Bible Commentaries

The plur. רעים , Proverbs 18:24, is emphatic and equivalent to רעים רבּים . The group Proverbs 19:1-4 closes with a proverb which contains this catchword. The first proverb of the group comes by שׂפתיו into contact with Proverbs 18:20, the first proverb of the preceding group.

1 Better a poor man walking in his innocence,

Than one with perverse lips, and so a fool.

The contrast, Proverbs 28:6, is much clearer. But to correct this proverb in conformity with that, as Hitzig does, is unwarrantable. The Syr., indeed, translates here as there; but the Chald. assimilates this translation to the Heb. text, which Theodotion, and after him the Syro-Hexapl., renders by ὑπὲρ στρεβλόχειλον ἄφρονα . But does 1a form a contrast to 1b? Fleischer remarks: “From the contrast it appears that he who is designated in 1b must be thought of as עשׁיר ” [rich]; and Ewald, “Thus early the ideas of a rich man and of a fool, or a despiser of God, are connected together.” Saadia understands כסיל [a fool], after Job 31:24, of one who makes riches his כּסל [confidence]. Euchel accordingly translates: the false man, although he builds himself greatly up, viz., on his riches. But כסיל designates the intellectually slothful, in whom the flesh overweighs the mind. And the representation of the rich, which, for 1b certainly arises out of 1a, does not amalgamate with כסיל htiw , but with עקּשׁ שׂפתיו . Arama is on the right track, for he translates: the rich who distorts his mouth, for he gives to the poor suppliant a rude refusal. Better Zöckler: a proud man of perverse lips and haughty demeanour. If one with haughty, scornful lips is opposed to the poor, then it is manifestly one not poor who thinks to raise himself above the poor, and haughtily looks down on him. And if it is said that, in spite of this proud demeanour, he is a fool, then this presents the figure of one proud of his wealth, who, in spite of his emptiness and nequitia , imagines that he possesses a greatness of knowledge, culture, and worth corresponding to the greatness of his riches. How much better is a poor man than such an one who walketh ( vid., on תּם , vol. i, p. 79) in his innocence and simplicity, with his pure mind wholly devoted to God and to that which is good! - his poverty keeps him in humility which is capable of no malicious conduct; and this pious blameless life is of more worth than the pride of wisdom of the distinguished fool. There is in contrast to עקּשׁוּת a simplicity, ἁπλότης , of high moral worth; but, on the other side, there is also a simplicity which is worthless. This is the connecting thought which introduces the next verse.

return to '

2 The not-knowing of the soul is also not good,

And he who hasteneth with the legs after it goeth astray.

Fleischer renders נפשׁ as the subj. and לא־טוב as neut. pred.: in and of itself sensual desire is not good, but yet more so if it is without foresight and reflection. With this explanation the words must be otherwise accentuated. Hitzig, in conformity with the accentuation, before us: if desire is without reflection, it is also without success. But where נפשׁ denotes desire or sensuality, it is always shown by the connection, as e.g., Proverbs 23:2; here דּעת , referring to the soul as knowing (cf. Psalms 139:14), excludes this meaning. But נפשׁ is certainly gen. subjecti; Luzzatto's “self-knowledge” is untenable, for this would require דעת נפשׁו ; Meîri rightly glosses נפשׁ דעת by שׂכל . After this Zöckler puts Hitzig's translation right in the following manner: where there is no consideration of the soul, there is no prosperity. But that also is incorrect, for it would require אין־טוב ; לא־טוב is always pred., not a substantival clause. Thus the proverb states that בלא־דעת נפשׁ is not good, and that is equivalent to היות בלא־דעת נפשׁ (for the subject to לא־טוב is frequently, as e.g., Proverbs 17:26; Proverbs 18:5, an infinitive); or also: בלא־דעת נפשׁ is a virtual noun in the sense of the not-knowing of the soul; for to say לא־דעת was syntactically inadmissible, but the expression is בלא־דעת , not בּלי דעת ( בּבלי ), because this is used in the sense unintentionally or unexpectedly. The גּם which begins the proverb is difficult. If we lay the principal accent in the translation given above on “not good,” then the placing of גם first is a hyperbaton similar to that in Proverbs 17:26; Proverbs 20:11; cf. אך , Proverbs 17:11; רק , Proverbs 13:10, as if the words were: if the soul is without knowledge, then also ( eo ipso ) it is destitute of anything good. But if we lay the principal accent on the “also,” then the meaning of the poet is, that ignorance of the soul is, like many other things, not good; or (which we prefer without on that account maintaining

