{"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":6,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["The author warns against suretyship; or rather, he advises that if one has made himself surety, he should as quickly as possible withdraw from the snare.\n1 My son, if thou hast become surety for thy neighbour,\nHast given thy hand for another:\n2 Thou art entangled in the words of thy mouth,\nEnsnared in the words of thy mouth.\n3 Do this then, my son, and free thyself - \nFor thou hast come under the power of thy neighbour - \nGo, instantly entreat and importune thy neighbour.\n4 Give no sleep to thine eyes,\nAnd no slumber to thine eyelids;\n5 Tear thyself free like a gazelle from his hand,\nAnd as a bird from the hand of the fowler.\nThe chief question here is, whether ל after ערב introduces him for whom or with whom one becomes surety. Elsewhere ערב (R. רב, whence also ארב, nectere, to twist close and compact) with the accusative of the person means to become surety for any one, to represent him as a surety, Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16 (Pro 27:13), Gen 43:9; Gen 44:33 (as with the accusative of the matter, to pledge anything, to deposit it as a pledge, Jer 30:21; Neh 5:3, = שׂים, Arab. waḍ'a, Job 17:3); and to become surety with any one is expressed, Gen 17:18, by ערב לפני. The phrase ערב ל is not elsewhere met with, and is thus questionable. If we look to Pro 6:3, the רע (רעה) mentioned there cannot possibly be the creditor with whom one has become surety, for so impetuous and urgent an application to him would be both purposeless and unbecoming. But if he is meant for whom one has become surety, then certainly לרעך is also to be understood of the same person, and ל is thus dat. commodi; similar to this is the Targumic ערבוּתא על, suretyship for any one, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26. But is the זר, 1b, distinguished from רעך, the stranger with whom one has become surety? The parallels Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16, where זר denotes the person whom one represents, show that in both lines one and the same person is meant; זר is in the Proverbs equivalent to אחר, each different from the person in the discourse, Pro 5:17; Pro 27:2 - thus, like רעך, denotes not the friend, but generally him to whom one stands in any kind of relation, even a very external one, in a word, the fellow-creatures or neighbours, Pro 24:28 (cf. the Arab. sahbk and ḳarynk, which are used as vaguely and superficially). It is further a question, whether we have to explain 1b: if thou hast given thine hand to another, or for another. Here also we are without evidence from the usage of the language; for the phrase תּקע כּף, or merely תּקע, appears to be used of striking the hand in suretyship where it elsewhere occurs without any further addition, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26; Pro 11:15; however, Job 17:3, נתקע ליד appears the same: to strike into the hand of any one, i.e., to give to him the hand-stroke. From this passage Hitzig concludes that the surety gave the hand-stroke, without doubt in the presence of witnesses, first of all of the creditor, to the debtor, as a sign that he stood for him. But this idea is unnatural, and the \"without doubt\" melts into air. He on whose hand the stroke falls is always the person to whom one gives suretyship, and confirms it by the hand-stroke. Job also, l.c., means to say: who else but Thou, O Lord, could give to me a pledge, viz., of my innocence? If now the זר, v. 1b, is, as we have shown, not the creditor,\n(Note: A translation by R. Joseph Joel of Fulda, 1787, whose autograph MS Baer possesses, renders the passage not badly thus: - \"My son, if thou hast become surety for thy friend, and hast given the hand to another, then thou art bound by thy word, held by thy promise. Yet do what I say to thee, my son: Be at pains as soon as thou canst to get free, otherwise thou art in the power of thy friend; shun no trouble, be urgent with thy friend.\")\nbut the debtor, then is the ל the dat. commodi, as 1a, and the two lines perfectly correspond. תּקע properly means to drive, to strike with a resounding noise, cogn. with the Arab. wak'a, which may be regarded as its intrans. (Fl.); then particularly to strike the hand or with the hand. He to whom this hand-pledge is given for another remains here undesignated. A new question arises, whether in Pro 6:6, where נוקשׁ (illaqueari) and נלכּד (comprehendi) follow each other as Isa 8:15, cf. Jer 50:24, the hypothetical antecedent is continued or not. We agree with Schultens, Ziegler, and Fleischer against the continuance of the אם. The repetition of the בּאמרי פיך (cf. Pro 2:14) serves rightly to strengthen the representation of the thought: thou, thou thyself and no other, hast then ensnared thyself in the net; but this strengthening of the expression would greatly lose in force by placing Pro 6:2 in the antecedent, while if Pro 6:2 is regarded as the conclusion, and thus as the principal proposition, it appears in its full strength.\nPro 6:3\nThe new commencement needs no particle denoting a conclusion; the אפוא, making the summons emphatic (cf. Kg2 10:10, frequently in interrogative clauses), connects it closely enough. זאת, neut., refers to what follows. The ו before הנּצל is explanatory, as we say in familiar language: Be so good as tell me, or do me the favour to come with me; while no Frenchman would say, Faites-moi le (ce) plaisir et venez avec moi (Fl.).\n(Note: For the right succession of the accents here (three serviles before the Pazer), vid., Torath Emeth, p. 30; Accentuationssystem, xii. 4. According to Gen-Naphtali, Mercha is to be given to the זאת.)\nThe clause כּי באת\n(Note: The Zinnorith before the Mahpach in these words represents at the same time the Makkeph and rejects the Zinnorith; vid., Torath Emeth, p. 16, and my Psalmencomm. Bd. ii. (1860), p. 460, note 2.)