{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"PRO","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Proverbs","commonName":"Proverbs","introduction":"The Book of Proverbs\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe Book of Proverbs bears the external title ספר משׁלי, which it derives from the words with which it commences. It is one of the three books which are distinguished from the other twenty-one by a peculiar system of accentuation, the best exposition of which that has yet been given is that by S. Baer,\n\n(Note: Cf. Outlines of Hebrew Accentuation, Prose and Poetical, by Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh, 1861, based on Baer's Torath Emeth, Rdelheim 1872.)\n\nas set forth in my larger Psalmen-commentar\n\n(Note: Vol. ii., ed. of 1860, pp. 477-511).\n\nThe memorial word for these three books, viz., Job, Mishle (Proverbs), and Tehillim (Psalms), is אמת, formed from the first letter of the first word of each book, or, following the Talmudic and Masoretic arrangement of the books, תאם.\n\nHaving in view the superscription משׁלי שׁלמת, with which the book commences, the ancients regarded it as wholly the composition of Solomon. The circumstance that it contains only 800 verses, while according to Kg1 5:12 (Kg1 4:32) Solomon spake 3000 proverbs, R. Samuel bar-Nachmani explains by remarking that each separate verse may be divided into two or three allegories or apothegms (e.g., Pro 25:12), not to mention other more arbitrary modes of reconciling the discrepancy.\n\n(Note: Pesikta, ed. Buber (1868), 34b, 35a. Instead of 800, the Masora reckons 915 verses in the Book of Proverbs.)\n\nThe opinion also of R. Jonathan, that Solomon first composed the Canticles, then the Proverbs, and last of all Ecclesiastes, inasmuch as the first corresponds\n\n(Note: Schir-ha-Schirim Rabba, c. i.f. 4a.)\n\nwith the spring-time of youth, the second with the wisdom of manhood, and the third with the disappointment of old age, is founded on the supposition of the unity of the book and of its Solomonic authorship.\n\nAt the present day also there are some, such as Stier, who regard the Book of Proverbs from first to last as the work of Solomon, just as Klauss (1832) and Randegger (1841) have ventured to affirm that all the Psalms without exception were composed by David. But since historical criticism has been applied to Biblical subjects, that blind submission to mistaken tradition appears as scarcely worthy of being mentioned. The Book of Proverbs presents itself as composed of various parts, different from each other in character and in the period to which they belong. Under the hands of the critical analysis it resolves itself into a mixed market of the most manifold intellectual productions of proverbial poetry, belonging to at least three different epochs.\n\n1. The External Plan of the Book of Proverbs, and Its Own Testimony as to Its Origin\n\nThe internal superscription of the book, which recommends it, after the manner of later Oriental books, on account of its importance and the general utility of its contents, extends from Pro 1:1 to Pro 1:6. Among the moderns this has been acknowledged by Lwenstein and Maurer; for Pro 1:7, which Ewald, Bertheau, and Keil have added to it, forms a new commencement to the beginning of the book itself. The book is described as \"The Proverbs of Solomon,\" and then there is annexed the statement of its object. That object, as summarily set forth in Pro 1:2, is practical, and that in a twofold way: partly moral, and partly intellectual. The former is described in Pro 1:3-5. It presents moral edification, moral sentiments for acceptance, not merely to help the unwise to attain to wisdom, but also to assist the wise. The latter object is set forth in Pro 1:6. It seeks by its contents to strengthen and discipline the mind to the understanding of thoughtful discourses generally. In other words, it seeks to gain the moral ends which proverbial poetry aims at, and at the same time to make familiar with it, so that the reader, in these proverbs of Solomon, or by means of them as of a key, learns to understand such like apothegms in general. Thus interpreted, the title of the book does not say that the book contains proverbs of other wise men besides those of Solomon; if it did so, it would contradict itself. It is possible that the book contains proverbs other than those of Solomon, possible that the author of the title of the book added such to it himself, but the title presents to view only the Proverbs of Solomon. If Pro 1:7 begins the book, then after reading the title we cannot think otherwise than that here begin the Solomonic proverbs. If we read farther, the contents and the form of the discourses which follow do not contradict this opinion; for both are worthy of Solomon. So much the more astonished are we, therefore, when at Pro 10:1 we meet with a new superscription, משׁלי שׁלמה, from which point on to Pro 22:16 there is a long succession of proverbs of quite a different tone and form - short maxims, Mashals proper - while in the preceding section of the book we find fewer proverbs than monitory discourses. What now must be our opinion when we look back from this second superscription to the part 1:7-9:18, which immediately follows the title of the book? Are 1:7-9:18, in the sense of the book, not the \"Proverbs of Solomon\"? From the title of the book, which declares them to be so, we must judge that they are. Or are they \"Proverbs of Solomon\"? In this case the new superscription (Pro 10:1), \"The Proverbs of Solomon,\" appears altogether incomprehensible. And yet only one of these two things is possible: on the one side, therefore, there must be a false appearance of contradiction, which on a closer investigation disappears. But on which side is it? If it is supposed that the tenor of the title, Pro 1:1-6, does not accord with that of the section 10:1-22:6, but that it accords well with that of 1:7-9:18 (with the breadth of expression in 1:7-9:18, it has also several favourite words not elsewhere occurring in the Book of Proverbs; among these, ערמה, subtilty, and מזמּה, discretion, Pro 1:4), then Ewald's view is probable, that chap. 1-9 is an original whole written at once, and that the author had no other intention than to give it as an introduction to the larger Solomonic Book of Proverbs beginning at Pro 10:1. But it is also possible that the author of the title has adopted the style of the section Prov 1:7-9:18. Bertheau, who has propounded this view, and at the same time has rejected, in opposition to Ewald, the idea of the unity of the section, adopts this conclusion, that in 1:8-9:18 there lies before us a collection of the admonitions of different authors of proverbial poetry, partly original introductions to larger collections of proverbs, which the author of the title gathers together in order that he may give a comprehensive introduction to the larger collection contained in 10:1-22:16. But such an origin of the section as Bertheau thus imagines is by no means natural; it is more probable that the author, whose object is, according to the title of the book, to give the proverbs of Solomon, introduces these by a long introduction of his own, than that, instead of beginning with Solomon's proverbs, he first presents long extracts of a different kind from collections of proverbs. If the author, as Bertheau thinks, expresses indeed, in the words of the title, the intention of presenting, along with the \"Proverbs of Solomon,\" also the \"words of the wise,\" then he could not have set about his work more incorrectly and self-contradictorily than if he had begun the whole, which bears the superscription \"Proverbs of Solomon\" (which must be regarded as presenting the proverbs of Solomon as a key to the words of the wise generally), with the \"words of the wise.\" But besides the opinion of Ewald, which in itself, apart from internal grounds, is more natural and probable than that of Bertheau, there is yet the possibility of another. Keil, following H. A. Hahn, is of opinion, that in the sense of the author of the title, the section 1-9 is Solomonic as well as 10-22, but that he has repeated the superscription \"Proverbs of Solomon\" before the latter section, because from that point onward proverbs follow which bear in a special measure the characters of the Mashal (Hvernick's Einl. iii. 428). The same phenomenon appears in the book of Isaiah, where, after the general title, there follows an introductory address, and then in Isa 2:1 the general title is repeated in a shorter form. That this analogy, however, is here inapplicable, the further discussion of the subject will show.\n\nThe introductory section Prov 1:7-9:18, and the larger section 10:1-22:16, which contains uniform brief Solomonic apothegms, are followed by a third section, 22:17-24:22. Hitzig, indeed, reckons 10:1-24:22 as the second section, but with Pro 22:17 there commences an altogether different style, and a much freer manner in the form of the proverb; and the introduction to this new collection of proverbs, which reminds us of the general title, places it beyond a doubt that the collector does not at all intend to set forth these proverbs as Solomonic. It may indeed be possible that, as Keil (iii. 410) maintains, the collector, inasmuch as he begins with the words, \"Incline thine ear and hear words of the wise,\" names his own proverbs generally as \"words of the wise,\" especially since he adds, \"and apply thine heart to my knowledge;\" but this supposition is contradicted by the superscription of a fourth section, Pro 24:23., which follows. This short section, an appendix to the third, bears the superscription, \"These things also are לחכמים.