(Note: The old interpreters and also the best Jewish interpreters mar the understanding and interpretation of the text, on the one side, by distinguishing between a nearest and a deeper meaning of Scripture ( דרך נגלה and דרך נסתר ); on the other by this, that they suppose an inward connection of all the proverbs, and expend useless ingenuity in searching after the connection. The former is the method especially adopted by Immanuel and Meîri, the latter has most of all been used by Arama.)

the original connection of Proverbs 19:1 and Proverbs 19:2), that as on the one side the pride of wisdom, so on the other ignorance is not good. In this case גם belongs more to the subject than to the predicate, but in reality to the whole sentence at the beginning of which it stands. To hasten with the legs ( אץ , as Proverbs 28:20) means now in this connection to set the body in violent agitation, without direction and guidance proceeding from the knowledge possessed by the soul. He who thus hastens after it without being intellectually or morally clear as to the goal and the way, makes a false step, goes astray, fails ( vid., Proverbs 8:36, where חטאי is the contrast to מצאי ).

return to '

3 The foolishness of a man overturneth his way,

And his heart is angry against Jahve.

Regarding סלף , vid., at Proverbs 11:3; also the Arab. signification “to go before” proceeds from the root conception pervertere , for first a letting precede, or preceding ( e.g., of the paying before the delivery of that which is paid for: salaf , a pre-numbering, and then also: advanced money), consisting in the reversal of the natural order, is meant. The way is here the way of life, the walking: the folly of a man overturns, i.e., destroys, his life's-course; but although he is himself the fabricator of his own ruin, yet the ill-humour ( זעף , aestuare , vid., at Psalms 11:6) of his heart turns itself against God, and he blames (lxx essentially correct: αἰτιᾶται ) God instead of himself, viz., his own madness, whereby he has turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, cast to the winds the instruction which lay in His providences, and frustrated the will of God desiring his good. A beautiful paraphrase of this parable is found at Sir. 15:11-20; cf. Lamentations 3:39.

return to '

4 Wealth bringeth many friends;

But the reduced - his friend separateth himself.

The very same contrast, though otherwise expressed, we had at Proverbs 14:20. Regarding הון , vid., vol. i, p. 63. דל is the tottering, or he who has fallen into a tottering condition, who has no resources, possesses no means. The accentuation gives Mugrash to the word (according to which the Targ. translates), for it is not the subject of יפּרד : the reduced is separated (pass. Niph.) by his misfortunes, or must separate himself (reflex. Niph.) from his friend ( מרעהוּ , as Ecclesiastes 4:4, prae socio suo ); but subject of the virtual pred. מרעהוּ יפּרד : the reduced - his friend ( מרעהו , as Proverbs 19:7) separates himself, i.e., (according to the nature of the Semitic substantival clause) he is such (of such a fate) that his friend sets himself free, whereby ממּנּוּ may be omitted as self-obvious; נפרד means one who separates himself, Proverbs 18:1. If we make דל the subject of the separatur , then the initiative of the separation from the friend is not expressed.

return to '

In Proverbs 19:5 and Proverbs 19:9 we have the introductory proverb of two groups, the former of which, in its close as well as its beginning, cannot be mistaken.

5 A lying witness remaineth not unpunished;

And he who breathes out lies escapeth not.

Regarding יפיח , vid., vol. i, p. 148: as here we read it of false witness at Proverbs 6:19; Proverbs 14:5, Proverbs 14:25. לא ינּקה occurs four times before, the last of which is at Proverbs 17:5. The lxx elsewhere translates יפיח כזבים by ἐκκαίειν ψευδῆ , to kindle lies; but here by ὁ δὲ ἐκαλῶν ἀδίκως , and at Proverbs 19:9 by ὃς δ ̓ ἂν ἐκκαύσῃ κακίαν , both times changing only because ψευδής goes before, and instead of ψευδῆ , the choice of a different rendering commended itself.

return to '

6 Many stroke the cheeks of the noble;

And the mass of friends belongeth to him who gives.

