Two Invitations: Wisdom's Feast, the Fear of the Lord, and Folly's House of Death

Pro 9:4-6 Now follows the street-sermon of Wisdom inviting to her banquet: 4 Who is simple? let him come hither! ” Whoso wanteth understanding, to him she saith: 5 “Come, eat of my bread, And drink of the wine which I have mingled! 6 Cease, ye simple, and live, And walk straight on in the way of understanding. ” The question מי פּתי (thus with Munach , not with Makkeph , it is to be written here and at Pro 9:16; vid .

, Baer’s Torath Emeth , p. 40), quis est imperitus , is, as Psa 25:12, only a more animated expression for quisquis est . The retiring into the background of the נערות (servants), and the immediate appearance of Wisdom herself, together with the interruption, as was to be expected, of her connected discourses by the אמרה לּו, are signs that the pure execution of the allegorical representation is her at an end.

Hitzig seeks, by the rejection of Pro 9:4, Pro 9:5, Pro 9:7-10, to bring in a logical sequence; but these interpolations which he cuts out are yet far more inconceivable than the proverbial discourses in the mouth of Wisdom, abandoning the figure of a banquet, which besides are wholly in the spirit of the author of this book. That Folly invites to her, Pro 9:16, in the same words as are used by Wisdom, Pro 9:4, is not strange; both address themselves to the simple ( vid .

, on פּתי at Pro 1:4) and those devoid of understanding (as the youth, Pro 7:7), and seek to bring to their side those who are accessible to evil as to good, and do not dully distinguish between them, which the emulating devertat huc of both imports. The fourth verse points partly backwards, and partly forwards; 4a has its introduction in the תקרא of Pro 9:3; on the contrary, 4b is itself the introduction of what follows.

The setting forth of the nom. absolutus חסר־לב is conditioned by the form of 4a; the מי (cf. 4a) is continued (in 4b) without its needing to be supplied: excors (= si quis est excors ) dicit ei (not dixit , because syntactically subordinating itself to the תקרא). It is a nominal clause, whose virtual predicate (the devoid of understanding is thus and thus addressed by her) as in Pro 9:16.

Pro 9:7-9 In what now follows the discourse of Wisdom is continued; wherefore she directs her invitation to the simple, i. e. , those who have not yet decided, and are perhaps susceptible of that which is better: 7 “He who correcteth a scorner draweth upon himself insult; And he who communicateth instruction to a scorner, it is a dishonour to him. 8 Instruct not a scorner, lest he hate thee; Give instruction to the wise, so he will love thee.

9 Give to the wise, and he becomes yet wiser; Give knowledge to the upright, and he gains in knowledge. ” Zöckler thinks that herewith the reason for the summons to the “simple” to forsake the fellowship of men of their own sort, is assigned (he explains 6a as Ahron b. Joseph: הפרדו מן הפתאים); but his remark, that, under the term “simple,” mockers and wicked persons are comprehended as belonging to the same category, confounds two sharply distinguished classes of men.

לץ is the freethinker who mocks at religion and virtue ( vid . , Pro 1:22), and רשׁע the godless who shuns restraint by God and gives himself up to the unbridled impulse to evil. The course of thought in Pro 9:7 and onwards shows why Wisdom, turning from the wise, who already are hers, directs herself only to the simple, and those who are devoid of understanding: she must pass over the לץ and רשׁע dna , because she can there hope for no receptivity for her invitation; she would, contrary to Mat 7:6, “give that which is holy to the dogs, and cast her pearls before swine.

” יסר, παιδεύειν (with the prevailing idea of the bitter lesson of reproof and punishment), and הוכיח, ἐλέγχειν, are interchangeable conceptions, Psa 94:10; the ל is here exponent of the object (to bring an accusation against any one), as Pro 9:8, Pro 15:12 (otherwise as Isa 2:4; Isa 11:4, where it is the dat. commodi : to bring unrighteousness to light, in favour of the injured).

יסר לץ is pointed with Mahpach of the penultima, and thus with the tone thrown back. The Pasek , placed in some editions between the two words, is masoretically inaccurate. He who reads the moral to the mocker brings disgrace to himself; the incorrigible replies to the goodwill with insult. Similar to the לקח לו here, is מרים tollit = reportat , Pro 3:25; Pro 4:27.

In 7b מוּמו is by no means the object governed by וּמוכיח: and he who shows to the godless his fault (Meîri, Arama, Löwenstein: מומו = על־מומו, and thus also the Graec. Venet. μῶμον ἑαυτῷ, scil . λαμβάνει); plainly מומו is parallel with קלון. But מומו does not also subordinate itself to לקח as to the object. parallel קלון: maculam sibimet scil . acquirit ; for, to be so understood, the author ought at least to have written לו מוּם.

Much rather מומו is here, as at Deu 32:5, appos. , thus pred. (Hitzig), without needing anything to be supplied: his blot it is, viz. , this proceeding, which is equivalent to מוּמא הוּא ליהּ (Targ.) , opprobrio ipsi est . Zöckler not incorrectly compares Psa 115:7 and Ecc 5:16, but the expression ( macula ejus = ipsi ) lies here less remote from our form of expression.

In other words: Whoever correcteth the mockers has only to expect hatred (אל־תוכח with the tone thrown back, according to rule; cf. on the contrary, Jdg 18:25), but on the other hand, love from the wise.