\" If Keil thinks here also to set aside the idea that the following proverbs, in the sense of this superscription, have as their authors \"the wise,\" he does unnecessary violence to himself. The ל is here that of authorship and if the following proverbs are composed by the חכמים, \"the wise,\" then they are not the production of the one חכם, \"wise man,\" Solomon, but they are \"the words of the wise\" in contradistinction to \"the Proverbs of Solomon.\"\n\nThe Proverbs of Solomon begin again at Pro 25:1; and this second large section (corresponding to the first, 10:1-22:16) extends to chap. 29. This fifth portion of the book has a superscription, which, like that of the preceding appendix, commences thus: \"Also (גּם) these are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah collected.\" The meaning of the word העתּיקוּ is not doubtful. It signifies, like the Arameo-Arabic נסח, to remove from their place, and denote that the men of Hezekiah removed from the place where they found them the following proverbs, and placed them together in a separate collection. The words have thus been understood by the Greek translator. From the supplementary words αἱ ἀδιάκριτοι (such as exclude all διάκρισις) it is seen that the translator had a feeling of the important literary historical significance of that superscription, which reminds us of the labours of the poetical grammarians appointed by Pisitratus to edit older works, such as those of Hesiod. The Jewish interpreters, simply following the Talmud, suppose that the \"also\" (גּם) belongs to the whole superscription, inclusive of the relative sentence, and that it thus bears witness to the editing of the foregoing proverbs also by Hezekiah and his companions;\n\n(Note: Vid., B. Bathra, 15a. From the fact that Isaiah outlived Hezekiah it is there concluded that the Hezekiah-collegium also continued after Hezekiah's death. Cf. Frst on the Canon of the O.T. 1868, p. 78f.)\n\nwhich is altogether improbable, for then, if such were the meaning of the words, \"which the men of Hezekiah,\" etc., they ought to have stood after Pro 1:1. The superscription Pro 25:1 thus much rather distinguishes the following collection from that going before, as having been made under Hezekiah. As two appendices followed the \"Proverbs of Solomon,\" 10:1-22:16, so also two appendices the Hezekiah-gleanings of Solomonic proverbs. The former two appendices, however, originate in general from the \"wise,\" the latter more definitely name the authors: the first, chap. 30, is by \"Agur the son of Jakeh;\" the second, Pro 31:1-9, by a \"King Lemuel.\" In so far the superscriptions are clear. The name of the authors, elsewhere unknown, point to a foreign country; and to this corresponds the peculiar complexion of these two series of proverbs. As a third appendix to the Hezekiah-collection, Pro 31:10. follows, a complete alphabetical proverbial poem which describes the praiseworthy qualities of a virtuous woman.\n\nWe are thus led to the conclusion that the Book of Proverbs divides itself into the following parts: - (1) The title of the book, Pro 1:1-6, by which the question is raised, how far the book extends to which it originally belongs; (2) the hortatory discourses, 1:7-9:18, in which it is a question whether the Solomonic proverbs must be regarded as beginning with these, or whether they are only the introduction thereto, composed by a different author, perhaps the author of the title of the book; (3) the first great collection of Solomonic proverbs, 10:1-22:16; (4) the first appendix to this first collection, \"The words of the wise,\" 22:17-24:22; (5) the second appendix, supplement of the words of some wise men, Pro 24:23.; (6) the second great collection of Solomonic proverbs, which the \"men of Hezekiah\" collected, chap. 25-29; (7) the first appendix to this second collection, the words of Agur the son of Makeh, chap. 30; (8) the second appendix, the words of King Lemuel, Pro 31:1-9; (9) third appendix, the acrostic ode, Pro 31:10. These nine parts are comprehended under three groups: the introductory hortatory discourses with the general title at their head, and the two great collections of Solomonic proverbs with their two appendices. In prosecuting our further investigations, we shall consider the several parts of the book first from the point of view of the manifold forms of their proverbs, then of their style, and thirdly of their type of doctrine. From each of these three subjects of investigation we may expect elucidations regarding the origin of these proverbs and of their collections.\n\n2. The Several Parts of the Book of Proverbs with Respect to the Manifold Forms of the Proverbs\n\nIf the Book of Proverbs were a collection of popular sayings, we should find in it a multitude of proverbs of one line each, as e.g., \"Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked\" (Sa1 24:13); but we seek for such in vain. At the first glance, Pro 24:23 appears to be a proverb of one line; but the line \"To have respect of persons in judgment is not good,\" is only the introductory line of a proverb which consists of several lines, Pro 24:24. Ewald is right in regarding as inadmissible a comparison of the collections of Arabic proverbs by Abu-Obeida, Meidani, and others, who gathered together and expounded the current popular proverbs, with the Book of Proverbs. Ali's Hundred Proverbs are, however, more worthy of being compared with it. Like these, Solomon's proverbs are, as a whole, the production of his own spirit, and only mediately of the popular spirit. To make the largeness of the number of these proverbs a matter of doubt were inconsiderate. Eichhorn maintained that even a godlike genius scarcely attains to so great a number of pointed proverbs and ingenious thoughts. But if we distribute Solomon's proverbs over his forty years' reign, then we have scarcely twenty for each year; and one must agree with the conclusion, that the composition of so many proverbs even of the highest ingenuity is no impossible problem for a \"godlike genius.\" When, accordingly, it is related that Solomon wrote 3000 proverbs, Ewald, in his History of Israel, does not find the number too great, and Bertheau does not regard it as impossible that the collection of the \"Proverbs of Solomon\" has the one man Solomon as their author. The number of the proverbs thus cannot determine us to regard them as having for the most part originated among the people, and the form in which they appear leads to an opposite conclusion. It is, indeed, probable that popular proverbs are partly wrought into these proverbs,\n\n(Note: Isaac Euchel (1804), in his Commentary on the Proverbs, regards Pro 14:4 and Pro 17:19 as such popular proverbs.)\n\nand many of their forms of expression are moulded after the popular proverbs; but as they thus lie before us, they are, as a whole, the production of the technical Mashal poetry.\n\nThe simplest form is, according to the fundamental peculiarity of the Hebrew verse, the distich. The relation of the two lines to each other is very manifold. The second line may repeat the thought of the first, only in a somewhat altered form, in order to express this thought as clearly and exhaustively as possible. We call such proverbs synonymous distichs; as e.g., Pro 11:25 :\n\nA soul of blessing is made fat,\n\nAnd he that watereth others is himself watered.\n\nOr the second line contains the other side of the contrast to the statement of the first; the truth spoken in the first is explained in the second by means of the presentation of its contrary. We call such proverbs antithetic distichs; as e.g., Pro 10:1 :\n\nA wise son maketh his father glad,\n\nAnd a foolish son is his mother's grief.\n\nSimilar forms, Pro 10:16; Pro 12:5. Elsewhere, as Pro 18:14; Pro 20:24, the antithesis clothes itself in the form of a question. sometimes it is two different truths that are expressed in the two lines; and the authorization of their union lies only in a certain relationship, and the ground of this union in the circumstance that two lines are the minimum of the technical proverb - synthetic distichs; e.g., Pro 10:18 :\n\nA cloak of hatred are lying lips,\n\nAnd he that spreadeth slander is a fool.\n\nNot at all infrequently one line does not suffice to bring out the thought intended, the begun expression of which is only completed in the second. These we call integral (eingedankige) distichs; as e.g., Pro 11:31 (cf. Pe1 4:18):\n\nThe righteous shall be recompensed on the earth -\n\nHow much more the ungodly and the sinner!\n\nTo these distichs also belong all those in which the thought stated in the first receives in the second, by a sentence presenting a reason, or proof, or purpose, or consequence, a definition completing or perfecting it; e.g., Pro 13:14; Pro 16:10; Pro 19:20; Pro 22:28.