\nis not to be translated: in case thou art fallen into the hand of thy neighbour; for this is represented (Pro 6:1, Pro 6:2) as having already in fact happened. On two sides the surety is no longer sui juris: the creditor has him in his hand; for if the debtor does not pay, he holds the surety, and in this way many an honourable man has lost house and goods, Sirach 29:18, cf. 8:13; - and the debtor has him, the surety, in his hand; for the performance which is due, for which the suretyship avails, depends on his conscientiousness. The latter is here meant: thou hast made thy freedom and thy possessions dependent on the will of thy neighbour for whom thou art the surety. The clause introduced with כּי gives the reason for the call to set himself free (הנּצל from נצל, R. צל, של, to draw out or off); it is a parenthetical sentence. The meaning of התרפּס is certain. The verb רפס (רפשׂ, רפס) signifies to stamp on, calcare, conclucare; the Kams\n(Note: el-Feyroozbdee's Kmus, a native Arabic Lexicon; vid., Lane's Arab. Lex. Bk. i. pt. 1, p. xvii.)\nexplains rafas by rakad balarjal. The Hithpa. might, it is true, mean to conduct oneself in a trampling manner, to tread roughly, as התנבּא, and the medial Niph. נבּא, to conduct oneself speaking (in an impassioned manner); but Psa 68:31 and the analogy of התבּוסס favour the meaning to throw oneself in a stamping manner, i.e., violently, to the ground, to trample upon oneself - i.e., let oneself be trampled upon, to place oneself in the attitude of most earnest humble prayer. Thus the Graec. Venet. πατήθητι, Rashi (\"humble thyself like to the threshold which is trampled and trode upon\"), Aben-Ezra, Immanuel (\"humble thyself under the soles of his feet\"); so Cocceius, J. H. Michaelis, and others: conculcandum te praebe. וּרהב is more controverted. The Talmudic-Midrash explanation (b. Joma, 87a; Bathra, 173b, and elsewhere): take with thee in great numbers thy friends (רהב = הרבּה), is discredited by this, that it has along with it the explanation of התרפס by (יד) פּס חתּר, solve palmam (manus), i.e., pay what thou canst. Also with the meaning to rule (Parchon, Immanuel), which רהב besides has not, nothing is to be done. The right meaning of רהב בּ is to rush upon one boisterously, Isa 3:5. רהב means in general to be violently excited (Arab. rahiba, to be afraid), and thus to meet one, here with the accusative: assail impetuously thy neighbour (viz., that he fulfil his engagement). Accordingly, with a choice of words more or less suitable, the lxx translates by παρόξυνε, Symm., Theodotion by παρόρμησον, the Graec. Venet. by ἐνίσχυσον, the Syr. (which the Targumist copies) by גרג (solicita), and Kimchi glosses by: lay an arrest upon him with pacifying words. The Talmud explains רעיך as plur.;\n(Note: There is here no distinction between the Kethb and the Kerı̂. The Masora remarks, \"This is the only passage in the Book of Proverbs where the word is written with Yod (י);\" it thus recognises only the undisputed רעיך.)\nbut the plur., which was permissible in Pro 3:28, is here wholly inadmissible: it is thus the plena scriptio for רעך with the retaining of the third radical of the ground-form of the root-word (רעי = רעה), or with י as mater lectionis, to distinguish the pausal-form from that which is without the pause; cf. Pro 24:34. lxx, Syr., Jerome, etc., rightly translate it in the sing. The immediateness lying in לך (cf. ὕπαγε, Mat 5:24) is now expressed as a duty, Pro 6:4. One must not sleep and slumber (an expression quite like Psa 132:4), not give himself quietness and rest, till the other has released him from his bail by the performance of that for which he is surety. One must set himself free as a gazelle or as a bird, being caught, seeks to disentangle itself by calling forth all its strength and art.\nPro 6:5\nThe naked מיּד is not to be translated \"immediately;\" for in this sense the word is rabbinical, not biblical. The versions (with exception of Jerome and the Graec. Venet.) translate as if the word were מפּח [out of the snare]. Bertheau prefers this reading, and Bttcher holds חיּד [a hunter] to have fallen out after מיד. It is not a parallelism with reservation; for a bird-catcher is not at the same time a gazelle-hunter. The author, if he has so written, has conceived of מיד, as at Kg1 20:42, as absolute, and connected it with הנּצל: tear thyself free like the gazelle from the hand into which thou hast fallen (Hitzig); according to which, the section should be accentuated thus: הנצל כצבי מיד. צבי, Aram. טבי, Arab. zaby, is the gazelle (Arab. ghazâl), so called from its elegance; צפּור, the bird, from its whistling (צפר, Arab. ṣafar, R. צף, cf. Arab. saffârat, the whistling of a bird), Arab. safar, whistler (with prosthesis, 'aṣafwar, warbler, Psalm. p. 794). The bird-catcher is called יקושׁ (from יקשׁ, after the form יכל, cog. קושׁ, Isa 29:21, נקשׁ, R. קש), after the form בּגוד (fem. בּגודה), or יקוּשׁ; one would think that the Kametz, after the form kâtwl (vid., under Isa 1:17), must here be fixed, but in Jer 5:26 the word is vocalized יקוּשׁים. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["As Elihu (Job 35:11) says that God has set the beasts as our teachers, so he sends the sluggard to the school of the ant (Ameise), so named (in Germ.) from its industry (Emsigkeit):\n6 Go to the ant, sluggard;\nConsider her ways, and be wise!\n7 She that hath no judge,\nDirector, and ruler:\n8 She prepareth in summer her food,\nHas gathered in harvest her store.\nThe Dech written mostly under the לך separates the inseparable. The thought, Go to the ant, sluggard! permits no other distinction than in the vocative; but the Dech of לך אל־נמלה is changed into Munach\n(Note: Cod. 1294 accentuates לך אל־נמלה; and that, according to Ben-Asher's rule, is correct.)\non account of the nature of the Athnach-word, which consists of only two syllables without the counter-tone. The ant has for its Hebrew-Arabic name נמלה, from the R. נם (Isaiah, p. 687), which is first used of the sound, which expresses the idea of the low, dull, secret - thus of its active and yet unperceived motion; its Aramaic name in the Peshto, ûmenaa', and in the Targ. שׁוּמשׁמנא (also Arab. sumsum, simsim, of little red ants), designates it after its quick activity, its busy running hither and thither (vid., Fleischer in Levy's Chald. Wrterb. ii. 578). She is a model of unwearied and well-planned labour. From the plur. דּרכיה it is to be concluded that the author observed their art in gathering in and laying up in store, carrying burdens, building their houses, and the like (vid., the passages in the Talmud and Midrash in the Hamburg Real-Encyclopdie fr Bibel und Talmud, 1868, p. 83f.). To the ant the sluggard (עצל, Aram. and Arab. עטל, with the fundamental idea of weight and dulness) is sent, to learn from her to be ashamed, and to be taught wisdom.