The phrase ' חלּות פּני פל signifies to stroke the face of any one, from the fundamental meaning of the verb חלה , to rub, to stroke, Arab. khala , with which the Heb., meaning to be sick, weak ( viribus attritum esse ), and the Arabic: to be sweet (properly laevem et politum, glabrum esse , or palatum demulcere, leniter stringere , contrast asperum esse ad gustum ), are connected (Fl.). The object of such insinuating, humble suing for favour is the נדיב (from נדב , instigare ), the noble, he who is easily incited to noble actions, particularly to noble-mindedness in bestowing gifts and in doing good, or who feels himself naturally impelled thereto, and spontaneously practises those things; cf. the Arab. krym , nobilis and liberalis (Fl.), and at Job 21:28; parall. אישׁ מתּן , a man who gives willingly, as אישׁ חמה , Proverbs 15:18, one who is easily kindled into anger. Many ( רבּים , as Job 11:19) stroke the face of the liberal (Lat. caput mulcent or demulcent ); and to him who gives willingly and richly belongs כל־הרע , the mass (the totality) of good friends, cf. Proverbs 15:17; there the art. of הרע , according to the manner of expression of the Arab. grammarians, stood for “the exhaustion of the characteristic properties of the genus”: the friend who corresponds to the nature (the idea) of such an one; here it stands for “the comprehension of the individuals of the genus;” all that is only always friend. It lies near with Ewald and Hitzig to read וכלּה רע (and every one is friend...) ( כלּה = כלּו , as Jeremiah 8:10, etc.); but why could not כל־הרע be used as well as כל־האדם , perhaps with the sarcastic appearance which the above translation seeks to express? The lxx also had וכל הרע in view, which it incorrectly translates πᾶς δὲ ὁ κακός , whereby the Syr. and the Targ. are led into error; but מתּן is not one and the same with שׂחד , vid., Proverbs 18:6. On the contrary, there certainly lies before us in Proverbs 19:7 a mutilated text. The tristich is, as we have shown, vol. i, p. 15, open to suspicion; and the violence which its interpretation needs in order to comprehend it, as a formal part of 7ab, places it beyond a doubt, and the lxx confirms it that 7c is the remainder of a distich, the half of which is lost.

return to '

7ab. We thus first confine our attention to these two lines -

All the brethren of the poor hate him;

How much more do his friends withdraw themselves from him?

Regarding אף כּי , quanto magis , vid., at Proverbs 11:31; Proverbs 15:11; Proverbs 17:7. In a similar connection Proverbs 14:20 spake of hatred, i.e., the cooling of love, and the manifesting of this coldness. The brethren who thus show themselves here, unlike the friend who has become a brother, according to Proverbs 17:17, are brothers-german, including kindred by blood relation. כּל has Mercha, and is thus without the Makkeph, as at Psalms 35:10 ( vid., the Masora in Baer's Liber Psalmorum, 1861, p. 133). Kimchi ( Michlol 205a), Norzi, and others think that cāl (with קמץ רחב ) is to be read as at Isaiah 40:12, where כּלו is a verb. But that is incorrect. The case is the same as with את , Proverbs 3:12; Psalms 47:5; Psalms 60:2. As here ě with Mercha remains, so ǒ with Mercha in that twice occurring כּלו ; that which is exceptional is this, that the accentuated כל is written thus twice, not as the usual כּל , but as כּל with the Makkeph. The ground of the exception lies, as with other peculiarities, in the special character of metrical accentuation; the Mercha represents the place of the Makkeph, and ā thus remains in the unchanged force of a Kametz - Chatuph. The plur. רחקוּ does not stamp מרעהוּ as the defectively written plur.; the suffix ēhu is always sing., and the sing. is thus, like הרע , 6b, meant collectively, or better: generally (in the sense of kind), which is the linguistic usage of these two words, 1 Samuel 30:26; Job 42:10. But it is worthy of notice that the Masoretic form here is not מרעהוּ , but m מרעהוּ , with Sheva. The Masora adds to it the remark לית , and accordingly the word is thus written with Sheva by Kimchi ( Michlol 202a and Lex. under the word רעה ), in Codd., and older editions. The Venet., translating by ἀπὸ τοῦ φίλου αὐτοῦ , has not noticed that. But how? Does the punctuation מרעהו mean that the word is here to be derived from מרע , maleficus ? Thus understood, it does not harmonize with the line of thought. From this it is much more seen that the punctuation of the inflected מרע , amicus , fluctuates. This word מרע is a formation so difficult of comprehension, that one might almost, with Olshausen, §210; Böttcher, §794; and Lagarde, regard the מ as the partitive מן , like the French des amis (cf. Eurip. Med. 560: πένητα φεύγει πᾶς τις ἐκποδὼν φίλος ), or: something of friend, a piece of friend, while Ewald and others regard it as possible that מרע is abbreviated from מרעה . The punctuation, since it treats the Tsere in מרעהו , 4b

(Note: In vol. i. p. 266, we have acknowledged מרעהו , from מרע , friend, only for Proverbs 19:7, but at Proverbs 19:4 we have also found amicus ejus more probable than ab amico suo (= מן רעהו ).) and elsewhere, as unchangeable, and here in מרעהו as changeable, affords proof that in it also the manner of the formation of the word was incomprehensible.