\n\n(Note: Such integral distichs are also Pro 15:3; Pro 16:7, Pro 16:10; Pro 17:13, Pro 17:15; Pro 18:9, Pro 18:13; Pro 19:26-27; Pro 20:7-8, Pro 20:10-11, Pro 20:20-21; Pro 21:4, Pro 21:13, Pro 21:16, Pro 21:21, Pro 21:23-24, Pro 21:30; Pro 22:4, Pro 22:11; Pro 24:8, Pro 24:26; Pro 26:16; Pro 27:14; Pro 28:8-9, Pro 28:17, Pro 28:24; Pro 29:1, Pro 29:5, Pro 29:12, Pro 29:14. In Pro 14:27; Pro 15:24; Pro 17:23; Pro 19:27, the second line consists of one sentence with ל and the infin.; in Pro 16:12, Pro 16:26; Pro 21:25; Pro 22:9; Pro 27:1; Pro 29:19, of one sentence with כּי; with כּי אם, Pro 18:2; Pro 23:17. The two lines, as Pro 11:31; Pro 15:11; Pro 17:7; Pro 19:7, Pro 19:10, Pro 20:27, form a conclusion a minori ad majus, or the reverse. The former or the latter clauses stand in grammatical relation in Pro 23:1-2, Pro 23:15., Pro 27:22; Pro 29:21 (cf. Pro 22:29; Pro 24:10; Pro 26:12; Pro 29:20, with hypoth. perf., and Pro 26:26 with hypoth. fut.); in the logical relation of reason and consequence, Pro 17:14; Pro 20:2, Pro 20:4; in comparative relation, Pro 12:9, etc. These examples show that the two lines, not merely in the more recent, but also in the old Solomonic Mashal, do not always consist of two parallel members.)\n\nBut there is also a fifth form, which corresponds most to the original character of the Mashal: the proverb explaining its ethical object by a resemblance from the region of the natural and every-day life, the παραβολή proper. The form of this parabolic proverb is very manifold, according as the poet himself expressly compares the two subjects, or only places them near each other in order that the hearer or reader may complete the comparison. The proverb is least poetic when the likeness between the two subjects is expressed by a verb; as Pro 27:15 (to which, however, Pro 27:16 belongs):\n\nA continual dropping in a rainy day\n\nAnd a contentious woman are alike.\n\nThe usual form of expression, neither unpoetic nor properly poetic, is the introduction of the comparison by כּ [as], and of the similitude in the second clause by כּן [so]; as Pro 10:26 :\n\nAs vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes,\n\nSo is the sluggard to them who give him a commission.\n\nThis complete verbal statement of the relation of likeness may also be abbreviated by the omission of the כּן; as Pro 25:13; Pro 26:11 :\n\nAs a dog returning to his vomit -\n\nA fool returning to his folly.\n\nWe call the parabolic proverbs of these three forms comparisons. The last, the abbreviated form of the comparative proverb, which we will call, in contradistinction to the comparative, the emblematic, in which the contrast and its emblem are loosely placed together without any nearer expression of the similitude; as e.g., Pro 26:20; Pro 27:17-18, Pro 27:20. This takes place either by means of the couplative Vav, ו, as Pro 25:25 -\n\nCold water to a thirsty soul,\n\nAnd good news from a far country.\n\n(Note: This so-called Vav adaequationis, which appears here for the first time in the Proverbs as the connection between the figure and the thing itself without a verbal predicate (cf. on the other hand, Job 5:7; Job 12:11; Job 14:11.), is, like the Vav, ו, of comparison, only a species of that Vav of association which is called in Arab. Waw alajam'a, or Waw alam'ayat, or Waw al'asatsahab (vid., at Isa 42:5); and since usage attributes to it the verbal power of secum habere, it is construed with the accus. Vid., examples in Freytag's Arabum Proverbia, among the recent proverbs beginning with the Arabic letter k.)\n\nOr without the Vav; in which case the second line is as the subscription under the figure or double figure painted in the first; e.g., Pro 25:11., Pro 11:22 :\n\nA gold ring in a swine's snout -\n\nA fair woman without understanding.\n\nThese ground-forms of two lines, can, however, expand into forms of several lines. Since the distich is the peculiar and most appropriate form of the technical proverb, so, when two lines are not sufficient for expressing the thought intended, the multiplication to four, six, or eight lines is most natural. In the tetrastich the relation of the last two to the first two is as manifold as is the relation of the second line to the first in the distich. There is, however, no suitable example of four-lined stanzas in antithetic relation. But we meet with synonymous tetrastichs, e.g., Pro 23:15., Pro 24:3., 28f.; synthetic, Pro 30:5.; integral, Pro 30:17., especially of the form in which the last two lines constitute a proof passage beginning with כּי, Pro 22:22., or פּן, Pro 22:24., or without exponents, Pro 22:26.; comparative without expressing the comparison, Pro 25:16. (cf. on the other hand, Pro 26:18., where the number of lines is questionable), and also the emblematical, Pro 25:4.:\n\nTake away the dross from the silver,\n\nAnd there shall come forth a vessel for the goldsmith;\n\nTake away the wicked from before the king,\n\nAnd this throne shall be established in righteousness.\n\nProportionally the most frequently occurring are tetrastichs, the second half of which forms a proof clause commencing with כּי or פּן. Among the less frequent are the six-lined, presenting (Pro 23:1-3; Pro 24:11.) one and the same thought in manifold aspects, with proofs interspersed. Among all the rest which are found in the collection, Pro 23:12-14, Pro 23:19-21, Pro 23:26-28; Pro 30:15., Pro 30:29-31, the first two lines form a prologue introductory to the substance of the proverb; as e.g., Pro 23:12-14 :\n\nO let instruction enter into thine heart,\n\nAnd apply thine ears to the words of knowledge.\n\nWithhold not correction from the child;\n\nFor if thou beatest him with the rod - he dies not.\n\nThou shalt beat him with the rod,\n\nAnd deliver his soul from hell.\n\nSimilarly formed, yet more expanded, is the eight-lined stanza, Pro 23:22-28 :\n\nHearken unto thy father that begat thee,\n\nAnd despise not thy mother when she is old.\n\nBuy the truth and sell it not:\n\nWisdom, and virtue, and understanding.\n\nThe father of a righteous man greatly rejoices,\n\nAnd he that begetteth a wise child hath joy of him.\n\nThy father and thy mother shall be glad,\n\nAnd she that bare thee shall rejoice.\n\nThe Mashal proverb here inclines to the Mashal ode; for this octastich may be regarded as a short Mashal song, - like the alphabetical Mashal Psalm 37, which consists of almost pure tetrastichs.\n\nWe have now seen how the distich form multiplies itself into forms consisting of four, six, and eight lines; but it also unfolds itself, as if in one-sided multiplication, into forms of three, five, and seven lines. Tristichs arise when the thought of the first line is repeated (Pro 27:22) in the second according to the synonymous scheme, or when the thought of the second line is expressed by contrast in the third (Pro 22:29; Pro 28:10) according to the antithetic scheme, or when to the thought expressed in one or two lines (Pro 25:8; Pro 27:10) there is added its proof. The parabolic scheme is here represented when the object described is unfolded in two lines, as in the comparison Pro 25:13, or when its nature is portrayed by two figures in two lines, as in the emblematic proverb Pro 25:20 :\n\nTo take off clothing in cold weather,\n\nVinegar upon nitre,\n\nAnd he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.\n\nIn the few instances of pentastichs which are found, the last three lines usually unfold the reason of the thought of the first two: Pro 23:4., Pro 25:6., Pro 30:32.; to this Pro 24:13 forms an exception, where the כּן before the last three lines introduces the expansion of the figure in the first two. As an instance we quote Pro 25:6.:\n\nSeek not to display thyself in the presence of the king,\n\nAnd stand not in the place of the great.\n\nFor better that it be said unto thee, \"Come up hither,\"\n\nThan that they humble thee in the presence of the prince,\n\nWhile thine eyes have raised themselves.\n\nOf heptastichs I know of only one example in the collection, viz., Pro 23:6-8 :\n\nEat not the bread of the jealous,\n\nAnd lust not after his dainties;\n\nFor he is like one who calculates with himself: -\n\n\"Eat and drink,\" saith he to thee,\n\nAnd his heart is not with thee.\n\nThy morsel which thou hast eaten must thou vomit up,\n\nAnd thou hast wasted thy pleasant words.\n\nFrom this heptastich, which one will scarcely take for a brief Mashal ode according to the compound strophe-scheme, we see that the proverb of two lines can expand itself to the dimensions of seven and eight lines. Beyond these limits the whole proverb ceases to be משׁל in the proper sense; and after the manner of Ps 25; 34, and especially chap. 37, it becomes a Mashal ode. Of this class of Mashal odes are, besides the prologue, Pro 22:17-21, that of the drunkard, Pro 23:29-35; that of the slothful man, Pro 24:30-34; the exhortation to industry, Pro 27:23-27; the prayer for a moderate portion between poverty and riches, Pro 30:7-9; the mirror for princes, Pro 31:2-9; and the praise of the excellent wife, Pro 31:10. It is singular that this ode furnishes the only example of the alphabetical acrostic in the whole collection. Even a single trace of original alphabetical sequence afterwards broken up cannot be found. There cannot also be discovered, in the Mashal songs referred to, anything like a completed strophe-scheme; even in Pro 31:10. the distichs are broken by tristichs intermingled with them.