\nPro 6:7\nThis relative clause describes the subject of Pro 6:8 more fully: it is like a clause with גּם כּי, quamquam.\n(Note: Pro 6:7 is commonly halved by Rebia; but for the correct accentuation, vid., Torath Emeth, p. 48, 3.)\nThe community of ants exhibits a peculiar class of workers; but it is not, like that of bees, composed of grades germinating in the queen-bee as the head. The three offices here named represent the highest judiciary, police, and executive powers; for קצין (from קצה, to distinguish, with the ending in, vid., Jesurun, p. 215 s.) is the judge; שׁטר (from שׁטר, Arab. saṭr, to draw lines, to write) is the overseer (in war the director, controller), or, as Saalschtz indicates the province of the schotrim both in cities and in the camp, the office of police; משׁל (vid., Isaiah, p. 691), the governors of the whole state organism subordinated to the schoftim and the schotrim. The Syr., and the Targ. slavishly following it, translate קצין by חצדּא (harvest), for they interchange this word with קציר.\nPro 6:8\nIn this verse the change of the time cannot be occasioned by this, that קיץ and קציר are distinguished as the earlier and the later period of the year; for קיץ (= Arab. ḳayt, from ḳât, to be glowing hot, cf. Arab. kghyyṭ of the glow of the mid-day heat) is the late summer, when the heat rises to the highest degree; but the son of the Shunammite succumbed to the sun-stroke in the time of harvest (Kg2 4:18.). Lwenstein judiciously remarks that תּכין refers to immediate want, אנרה to that which is future; or, better, the former shows them engaged in persevering industry during the summer glow, the latter as at the end of the harvest, and engaged in the bringing home of the winter stores. The words of the procuring of food in summer are again used by Agur, Pro 30:25; and the Aramaic fable of the ant and the grasshopper,\n(Note: Vid., Goldberg's Chofes Matmonim, Berlin 1845; and Landsberger's Berlin Graduation Thesis, Fabulae aliquot Aramaeae, 1846, p. 28.)\nwhich is also found among those of Aesop and of Syntipas, serves as an illustration of this whole verse. The lxx has, after the \"Go to the ant,\" a proverb of five lines, ἢ πορεύθητι πρὸς τὴν μέλισσαν. Hitzig regards it as of Greek origin; and certainly, as Lagarde has shown, it contains idiomatic Greek expressions which would not occur to a translator from the Hebrew. In any case, however, it is an interpolation which disfigures the Hebrew text by overlading it. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":9,"content":["After the poet has admonished the sluggard to take the ant as an example, he seeks also to rouse him out of his sleepiness and indolence:\n9 How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie?\nWhen wilt thou rise up from thy sleep?\n10 \"A little sleep, a little slumber,\nA little folding of the hands to rest!\"\n11 So comes like a strong robber thy poverty,\nAnd thy want as an armed man.\nPro 6:9-10\nThe awakening cry, Pro 6:9, is not of the kind that Paul could have it in his mind, Eph 5:14. עצל has, as the vocative, Pasek after it, and is, on account of the Pasek, in correct editions accentuated not with Munach, but Mercha. The words, Pro 6:10, are not an ironical call (sleep only yet a little while, but in truth a long while), but per mimesin the reply of the sluggard with which he turns away the unwelcome disturber. The plurals with מעט sound like self-delusion: yet a little, but a sufficient! To fold the hands, i.e., to cross them over the breast, or put them into the bosom, denotes also, Ecc 4:5, the idler. חבּוּק, complicatio (cf. in Livy, compressis quod aiunt manibus sidere; and Lucan, 2:292, compressas tenuisse manus), for formed like שׁקּוּי, Pro 3:8, and the inf. שׁכב like חסר, Pro 10:21, and שׁפל, Pro 16:19. The perf. consec. connects itself with the words heard from the mouth of the sluggard, which are as a hypothetical antecedent thereto: if thou so sayest, and always again sayest, then this is the consequence, that suddenly and inevitably poverty and want come upon thee. That מהלּך denotes the grassator, i.e., vagabond (Arab. dawwar, one who wanders much about), or the robber or foe (like the Arab. 'aduww, properly transgressor finium), is not justified by the usage of the language; הלך signifies, Sa2 12:4, the traveller, and מהלּך is one who rides quickly forward, not directly a κακὸς ὁδοιπόρος (lxx).\nPro 6:11\nThe point of comparison, 11a, is the unforeseen, as in quick march or assault (Bttcher), and 11b the hostile and irretrievable surprise; for a man in armour, as Hitzig remarks, brings no good in his armour: he assails the opponent, and he who is without defence yields to him without the possibility of withstanding him. The lxx translate כאישׁ מגן by ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς δρομεύς (cf. δρομεύς = מני־ארג, Job 7:6, lxx, Aq.), for what reason we know not. After Pro 6:11 they interpose two other lines: \"but if thou art assiduous, thy harvest will come to thee as a fountain, but want will go away ὥσπερ κακὸς δρομεύς.\" Also this \"bad runner\" we must let go; for Lagarde's retranslation, ומחסרך כחשׁ בּאישׁ נמג, no one can understand. The four lines, Pro 6:10, Pro 6:11 are repeated in the appendix of Words of the Wise, Pro 24:33.; and if this appendix originated in the time of Hezekiah, they may have been taken therefrom by the poet, the editor of the older Book of Proverbs. Instead of כמהלּך, מתהלך is there used (so comes forward thy poverty, i.e., again and again, but certainly moving forward); and instead of מחסרך, מחסריך is written, as also here, Pro 6:6, for משׁנתך is found the variant משׁנתיך with Jod as mater lectionis of the pausal Segol. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["There follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing.\n12 A worthless man, a wicked man,\nIs he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth;\n13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot,\nPointeth with his fingers.\n14 Malice is in his heart,\nHe deviseth evil at all times,\nHe spreadeth strife.\n15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come,\nSuddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy.\nIt is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and אדם בּליּעל is without doubt predicate. But does the complex subject begin with אישׁ און? Thus e.g., Hitzig: \"A worthless man is the wicked man who....\" But the interchange of עדם and אישׁ is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to אישׁ און, then since אישׁ האון is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by ההולך. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate. Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, אישׁ בליעל. Since אדם און is not possible, the author uses instead בליעל. This word, composed of בּלי and יעל (from יעל, ועל, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, Sa1 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for אדם does not form a constructivus, and never governs a genitive. בליעל is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam); the connection is like that of אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with בליעל is און (from an, to breathe), wickedness, i.e., want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.e., who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. עקּשׁוּת פּה is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for הלך is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i.e., dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15.\nPro 6:13\nקורץ בּעיניו is translated according to the sense: who winks (nictat) with his eyes; but that is not the proper meaning of the word, for קרץ is used not only of the eyes. Pro 10:10 (cf. Pro 16:30, qui oculos morsicat or connivet), Psa 35:19, but also of the lips, Pro 16:30. Thus Lwenstein's explanation: who opens up the eyes, is incorrect. The verb קרץ unites in it the meanings of Arab. qrts, to pinch off with a sharp implement, and Arab. qrd, with a blunt instrument (Arab. miḳraḍ, pincers). It means to pince, to nip, as Arab. ḳarṣ, pincer - e.g., ḳarṣ balskyn alarsasat, he cuts off with the knife the leaden seal - hence frequently, to nip together the eyes, provincially: to wink (\"zwickern,\" frequent. of \"zwicken,\" to nip) with the eyes - the action of the deceiver, who thereby gives the sign to others that they help or at least do not hinder him from bantering and mocking, belying and deceiving a third person (Fl.); cf. Ali's proverb, \"O God, pardon to us the culpable winking with the eye (ramzat),\" and Fleischer's notes thereon, the Proverbs of Ali, p. 100f.\nThat the words which follow, בּרגליו מולל, are meant of discourse, i.e., the giving of signs, with the feet, and, so to say, significant oratio pedestris (lxx, Aben-Ezra, Bertheau, Hitzig, and others), is very improbable, since the usage of language has set apart the Piel מלּל for the meaning loqui, and מולל admits another suitable signification, for מולל means in Talmudic fricare, confricare - e.g., המולל מלילות, he who grinds the parched ears of corn (b. Beza 12b; Ma'seroth, iv. 5) - after which Syr., Targ., תכס (stamping), Aq. τρίβων, Symm. προστρίβων, Jerome, (qui) terit pede, and Rashi משׁפשׁף (grinding, scratching); it means one who scrapes with his feet, draws them backwards and forwards on the ground in order thereby to give a sign to others; also the Arab. mll, levem et agilem esse, which as the synonym of Arab. sr is connected with Arab. fı̂ of the way, signifies properly to move the feet quickly hither and thither (Fl.).\n(Note: The root-idea of the Arab. mall is unquietness of motion; the Arab. noun mallt signifies the glow with its flickering light and burning: glowing ashes, inner agitation, external haste; Arab. malil (מלל) is the feverish patient, but also one quickly hastening away, and generally an impatient or hasty person (vid., Wetstein in Baudissin in his Job. Tischendorfianus, vii. 6). The grinding is made by means of a quick movement hither and thither; and so also is speaking, for the instrument of speech, particularly the tongue, is set in motion. Only the meaning praecidere, circumcidere, does not connect itself with that root-idea: מל in this signification appears to be a nance of מר, stringere.)\nמרה appears here, in accordance with its primary signification (projicere, sc. brachium or digitum = monstrare), connected with בּעצבּעתיו; another expression for this scornful, malicious δακτυλοδεικνεῖν is שׁלח אצבּע, Isa 58:9.\nPro 6:14\nIn this verse is continued the description of the subject, only once returning to the particip. The clauses are arranged independently, but logically according to the complex conception of the subject. תּהפּכות .tce are just the knaveries, i.e., the malicious wickedness which comes to light in word and deportment as עקשׁות פה. Regarding the double figure of the smithy and of agriculture underlying חרשׁ, machinari, vid., at Pro 3:29, and regarding the omission of the הוּא to חרשׁ, at Psa 7:10. The phrase שׁלּח מדנים (as Pro 6:19, Pro 16:28), to let loose disputes, so that they break forth, reminds us rather of the unfettering of the winds by Aeolus than of the casting in of the apple of discord. Instead of מדנים the Kerı̂ has מדינים; on the other hand, מדנים remains uncorrected Pro 6:19; Pro 10:12. The form מדינים occurs once, Pro 18:18, and its constr. מדיני once, Pro 19:13. Everywhere else the text has מדונים, for which the Kerı̂ has מדינים, Pro 18:19; Pro 21:9, Pro 21:19; Pro 23:29; Pro 25:24; Pro 26:21; Pro 27:15. The forms מדין and מדן are also recognised: the former stands alone without any analogous example; the latter is compared at least with מצד, Arab. masâd (Psalmen, p. 163, 3). Probably these two forms are warranted by Gen 25:2, cf. Gen 37:28, Gen 37:36, where מדין and מדן occur as the names of two sons of Abraham by Keturah. But the national name מדינים is no reason for the seven times laying aside of the regular form מדונים, i.e., מדונים, which is the plur. of מדון after the forms מאורים, מעורים, although מדוּנים, after the forms מבוּשׁים, מצוּקים, is also found.