Pro 9:7-9 In what now follows the discourse of Wisdom is continued; wherefore she directs her invitation to the simple, i. e. , those who have not yet decided, and are perhaps susceptible of that which is better: 7 “He who correcteth a scorner draweth upon himself insult; And he who communicateth instruction to a scorner, it is a dishonour to him. 8 Instruct not a scorner, lest he hate thee; Give instruction to the wise, so he will love thee.

9 Give to the wise, and he becomes yet wiser; Give knowledge to the upright, and he gains in knowledge. ” Zöckler thinks that herewith the reason for the summons to the “simple” to forsake the fellowship of men of their own sort, is assigned (he explains 6a as Ahron b. Joseph: הפרדו מן הפתאים); but his remark, that, under the term “simple,” mockers and wicked persons are comprehended as belonging to the same category, confounds two sharply distinguished classes of men.

לץ is the freethinker who mocks at religion and virtue ( vid . , Pro 1:22), and רשׁע the godless who shuns restraint by God and gives himself up to the unbridled impulse to evil. The course of thought in Pro 9:7 and onwards shows why Wisdom, turning from the wise, who already are hers, directs herself only to the simple, and those who are devoid of understanding: she must pass over the לץ and רשׁע dna , because she can there hope for no receptivity for her invitation; she would, contrary to Mat 7:6, “give that which is holy to the dogs, and cast her pearls before swine.

” יסר, παιδεύειν (with the prevailing idea of the bitter lesson of reproof and punishment), and הוכיח, ἐλέγχειν, are interchangeable conceptions, Psa 94:10; the ל is here exponent of the object (to bring an accusation against any one), as Pro 9:8, Pro 15:12 (otherwise as Isa 2:4; Isa 11:4, where it is the dat. commodi : to bring unrighteousness to light, in favour of the injured).

יסר לץ is pointed with Mahpach of the penultima, and thus with the tone thrown back. The Pasek , placed in some editions between the two words, is masoretically inaccurate. He who reads the moral to the mocker brings disgrace to himself; the incorrigible replies to the goodwill with insult. Similar to the לקח לו here, is מרים tollit = reportat , Pro 3:25; Pro 4:27.

In 7b מוּמו is by no means the object governed by וּמוכיח: and he who shows to the godless his fault (Meîri, Arama, Löwenstein: מומו = על־מומו, and thus also the Graec. Venet. μῶμον ἑαυτῷ, scil . λαμβάνει); plainly מומו is parallel with קלון. But מומו does not also subordinate itself to לקח as to the object. parallel קלון: maculam sibimet scil . acquirit ; for, to be so understood, the author ought at least to have written לו מוּם.

Much rather מומו is here, as at Deu 32:5, appos. , thus pred. (Hitzig), without needing anything to be supplied: his blot it is, viz. , this proceeding, which is equivalent to מוּמא הוּא ליהּ (Targ.) , opprobrio ipsi est . Zöckler not incorrectly compares Psa 115:7 and Ecc 5:16, but the expression ( macula ejus = ipsi ) lies here less remote from our form of expression.

In other words: Whoever correcteth the mockers has only to expect hatred (אל־תוכח with the tone thrown back, according to rule; cf. on the contrary, Jdg 18:25), but on the other hand, love from the wise.

Pro 9:7-9 In what now follows the discourse of Wisdom is continued; wherefore she directs her invitation to the simple, i. e. , those who have not yet decided, and are perhaps susceptible of that which is better: 7 “He who correcteth a scorner draweth upon himself insult; And he who communicateth instruction to a scorner, it is a dishonour to him. 8 Instruct not a scorner, lest he hate thee; Give instruction to the wise, so he will love thee.

9 Give to the wise, and he becomes yet wiser; Give knowledge to the upright, and he gains in knowledge. ” Zöckler thinks that herewith the reason for the summons to the “simple” to forsake the fellowship of men of their own sort, is assigned (he explains 6a as Ahron b. Joseph: הפרדו מן הפתאים); but his remark, that, under the term “simple,” mockers and wicked persons are comprehended as belonging to the same category, confounds two sharply distinguished classes of men.

לץ is the freethinker who mocks at religion and virtue ( vid . , Pro 1:22), and רשׁע the godless who shuns restraint by God and gives himself up to the unbridled impulse to evil. The course of thought in Pro 9:7 and onwards shows why Wisdom, turning from the wise, who already are hers, directs herself only to the simple, and those who are devoid of understanding: she must pass over the לץ and רשׁע dna , because she can there hope for no receptivity for her invitation; she would, contrary to Mat 7:6, “give that which is holy to the dogs, and cast her pearls before swine.

” יסר, παιδεύειν (with the prevailing idea of the bitter lesson of reproof and punishment), and הוכיח, ἐλέγχειν, are interchangeable conceptions, Psa 94:10; the ל is here exponent of the object (to bring an accusation against any one), as Pro 9:8, Pro 15:12 (otherwise as Isa 2:4; Isa 11:4, where it is the dat. commodi : to bring unrighteousness to light, in favour of the injured).

יסר לץ is pointed with Mahpach of the penultima, and thus with the tone thrown back. The Pasek , placed in some editions between the two words, is masoretically inaccurate. He who reads the moral to the mocker brings disgrace to himself; the incorrigible replies to the goodwill with insult. Similar to the לקח לו here, is מרים tollit = reportat , Pro 3:25; Pro 4:27.