\n\nIn the whole of the first part, Prov 1:7-9:18, the prevailing form is that of the extended flow of the Mashal song; but one in vain seeks for strophes. There is not here so firm a grouping of the lines; on the supposition of its belonging to the Solomonic era, this is indeed to be expected. The rhetorical form here outweighs the purely poetical. This first part of the Proverbs consists of the following fifteen Mashal strains: (1) Pro 1:7-19, (2) Pro 1:20., (3) chap. 2, (4) 3:1-18, (5) Pro 3:19-26, (6) Pro 3:27., (7) 4:1-5:6, (8) Pro 4:7., (9) Pro 6:1-5, (10) Pro 6:6-11, (11) Pro 6:12-19, (12) Pro 6:20., (13) chap. 7, (14) chap. 8, (15) chap. 9. In chap. 3 and chap. 9 there are found a few Mashal odes of two lines and of four lines which may be regarded as independent Mashals, and may adapt themselves to the schemes employed; other brief complete parts are only waves in the flow of the larger discourses, or are altogether formless, or more than octastichs. The octastich Pro 6:16-19 makes the proportionally greatest impression of an independent inwoven Mashal. It is the only proverb in which symbolical numbers are used which occurs in the collection from 1 to 29:\n\nThere are six things which Jahve hateth,\n\nAnd seven are an abhorrence to His soul:\n\nHaughty eyes, a lying tongue,\n\nAnd hands that shed innocent blood;\n\nAn heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil,\n\nFeet that hastily run to wickedness,\n\nOne that uttereth lies as a false witness,\n\nAnd he who soweth strife between brethren.\n\nSuch numerical proverbs to which the name מדּה has been given by later Jewish writers (see my Gesch. der Jd. Poesie, pp. 199, 202) are found in chap. 30. With the exception of Pro 30:7-9, Pro 30:24-28 (cf. Sir. 25:1, 2), the numerical proverb has this peculiarity, found also in most of the numerical proverbs of Sirach (Sir. 23:16; 25:7; 26:5, 28), that the number named in the first parallel line is in the second (cf. Job 5:9) increased by one. On the other hand, the form of the Priamel\n\n(Note: From praeambulum, designating a peculiar kind of epigram found in the German poetry of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.)\n\nis used neither in the Book of Proverbs nor in that of Sirach. Proverbs such as Pro 20:10 (\"Diverse weights, diverse measures - an abomination to Jahve are they both\") and Pro 20:12 (\"The hearing ear, the seeing eye - Jahve hath created them both\"), to be distinguished from Pro 17:3; Pro 27:21, and the like, where the necessary unity, and from Pro 27:3, where the necessary resemblance, of the predicate is wanting, are only a weak approach to the Priamel - a stronger, Pro 25:3, where the three subjects form the preamble (\"The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings - are unsearchable\"). Perhaps Pro 30:11-14 is a greater mutilated Priamel. Here four subjects form the preamble, but there is wanting the conclusion containing the common predicate. This, we believe, exhausts the forms of the Mashal in the collection. It now only remains to make mention of the Mashal chain, i.e., the ranging together in a series of proverbs of a similar character, such as the chain of proverbs regarding the fool, Pro 26:1-12, the sluggard, Pro 26:13-16, the tale-bearer, Pro 26:20-22, the malicious, Pro 26:23-28 - but this form belongs more to the technics of the Mashal collection than to that of the Mashal poetry.\n\nWe now turn to the separate parts of the book, to examine more closely the forms of their proverbs, and gather materials for a critical judgment regarding the origin of the proverbs which they contain. Not to anticipate, we take up in order the separate parts of the arrangement of the collection. Since, then, it cannot be denied that in the introductory paedagogic part, Pro 1:7-9, notwithstanding its rich and deep contents, there is exceedingly little of the technical form of the Mashal, as well as generally of technical form at all. This part, as already shown, consist not of proper Mashals, but of fifteen Mashal odes, or rather, perhaps, Mashal discourses, didactic poems of the Mashal kind. In the flow of these discourses separate Mashals intermingle, which may either be regarded as independent, or, as Pro 1:32; Pro 4:18., can easily be so understood. In the Mashal chains of chap. 4 and chap. 9 we meet with proverbs that are synonymous (Pro 9:7, Pro 9:10), antithetic (Pro 3:35; Pro 9:8), integral, or of one thought (Pro 3:29-30), and synthetic (Pro 1:7; Pro 3:5, Pro 3:7), of two lines and of four lines variously disposed (Pro 3:9., 11f., 31f., 33f.); but the parabolic scheme is not at all met with, separate proverbs such as Pro 3:27. are altogether without form, and keeping out of view the octastich numerical proverb, Pro 6:16-19, the thoughts which form the unity of separate groups are so widely expanded that the measure of the Mashal proper is far exceeded. The character of this whole part is not concentrating, but unfolding. Even the intermingling proverbs of two lines possess the same character. They are for the most part more like dissolved drops than gold coins with sharp outline an","order":20,"numberOfChapters":31,"sha256":"20e0bd64619dae6740a04b7a7d7b33f0f6666efc36cef9c3e29bae3b6bcbce14","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":31,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/31.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":31},"totalNumberOfVerses":633},"chapter":{"number":27,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["In the group Pro 27:1-6 of this chapter every two proverbs form a pair. The first pair is directed against unseemly boasting:\n1 Boast not thyself of to-morrow,\nFor thou knowest not what a day bringeth forth.\nThe ב of בּיום is like, e.g., that in Pro 25:14, the ב 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 (Luk 12:20), 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 (Jam 4:13), will bring forth, i.e., (cf. Zep 2:2) will disclose, and cannot therefore order anything beforehand regarding it. Instead of לא־תדע (with Kametz and Mugrash), אל־תדע (thus e.g., the Cod. Jaman) is to be written; the Masora knows nothing of that pausal form. And instead of מה־יּלד יום, we write מה יּלד יום with Zinnorith. יּלד before יום 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 Tsere. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["2 Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth;\nA stranger, and not thine own lips.\nThe negative לא is with פיך, 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 אל־מות, Pro 12:28; since after the prohibitive אל, יהללוּך [praise thee] easily supplies itself. זר is properly the stranger, as having come from a distance, and נכרי he who comes from an unknown country, and is himself unknown (vid., under Pro 26:24); 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 (Co2 11:18), which, because it is offered strongly against one's will, will be measured by truth (Pro 10:13); 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 Stobus says, οὐδὲν οὕτως ἄκουσμα φορτικὸν ὡς καθ ̓ αὑτοῦ ἔταινος. Compare the German proverb, \"Eigenlob stinkt, Freundes Lob hinkt, fremdes Lob klingt\" [= self-praise stinks, a friend's praise is lame, a stranger's praise sounds]. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":3,"content":["The second pair of proverbs designates two kinds of violent passion as unbearable:\n3 The heaviness of a stone, the weight of sand - \nA fool's wrath is heavier than both.\nWe 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 lxx, Jerome, Syr., Targum); the two pairs of words stand, as 4a, in genit. relation (cf. on the contrary, Pro 31:30), 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, Zckler, Dchsel), 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 (כוס), his purse (כיס), and his anger (כעס), viz., how he deports himself in the tumult; and another says that one reads what is in a man ביום כעסו, when he is in an ill-humour. Thus also כעס 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, חול,\n(Note: Sand is called by the name חוּל (חיל), to change, whirl, particularly to form sand-wreaths, whence (Arab.) al-Habil, the region of moving sand; vid., Wetzstein's Nord-arabien, p. 56.)\nas it appears, as to the number of its grains innumerable, so as to its mass (in weight) immeasurable, Job 6:3; Sir. 22:13. נטל the Venet. translates, with strict regard to the etymology, by ἅρμα. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":4,"content":["4 The madness of anger, and the overflowing of wrath - \nAnd before jealousy who keeps his place!\nHere also the two pairs of words 4a stand in connection; אכזריּוּת (for which the Cod. Jaman has incorrectly אכזריות) is the connecting form; vid., regarding אכזרי, Pro 5:9. 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 Pro 6:34., cf. Sol 8:8, there is particularly meant the passion of scorned, mortified, deceived love, viz., in the relation of husband and wife. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["The third pair of proverbs passes over from this special love between husband and wife to that subsisting between friends:\n5 Better is open accusation\nThan secret love.\nAn integral distich; meeאהבה has Munach, and instead of the second Metheg Tarcha, after Thorath Emeth, p. 11. Zckler, 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 אהבה מסתּרת, not מסתּרת. Dchsel, in order to accommodate the text to this 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 6:15). Such \"secret\" love, or, since the word is not נסתּרת, but מסתּרת, 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 (Jo1 3:18). Rightly Fleischer: Praestat correptio aperta amicitiae tectae, i.e., nulla re probatae. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,\nAnd overloaded [plentiful] the kisses of an enemy.\nThe contrast to נאמנים, true, i.e., honourable and good (with the transference of the character of the person to his act), would be fraudulenta (Jerome), or נהפכות, i.e., false (Ralbag); Ewald seeks this idea from עתר, to stumble, make a false step;\n(Note: Thus also Schultens in the Animadversiones, which later he fancied was derived from עתר, nidor, from the meaning nidorosa, and thence virulenta.)\nHitzig, from עתר = (Arab.) dadhr, whence dâdhir, perfidus, to gain from; but (1) the comparison does not lie near, since usually the Arab. t corresponds to the Heb. שׁ, and the Arab. d to the Heb. ז; (2) the Heb. עתר 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. עטר, whence עתר, vapour, Eze 8:11, according to which the Venet., with Kimchi's and Parchon's Lex., 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 lxx); and agreeably to the Niph., but too artificially, Arama: obtained by entreaties = constrained; (c) to heap up, whence Hiph. העתיר, Eze 35:13, cf. Jer 33:6, according to which Rashi, Meri, Gesenius, Fleischer, Bertheau, and most explain, cogn. with עשׁר, whose Aram. form is עתר, for עשׁר is properly a heap of goods or treasures.\n(Note: Vid., regarding this word, Schlottmann in Deutsch.-Morgenl. Zeitschrift, xxiv. 665, 668.)\nThis third meaning gives to the kisses of an enemy a natural 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, Mat 26:49. This, then, is the contrast, that the strokes inflicted by one who truly loves us, although they tear into our flesh (פּצע, from פּצע, to split, to tear open), yet are faithful (cf. Psa 141:5); on the contrary, the enemy covers over with kisses him to whom he wishes all evil. Thus also נעתרות forms an indirect contrast to נאמנים. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":7,"content":["In Pro 27:7-10 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 נ.\n7 A satisfied soul treadeth honeycomb under foot;\nAnd a hungry soul - everything bitter is (to it) sweet.\nIt is unnecessary to read תּבוּז (Hitzig); תּבוּס 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 Pro 10:3. In 7b, the adverb להּ, relative to the nomin. absol., like Pro 28:7, but not Pro 13:18. \"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 3:17; 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["8 As a bird that wandereth from her nest,\nSo is a man that wandereth from his home.\nIt 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 עוף נודד, Isa 16:2, cf. Jer 4:25, birds that have been frightened; and נדד, Pro 21:15., designates the fugitive; cf. נע ונד, Gen 4:14, and above, Pro 26:2, where נוּד 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: âlsafar ḳaṭ'at man âlklyym (= journeying is a part of the pains of hell).\" But נדד here is not to be understood in the sense of a libere vagari. Rightly C. B. Michaelis: qui vagatur extorris et exul a loco suo sc. natali vel habitationis ordinariae. This proverb mediately recommends the love of one's fatherland, i.e., \"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.\"\n(Note: Gustave Baur's article \"Vaterlandsliebe,\" in Schmid's Pdagogischer Encyklopdie.)\nBut 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 [longing for home]; the Heb. uses, to express the idea of home, the word מקומי; and of fatherland, the word ארצי or אדמתי. The Heb. שׁבוּת corresponds\n(Note: The translators transfer to this place a note from vol. ii. p. 191f. of the author's larger Comm. . den Psalter, to which Delitzsch refers the reader: - \"The modern High German adj. elend, middle High German ellende, old High German alilandi, elilendi, or elilenti, is composed of ali and land. The adj. ali occurs only in old High German in composition. In the Gothic it is found as an independent adj., in the sense of alius and ἄλλυς (vid., Ulfilas, Gal 5:10). The primary meaning of elilenti is consequently: of another country, foreign. In glosses and translations it is rendered by the Lat. words peregrinus, exul, advena, also captivus. In these meanings it occurs very frequently. In the old High German translation of Ammonius, Diatessaron, sive Harmoniae in quatuor Evangelica, the word proselytism, occurring in Mat 23:15, is rendered by elilantan. To the adj. the old High German subst. corresponds. This has the meaning exilium, transmigratio, captivitas. The connection in elilenti or elilentes, used adverbially, is rendered by the Lat. peregre. In the middle High German, however, the proper signification of both words greatly predominates. But as, in the old High German, the idea of miser is often at the same time comprehended in the proper signification: he who is miserable through banishment, imprisonment, or through sojourning in a strange land; thus, in several places of the middle High German, this derived idea begins to separate itself from the fundamental conception, so that ellende comes in general to be called miser. In the new High German this derived conception is almost alone maintained. Yet here also, in certain connections, there are found traces of the original idea, e.g., in's Elend schicken, for to banish. Very early also the word came to be used, in a spiritual sense, to denote our present abode, in contrast to paradise or the heavenly kingdom.... Thus, e.g., in one of Luther's hymns, when we pray to the Holy Ghost:\nDas er vns behte, an vnserm ende,\nWenn wir heim farn aus diesem elende.\"\n[That He guard us to our end\nWhen we go home from this world.]\n- Rud. von Raumer)\nto the German Elend, but = Ellend, elilenti, of another land, strange. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":9,"content":["The two following proverbs have in common the catchword רע, and treat of the value of friendship: - \n9 Oil and frankincense rejoice the heart;\nAnd the sweet discourse of a friend from a counselling of soul.\nRegarding 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 Pro 7:16., Pro 21:17. The pred. ישׂמּח comprehends frankincense or oil as the two sides of one and the same thing; the lxx introduces, from Psa 104:15, also wine. It also reads ומתק רעה as one word, וּמתקרעת: καταῤῥήγνυται δὲ ὑπὸ συμπτωμάτων ψυχή, which Hitzig regards as original; for he translates, understanding מעצת after Psa 13:3, \"but the soul is torn by cares.\" But why מתקרעה, this Hithpa. without example, for נקרעה? and now connected with מן in the sense of ὑπό! And what does one gain by this Alexandrian wisdom [of the lxx] - a contrast to 9a which is altogether incongruous? Dderlein's rendering accords far better with 9a: \"but the sweetness of a friend surpasses fragrant wood.\" But although this rendering of the word [עצה] by \"fragrant wood\" is found in Gesen. Lex., 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 עצים; and if the poet had not intentionally aimed at dubiety, he ought to have written עצי בשׂם, since נפשׁ, which the exception of Isa 3:20, where it is beyond doubt, nowhere means fragrance. If we read עצת and נפשׁ together, then we may suppose that the latter designates the soul, as at Psa 13:3; and the former, counsel (from the verb יעץ). But to what does the suffix of רעהוּ refer? One may almost conjecture that the words originally were וּמתק נפשׁ מעצת רעהוּ, and the sweetness of the soul (i.e., a sweet relish for it, cf. Pro 27:7 and Pro 16:24) consists in the counsel of a friend, according to which Jerome translates: et bonis amici conciliis anima dulcoratur. By this transposition רעהו refers back to נפשׁ; for is nephesh denote a person or a living being, it can be construed ad sensum as masc., e.g., Num 31:28. But the words may remain in the order in which they are transmitted to us. It is possible that רעהוּ is (Bttcher refers to Job 12:4) of the same meaning as הרע (the friend of one = the friend), as כלּו denotes directly the whole; חציו, the half; עתּו, the right time. Recognising this, Cocceius, Umbreit, Stier, and Zckler explain: sweetness, i.e., the sweet encouragement (מתק, in the sense of \"sweetness (grace) of the lips,\" Pro 16:21) 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) נפשׁ cannot mean one's own person (oneself) in contrast to another person; and (2) this does not supply a correct antithesis to 9a. Thus מן 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, i.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 עצת־נפשׁ can be so meant; these words, after the analogy of דעת נפשׁ, Pro 19:2, mean ability to give counsel as a quality of the soul (Pro 8:14; Pro 12:13), i.e., its ability to advise. Accordingly, with Bertheau, we explain ישׂמח־לב as the common predicate for 9a and 9b: 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 Pro 26:9, Pro 26:14. In this explanation רעהו is well referred back to לב: and (more than) the sweet advice of his friend. But not so that רעהו is equivalent to רע הלּב, 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 mitfhlend trstet [nothing does more good to a heart than when a friend sympathizingly comforts it]; or: Zage nicht, tief betrbtes 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["Another proverb, consisting of three lines, in commendation of friendship:\nThine own friend and the friend of thy father forsake not,\nAnd into thy brother's house go not in the day of thy misfortune - \nBetter is a near neighbour than a far-off brother.