Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · Proverbs Chapitre 24

Till now in this appendix we have found only two distichs ( vid., vol. i. p. 17); now several of them follow. From this, that wisdom is a power which accomplishes great things, it follows that it is of high value, though to the fool it appears all too costly.

7 Wisdom seems to the fool to be an ornamental commodity;

He openeth not his mouth in the gate.

Most interpreters take ראמות for רמות (written as at 1 Chronicles 6:58; cf. Zechariah 14:10; ראשׁ , Proverbs 10:4; קאם , Hosea 10:14), and translate, as Jerome and Luther: “Wisdom is to the fool too high;” the way to wisdom is to him too long and too steep, the price too costly, and not to be afforded. Certainly this thought does not lie far distant from what the poet would say; but why does he say חכמות , and not חכמה ? This חכמות is not a numerical plur., so as to be translated with the Venet.: μετέωροι τῷ ἄφρονι αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι ; it is a plur., as Psalms 49:4 shows; but, as is evident from the personification and the construction, Proverbs 1:20, one inwardly multiplying and heightening, which is related to חכמה as science or the contents of knowledge is to knowledge. That this plur. comes here into view as in chap. 1-9 ( vid., vol. i. p. 34), is definitely accounted for in these chapters by the circumstance that wisdom was to be designated, which is the mediatrix of all wisdom; here, to be designated in intentional symphony with ראמות , whose plur. ending ôth shall be for that very reason, however, inalienable. Thus ראמות will be the name of a costly foreign bijouterie, which is mentioned in the Book of Job, where the unfathomableness and inestimableness of wisdom is celebrated; vid., Job 27:18, where we have recorded what we had to say at the time regarding this word. But what is now the meaning of the saying that wisdom is to the fool a pearl or precious coral? Joël Bril explains: “The fool uses the sciences like a precious stone, only for ornament, but he knows not how to utter a word publicly,” This is to be rejected, because ראמות is not so usual a trinket or ornament as to serve as an expression of this thought. The third of the comparison lies in the rarity, costliness, unattainableness; the fool despises wisdom, because the expenditure of strength and the sacrifices of all kinds which are necessary to put one into the possession of wisdom deter him from it (Rashi). This is also the sense which the expression has when ראמות = רמות ; and probably for the sake of this double meaning the poet chose just this word, and not פנינים , גבישׁ , or any other name, for articles of ornament (Hitzig). The Syr. has incorrectly interpreted this play upon words: sapientia abjecta stulto ; and the Targumist: the fool grumbles ( מתרעם ) against wisdom.

(Note: This explanation is more correct than Levy's: he lifts himself up (boasts) with wisdom.)

He may also find the grapes to be sour because they hang too high for him; here it is only said that wisdom remains at a distance from him because he cannot soar up to its attainment; for that very reason he does not open his mouth in the gate, where the council and the representatives of the people have their seats: he has not the knowledge necessary for being associated in counselling, and thus must keep silent; and this is indeed the most prudent thing he can do.

return to '

From wisdom, which is a moral good, the following proverb passes over to a kind of σοφία δαιμονιώδης :

He that meditateth to do evil,

We call such an one an intriguer.

A verbal explanation and definition like Proverbs 21:24 (cf. p. 29), formed like Proverbs 16:21 from נבון . Instead of בּעל־מזמּות [lord of mischief] in Proverbs 12:2, the expression is ' אישׁ מ (cf. at Proverbs 22:24). Regarding מזמות in its usual sense, vid., Proverbs 5:2. Such definitions have of course no lexicographical, but only a moral aim. That which is here given is designed to warn one against gaining for himself this ambiguous title of a refined (cunning, versutus ) man; one is so named whose schemes and endeavours are directed to the doing of evil. One may also inversely find the turning-point of the warning in 8b: “he who projects deceitful plans against the welfare of others, finds his punishment in this, that he falls under public condemnation as a worthless intriguer” (Elster). But מזמות is a ῥῆμα μέσον , vid., Proverbs 5:2; the title is thus equivocal, and the turning-point lies in the bringing out of his kernel: מחשּׁב להרע = meditating to do evil.

return to '

This proverb is connected by זמת with Proverbs 24:8, and by אויל with Proverbs 24:7; it places the fool and the mocker over against one another.