In 7b מוּמו is by no means the object governed by וּמוכיח: and he who shows to the godless his fault (Meîri, Arama, Löwenstein: מומו = על־מומו, and thus also the Graec. Venet. μῶμον ἑαυτῷ, scil . λαμβάνει); plainly מומו is parallel with קלון. But מומו does not also subordinate itself to לקח as to the object. parallel קלון: maculam sibimet scil . acquirit ; for, to be so understood, the author ought at least to have written לו מוּם.

Much rather מומו is here, as at Deu 32:5, appos. , thus pred. (Hitzig), without needing anything to be supplied: his blot it is, viz. , this proceeding, which is equivalent to מוּמא הוּא ליהּ (Targ.) , opprobrio ipsi est . Zöckler not incorrectly compares Psa 115:7 and Ecc 5:16, but the expression ( macula ejus = ipsi ) lies here less remote from our form of expression.

In other words: Whoever correcteth the mockers has only to expect hatred (אל־תוכח with the tone thrown back, according to rule; cf. on the contrary, Jdg 18:25), but on the other hand, love from the wise.

Pro 9:10 These words naturally follow: 10 “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Jahve, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. ” This is the highest principle of the Chokma , which stands (Pro 1:7) as a motto at the beginning of the Book of Proverbs. The lxx translate ראשׁית there (Pro 1:7), and תּחלּת here, by ἀρχή. Gusset distinguishes the two synonyms as pars optima and primus actus ; but the former denotes the fear of God as that which stands in the uppermost place, to which all that Wisdom accomplishes subordinates itself; the latter as that which begins wisdom, that which it proposes to itself in its course.

With יהוה is interchanged, Pro 2:5, אלהים, as here קדושׁים, as the internally multiplicative plur. (Dietrich, Abhandlungen , pp. 12, 45), as Pro 30:3, Jos 24:9; Hos 12:1, of God, the “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa 6:3), i. e. , Him who is absolutely Holy. Michaelis inaccurately, following the ancients, who understood not this non-numerical plur. : cognitio quae sanctos facit et sanctis propria est .

The דּעת, parallel with יראת, is meant of lively practical operative knowledge, which subordinates itself to this All-holy God as the normative but unapproachable pattern.

Pro 9:11 The singular reason for this proverb of Wisdom is now given: “For by me will thy days become many, And the years of thy life will be increased. ” Incorrectly Hitzig: “and years of life will increase to thee;” הוסיף is always and everywhere ( e. g. , also Job 38:11) transitive. In the similar passage, Pro 3:2, יוסיפו had as its subject the doctrine of Wisdom; here חכמה and בינה it is not practicable to interpret as subj.

, since 11a Wisdom is the subject discoursing - the expression follows the scheme, dicunt eos = dicuntur , as e. g. , Job 7:3; Gesen. §137 - a concealing of the operative cause, which lies near, where, as Pro 2:22, the discourse is of severe judgment, thus: they (viz. , the heavenly Powers) will grant to thee years of life (חיּים in a pregnant sense, as Pro 3:2) in rich measure, so that constantly one span comes after another.

But in what connection of consequence does this stand with the contents of the proverb, Pro 9:10? The ancients say that the clause with כי refers back to Pro 9:5. The Pro 9:7-10 (according also to Fl.) are, as it were, parenthetic. Hitzig rejects these verses as an interpolation, but the connection of Pro 9:11 with 5f. retains also something that is unsuitable: “steps forward on the way of knowledge, for by me shall thy days become many;” and if, as Hitzig supposes, Pro 9:12 is undoubtedly genuine, whose connection with Pro 9:11 is in no way obvious, then also will the difficulty of the connection of Pro 9:7-10 with the preceding and the succeeding be no decisive mark of the want of genuineness of this course of thought.

We have seen how the progress of Pro 9:6 to 7 is mediated: the invitation of Wisdom goes forth to the receptive, with the exclusion of the irrecoverable. And Pro 9:11 is related to Pro 9:10, as the proof of the cause from the effect. It is the fear of God with which Wisdom begins, the knowledge of God in which above all it consists, for by it is fulfilled the promise of life which is given to the fear of God, Pro 10:27; Pro 14:27; Pro 19:23, cf.

Deu 4:40, and to humility, which is bound up with it. Pro 10:17.

Pro 9:12 This wisdom, resting on the fear of God, is itself a blessing to the wise: “If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself; And if thou mockest, thou alone shalt bear it. ” The lxx, with the Syr. , mangle the thought of 12a, for they translate: if thou art wise for thyself, so also thou wilt be wise for thy neighbour. The dat. commodi לך means that it is for the personal advantage of the wise to be wise.

The contrast expressed by Job 22:2. : not profitable to God, but to thyself (Hitzig), is scarcely intended, although, so far as the accentuation is antithetic, it is the nearest. The perf. ולצתּ is the hypothetical; Gesen. §126, 1. To bear anything, viz. , anything sinful (חטא or עון), is equivalent to, to atone for it, Job 34:2, cf. Num 9:13; Eze 23:35. Also 12b is a contrast scarcely aimed at.

Wisdom is its own profit to man; libertinism is its own disgrace. Man decides, whenever he prefers to be wise, or to be a mocker of religion and of virtue, regarding his own weal and woe. With this nota bene the discourse of Wisdom closes.