\nPro 6:15\nWith the 14th verse the description terminates. A worthless and a wicked person is he who does such things. The point lies in the characteristic out of which the conclusion is drawn: therefore his ruin will suddenly come upon him, etc. Regarding איד, the root-meaning of which is illustrated by Amo 2:13, vid., at Pro 1:26. פּתאם is an old accus. of an absol. פּתא, of the same meaning as פּתע, used as an adverbial accus., both originating in the root-idea of splitting, opening, breaking out and breaking forth. \"Shall be broken to pieces\" (as a brittle potter's vessel, Psa 2:9; Isa 30:14; Jer 29:11) is a frequent figure for the destruction (שׁבר) of an army (cf. Arab. ânksar âljysh), of a city or a state, a man. ואין continues the ישּׁבר as Pro 29:1 : there shall be as it were no means of recovery for his shattered members (Fl.). Without the Vav this אין מרפּא would be a clause conceived of accusatively, and thus adverbially: without any healing. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["What now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (מדנים, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp. 12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda: - \n16 There are six things which Jahve hateth,\nAnd seven are an abhorrence to His soul:\n17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,\nAnd hands that shed innocent blood;\n18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil,\nFeet that hastily run to wickedness,\n19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness,\nAnd he who soweth strife between brethren.\nThe sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Lwenstein); the Midda-form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit, for המּה, הנּה, (הם, הן) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as אלּה, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be שׁשׁ אלה, or more correctly האלה שׁשׁ. But also Hitzig's explanation, \"These six things (viz., Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,\" is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce) the substantive pronoun המה nuonorp , הנה (ההמה, ההנה) is never, like the Chald. המּון (המּו), employed as an accus. in the sense of אתהם, אתהן, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom., whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which הנה (המה) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, 'שׂנא ה is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex (sunt) ea quae Deus odit, et septem (sunt) abominatio animae ejus. Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid., at Isa 1:14. תועבות, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral (vid., Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Kerı̂; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote תועבת. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light. The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor, which expresses itself in elatum (grande) supercilium: עינים רמות, the feature of the רם, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with Sa2 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the שׁח עינים, Job 22:29; עין is in the O.T. almost always (vid., Sol 4:9) fem., and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. דּם־נקי is innocent blood as distinguished from דּם הנּקי, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13.\n(Note: The writing דּם follows the Masoretic rule, vid., Kimchi, Michlol 205b, and Heidenheim under Deu 19:10, where in printed editions of the text (also in Norzi's) the irregular form דּם נקי is found. Besides, the Metheg is to be given to דּם־, so that one may not read it dom, as e.g., שׁשׁ־מאות, Gen 7:11, that one may not read it שׁשׁ־.)\nPro 6:18\nThe fourth characteristic is a deceitful heart. On חרשׁ, vid., Pro 6:14, Pro 3:29, and on אין, Pro 6:12. The fifth: feet running with haste to evil; לרעה as לרע in Isa 59:7, echoing the distich Pro 1:16, as here, 17b and 18b. The connection מהר לרוּץ, propere cucurrit (contrast אחר ל), is equivalent to רץ מהר.\nPro 6:19\nThe sixth: \"A speaker of lies, a tongue of falsehood,\" is hateful to God. It is one subject which is thus doubly characterized. כּזבים are fictions, and שׁקר is the disfiguring (deformatio) of the actual facts. They are purposely placed together in this connection. The derivations of these synonyms are obscure; Frst gives to the former the root-idea of spinning (properly knotting together), and to the latter that of painting. כזבים is introduced to support שׁקר.\n(Note: Isaak Albo thus distinguishes these synonyms in his dogmatic, bearing the title ספר עקרים, ii. 27.)\nIt would also be verbally permissible to interpret עד שׁקר in the sense of עדוּת שׁקר, like Pro 25:18, as in apposition to כזבים; but in the nearest parallel, Pro 14:15, the idea is personal, for it is said of the עד שׁקר that he breathes out lies. In that place there can be no doubt that the clause is a verbal one, and יפיח finitum, viz., Hiph. of פּוּח. This Hiph. signifies elsewhere also sufflare, Pro 20:8, afflare, Psa 10:5; Eze 21:26, perflare, Sol 4:16, anhelare (desiderare), Psa 12:6; Hab 2:3, but with כזבים, efflare, a synonym to דּבּר, as הבּיע and הטּיף, which has (cf. Pro 12:17) no secondary meaning in use, but is mostly connected with כזבים, not without reference to the fact that that which is false is without reality and is nothing more than הבל ורוח. But what kind of a form is יפיח, where it is not, as Pro 14:5, the predicate of a verbal clause, but in connection with כזבים, as here and at Pro 14:25; Pro 19:5, Pro 19:9 (once with אמונה, Pro 12:17), is the subject of a substantival clause? That which lies nearest is to regard it as a noun formed from the fut. Hiph. Such formations we indeed meet only among proper names, such as יאיר, יכין, יקים; however, at least the one n. appell. יריב (an adversary) is found, which may be formed from the Hiph. as well as from the