and ::: åπaidevolav), or better, since I' are placed in contrast: in want of correction. With the (ver. 236), repeated purposely from ver. 20, there is connected the idea of the overthrow which is certain to overtake the infatuated man. In ver. 20 the sense of moral error began already to connect itself with this verb. n is the right name of unrestrained lust of the flesh. ns is connected with, the belly; bs, Arab. ál, to draw together, to condense, to thicken (Isaiah, p. 424). Dummheit (stupidity) and the Old-Norse dumba, darkness, are in their roots related to each other. Also in the Semitic the words for blackness and darkness are derived from roots meaning condensation. s is the mind. made thick, darkened, and become like crude matter. NINTH INTRODUCTORY MASHAL DISCOURSE, VI. 1–5. WARNING AGAINST INCONSIDERATE SURETYSHIP, The author does not return to the subject of chastity till the twelfth discourse, vi. 20 ff. Between the eighth and the twelfth three other groups of moral proverbs are introduced, which are neither connected with one another nor with the eight discourses which precede them. Must we therefore, with Hitzig and Kamphausen, hold vi. 1-5, 6-11, 12-19, to be an interpolation here introduced from some other place? We find here the fondness for synonyms and words similar in sound peculiar to the author of the introduction, vi. 2, 3, 5, and meet with the same interchange of words, vi. 4, cf. iv. 25, and figurative expressions, vi. 18, cf. iii. 29 (n), word-formations, vi. 10 (P2), cf. iii. 8 ("p), ideas, vi. 12, cf. iv. 28 (na mwpy), vi. 14, cf. ii. 12, 14 (лɔðлл), and constructions, vi. 12 (nonpy n), cf. ii. 7 (on n); like delineations of character, vi. 186, cf. i. 16, and threatenings, vi. 15, cf. i. 26 f., iii. 25—as many marks of identity of the authorship as could be expected. And what had moved the interpolators to introduce the three groups of proverbs, vi. 1-5, 6-11, 12-19, just here? In vain does Hitzig seek to extract from chap. v. certain words and ideas common to it with chap. vi. which shall make it clear that the groups of proverbs in question are here an interpolation; the points of contrast are not prominent. If now the poet has already in iii. 1-18, but still more in iii. 27 ff., connected together all manner of rules of life without any close or visible connection, it is not strange if at vi. 1, where besides the denotes the new section, he breaks off to a new subject out of the fulness of his matter; and the connection wanting between vi. 1 and v. 23, as well as between iii. 27 and iii. 26, does not therefore warrant critical suspicion. Vers. 1-5. 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. 1 My son, if thou hast become surety for thy neighbour, Hast given thy hand for another: 2 Thou art entangled in the words of thy mouth, Ensnared in the words of thy mouth. 3 Do this then, my son, and free thyself— For thou hast come under the power of thy neighbour- 4 Give no sleep to thine eyes, And no slumber to thine eyelids; 5 Tear thyself free like a gazelle from his hand, ,רב ערב The chief question here is, whether after introduces him for whom or with whom one becomes surety. Elsewhere 7y (R. 27, whence also, 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, xi. 15, xx. 16 (xxvii. 13), Gen. xliii. 9, xliv. 33 (as with the accusative of the matter, to pledge anything, to deposit it as a pledge, Jer. xxx. 21, Neh. v. 3,=D, Arab. waďa, Job xvii. 3); and to become surety with any one is expressed, xvii. 18, by 7y. The phrasey is not elsewhere met with, and is thus questionable. If we look to ver. 3, the (n) 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 is also to be understood of the same person, and is thus dat. commodi; similar to this is the Targumic by nay, suretyship for any one, xvii. 18, xxii. 26. But is the ", 16, distinguished from 77, the stranger with whom one has become surety? The parallels xi. 15, xx. 16, where denotes the person whom one represents, show that in both lines one and the same person is meant; is in the Proverbs equivalent to, each different from the person in the discourse, v. 17, xxvii. 2,—thus, like 77, 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, xxiv. 28 (cf. the Arab. sahbk and karynk, which are used as vaguely and superficially). It is further a question, whether we have to explain 16: 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 P, or merely VP, appears to be used of striking the hand in suretyship where it elsewhere occurs without any further addition, xvii. 18, xxii. 26, xi. 15; however, Job xvii. 3, 7 ven 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, ver. 1b, is, as we have shown, not the creditor,1 but the debtor, then is the the dat. commodi, as la, and the two lines perfectly correspond. P 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 ver. 6, where vipis (illaqueari) and (comprehendi) follow each other as Isa. viii. 15, cf. Jer. 1. 