The undertaking of folly is sin;

And an abomination to men is the scorner.

Since it is certain that for 9b the subject is “the scorner,” so also “sin” is to be regarded as the subject of 9a. The special meaning flagitium , as Proverbs 21:27, זמּה will then not have here, but it derives it from the root-idea “to contrive, imagine,” and signifies first only the collection and forthputting of the thoughts towards a definite end (Job 17:11), particularly the refined preparation, the contrivance of a sinful act. In a similar way we speak of a sinful beginning or undertaking. But if one regards sin in itself, or in its consequences, it is always a contrivance or desire of folly ( gen. subjecti), or: one that bears on itself ( gen. qualitatis) the character of folly; for it disturbs and destroys the relation of man to God and man, and rests, as Socrates in Plato says, on a false calculation. And the mocker (the mocker at religion and virtue) is תועבת לאדם . The form of combination stands here before a word with ל , as at Job 18:2; Job 24:5, and frequently. but why does not the poet say directly תועבת אדם ? Perhaps to leave room for the double sense, that the mocker is not only an abomination to men, viz., to the better disposed; but also, for he makes others err as to their faith, and draws them into his frivolous thoughts, becomes to them a cause of abomination, i.e., of such conduct and of such thoughts as are an abomination before God (Proverbs 15:9, Proverbs 15:26).

return to '

The last of these four distichs stands without visible connection:

Hast thou shown thyself slack in the day of adversity,

Then is thy strength small.

The perf. 10a is the hypothetic, vid., at Proverbs 22:29. If a man shows himself remiss (Proverbs 18:9), i.e., changeable, timorous, incapable of resisting in times of difficulty, then shall he draw therefrom the conclusion which is expressed in 10b. Rightly Luther, with intentional generalization, “he is not strong who is not firm in need.” But the address makes the proverb an earnest admonition, which speaks to him who shows himself weak the judgment which he has to pronounce on himself. And the paronomasia צרה and צר may be rendered, where possible, “if thy strength becomes, as it were, pressed together and bowed down by the difficulty just when it ought to show itself (viz., להרחיב לך ), then it is limited, thou art a weakling.” Thus Fleischer accordingly, translating: si segnis fueris die angustiae, angustae sunt vires tuae . Hitzig, on the contrary, corrects after Job 7:11, רוּחך “ Klemm (klamm) ist dein Mut ” [= strait is thy courage]. And why? Of כסה [strength], he remarks, one can say כשׁל [it is weak] (Psalms 31:11), but scarcely צר [strait, straitened]; for force is exact, and only the region of its energy may be wide or narrow. To this we answer, that certainly of strength in itself we cannot use the word כסה drow eht esu t in the sense here required; the confinement (limitation) may rather be, as with a stream, Isaiah 59:19, the increasing (heightening) of its intensity. But if the strength is in itself anything definite, then on the other hand its expression is something linear, and the force in view of its expression is that which is here called צר , i.e., not extending widely, not expanding, not inaccessible. צר is all to which narrow limits are applied. A little strength is limited, because it is little also in its expression.

return to '

Then follows a distich with the watchword נצחים :

26 He kisseth the lips

Who for the end giveth a right answer.