\nIn our editions רעך is incorrectly appointed 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 Kerı̂ changes the second ורעה into ורע, but ורעה (which, after the Masora in st. constr., retains its segol, Ewald, 211e) is also admissible, for a form of comparison (Hitzig) this רעה is not, but the fuller form of the abbreviated רע, from רעה, to take care of, to tend, to pasture - an infinitive formation (= רעי) like the Arab. cogn. râ'in a participial. Such a proved friend one ought certainly not to give up, and in the time of heavy trial (vid., regarding איד, Pro 1:26) one should go to him and not to a brother's house - it is by this supposed that, as Pro 18:24 says, there is a degree of friendship (cf. Pro 17:17) 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 ber 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 Dchsel places (like Schultens) in קרוב and רחוק meanings which the words do not contain, for he interprets them of inward nearness and remoteness; and Zckler 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["This proverb has, in common with the preceding tristich, the form of an address:\nBecome wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice,\nThat I may give an answer to my accusers.\nBetter than \"be wise\" (Luther), we translate \"become wise\" (lxx σοφὸς γίνου); 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 11b (cf. Psa 119:42) has the force of a clause with a purpose (Gesen. 128:1): ut habeam quod iis qui me convicientur regerere possim; it does not occur anywhere in the Hezekiah collection except here. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["ערום appears to lean on חכם.\nThe prudent man seeth the misfortune, hideth himself;\nThe simple pass on, suffer injury.\n= Pro 22:3, where וּפתיים for פּתאים, ונסתּר for נסתּר, and ונענשׁוּ for נענשׁוּ; the three asyndeta make the proverb clumsy, as if it counted out its seven words separately to the hearer. Ewald, 349a, calls it a \"Steinschrift\" an inscription on a stone. The perfects united in pairs with, and yet more without, Vav, express the coincidence\n(Note: The second Munach is at Pro 22:3, as well as here, according to the rule Pro 18:4 of the Accentuationssystem, the transformation of the Dechi, and preserves its value of interpunction; the Legarmeh of ערום is, however, a disjunctive of less force than Dechi, so that thus the sequence of the accents denotes that ערום ראה רעה is a clause related to ונסתר as a hypothetical antecedent: if the prudent sees the calamity, then he hides himself from it. This syntactic relation is tenable at Pro 22:3, but not here at Pro 27:12. Here, at least, ערום 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., Psa 1:5; Psa 86:12; Psa 88:14; Psa 109:14) or Rebia (Pro 12:2, Psa 25:2; Psa 69:9; Psa 146:5).)\nas to time. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["ערום alliterates with ערב.\nTake from him the garment, for he hath become surety for another,\nAnd for the sake of a strange matter put him under bonds.\n= Pro 20:16, vid., there. נכריּה we interpret neut. (lxx τὰ ἀλλότρια; Jerome, pro alienis), although certainly the case occurs that one becomes surety for a strange woman (Aquila, Theodotion, περὶ ξένης), by whose enticements and flatteries he 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["This proverb, passing over the three immediately intervening, connects itself with Pro 27:9 and Pro 27:10. It is directed against cringing, noisy complimenting:\nHe who blesseth his neighbour with a loud voice, rising early in the morning,\nIt is reckoned as a curse to him.\nThe 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 (השׁכּים, adverbial inf. abs.; cf. Jer 44:4 with Jer 25:4) early in the morning, to offer his captatio benevolentiae 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 קללה, 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 prayer, because honour is due before all to God (the Book of Wisdom, 10:28); 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, i.e., 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 'בּקול וגו 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["This proverb passes from the complimentarius to its opposite, a shrewish wife:\nA continual dropping in a rainy day\nAnd a contentious woman are alike.\nThus 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 Pro 27:15 and Pro 27:16 are connected, forming a tetrastich, which is certainly the case according to the text here lying before us. In Pro 27:15, Pro 19:13 is expanded into a distich, and made a complete verse. Regarding דּלף טורד, vid., the explanation there given. The noun סגריר, which the Syr. translates by magyaa', 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 מדונים, Kerı̂ מדינים, vid., Pro 6:14; the genit. connection of 'אושׁת מ we have already at Pro 21:9. The form נשׁתּוה is doubtful. If accented, with Lwenstein and others, as Milra, then we would have a Nithkatal before us, as at Num 1:47, 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 נשׁתּוּה (Nithpa. as Deu 21:8; Eze 23:48) without the dagesh, and lengthened; the form of the word נשׁתּוה, as found in the Cod. Jaman., aims at this. But the form נשׁתּוה is better established, e.g., by Cod. 1294, as Milel. Kimchi, Michlol 131a (cf. Ewald, 132c), regards it as a form without the dagesh, made up the Niph. and Hithpa., leaving the penultima toning unexplained. Bertheau regards it as a voluntative: let us compare (as נשׁתּעה, Isa 41:23); but as he himself says, the reflexive form does not accord with this sense. Hitzig has adopted the right explanation (cf. Olshausen, 275, and Bttcher, 1072, who, however, registers it at random as an Ephraimitism). נשׁתּוה is a Niphal, with a transposition of consonants for נשׁותה, since נשׁותה passes over into נשׁתּוה. Such is now the genus in the arrangement; the Milra form would be as masc. syntactically inaccurate. \"The finite following the subjects is regulated by the gender and number of that which is next before it, as at Sa2 3:22; Sa2 20:20; Psa 55:6; Job 19:15\" (Hitzig). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["This verse stands in close connection with the preceding, for it speaks of the contentious woman:\nHe that restraineth her restraineth the wind,\nAnd oil meeteth his right hand.\nThe connection of the plur. subject צפניה = quicunque eam cohibet, with a sing. predicate, is not to be disputed (vid., Pro 3:18 and Pro 28:16, Chethı̂b); but can צפן gain from the meaning of preserving, laying up, also the meanings of keeping, of confining, and shutting up? - for these meanings we have כּלא and עצר (cf. צרר, Pro 30:4). In 16b it lies nearer to see in ימינו the object of the clause (oil meeteth his right hand) than the subject (his right hand meeteth oil), for the gender of ימין directs to יד (e.g., Eze 15:6; cf. 6a, where נאדּרי is as to gender indifferent): it is fem., while on the contrary שׁמן is generally masc. (cf. Sol 1:3). There is no reason for regarding ימינו 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 יקרא, as at Gen 49:1, is equivalent to יקרה (Ewald, 116c), for the explanation oleum dexterae ejus praeconem agit (Cocceius, Schultens) does not explain, but only darkens: and oleum dexter su legit, i.e., colligit (Fleischer), is based on an untenable use of the word. As one may say of person to person, קרך, occurrit tibi, Num 25:18, so also יקרא (יקרה), of a thing that meets a man or one of his members; and if we compare לקראת and קרי, then for 16b 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 יקמץ. In fact, this word was more commonly used as the expression of untenableness than the colourless and singular word יקרא, which, besides, is so ambiguous, that none of the old translators has thought on any other קרא than that which signifies \"to call,\" \"to name.\" The Jewish interpreters also adhere to this nearest lying קרא, and, moreover, explain, as the Syr., Targ., Aquila, Symmachus, Jerome, and the Venet., שׁמן ימינו, according to the accentuation as genit. connected, e.g., Rashi: he calls for oil to his right hand, viz., as the means of purification from leprosy, Lev 8:14 [Lev 14:16]; and Aben Ezra: even when he calls for oil to his right hand, i.e., would move them to silence with the precious anointing oil. Perhaps Pro 27:16 was originally an independent proverb as follows:\nצפני הון צפן רוח\nושמן ימינו יקרא\nHe who layeth up riches in store layeth up the wind,\nAnd he nameth them the fat of his right hand;\ni.e., he sees in them that which makes his right hand fat and strong (שׁמן, as at Psa 109:24, opp. Zac 11:17; cf. בּמשׁמנּיו, Isa 10:16, and regarding Ἐσμούν, the Phoenician god of health, at Isa 59:10), and yet it is only the wind, i.e., something that is worthless and transient, which he stored up (צפן, as at Pro 13:22, and in מצפּניו, Obad. Oba 1:6). הון is used as it frequently occurs in the Book of Proverbs, e.g., Pro 11:4, and the whole proverb expresses by another figure the same as Pro 18:11. The fact that צפון (רוח), Pro 25:23, and as a contrast thereto in the compass ימין (the south), hovered before the poet, may not have been without its influence on the choice of the words and expression here. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["This proverb expresses the influence arising from the intercourse of man with man:\nIron is sharpened by iron,\nAnd a man may sharpen the appearance of another.\nWhen the Masora reads יחד, 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. ב or עם is wanting after the second יחד - for יחד is, in spite of Ewald, 217h, never a prep. - and the \"face,\" 17b, 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 יחד: (1) the adverb יחד, united, properly (taken accusat.) union; (2) יחד, Psa 86:11, imper. of the Piel יחד, unite; (3) יחדּ, Job 3:6, jussive of the Kal חדה, gaudeat; and (4) as Kimchi, in Michlol 126a, jussive of the Kal חדה (= חדד) acuere, after the form תחז, Mic 4:11. ויּחץ, Gen 32:8, etc. in p. יחד, after the form אחז, Job 23:9. ויּחל, Kg2 1:2 (= ויּחלא, Ch2 16:12). If we take יחד with בּרזל, then it is priori to be supposed that in יחד the idea of sharpening lies; in the Arab. iron is simply called hadyda = חדוּד, that which is sharpened, sharp; and a current Arab. proverb says: alḥadyd balḥadyd 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 Bttcher we read יחד and יחד, the fut. Kal of חדד: \"iron sharpeneth itself on iron, and a man sharpeneth himself over against his neighbour\" - for פני after a verb to be understood actively, has to be regarded as the object - but since יחד is changed into יחד (fut. Hiph. of חדד), and יחד into יחד or יחד (fut. Hiph. of חדד, after the form אחל, incipiam, Deu 2:25, or אחל, profanabo, Eze 39:7; Num 30:3). The passive rendering of the idea 17a and the active of 17b 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 ויּעל may be the fut. of the Hiph. (he brought up) as well as of the Kal (he went up), so יחד may be regarded as fut. Kal, and יחד as fut. Hiph. Fleischer prefers to render יחד also as Hiph.: aciem exhibet, like יעשׁיר, 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 Pro 12:26), but the repetition opposes it. Thus we explain: iron is sharpened [gewetzt, Luther uses this appropriate word] by iron (ב of the means, not of the object, which was rather to be expected in 17b after Pro 20:30), and a man whets פני, 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["The following three proverbs are connected with 17 in their similarity of form: - \n18 Whosoever watcheth the fig-tree will enjoy its fruit;\nAnd he that hath regard to his master attaineth to honour.\nThe first member is, as in Pro 27:17, only the means of contemplating the second; as faithful care of the tree has fruit for a reward, so faithful regard for one's master, honour; נצר is used as at Isa 27:3, שׁמר as at Hos 4:10, 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 פגין, unripe, בוחל, half ripe, and צמל, 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["19 As it is with water, face correspondeth to face,\nSo also the heart of man to man.\nThus the traditional text is to be translated; for on the supposition that כּמּים must be used for כּבמּים, yet it might not be translated: as in waters face corresponds to face (Jerome: quomodo in aquis resplendent vultus respicientium), because כּ (instar) is always only a prep. and never conj. subordinating to itself a whole sentence (vid., under Psa 38:14). But whether כּמּים, \"like water,\" may be an abridgment of a sentence: \"like as it is with water,\" is a question, and the translation of the lxx (Syr., Targ., Arab.), ὥσπερ οὐχ ὅμοια πρόσωπα προσώποις, κ.τ.λ., appears, according to Bttcher's ingenious conjecture, to have supposed כאשר במים, from which the lxx derived כּאין דּמים, sicut non pares. The thought is beautiful: as in the water-mirror each one beholds his own face (Luther: der Scheme = the shadow), so out of the heart of another each sees his own heart, i.e., he finds in another the dispositions and feelings of his own heart (Fleischer) - the face finds in water its reflection, and the heart of a man finds in man its echo; men are ὁμοιοπαθεῖς, and it is a fortunate thing that their heart is capable of the same sympathetic feelings, so that one can pour into the heart of another that which fills and moves his own heart, and can there find agreement with it, and a re-echo. The expression with ל is extensive: one corresponds to another, one belongs to another, is adapted to the other, turns to the other, so that the thought may be rendered in manifold ways: the divinely-ordained mutual relationship is always the ground-thought. This is wholly obliterated by Hitzig's conjecture כּמוּם, \"what a mole on the face is to the face, that is man's heart to man,\" i.e., the heart is the dark spot in man, his partie honteuse. But the Scripture nowhere speaks of the human heart after this manner, at least the Book of Proverbs, in which לב frequently means directly the understanding. Far more intelligible and consistent is the conjecture of Mendel Stern, to which Abrahamsohn drew my attention: כּמּים הפּנים לפנים, like water (viz., flowing water), which directs its course always forward, thus (is turned) the heart of man to man. This conjecture removes the syntactic harshness of the first member without changing the letters, and illustrates by a beautiful and excellent figure the natural impulse moving man to man. It appears, however, to us, in view of the lxx, more probable that כּמּים is abbreviated from the original כאשׁר במים (cf. Pro 24:29). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["The following proverb has, in common with the preceding, the catchword האדם, and the emphatic repetition of the same expression:\n20 The under-world and hell are not satisfied,\nAnd the eyes of man are not satisfied.\nA Kerı̂ ואבדון is here erroneously noted by Lwenstein, Stuart, and others. The Kerı̂ to ואבדּה is here ואבדּו, which secures the right utterance of the ending, and is altogether wanting\n(Note: In Gesen. Lex. this אבדה stands to the present day under אבדה.)\nin many MSS (e.g., Cod. Jaman). The stripping off of the ן from the ending ון is common in the names of persons and places (e.g., שׁלמה, lxx Σολομών and שׁלה); we write at pleasure either ow or oh (e.g., מגדּו), Olsh. 215g. אבדּה (אבדּו) of the nature of a proper name, is already found in its full form אבדּון at Pro 15:11, along with שׁאול; the two synonyms are, as was there shown, not wholly alike in the idea they present, as the underworld and realm of death, but are related to each other almost the same as Hades and Gehenna; אבדון is what is called\n(Note: Vid., Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten (1872), p. 25.)\nin the Jonathan-Targum בּית אבדּנא, the place of destruction, i.e., of the second death (מותא תנינא). The proverb places Hades and Hell on the one side, and the eyes of man on the other, on the same line in respect of their insatiableness. To this Fleischer adds the remark: cf. the Arab. al'ayn l'a taml'aha all'a altrab, nothing fills the eyes of man but at last the dust of the grave - a strikingly beautiful expression! If the dust of the grave fills the open eyes, then they are full - fearful irony! The eye is the instrument of seeing, and consequently in so far as it always looks out after and farther, it is the instrument and the representation of human covetousness. The eye is filled, is satisfied, is equivalent to: human covetousness is appeased. But first \"the desire of the eye,\" Jo1 2:16, is meant in the proper sense. The eyes of men are not satisfied in looking and contemplating that which is attractive and new, and no command is more difficult to be fulfilled than that in Isa 33:15, \"...that shutteth his eyes from seeing evil.\" There is therefore no more inexhaustible means, impiae sepculationis, than the desire of the eyes. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["There follow here two proverbs which have in common with each other the figures of the crucible and the mortar:\n21 The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold,\nAnd a man according to the measure of his praise;\ni.e., silver and gold one values according to the result of the smelting crucible and the smelting furnace; but a man, according to the measure of public opinion, which presupposes that which is said in Pro 12:8, \"according to the measure of his wisdom is a man praised.\" מהלל is not a ῥῆμα μέσον like our Leumund [renown], but it is a graduated idea which denotes fame down to evil Lob [fame], which is only Lob [praise] per antiphrasin. Ewald otherwise: \"according to the measure of his glorying;\" or Hitzig better: \"according to the measure with which he praises himself,\" with the remark: \"מהלל is not the act, the glorifying of self, but the object of the glorying (cf. מבטח, מדון), i.e., that in which he places his glory.\" Bttcher something further: \"one recognises him by that which he is generally wont to praise in himself and others, persons and things.\" Thus the proverb is to be understood; but in connection with Pro 12:8 it seems to us more probable that המלל is thought of as going forth from others, and not as from himself. In line first, Pro 17:3 is repeated; the second line there is conformable to the first, according to which it should be here said that the praise of a man is for him what the crucible and the furnace is for metal. The lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, and the Venet. read לפי מהללו, and thereby obtain more concinnity. Luther accordingly translates:\nA man is tried by the mouth of his praise,\nAs silver in the crucible and gold in the furnace.