Pro 9:13-15 The poet now brings before us another figure, for he personifies Folly working in opposition to Wisdom, and gives her a feminine name, as the contrast to Wisdom required, and thereby to indicate that the seduction, as the 13th proverbial discourse (chap. 7) has shown, appears especially in the form of degraded womanhood: 13 The woman Folly [ Frau Thorheit ] conducts herself boisterously, Wantonness, and not knowing anything at all; 14 And hath seated herself at the door of her house, On a seat high up in the city, 15 To call to those who walk in the way, Who go straight on their path.

The connection of אשת כּסילוּת is genitival, and the genitive is not, as in אשׁת רע, Pro 6:24, specifying, but appositional, as in בת־ציון ( vid . , under Isa 1:8). הומיּה [boisterous] is pred. , as Pro 7:11 : her object is sensual, and therefore her appearance excites passionately, overcoming the resistance of the mind by boisterousness. In 13b it is further said who and how she is.

פּתיּוּת she is called as wantonness personified. This abstract פּתיּוּת, derived from פּתי, must be vocalized as אכזריּוּת; Hitzig thinks it is written with a on account of the following u sound, but this formation always ends in ijjûth, not ajjûth. But as from חזה as well חזּיון = חזיון as חזון is formed, so from פּתה as well פּתוּת like חזוּת or פּתוּת like לזוּת, רעוּת, as פּתיוּת (instead of which פּתיּוּת is preferred) can be formed; Kimchi rightly ( Michlol 181a) presents the word under the form פּעלוּת.

With וּבל (Pro 14:7) poetic, and stronger than לאו, the designation of the subject is continued; the words וּבל־ידעה מּה (thus with Mercha and without Makkeph following, ידעה is to be written, after Codd. and old editions) have the value of an adjective: and not knowing anything at all (מה = τὶ, as Num 23:3; Job 13:13, and here in the negative clause, as in prose מאוּמה), i.

e. , devoid of all knowledge. The Targ. translates explanatorily: not recognising טבתּא, the good; and the lxx substitutes: she knows not shame, which, according to Hitzig, supposes the word כּלמּה, approved of by him; but כלמה means always pudefactio , not pudor . To know no כלמה would be equivalent to, to let no shaming from without influence one; for shamelessness the poet would have made use of the expression ובל־ידעה בּשׁת.

In וישׁבה the declaration regarding the subject beginning with הומיה is continued: Folly also has a house in which works of folly are carried one, and has set herself down by the door (לפּתח as לפי, Pro 8:3) of this house; she sits there על־כּסּא. Most interpreters here think on a throne (lxx ἐπὶ δίφρου, used especially of the sella curulis ); and Zöckler, as Umbreit, Hitzig, and others, connecting genitiv.

therewith מרמי קרת, changes in 14b the scene, for he removes the “high throne of the city” from the door of the house to some place elsewhere. But the sitting is in contrast to the standing and going on the part of Wisdom on the streets preaching (Evagrius well renders: in molli ignavaque sella ); and if כסא and house-door are named along with each other, the former is a seat before the latter, and the accentuation rightly separates by Mugrash כסא from מרמי קרת.

“According to the accents and the meaning, מרמי קרת is the acc. loci : on the high places of the city, as Pro 8:2. ” (Fl.) They are the high points of the city, to which, as Wisdom, Pro 9:3, Pro 8:2, so also Folly, her rival (wherefore Ecc 10:6 does not appertain to this place), invites followers to herself. She sits before her door to call לעברי דרך (with Munach , as in Cod.

1294 and old editions, without the Makkeph ), those who go along the way (genitive connection with the supposition of the accusative construction, transire viam , as Pro 2:7), to call (invite) המישּׁרים (to be pointed with מ raphatum and Gaja going before, according to Ben-Asher’s rule; vid . , Methegsetz . §20), those who make straight their path, i. e. , who go straight on, directly before them (cf.

Isa 57:2). The participial construction (the schemes amans Dei and amans Deum ), as well as that of the verb קרא (first with the dat. and then with the accus.) , interchange.

Pro 9:13-15 The poet now brings before us another figure, for he personifies Folly working in opposition to Wisdom, and gives her a feminine name, as the contrast to Wisdom required, and thereby to indicate that the seduction, as the 13th proverbial discourse (chap. 7) has shown, appears especially in the form of degraded womanhood: 13 The woman Folly [ Frau Thorheit ] conducts herself boisterously, Wantonness, and not knowing anything at all; 14 And hath seated herself at the door of her house, On a seat high up in the city, 15 To call to those who walk in the way, Who go straight on their path.

The connection of אשת כּסילוּת is genitival, and the genitive is not, as in אשׁת רע, Pro 6:24, specifying, but appositional, as in בת־ציון ( vid . , under Isa 1:8). הומיּה [boisterous] is pred. , as Pro 7:11 : her object is sensual, and therefore her appearance excites passionately, overcoming the resistance of the mind by boisterousness. In 13b it is further said who and how she is.