Kal. But should not the constr. of יפיח after the form יריב be יפיח? One does not escape from this consideration by deriving יפיח, after the forms יגיע, יחיל, ידיד, ישׁישׁ, and the like, from a secondary verb יפח, the existence of which is confirmed by Jer 4:31, and from which also יפח, Psa 27:12, appears to be derived, although it may be reduced also, after the form ירב (with יריב), to הפיח. But in this case also one expects as a connecting form יפיח like ידיד, as in reality יפח from יפח (cf. אבל, שׂמהי, from אבל, שׂמח). Shall it now be assumed that the Kametz is treated as fixed? This were contrary to rule, since it is not naturally long. Thus the connection is not that of the genitive. But if יפיח were a substantive formed with the preformative of the second modus like ילקוּט Sa1 17:40, or were it a participial intensive form of active signification such as נביא, then the verbal force remaining in it is opposed to the usage of the language. There remains nothing further, therefore, than to regard יפיח as an attributive put in the place of a noun: one who breathes out; and there is a homogeneous example of this, for in any other way we cannot explain יוסיף, Ecc 1:18. In 19b the numeral proverb reaches its point. The chief of all that God hates is he who takes a fiendish delight in setting at variance men who stand nearly related. Thus this brief proverbial discourse rounds itself off, coming again to 14b as a refrain. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["After these three smaller sections, the teacher of wisdom returns here to the theme of the eighth: Warning against sins of the flesh, whose power and prevalence among men is so immeasurably great, that their terrible consequences cannot sufficiently be held up before them, particularly before youth.\n20 Keep, my son, the commandment of thy father,\nAnd reject not the instruction of thy mother.\n21 Bind them to thy heart evermore,\nFasten them about thy neck.\nThe suff. -ēm refers to the good doctrine (cf. Pro 7:3) pointed out by מצוה and תּורה; the masc. stands, as is usual (e.g., Pro 1:16; Pro 5:2), instead of the fem. Regarding the figure, reminding us of the Tefillin and of Amuletes for perpetual representation, vid., under Pro 3:3. Similarly of persons, Sol 8:6. The verb ענד (only here and Job 31:36) signifies to bend, particularly to bend aside (Arab. 'ind, bending off, going aside; accus. as adv., aside, apud), and to bend up, to wind about, circumplicare. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["The representation of the good doctrine is now personified, and becomes identified with it.\nWhen thou walkest, it will guide thee;\nWhen thou liest down, it will keep watch over thee;\nAnd when thou wakest, it will talk with thee.\nThe subject is the doctrine of wisdom, with which the representation of wisdom herself is identified. The futures are not expressive of a wish or of an admonition, but of a promise; the form of the third clause shows this. Thus, and in the same succession as in the schema Deu 6:7, cf. Pro 11:19, are the three circumstances of the outward life distinguished: going, lying down, and rising up. The punctuation בּהתהלכך, found here and there, is Ben-Naphtali's variant; Ben-Asher and also the Textus rec. reject the Metheg in this case, vid., Baer's Metheg-Setzung, 28. The verb נחה, with its Hiph. in a strengthened Kal-signification, is more frequently found in the Psalms than in the Proverbs; the Arab. nh' shows that it properly signifies to direct (dirigere), to give direction, to move in a definite direction. שׁמר with על, to take into protection, we had already Pro 2:11; this author has favourite forms of expression, in the repetition of which he takes delight. With lying down, sleeping is associated. והקיצות is, as Psa 139:18, the hypoth. perf., according to Ewald, 357a: et ut expergefactus es, illa te compellabit. Bertheau incorrectly: she will make thee thoughtful. But apart from the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of this Hiph. in the language of the Bible, the personification demands a clearer figure. שׂיח (שׂוּח) signifies mental speech and audible speech (Gen 24:63, poet., in the Talmudic\n(Note: The conjecture thrown out by Wetstein, that (Arab.) shykh is equivalent to משׂיח (מסיח), speaker, is untenable, since the verb shakh, to be old, a so-called munsarif, i.e., conjugated throughout, is used in all forms, and thus is certainly the root of the shykh.)\na common word); with ב, speaking concerning something (fabulari de), Psa 69:13; with the accus., that which is said of a thing, Psa 145:5, or the address, briefly for שׂיח ל, Job 12:8 (as מגּן with accus. Pro 4:9 = מגן ל): when thou art awake, wisdom will forthwith enter into conversation with thee, and fill thy thoughts with right matter, and give to thy hands the right direction and consecration. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["Since in היא the idea of wisdom and of wholesome doctrine lie in one another, the author can proceed with proof:\nFor a lamp is the commandment, and instruction a light (Jerome et lex lux);\nAnd a way of life, disciplinary reproofs.\nThat תורה has here not the positive, specifically Israelitish sense, but the generalized sense of instruction in conformity with truth regarding the will of God and the duty of man, vid., p. 42. This instruction mediated by man, but of divine origin, is אור, light, which enlightens the man who submits to it; and the commandment, מצוה, which directs men in every case to do what is right, and forbids that which is wrong (including the prohibition Lev 4:2), is נר, a lamp which, kindled at that light, enlightens all the darkness of ignorance with reference to human conduct and its consequences. אור and נר are related to each other as general and particular, primary and derivative. Lwenstein accentuates incorrectly תּורהו אור instead of תּורהו אור (as the Cod. 1294 and the 3 Erfurt Codd.); vid., on the retrogression of the tone, not existing here, under Pro 3:15. The gen. מוּסר denotes the object or character of the admonition: not disciplinary in the external sense of the word, but rather moral, having in view discipline in the sense of education, i.e., moral edification and elevation. Such corrections are דּרך חיּים, the way to true life, direction how to obtain it. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["The section thus closes:\nTo keep thee from the vile woman,\nFrom the flattery of the strange tongue.\nRegarding the genitive connection אושׁת רע, a woman of a wicked character, vid., under Pro 2:14; and regarding the adjectival connection לשׁון נכריה, under Pro 6:17; the strange tongue is the tongue (לשׁון) of the strange (foreign) woman (vid., p. 81), alluring with smooth words (Pro 2:16). Ewald, Bertheau: from her of a smooth tongue, the stranger, as Symm., Theod., ἀπὸ λειογλώσσου ξένης; but חלקת is a substantive (Gen 27:16), and as a fem. adject. form is without an example. Rather חלקת לשׁון is to be regarded as the first member and נכריה as the second of the st. constr., for the former constitutes one idea, and לשון on this account remains unabbreviated; cf. Psa 68:22; Isa 28:1; but (1) this syntactical phenomenon is yet problematical, vid., Friedr. Philippi, Wesen und Ursprung des St. Constr. p. 17; and (2) the supposition of such an anomaly is here unnecessary. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":25,"content":["The proaemium of these twelve proverbial discourses is now at an end. Wisdom herself begins striking the note of the Decalogue:\n25 Long not for her beauty in thy heart,\nAnd let her not catch thee with her eyelids;\n26 Because for a harlot one cometh down to a piece of bread,\nAnd a man's wife lieth in wait for a precious soul.\nThe warning 25a is in the spirit of the \"thou shalt not covet,\" Exo 20:17, and the ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ, Mat 5:28, of the Preacher on the Mount. The Talmudic proverb הרהודי עבירה קשו מעבירה (Joma 29a) means only that the imagination of the sinful act exhausts the body even more than the act itself. The warning, \"let her not catch thee with her eyelids,\" refers to her (the adulteress's) coquettish ogling and amorous winking. In the reason added, beginning with כּי בעד־ (thus it is to be punctuated), there is the appositional connection אשּׁה זונה, Gesen. 113; the idea of זונה goes over into 26b. \"לחם כּכּר [ = כּרכּר, R. kr, to round, vid., at Gen 49:5], properly a circle of bread, is a small round piece of bread, such as is still baked in Italy (pagnotta) and in the East (Arab. ḳurṣ), here an expression for the smallest piece\" (Fl.). בּעד (constr. of בּעד), as Job 2:4; Isa 32:14, is used in the sense of ὑπέρ, pro, and with עד there is connected the idea of the coming down to this low point. Ewald, Bertheau explain after the lxx, τιμὴ γὰρ πόρνης ὅση καὶ ἑνὸς ἄρτου, γυνὴ δὲ ἀνδρῶν τιμίας ψυχὰς ἀγρεύει. But nothing is said here of price (reward); the parallelism is synonymous, not antithetic: he is doubly threatened with loss who enters upon such a course. The adulterer squanders his means (Pro 29:3) to impoverishment (vid., the mention of a loaf of bread in the description of poverty Sa1 2:36), and a man's wife (but at the same time seeking converse with another) makes a prey of a precious soul; for whoever consents to adulterous converse with her, loses not perhaps his means, but certainly freedom, purity, dignity of soul, yea, his own person. צוּד comprehends - as צידון, fisher's town [Zidon], Arab. ṣyâd, hunter and fisher, show - all kinds of hunting, but in Hebr. is used only of the hunting of wild beasts. The root-meaning (cf. צדיּה) is to spy, to seize. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":27,"content":["The moral necessity of ruinous consequences which the sin of adultery draws after it, is illustrated by examples of natural cause and effect necessarily connected:\n27 Can one take fire in his bosom\nAnd his clothes not be burned?\n28 Or can any one walk over burning coals\nAnd his feet not be burned?\n29 So he that goeth to his neighbour's wife,\nNo one remains unpunished that toucheth her.\nWe would say: Can any one, without being, etc.; the former is the Semitic \"extended (paratactic)\n(Note: The παρατακτικὸς χρόνος denotes the imperfect tense, because it is still extended to the future.)\nconstruction.\" The first אישׁ has the conjunctive Shalsheleth. חתה signifies to seize and draw forth a brand or coal with the fire-tongs or shovel (מחתּה, the instrument for this); cf. Arab. khât, according to Lane, \"he seized or snatched away a thing;\" the form יחתּה is Kal, as יחנה (vid., Khler, De Tetragammate, 1867, p. 10). חיק (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom.\nPro 6:28\nA second example of destructive consequences naturally following a certain course is introduced with אם of the double question. גּחלים (from גּחל, after the form פּחם, but for which גּחלת is used) is the regular modification of gaḥḥalı̂m (Gesen. 27, 2). The fem. ורגליו is followed here (cf. on the other hand Pro 1:16) by the rhythmically full-sounding form תכּוינה (retaining the distinction of gender), from כּוה, Arab. kwy, to burn so that a brand-mark (כּי, Isa 3:24, cauterium) remains.\nPro 6:29\nThe instruction contained in these examples here follows: τὸ εἰς πῦρ καὶ εἰς γυναῖκα ἐμπεσεῖν Ἴσον ὑπάρχει (Pythagoras in Maximi Eclog. c. 39). בּוא אל is here, as the second in Psa 51:1, a euphemism, and נגע בּ, to come in contact with, means, as נגע אל, to touch, Gen 20:6. He who goes in to his neighbour's wife shall not do so with impunity (נקי). Since both expressions denote fleshly nearness and contact, so it is evident he is not guiltless. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":30,"content":["The thief and the adulterer are now placed in comparison with one another, in such a way that adultery is supposed to be a yet greater crime.\n30 One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals\nTo satisfy his craving when he is hungry;\n31 Being seized, he may restore sevenfold,\nGive up the whole wealth of his house.