\nOthers even think to interpret man as the subject examining, and so they vocalize the words. Thus e.g., Fleischer: Qualis est catinus argento et fornax auro, talis sit homo ori a quo laudatur, so that \"mouth of his praise\" is equivalent to the man who praises him with his mouth. But where, as here, the language relates to relative worth, the supposition for לפי, that it denotes, as at Pro 12:8, pro ratione, is tenable. And that the mouth of him who praises is a smelting crucible for him who is praised, or that the praised shall be a crucible for the mouth of him who praises, would be a wonderful comparison. The lxx has here also an additional distich which has no place in the Heb. text. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["22 Though thou bruise a fool in a mortar among grit with a pestle,\nYet would not his folly depart from him.\nAccording to the best accredited accentuations, אם־תּכתּושׁ has Illuj. and בּמּכתּשׁ has Pazer, not Rebia, which would separate more than the Dechi, and disturb the sequence of the thoughts. The first line is long; the chief disjunctive in the sphere of the Athnach is Dechi of 'הר, this disjoins more than the Pazer of 'בּם, and this again more than the Legarmeh of את־האויל. The ה of הרפות does not belong to the stem of the word (Hitzig), but is the article; רפות (from רוּף, to shake, to break; according to Schultens, from רפת, to crumble, to cut in pieces, after the form קיטור, which is improbable) are bruised grains of corn (peeled grain, grit), here they receive this name in the act of being bruised; rightly Aquila and Theodotion, ἐν μέσῳ ἐμπτισσομένων (grains of corn in the act of being pounded or bruised), and the Venet. μέσον τῶν πτισανῶν.\n(Note: The lxx translates ἐν μέσῳ συνεδρίου, and has thereby misled the Syr., and mediately the Targum.)\nIn בּעלי (thus to be written after Michlol 43b, not בּעלי, as Heidenheim writes it without any authority) also the article is contained. מכתשׁ is the vessel, and the ב of בעלי is Beth instrumenti; עלי (of lifting up for the purpose of bruising) is the club, pestle (Luther: stempffel = pounder); in the Mishna, Beza i. 5, this word denotes a pounder for the cutting out of flesh. The proverb interprets itself: folly has become to the fool as a second nature, and he is not to be delivered from it by the sternest discipline, the severest means that may be tried; it is not indeed his substance (Hitzig), but an inalienable accident of his substance. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["An exhortation to rural industry, and particularly to the careful tending of cattle for breeding, forms the conclusion of the foregoing series of proverbs, in which we cannot always discern an intentional grouping. It is one of the Mashal-odes spoken of vol. i. p. 12. It consists of 11 = 4 + 7 lines.\n23 Give heed to the look of thy small cattle,\nBe considerate about the herds.\n24 For prosperity continues not for ever;\nAnd does the diadem continue from generation to generation?\n25 (But) the hay is gone, and the after-growth appears,\nAnd the grass of the mountains is gathered:\n26 Lambs serve to clothe thee,\nAnd goats are the price of a field.\n27 And there is plenty of goats' milk for thy nourishment,\nAnd for the nourishment of thy house,\nAnd subsistence for thy maidens.\nThe beginning directs to the fut., as is not common in these proverbs, vid., Pro 26:26. With ידע, to take knowledge, which is strengthened by the inf. intensivus, is interchanged שׁית לב, which means at Pro 24:32 to consider well, but here, to be careful regarding anything. צאן is the small or little cattle, thus sheep and goats. Whether לעדרים (here and at Isa 17:2) contains the article is questionable (Gesen. 35. 2 A), and, since the herds are called העדרים, is not probable; thus: direct thy attention to the herds, that is, to this, that thou hast herds. פּני is the external side in general; here, the appearance which the sheep present; thus their condition as seen externally. In Pro 27:24 I formerly regarded נזר as a synonym of גּז, to be understood of the produce of wool, or, with Hitzig, of the shearing of the meadow, and thus the produce of the meadow. But this interpretation of the word is untenable, and Pro 27:25 provides for Pro 27:24, thus understood, no natural continuation of thought. That חסן signifies a store, fulness of possessions, property, and abundance, has already been shown under Pro 15:6; but נזר is always the mark of royal, and generally of princely dignity, and here denotes, per meton. signi pro re signata, that dignity itself. With the negative expression in 24a the interrogative in 24b is interchanged as at Job 40:9, with the implied negative answer; ואם, of an oath (\"and truly not,\" as at Isa 62:8), presents the same thought, but with a passionate colouring here unnecessary. Rightly Fleischer: \"ready money, moveable property, and on the other hand the highest positions of honour, are far more easily torn away from a man, and secure to him far less of quiet prosperity, than husbandry, viewed particularly with respect to the rearing of cattle.\" In other words: the possession of treasures and of a lofty place of power and of honour has not in itself the security of everlasting duration; but rural economy, and particularly the rearing of cattle, gives security for food and clothing. The Chethı̂b לדור דור is found, e.g., at Exo 3:15; the Kerı̂ לדּור ודור substitutes the more usual form. If Pro 27:25 was an independent whole (Hitzig: grass vanishes and fresh green appears, etc.), then the meaning here and onward would be that in the sphere of husbandry it is otherwise than is said in Pro 27:24 : there that which is consumed renews itself, and there is an enlarging circulation. But this contrast to Pro 27:24 must be expressed and formed unambiguously. The connection is rather this, that Pro 27:23 commends the rearing of cattle, Pro 27:24 confirms it, and 25ff. discuss what real advantages, not dependent on the accidents of public and social life, it brings.\nI rejoice to agree with Fleischer in the opinion that the perfects of Pro 27:25 form a complex hypothetical antecedent to Pro 27:26 : Quum evanuerit gramen (sc. vetus) et apparuerint herbae recentes et collecta fuerint pabula montium, agni vestitui tuo (inservient) et pretium agri (sc. a te emendi) erunt hirci, i.e., then wilt thou nourish thy herds of sheep and goats with the grass on thy fields, and with the dried gathered hay; and these will yield for thee, partly immediately and partly by the money derived therefrom (viz., from the valuable goats not needed for the flocks), all that is needful for thy life. He also remarks, under גּלה, that it means to make a place void, empty (viz., to quit the place, vacuer la forteresse); hence to leave one's fatherland or home, to wander abroad; thus, rhetorically and poetically of things and possessions: to disappear. חציר (from חצר, to be green) is hay, and דּשׁא the after-growing second crop (after-grass); thus a meadow capable of being mowed a second time is though of. עשּׂבות הרים (with Dag. dirimens, as e.g., ענּבי Deu 32:32) are the herbage of the mountains. The time when one proceeds to sheep-shearing, Pro 27:25 cannot intend to designate; it sets before us an interesting rural harvest scene, where, after a plentiful ingathering of hay, one sees the meadows again overspread with new grass (Ewald); but with us the shearing of sheep takes place in the month of May, when the warm season of the year is just at hand. The poet means in general to say, that when the hay is mown and now the herbage is grown up, and also the fodder from the mountains (Psa 106:20) has been gathered home, when thus the barns are filled with plenty, the husbandman is guaranteed against the future on all sides by his stock of cattle. חלב (from חלב, Arab. halyb, with halab) is the usual metaplastic connecting form of חלב, milk. דּי (from דּי, like חי from חי), generally connected with the genitive of the person or thing, for which anything is sufficient (e.g., Pro 25:16, דּיּך, to which Fleischer compares Arab. hasbuha, tassuha kifayuha), has here the genitive of the thing of which, or in which, one has enough. The complex subject-conception is limited by Rebia, and the governing דּי has the subordinated disjunctive Legarmeh. עזּים is a word of two genders (epicoenum), Gesen. 107, 1d. In וחיּים the influence of the ל still continues; one does not need to supply it meanwhile, since all that maintains and nourishes life can be called חיים (vita = victus), e.g., Pro 3:22. The lxx translates בּיתך by σῶν θεραπόντων, and omits (as also the Syr., but not the Syro-Hexap.) the last line as now superfluous; but that the maids attending to the cattle - by whom we particularly think of milkers - are especially mentioned, intentionally presents the figure of a well-ordered household, full of varied life and activity (Job 40:29). \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/27.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":27},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/28.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":28},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/26.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":26},"numberOfVerses":23}