פּתיּוּת she is called as wantonness personified. This abstract פּתיּוּת, derived from פּתי, must be vocalized as אכזריּוּת; Hitzig thinks it is written with a on account of the following u sound, but this formation always ends in ijjûth, not ajjûth. But as from חזה as well חזּיון = חזיון as חזון is formed, so from פּתה as well פּתוּת like חזוּת or פּתוּת like לזוּת, רעוּת, as פּתיוּת (instead of which פּתיּוּת is preferred) can be formed; Kimchi rightly ( Michlol 181a) presents the word under the form פּעלוּת.

With וּבל (Pro 14:7) poetic, and stronger than לאו, the designation of the subject is continued; the words וּבל־ידעה מּה (thus with Mercha and without Makkeph following, ידעה is to be written, after Codd. and old editions) have the value of an adjective: and not knowing anything at all (מה = τὶ, as Num 23:3; Job 13:13, and here in the negative clause, as in prose מאוּמה), i.

e. , devoid of all knowledge. The Targ. translates explanatorily: not recognising טבתּא, the good; and the lxx substitutes: she knows not shame, which, according to Hitzig, supposes the word כּלמּה, approved of by him; but כלמה means always pudefactio , not pudor . To know no כלמה would be equivalent to, to let no shaming from without influence one; for shamelessness the poet would have made use of the expression ובל־ידעה בּשׁת.

In וישׁבה the declaration regarding the subject beginning with הומיה is continued: Folly also has a house in which works of folly are carried one, and has set herself down by the door (לפּתח as לפי, Pro 8:3) of this house; she sits there על־כּסּא. Most interpreters here think on a throne (lxx ἐπὶ δίφρου, used especially of the sella curulis ); and Zöckler, as Umbreit, Hitzig, and others, connecting genitiv.

therewith מרמי קרת, changes in 14b the scene, for he removes the “high throne of the city” from the door of the house to some place elsewhere. But the sitting is in contrast to the standing and going on the part of Wisdom on the streets preaching (Evagrius well renders: in molli ignavaque sella ); and if כסא and house-door are named along with each other, the former is a seat before the latter, and the accentuation rightly separates by Mugrash כסא from מרמי קרת.

“According to the accents and the meaning, מרמי קרת is the acc. loci : on the high places of the city, as Pro 8:2. ” (Fl.) They are the high points of the city, to which, as Wisdom, Pro 9:3, Pro 8:2, so also Folly, her rival (wherefore Ecc 10:6 does not appertain to this place), invites followers to herself. She sits before her door to call לעברי דרך (with Munach , as in Cod.

1294 and old editions, without the Makkeph ), those who go along the way (genitive connection with the supposition of the accusative construction, transire viam , as Pro 2:7), to call (invite) המישּׁרים (to be pointed with מ raphatum and Gaja going before, according to Ben-Asher’s rule; vid . , Methegsetz . §20), those who make straight their path, i. e. , who go straight on, directly before them (cf.

Isa 57:2). The participial construction (the schemes amans Dei and amans Deum ), as well as that of the verb קרא (first with the dat. and then with the accus.) , interchange.

Pro 9:13-15 The poet now brings before us another figure, for he personifies Folly working in opposition to Wisdom, and gives her a feminine name, as the contrast to Wisdom required, and thereby to indicate that the seduction, as the 13th proverbial discourse (chap. 7) has shown, appears especially in the form of degraded womanhood: 13 The woman Folly [ Frau Thorheit ] conducts herself boisterously, Wantonness, and not knowing anything at all; 14 And hath seated herself at the door of her house, On a seat high up in the city, 15 To call to those who walk in the way, Who go straight on their path.

The connection of אשת כּסילוּת is genitival, and the genitive is not, as in אשׁת רע, Pro 6:24, specifying, but appositional, as in בת־ציון ( vid . , under Isa 1:8). הומיּה [boisterous] is pred. , as Pro 7:11 : her object is sensual, and therefore her appearance excites passionately, overcoming the resistance of the mind by boisterousness. In 13b it is further said who and how she is.

פּתיּוּת she is called as wantonness personified. This abstract פּתיּוּת, derived from פּתי, must be vocalized as אכזריּוּת; Hitzig thinks it is written with a on account of the following u sound, but this formation always ends in ijjûth, not ajjûth. But as from חזה as well חזּיון = חזיון as חזון is formed, so from פּתה as well פּתוּת like חזוּת or פּתוּת like לזוּת, רעוּת, as פּתיוּת (instead of which פּתיּוּת is preferred) can be formed; Kimchi rightly ( Michlol 181a) presents the word under the form פּעלוּת.

With וּבל (Pro 14:7) poetic, and stronger than לאו, the designation of the subject is continued; the words וּבל־ידעה מּה (thus with Mercha and without Makkeph following, ידעה is to be written, after Codd. and old editions) have the value of an adjective: and not knowing anything at all (מה = τὶ, as Num 23:3; Job 13:13, and here in the negative clause, as in prose מאוּמה), i.

e. , devoid of all knowledge. The Targ. translates explanatorily: not recognising טבתּא, the good; and the lxx substitutes: she knows not shame, which, according to Hitzig, supposes the word כּלמּה, approved of by him; but כלמה means always pudefactio , not pudor . To know no כלמה would be equivalent to, to let no shaming from without influence one; for shamelessness the poet would have made use of the expression ובל־ידעה בּשׁת.