The lxx, Syr., and Targ. translate: one kisseth the lips who, or: of those who...; but such a meaning is violently forced into the word (in that case the expression would have been שׂפתי משׁיב or שׂפתים משׁיבים ). Equally impossible is Theodotion's χείλεσι καταφιληθήσεται , for ישּׁק cannot be the fut. Niph. Nor is it: lips kiss him who... (Rashi); for, to be thus understood, the word ought to have been למשׁיב . משׁיב is naturally to be taken as the subj., and thus it supplies the meaning: he who kisseth the lips giveth an excellent answer, viz., the lips of him whom the answer concerns (Jerome, Venet., Luther). But Hitzig ingeniously, “the words reach from the lips of the speaker to the ears of the hearer, and thus he kisses his ear with his lips.” But since to kiss the ear is not a custom, not even with the Florentines, then a welcome answer, if its impression is to be compared to a kiss, is compared to a kiss on the lips. Hitzig himself translates: he commends himself with the lips who...; but נשׁק may mean to join oneself, Genesis 41:40, as kissing is equivalent to the joining of the lips; it does not mean intrans. to cringe. Rather the explanation: he who joins the lips together...; for he, viz., before reflecting, closed his lips together (suggested by Meîri); but נשׁק , with שׂפתים , brings the idea of kissing, labra labris jungere , far nearer. This prevails against Schultens' armatus est ( erit ) labia , besides נשׁק , certainly, from the primary idea of connecting (laying together) ( vid., Psalms 78:9), to equip (arm) oneself therewith; but the meaning arising from thence: with the lips he arms himself... is direct nonsense. Fleischer is essentially right, Labra osculatur ( i.e., quasi osculum oblatum reddit ) qui congrua respondet . Only the question has nothing to do with a kiss; but if he who asks receives a satisfactory answer, an enlightening counsel, he experiences it as if he received a kiss. The Midrash incorrectly remarks under דּברים נצחים , “words of merited denunciation,” according to which the Syr. translates. Words are meant which are corresponding to the matter and the circumstances, and suitable for the end (cf. Proverbs 8:9). Such words are like as if the lips of the inquirer received a kiss from the lips of the answerer.

return to '

Warning against the establishing of a household where the previous conditions are wanting:

Set in order thy work without,

And make it ready for thyself beforehand in the fields, -

After that then mayest thou build thine house.

The interchange of בּחוּץ and בּשּׂדה shows that by מלאכת השּׂדה field-labour, 1 Chronicles 27:26, is meant. הכין , used of arrangement, procuring, here with מלאכה , signifies the setting in order of the word, viz., the cultivation of the field. In the parallel member, עתּדה , carrying also its object, in itself is admissible: make preparations (lxx, Syr.); but the punctuation עתּדהּ (Targ., Venet.; on the other hand, Jerome and Luther translate as if the words were ועתדה השּׂדה ) is not worthy of being contended against: set it (the work) in the fields in readiness, i.e., on the one hand set forward the present necessary work, and on the other hand prepare for that which next follows; thus: do completely and circumspectly what thy calling as a husbandman requires of thee - then mayest thou go to the building and building up of thy house ( vid., at Proverbs 24:3, Proverbs 14:1), to which not only the building and setting in order of a convenient dwelling, but also the bringing home of a housewife and the whole setting up of a household belongs; prosperity at home is conditioned by this - one fulfils his duty without in the fields actively and faithfully. One begins at the wrong end when he begins with the building of his house, which is much rather the result and goal of an intelligent discharge of duty within the sphere of one's calling. The perf., with ו after a date, such as אחר , עוד מעט , and the like, when things that will or should be done are spoken of, has the fut. signification of a perf. consec., Genesis 3:5; Exodus 16:6., Proverbs 17:4; Ewald, §344b.

return to '

Warning against unnecessary witnessing to the disadvantage of another:

Never be a causeless witness against thy neighbour;

And shouldest thou use deceit with thy lips?

The phrase עד־חנּם does not mean a witness who appears against his neighbour without knowledge of the facts of the case, but one who has no substantial reason for his giving of testimony; חנּם means groundless, with reference to the occasion and motive, Proverbs 3:30; Proverbs 23:29; Proverbs 26:2. Other designations stood for false witnesses (lxx, Syr., Targ.). Rightly Jerome, the Venet., and Luther, without, however, rendering the gen. connection עד־חנם , as it might have been by the adj.

