem agit (Cocceius, Schultens) does not explain, but only darkens; and olewm deatera sud legit, 1.6. colligit (Fleischer), is based on an untenable use of the word. As one may say of person to person, 77}, occurrit tibi, Num. xxv. 18, so also δὲ) (77>), of a thing that meets a man or one of his members; and if we compare nN 1p? and “IP, then for 166 the meaning is possible: oil meets his right hand; the quarrelsome woman is like oil that cannot be held in the hand, which struggles against that which holds it, for it always glides out of the hand. Thus also Luther: “ and seeks to hold oil with his hand,” as if he read 720). In fact, this word was more commonly used as the expression of untenableness than the colourless and singular word sp, which, besides, is so ambiguous, that none of the old translators has thought on any other xp than that which signifies “to call,” “ to name.” The Jewish interpreters also adhere to this nearest lying 1p, and, moreover, explain, as the Syr., Targ., Aquila, Symmachus, Jerome, and the Venet., 12" jw, according to the accentuation as genit. connected, 6.9. Rashi: he calls for oil to his right hand, viz. as the means of purification from leprosy, Lev. viii. 14 [xiv. 16]; and Aben Ezra: even when he calls for oil to his right hand, ἐ.6. would move them to silence with the precious anointing oil. Perhaps ver. 16 was originally an independent proverb as follows: myn IBY Nm MEY NAP? WD" joOws He who layeth up riches in store layeth up the wind, And he nameth them the fat of his right hand;
strong (1o¥, as at Ps. cix. 24, opp. Zech. xi. 17; cf. "20v03, Isa. x. 16, and regarding ‘Eopown, the Pheenican phd of health, at Isa. lis 10), and yet it is only the wind, ¢.e. something that is worthless and transient, which he stored up (ΒΝ, as at xiii. 22, and in ἸΣΞΝ 9, Obad. ver. 6). in is used as it frequently occurs in the Book of Proverbs, eg. xi. 4, and the whole proverb expresses by another figure the same as xviii. 11. The fact that pp¥ (ny), xxv. 23, and as a contrast thereto in the compass jo’ (the south), hovered before the poet, may not have been without its influence on the choice of the words and expression here.
Ver. 17. This proverb expresses the influence arising from the intercourse of man with man:
When the Masora reads 7’, Ewald remarks, it interprets the word as denoting “at the same time,” and the further meaning of the proverb must then accord therewith. Accordingly he translates: “iron together with iron! and one together with the face of another!” But then the prep. 3 or ody is wanting after the second 1m'—for 1M is, in spite of Ewald, ὃ 217h, never a prep. —and the “face,” 176, would be a perplexing superfluity. Hitzig already replies, but without doing homage to the traditional text-punctuation, that such a violence to the use of language, and such a darkening of the thought, is not at all to be accepted. He suggests four ways of interpreting 1m: (1) the adverb 11, united, properly (taken accusat.) union; (2) 7h, Ps. Ixxxvi. 11, imper. of the Piel 1M, unite; (3) 3M, Job iii. 6, in 1m the idea of sharpening lies; in the Arab. iron is simply called hadyda=85N, that which is sharpened, sharp; and a current Arab, proverb says: alhadyd balhadyd yuflah = ferrum ferro diffinditur (vid. Freytag under the word falah). But is the traditional text-punctuation thus understood to be rightly maintained? It may be easily changed in conformity with the meaning, but not so that with Bottcher we read 7M and 7m, the fut. Kal of ὙΠ: “iron sharpeneth itself on iron, and a man sharpeneth himself over against his neighbour”—for ‘35 after a verb to be understood actively, has to be regarded as the object—but since 79° is changed into 1M (fut. Hiph. of 710), and 7M! into 3M or IM (fut. Hiph. of ὙΠ, after the form nx, incipiam, Deut. ii. 25, or on, profanabo, Ezek. xxxix. 7; Num. xxx.3). The passive rendering of the idea 17a and the active of 176 thus more distinctly appear, and the unsuitable jussive forms are set aside: ferrum ferro exacuitur, et homo exacuit faciem amici sui (Jerome, Targ., the Venet.). But that is not necessary. As 2) may be the fut. of the Hiph. (he brought up) as well as of the Kal (he went up), so 7° may be regarded as fut. Kal, and 7M as fut. Hiph. Fleischer prefers to render 1M! also as Hiph.: aciem exhibet, like wy", divitias acquirit, and the like; but the jussive is not favourable to this supposition of an intransitive (inwardly transitive) Hiph. It may indeed be said that the two jussives appear to be used, according to poetic licence, with the force of indicatives (cf. under xii. 26), but the repetition opposes it. Thus we explain: iron is sharpened [gewetet, Luther uses this appropriate word] by iron (3 of the means, not of the object, which was rather to be expected in 176 after xx. 30), and a man whets 55, the appearance, the deportment, the nature, and manner of the conduct of his neighbour. The proverb requires that the intercourse of man with man operate in the way of sharpening the manner and forming the habits and character; that one help another to culture and polish of manner, rub off his ruggedness, round his corners, as one has to make use of iron when he sharpens iron and seeks to make it bright. The jussive form is the oratorical form of the expression of that which is done, but also of that which is to be done.
The following three proverbs are connected with 17 in their similarity of form:—
And he that hath regard to his master attaineth to honour. The first member is, as in ver. 17, only the means of contemplating the second; as faithful care of the tree has fruit for ἃ. reward, so faithful regard for one’s master, honour; 7¥) is used as at Isa. xxvii. 3, Ὁ as at Hos. iv. 10, etc.—the proverb is valid in the case of any kind of master up to the Lord of lords. The fig-tree presented itself, as Heidenheim remarks, as an appropriate figure; because in the course of several years’ training it brings forth its fruit, which the language of the Mishna distinguishes as 25, unripe, Sma, half ripe, and δον, fully ripe. To fruit in the first line corresponds honour in the second, which the faithful and attentive servant attains unto first on the part of his master, and then also from society in general. Ver. 19 As it is with water, face correspondeth to face, So also the heart of man to man.