In וישׁבה the declaration regarding the subject beginning with הומיה is continued: Folly also has a house in which works of folly are carried one, and has set herself down by the door (לפּתח as לפי, Pro 8:3) of this house; she sits there על־כּסּא. Most interpreters here think on a throne (lxx ἐπὶ δίφρου, used especially of the sella curulis ); and Zöckler, as Umbreit, Hitzig, and others, connecting genitiv.

therewith מרמי קרת, changes in 14b the scene, for he removes the “high throne of the city” from the door of the house to some place elsewhere. But the sitting is in contrast to the standing and going on the part of Wisdom on the streets preaching (Evagrius well renders: in molli ignavaque sella ); and if כסא and house-door are named along with each other, the former is a seat before the latter, and the accentuation rightly separates by Mugrash כסא from מרמי קרת.

“According to the accents and the meaning, מרמי קרת is the acc. loci : on the high places of the city, as Pro 8:2. ” (Fl.) They are the high points of the city, to which, as Wisdom, Pro 9:3, Pro 8:2, so also Folly, her rival (wherefore Ecc 10:6 does not appertain to this place), invites followers to herself. She sits before her door to call לעברי דרך (with Munach , as in Cod.

1294 and old editions, without the Makkeph ), those who go along the way (genitive connection with the supposition of the accusative construction, transire viam , as Pro 2:7), to call (invite) המישּׁרים (to be pointed with מ raphatum and Gaja going before, according to Ben-Asher’s rule; vid . , Methegsetz . §20), those who make straight their path, i. e. , who go straight on, directly before them (cf.

Isa 57:2). The participial construction (the schemes amans Dei and amans Deum ), as well as that of the verb קרא (first with the dat. and then with the accus.) , interchange.

Pro 9:16-17 The woman, who in her own person serves as a sign to her house, addresses those who pass by in their innocence (לתמּם, 2Sa 15:11): 16 “Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither! ” And if any one is devoid of understanding, she saith to him: 17 “Stolen waters taste sweet, And the bread of secrecy is pleasant. ” פּתי (folly, simplicity) has a side accessible to good and its contrary: Wisdom is connected with the one side, and Folly with the other.

And as the חסר־לב offers a vacuum to Wisdom which may perhaps be filled with the right contents, so is this vacuum welcome to Folly, because it meets there no resistance. In this sense, Pro 9:16 is like Pro 9:4 (excepting the addition of a connecting and of a concluding ו: et si quis excors, tum dicit ei ); the word is the same in both, but the meaning, according to the two speakers, is different.

That to which they both invite is the pleasure of her fellowship, under the symbol of eating and drinking; in the one case it is intellectual and spiritual enjoyment, in the other sensual. That Wisdom offers (Pro 9:5) bread and wine, and Folly water and bread, has its reason in this, that the particular pleasure to which the latter invites is of a sensual kind; for to drink water out of his own or out of another fountain is (Pro 3:15-20) the symbol of intercourse in married life, or of intercourse between the unmarried, particularly of adulterous intercourse.

מים גּנוּבים (correct texts have it thus, without the Makkeph ) is sexual intercourse which is stolen from him who has a right thereto, thus carnal intercourse with אושׁת אישׁ; and לחם סתרים fleshly lust, which, because it is contrary to the law, must seek (cf. furtum , secret love intrigue) concealment (סתרים, extensive plur. , as מעמקּים; Böttcher, §694). Just such pleasure, after which one wipes his mouth as if he had done nothing (Pro 30:20), is for men who are without wisdom sweet (מתק, Job 20:12) and pleasant; the prohibition of it gives to such pleasure attraction, and the secrecy adds seasoning; and just such enjoyments the כסילות, personified carnality, offers.

But woe to him who, befooled, enters her house!

Pro 9:16-17 The woman, who in her own person serves as a sign to her house, addresses those who pass by in their innocence (לתמּם, 2Sa 15:11): 16 “Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither! ” And if any one is devoid of understanding, she saith to him: 17 “Stolen waters taste sweet, And the bread of secrecy is pleasant. ” פּתי (folly, simplicity) has a side accessible to good and its contrary: Wisdom is connected with the one side, and Folly with the other.

And as the חסר־לב offers a vacuum to Wisdom which may perhaps be filled with the right contents, so is this vacuum welcome to Folly, because it meets there no resistance. In this sense, Pro 9:16 is like Pro 9:4 (excepting the addition of a connecting and of a concluding ו: et si quis excors, tum dicit ei ); the word is the same in both, but the meaning, according to the two speakers, is different.

That to which they both invite is the pleasure of her fellowship, under the symbol of eating and drinking; in the one case it is intellectual and spiritual enjoyment, in the other sensual. That Wisdom offers (Pro 9:5) bread and wine, and Folly water and bread, has its reason in this, that the particular pleasure to which the latter invites is of a sensual kind; for to drink water out of his own or out of another fountain is (Pro 3:15-20) the symbol of intercourse in married life, or of intercourse between the unmarried, particularly of adulterous intercourse.

מים גּנוּבים (correct texts have it thus, without the Makkeph ) is sexual intercourse which is stolen from him who has a right thereto, thus carnal intercourse with אושׁת אישׁ; and לחם סתרים fleshly lust, which, because it is contrary to the law, must seek (cf. furtum , secret love intrigue) concealment (סתרים, extensive plur. , as מעמקּים; Böttcher, §694). Just such pleasure, after which one wipes his mouth as if he had done nothing (Pro 30:20), is for men who are without wisdom sweet (מתק, Job 20:12) and pleasant; the prohibition of it gives to such pleasure attraction, and the secrecy adds seasoning; and just such enjoyments the כסילות, personified carnality, offers.