In 28b, Chajûg derives והפתּית from פּתת , to break in pieces, to crumble; for he remarks it might stand, with the passing over of ô into î, for והפתּות [and thou wilt whisper]. But the ancients had no acquaintance with the laws of sound, and therefore with naive arbitrariness regarded all as possible; and Böttcher, indeed, maintains that the Hiphil of פתת may be הפתּית as well as הפתּות ; but the former of these forms with î could only be metaplastically possible, and would be הפתּית ( vid., Hitzig under Jeremiah 11:20). And what can this Hiph. of פתת mean? “To crumble” one's neighbours (Chajûg) is an unheard of expression; and the meanings, to throw out crumbs, viz., crumbs of words (Böttcher), or to speak with a broken, subdued voice (Hitzig), are extracted from the rare Arab. fatâfit ( faṭafiṭ ), for which the lexicographers note the meaning of a secret, moaning sound. When we see והפתית standing along with בּשׂפתיך , then before all we are led to think of פתה [to open], Proverbs 20:19; Ps. 73:36. But we stumble at the interrog. ה , which nowhere else appears connected with ו . Ewald therefore purposes to read והפתּית [and will open wide] (lxx μηδὲ πλατύνου ): “that thou usest treachery with thy lips;” but from הפתה , to make wide open, Genesis 9:27, “to use treachery” is, only for the flight of imagination, not too wide a distance. On וה , et num , one need not stumble; והלוא , 2 Samuel 15:35, shows that the connection of a question by means of ו is not inadmissible; Ewald himself takes notice that in the Arab. the connection of the interrogatives 'a and hal with w and f is quite common;

(Note: We use the forms âwa , âba , âthûmm , for we suppose the interrogative to the copula; we also say fahad , vid., Mufaṣsal , p. 941.)

and thus he reaches the explanation: wilt thou befool then by thy lips, i.e., pollute by deceit, by inconsiderate, wanton testimony against others? This is the right explanation, which Ewald hesitates about only from the fact that the interrog. ה comes in between the ו consec. and its perf., a thing which is elsewhere unheard of. But this difficulty is removed by the syntactic observation, that the perf. after interrogatives has often the modal colouring of a conj. or optative, e.g., after the interrog. pronoun, Genesis 21:7, quis dixerit , and after the interrogative particle, as here and at 2 Kings 20:9, iveritne , where it is to be supplied ( vid., at Isaiah 38:8). Thus: et num persuaseris ( deceperis ) labiis tuis , and shouldest thou practise slander with thy lips, for thou bringest thy neighbour, without need, by thy uncalled for rashness, into disrepute? “It is a question, âl'nakar (cf. Proverbs 23:5), for which 'a (not hal ), in the usual Arab. interrogative: how, thou wouldest? one then permits the inquirer to draw the negative answer: “No, I will not do it” (Fleischer).

return to '

The following proverb is connected as to its subject with the foregoing: one ought not to do evil to his neighbour without necessity; even evil which has been done to one must not be requited with evil:

Say not, “As he hath done to me, so I do to him:

I requite the man according to his conduct.”

On the ground of public justice, the talio is certainly the nearest form of punishment, Leviticus 24:19.; but even here the Sinaitic law does not remain in the retortion of the injury according to its external form (it is in a certain manner practicable only with regard to injury done to the person and to property), but places in its stead an atonement measured and limited after a higher point of view. On pure moral grounds, the jus talionis (“as thou to me, so I to thee”) has certainly no validity. Here he to whom injustice is done ought to commit his case to God, Proverbs 20:22, and to oppose to evil, not evil but good; he ought not to set himself up as a judge, nor to act as one standing on a war-footing with his neighbour (Judges 15:11); but to take God as his example, who treats the sinner, if only he seeks it, not in the way of justice, but of grace (Exodus 34:6.). The expression 29b reminds of Proverbs 24:12. Instead of לאדם , there is used here, where the speaker points to a definite person, the phrase לאישׁ . Jerome, the Venet., and Luther translate: to each one, as if the word were vocalized thus, לאישׁ (Ps. 62:13).

return to '