Seeking after words which are vain.

7c. If now this line belongs to this proverb, then מרדּף must be used of the poor, and לא־המּה , or לו־המּה ( vid., regarding the 15 Kerîs, לּו for לא , at Psalms 100:3), must be the attributively nearer designation of the אמרים . The meaning of the Kerı̂ would be: he (the poor man) hunts after mere words, which - but no actions corresponding to them - are for a portion to him. This is doubtful, for the principal matter, that which is not a portion to him, remains unexpressed, and the לו־המּה eht [to him they belong] affords only the service of guarding one against understanding by the אמרים the proper words of the poor. This service is not in the same way afforded by לא המּה they are not; but this expression characterizes the words as vain, so that it is to be interpreted according to such parallels as Hosea 12:2: words which are not, i.e., which have nothing in reality corresponding to them, verba nihili , i.e., the empty assurances and promises of his brethren and friends (Fl.). The old translators all

(Note: Lagarde erroneously calls Theodotion's ῥήσεις οὐκ αὐτῷ a translation of the Kerı̂ ; οὐκ is, however, לא , and instead of αὐτῷ the expression αὐτῶν , which is the translation of המה , is also found.)

read לא , and the Syr. and Targ. translate not badly: מלּוי לא שׁריר ; Symmachus, ῥήσεσιν ἀνυπάρκτοις . The expression is not to be rejected: לא היה sometimes means to come to לא , i.e., to nothing, Job 6:21; Ezekiel 21:32, cf. Isaiah 15:6; and לא הוּא , he is not = has no reality, Jeremiah 5:12, אמרים לא־המה , may thus mean words which are nothing (vain). But how can it be said of the poor whom everything forsakes, that one dismisses him with words behind which there is nothing, and now also that he pursues such words? The former supposes always a sympathy, though it be a feigned one, which is excluded by שׂנאהוּ [they hate him] and רחקוּ [withdraw themselves]; and the latter, spoken of the poor, would be unnatural, for his purposed endeavour goes not out after empty talk, but after real assistance. So 7c: pursuing after words which (are) nothing, although in itself not falling under critical suspicion, yet only of necessity is connected with this proverb regarding the poor. The lxx, however, has not merely one, but even four lines, and thus two proverbs following 7b. The former of these distichs is: Ἔννοια ἀγαθὴ τοῖς εἰδόσιν αὐτὴν ἐγγιεῖ, ἀνὴρ δὲ φρόνιμος εὑρήσει αὐτήν ; it is translated from the Hebr. ( ἔννοια ἀγαθή , Proverbs 5:2 = מזמּות ), but it has a meaning complete in itself, and thus has nothing to do with the fragment 7c. The second distich is: Ὁ πολλὰ κακοποιῶν τελεσιουργεῖ κακίαν, ὃ δὲ ἐρεθίζει λόγους οὐ σωθήσεται . This ὃς δὲ ἐρεθίζει λόγους is, without doubt, a translation of מרדף אמרים (7c); λόγους is probably a corruption of λόγοις (thus the Complut.), not, he who pursueth words, but he who incites by words, as Homer ( Il. iv. 5f.) uses the expression ἐρεθιζέμεν ἐπέεσσι . The concluding words, οὐ σωθήσεται , are a repetition of the Heb. לא ימלט (cf. lxx 19:5 with 28:26), perhaps only a conjectural emendation of the unintelligible לא המה . Thus we have before us in that ὁ πολλὰ κακοποιῶν, κ.τ.λ. , the line lost from the Heb. text; but it is difficult to restore it to the Heb. We have attempted it, vol. i, p. 15. Supposing that the lxx had before them לא המה , then the proverb is -

“He that hath many friends is rewarded with evil,

Hunting after words which are nothing;”

i.e., since this his courting the friendship of as many as possible is a hunting after words which have nothing after them and come to nothing.

return to '

8 He that getteth understanding loveth his soul,

And he that values reasonableness will acquire good;

or, more closely, since this would be the translation of ימצא טוב , Proverbs 16:20; Proverbs 17:20: so it happens, or it comes to this, that he acquires good (= היה למצא ); the inf. with ל is here, as at Proverbs 18:24, the expression of a fut. periphrasticum, as in the Lat. consecturus est . Regarding קנה־לּב , vid., Proverbs 15:32, and שׁמר תּבוּנה vol. i. p. 119. That the deportment of men is either care for the soul, or the contrary of that, is a thought which runs through the Book of Proverbs.

return to '