But woe to him who, befooled, enters her house!

Pro 9:18 He goes within: 18 And he knows not that the dead are there; In the depths of Hades, her guests. How near to one another the house of the adulteress and Hades are, so that a man passes through the one into the other, is already stated in Pro 2:18; Pro 7:27. Here, in the concluding words of the introduction to the Book of Proverbs, addressed to youth, and for the most part containing warning against sinful pleasure, these two further declarations are advanced: the company assembled in the house of lewdness consists of רפאים, i.

e. , (cf. p. 83) the old, worn-out, who are only in appearance living, who have gone down to the seeming life of the shadowy existence of the kingdom of the dead; her (כסילות) invited ones (cf. Pro 7:26, her slaughtered ones) are in the depths of Hades (not in the valleys, as Umbreit, Löwenstein, and Ewald translate, but in the depths, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, ἐπὶ τοῖς βαθέσι; for עמקי is not only plur.

to עמק, but also per metaplasmum to עמק, Pro 25:3, as אמרי to אמר), thus in שׁאול תּחתּית (Deu 32:22); they have forsaken the fellowship of the life and of the love of God, and have sunk into the deepest destruction. The house of infamy into which Folly allures does not only lead to hell, it is hell itself; and they who permit themselves to be thus befooled are like wandering corpses, and already on this side of death are in the realm of wrath and of the curse.

Pro 10:1 In the introduction, chap. 1-9, there are larger sections of interconnected thoughts having one common aim. Even in Prov 6:1-19 there are manifestly three proverbial discourses distinguished from one another, shorter indeed, yet containing one fundamental thought. Such proverbs as are primarily designed to form one completed little whole of themselves, are not here to be met with.

On the contrary, the Solomonic collection which now follows consists of pure distichs, for the most part antithetical, but at the same time going over all the forms of the technical proverb, as we have already shown; vid . , p. 16. Accordingly the exposition must from this point onward renounce reproduced combinations of thought. The succession of proverbs here is nevertheless not one that is purely accidental or without thought; it is more than a happy accident when three of the same character stand together; the collector has connected together proverb with proverb according to certain common characteristics (Bertheau).

And yet more than that: the mass separates itself into groups, not merely succeeding one another, but because a certain connection of ideas connects together a number of proverbs, in such a way that the succession is broken, and a new point of departure is arrived at (Hitzig). There is no comprehensive plan, such as Oetinger in his summary view of its contents supposes; the progressive unfolding follows no systematic scheme, but continuously wells forth.

But that the editor, whom we take also to be the arranger of the contents of the book, did not throw them together by good chance, but in placing them together was guided by certain reasons, the very first proverb here shows, for it is chosen in conformity with the design of this book, which is specially dedicated to youth: 1 A wise son maketh glad his father; A foolish son is his mother’s grief. One sees here quite distinctly (cf.

Hos 13:13) that חכם (from חכם, properly to be thick, stout, solid, as πυκνός = σοφός) is primarily a practical and ethical conception. Similar proverbs are found further on, but consisting of synonymous parallel members, in which either the father both times represents the parents, as Pro 17:21; Pro 23:24, or father and mother are separated, each being named in different members, as Pro 17:25; Pro 23:25, and particularly Pro 15:20, where 20a = 1a of the above proverb.

It is incorrect to say, with Hitzig, that this contrast draws the division after it: the division lies nearer in the synonymous distichs, and is there less liable to be misunderstood than in the antithetic. Thus, from this proverb before us, it might be concluded that grief on account of a befooled son going astray in bypaths, and not coming to the right way, falls principally on the mother, as (Sir.

3:9) is often the case in unfortunate marriages. The idea of the parents is in this way only separated, and the two members stand in suppletive interchangeable relationship. ישׂמּח is the middle of the clause, and is the usual form in connection; ישׂמּח is the pausal form. תּוּגה, from הוגה (יגה), has pass. û , as תּורה, act. ô . “The expression of the pred .

1b is like Pro 3:17; Pro 8:6; Pro 10:14. ; cf. e. g. , Arab. âlastaḳṣa furkat, oversharpening is dividing, i. e. , effects it inquiries become or lead to separation (cf. our proverb, Allzuscharf macht scharig = too much sharpening makes full of notches); Burckhardt, Sprüchw. Nr. 337” (Fl.)

Pro 10:2 There follows now a series of proverbs which place possessions and goods under a moral-religious point of view: Treasures of wickedness bring no profit; But righteousness delivers from death. The lxx and Aquila translate ἀνόμους (ἀσεβεῖς). הועיל (to profit) with the accus. is possible, Isa 57:12, but אוצרות one does not use by itself; it requires a genitive designating it more closely.

But also דּרשּׂיעא of the Targ. , παρανόμων of Symmachus, fails; for the question still remains, to whom? Rightly Syr. , Jerome, Theodotion, and the Quinta: ἀσεβείας, cf. Pro 4:17; Mic 4:10; Luk 16:9, μαμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικίας. Treasures to which wickedness cleaves profit not, viz. , him who has collected them through wickedness. On the contrary, righteousness saves from death (2b = Pro 11:4, where the parallelism makes it clear that death as a judgment is meant).