24, the hypothetical antecedent is continued or not. We agree with Schultens, Ziegler, and Fleischer against the continuance of the DN. The repetition of the TN (cf. ii. 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 1 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." by placing ver. 2 in the antecedent, while if ver. 2 is regarded as the conclusion, and thus as the principal proposition, it appears in its full strength. Ver. 3. The new commencement needs no particle denoting a conclusion; the iDN, making the summons emphatic (cf. 2 Kings x. 10, frequently in interrogative clauses), connects it closely enough. n, neut., refers to what follows. The before 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.). The clause 2 is not to be translated: in case thou art fallen into the hand of thy neighbour; for this is represented (vers. 1, 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 xxix. 18, cf. viii. 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 conscientiousThe 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 gives the reason for the call to set himself free ( from bx, R. bx, bw, to draw out or off); it is a parenthetical sentence. is certain. The verb D ness. 3 הִתְרַפֶּס The meaning of (E, DE) signifies to stamp on, calcare, conculcare; the Kamûs explains rafas by rakad balarjal. The Hithpa. might, it is true, mean to conduct oneself in a trampling manner, to tread roughly, as an, and the medial Niph. ?, to conduct oneself speaking (in an impassioned manner); but Ps. lxviii. 31 and the analogy of Dpian 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 Græc. Venet. 1 For the right succession of the accents here (three serviles before the Pazer), vid. Torath Emeth, p. 30; Accentuationssystem, xii. § 4. According to BenNaphtali, Mercha is to be given to the лë. 2 The Zinnorith before the Mahpach in these words represents at the same time the Makkeph. But Ben-Naphtali differs here from Ben-Asher, for he adopts the Makkeph and rejects the Zinnorith; vid. Torath Emeth, p. 16, and my Psalmencomm. Bd. ii. (1860), p. 460, note 2. 3 [El-Feyroozábádee's Kâmus, a native Arabic Lexicon; vid. Lane's Arab. Lex. Bk. i. pt. 1, p. xvii.] TaτONTI, 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 præbe. is more controverted. The Talmudic-Midrash explanation (b. Joma, 87a; Bathra, 1736, and elsewhere): take with thee in great numbers thy friends (277 =), is discredited by this, that it has along with it the explaby (7) Den, solve palmam (manus), i.e. pay Also with the meaning to rule (Parchon, Immabesides has not, nothing is to be done. The nation of л what thou canst. nuel), which 2 right meaning of is to rush upon one boisterously, Isa. iii. 5. 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 Tapóğvve, Symm., Theodotion by πaрóρμnσov, the Græc. Venet. by évíoxvoov, the Syr. (which the Targumist copies) by (solicita), and Kimchi glosses by: lay an arrest upon him with pacifying words. The Talmud explains 7 as plur.;1 but the plur., which was permissible in iii. 28, is here wholly inadmissible: it is thus the plena scriptio for y with the retaining of the third radical of the ground-form of the root-word ("?= ny?), or with as mater lectionis, to distinguish the pausal-form from that which is without the pause; cf. xxiv. 34. LXX., Syr., Jerome, etc., rightly translate it in the sing. The immediateness lying in (cf. umaye, Matt. v. 24) is now expressed as a duty, ver. 4 f. One must not sleep and slumber (an expression quite like Ps. cxxxii. 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. Ver. 5. The naked is not to be translated "immediately;" for in this sense the word is rabbinical, not biblical. The versions (with exception of Jerome and the Græc. Venet.) translate as if the word were [out of the snare]. Bertheau prefers this reading, and Böttcher holds T [a hunter] to have fallen out after . It is not a parallelism with reservation; for a bird-catcher is not at 1 There is here no distinction between the Kethîb and the Kert. The Masora remarks, "This is the only passage in the Book of Proverbs where the word is written with Yod ();" it thus recognises only the undisputed T |