\nFor the most part 30a is explained: even when this is the case, one does not pass it over in the thief as a bagatelle. Ewald remarks: בּוּז ל stands here in its nearest signification of overlooking, whence first follows that of contemning. But this \"nearest\" signification is devised wholly in favour of this passage; - the interpretation, \"they do not thus let the thief pass,\" is set aside by Sol 8:1, Sol 8:7; for by 31b, cf. Sol 8:7, and 34a, cf. Sol 8:6, it is proved that from Pro 6:30 on, reminiscences from the Canticles, which belong to the literature of the Chokma, find their way into the Mashal language of the author. Hitzig's correct supposition, that בּוּז ל always signifies positive contemning, does not necessitate the interrogative interpretation: \"Does not one despise the thief if...?\" Thus to be understood, the author ought to have written אף כי or גם כי. Michaelis rightly: furtum licet merito pro infami in republica habetur, tamen si cum adulterio comparatur, minus probrosum est. Regarding נפשׁ in the sense of appetite, and even throat and stomach, vid., Psychologie, p. 204. A second is, that the thief, if he is seized (but we regard ונמצא not as the hypoth. perf., but as the part. deprehensus), may make compensation for this crime. The fut. ישׁלּם thus to be understood as the potential lies near from this, that a sevenfold compensation of the thing stolen is unheard of in the Israelitish law; it knows only of a twofold, fourfold, fivefold restoration, Ex. 21:37; Exo 22:1-3, Exo 22:8 (cf. Saalschtz, Mos. Recht, p. 554ff.). This excess over that which the law rendered necessary leads into the region of free-will: he (the thief, by which we are now only to think of him whom bitter necessity has made such) may make compensation sevenfold, i.e., superabundantly; he may give up the whole possessions (vid., on הון at Pro 1:13) of his house, so as not merely to satisfy the law, but to appease him against whom he has done wrong, and again to gain for himself an honoured name. What is said in Pro 6:30 and Pro 6:31 is perfectly just. One does not contemn a man who is a thief through poverty, he is pitied; while the adulterer goes to ruin under all circumstances of contempt and scorn. And: theft may be made good, and that abundantly; but adultery and its consequences are irreparable. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":32,"content":["Here there is a contrast stated to Pro 6:30 :\n32 He who commits adultery (adulterans mulierem) is beside himself,\nA self-destroyer-who does this.\n33 He gains stripes and disgrace,\nAnd his reproach is never quenched.\nנאף, which primarily seems to mean excedere, to indulge in excess, is, as also in the Decalogue, cf. Lev 20:10, transitive: ὁ μοιχεύων γυναῖκα. Regarding being mad (herzlos = heartless) = amens (excors, vecors), vid., Psychologie, p. 254. משׁחית נפשׁו is he who goes to ruin with wilful perversity. A self-murderer - i.e., he intends to ruin his position and his prosperity in life - who does it, viz., this, that he touches the wife of another. It is the worst and most inextinguishable dishonouring of oneself. Singularly Behaji: who annihilates it (his soul), with reference to Deu 21:12. Eccl. 4:17, where עשׂה would be equivalent to בּטּל, καταργεῖν, which is untrue and impossible.\n(Note: Behaji ought rather to have referred to Zep 3:19; Eze 7:27; Eze 22:14; but there עשׂה את means agere cum aliquo, as we say: mit jemandem abrechnen (to settle accounts with any one).)\nנגע refers to the corporal punishment inflicted on the adulterer by the husband (Deu 17:8; Deu 21:5); Hitzig, who rejects Pro 6:32, refers it to the stripes which were given to the thief according to the law, but these would be called מכּה (מכּות). The punctuation נגע־וקלון is to be exchanged for קלונו נגע (Lwenstein and other good editors). מצא has a more active signification than our \"finden\" (to find): consequitur, τυγχάνει. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":34,"content":["One who has been stolen from is to be appeased, but not the injured husband.\n34 For jealousy is the fury of a husband,\nAnd he spareth not in the day of vengeance.\n35 He regardeth not any ransom,\nAnd is not contented though thou offerest to him gifts ever so great.\nThe connection marks קנאה as the subject; for it respects carnal intercourse with another's wife. Jealousy is not usually חמה, the glow of anger (from יחם, as שׁנה from ישׁן), but חמת־גּבר (constr. as שׂנת), the glow of a man's anger, who with the putting forth of all his manly strength will seek satisfaction to his wounded honour. גּבר, here significant for אישׁ, with the fundamental idea of strength, firmness; cf. Arab. jabr, to make fast, to put right again something broken in pieces, particularly a broken vessel, hence Algebra, properly the operation by which an incomplete magnitude is completed (Fl.). The following ולא־יחמּל (with the orthophonic Dagesh, as Pro 6:25 יחמּד, and with Makkeph) is connected with גבר, with definite reference to the man whom the faithless guest has made a cuckold. When the day comes in which the adultery brought to light demands and admits of vengeance, then, wounded in his right and in his honour, he knows no mercy; he pays no regard to any atonement or recompense by which the adulterer seeks to appease him and induce him not to inflict the punishment that is due: he does not consent, even though thou makest ever so great the gift whereby thou thinkest to gain him. The phrase נשׂא פנים, πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, signifies elsewhere to receive the countenance, i.e., the appearance and the impression of a man, i.e., to let it impress one favourably; here it is used of the כּפר, i.e., the means by which covering, i.e., non-punishment, pardon of the crime, impunity of the guilty, is obtained. Regarding אבה, to consent to, vid., at Pro 1:10. שׂחד, Aram. שׂוּחד, is a gift, particularly bribery. That the language may again finally assume the form of an address, it beautifully rounds itself off. \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/6.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":6},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/7.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":7},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/PRO/5.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"PRO","chapter":5},"numberOfVerses":14}