In Deu 24:13 it had been already said that compassionate love is “righteousness before the Lord,” the cardinal virtue of the righteousness of life. Faith (Hab 2:4) is its soul, and love its life. Therefore δικαιοσύνη and ἐεημοσύνη are interchangeable ideas; and it ought not to be an objection against the Apocrypha that it repeats the above proverb, ἐλεημοσύνη ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται, Tob.

4:10; 12:9, Sir. 3:30; 29:12, for Dan 4:24 also says the very same thing, and the thought is biblical, in so far as the giving of alms is understood to be not a dead work, but (Psa 112:9) the life-activity of one who fears God, and of a mind believing in Him and resting in His word.

Pro 10:3 Another proverb, the members of which stand in chiastic relation to those of the preceding: Jahve does not suffer the soul of the righteous to hunger; But the craving of the godless He disappointeth. The thought is the same as Pro 13:25. There, as also at Pro 6:30, the soul is spoken of as the faculty of desire, and that after nourishment, for the lowest form of the life of the soul is the impulse to self-preservation.

The parallel הוּה, in which lxx and Ar. erroneously find the meaning of חיּה, life, the Syr. Targ. the meaning of הון, possession, means the desire, without however being related to אוּה (Berth.) ; it is the Arab. hawan, from הוה, Arab. haway, which, from the fundamental meaning χαίνειν, hiare , to gape, yawn, signifies not only unrestrained driving along, and crashing overthrow (cf.

Pro 11:6; Pro 19:13), but also the breaking forth, ferri in aliquid , whence הוּה, Arab. hawan, violent desire, in Hebr. generally (here and Psa 52:9, Mich. Pro 7:3) of desire without limits and without restraint (cf. the plur. âhawâ, arbitrary actions, caprices); the meanings deduced from this important verbal stem (of which also הוה היה, accidere , and then esse , at least after the Arabic conception of speech, is an offshoot) are given by Fleischer under Job 37:6, and after Fleischer by Ethé, Schlafgemach der Phantasie , ii.

p. 6f. The verb הדף signifies to push in the most manifold shades, here to push forth, repellere , as 2Ki 4:27 (cf. Arab. ḥadhaf, to push off = to discharge); the fut. is invariably יהדּף, like יהגּה. God gives satisfaction to the soul of the righteous, viz. , in granting blessings. The desire of the wicked He does not suffer to be accomplished; it may appear for a long time as if that which was aimed at was realized, but in the end God pushes it back, so that it remains at a distance, because contrary to Him.

Instead of והות רשׁעים, some editions (Plantin 1566, Bragadin 1615) have והות בּגדים, but, in opposition to all decided testimony, only through a mistaken reference to Pro 11:6.

Pro 10:4 There follow two proverbs which say how one man fails and another succeeds: He becomes poor who bears a sluggish hand; But the hand of the diligent maketh rich. These three proverbs, Pro 19:15; Pro 12:24, Pro 12:27, are similar. From the last two it is seen that רמיּה is a subst. , as also from Psa 120:2. (לשׁון רמיּה, from a crafty tongue) that it is an adject.

, and from Lev 14:15. (where כּף is fem.) that it may be at the same time an adject. here also. The masc. is רמי, like טרי to טריּה ot , but neither of these occur; “the fundamental idea is that of throwing oneself down lazily, when one with unbent muscles holds himself no longer erect and stretched, Arab. taramy” (Fl.) The translation: deceitful balances (Löwenstein after Rashi), is contrary to biblical usage, which knows nothing of כף in this Mishnic meaning.

But if כף is here regarded as fem. , then it cannot be the subject (Jerome, egestatem operata est manus remissa ), since we read עשׂה, not עשׂה. But ראשׁ also is not suitable as the subject (lxx, Syr. , Targ.) , for poverty is called רישׁ, רישׁ, ראשׁ; on the contrary, רשׁ, plur. רשׁים or ראשׁים, is used adjectively. Since now the adject. רשׁ, 1Sa 12:14, is also written ראשׁ, it may be translated: Poor is he who...

(Bertheau); but we much rather expect the statement of that which happens to such an one, thus: Poor will he be... ראשׁ, 3 praet . = רשׁ, Psa 34:11, with the same (grammatically incorrect) full writing as קאם, Hos 10:14. In the conception of the subject, כף־רמיה, after Jer 48:10, is interpreted as the accus. of the manner (Berth. : whoever works with sluggish hand); but since עשׂה רמיה (in another sense indeed: to practise cunning) is a common phrase, Psa 52:4; Psa 101:7, so also will כף־רמיה be regarded as the object: qui agit manum remissam , whoever carries or moves such a hand (Hitzig).

In 4b working is placed opposite to bearing: the diligent hand makes rich, ditat or divitias parit ; but not for itself (Gesen. and others: becomes rich), but for him who bears it. The diligent man is called חרוּץ, from חרץ, to sharpen, for, as in ὀξύς, acer , sharpness is transferred to energy; the form is the same as הלּוּק, smooth (for the ā is unchangeable, because recompensative), a kindred form to קטול like חמוץ, and Arab.

fâ'ûl as fashawsh, a boaster, wind-bag, either of active (as חנּוּן) or (as חלוק, חרוץ, עמּוּד, שׁכּוּל) of passive signification.