Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 1:20 - 1:20

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 1:20 - 1:20


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Looking to its form and vocalization, חָכְמוֹת may be an Aramaizing abstract formation (Gesen.; Ew. 165, c; Olsh. 219, b); for although the forms אָחוֹת and גְּלוֹת are of a different origin, yet in רִבּוֹת and הוֹלֵלוֹת such abstract formations lie before us. The termination ûth is here, by the passing over of the u into the less obscure but more intensive o (cf. יְהוֹ in the beginning and middle of the word, and יְהוּ יָהוֹ at the end of the word), raised to ôth, and thereby is brought near to the fem. plur. (cf. חַכְמוֹת, Pro 14:1, sapientia, as our plur. of the neut. sapiens, חֲכָמָה), approaching to the abstract. On the other hand, that חָכְמוֹת is sing. of abstract signification, is not decisively denoted by its being joined to the plur. of the predicate (for תָּרֹנָּה here, as at Pro 8:3, is scarcely plur.; and if רָאמוֹת, Pro 24:7, is plur., חָכְמוֹת as the numerical plur. may refer to the different sciences or departments of knowledge); but perhaps by this, that it interchanges with תְּבוּנוֹת, Psa 49:4, cf. Pro 11:12; Pro 28:16, and that an abstract formation from חָכְמָה (fem. of חֹכֶם, חֲכֹם), which besides is not concrete, was unnecessary. Still less is חָכְמוֹת = חָכְמָת a singular, which has it in view to change חָכְמָה into a proper name, for proof of which Hitzig refers to תְּהוֹמוֹת, Psa 78:15; the singular ending ôth without an abstract signification does not exist. After that Dietrich, in his Abhandl. 1846, has shown that the origin of the plur. proceeds not from separate calculation, but from comprehension,

(Note: In the Indo-Germanic languages the s of the plur. also probably proceeds from the prep. sa (sam) = συν. See Schleicher, Compend. der vergl. Gram. §247.)

and that particularly also names denoting intellectual strength are frequently plur., which multiply the conception not externally but internally, there is no longer any justifiable doubt that חָכְמוֹת signifies the all-comprehending, absolute, or, as Böttcher, §689, expresses it, the full personal wisdom. Since such intensive plurals are sometimes united with the plur. of the predicate, as e.g., the monotheistically interpreted Elohim, Gen 35:7 (see l.c.), so תָּרֹנָּה may be plur. On the other hand, the idea that it is a forma mixta of תָּרֹן (from רָנַן) and תִּרְנֶה (Job 39:23) or תְּרַנֶּה, the final sound in ah opposes. It may, however, be the emphatic form of the 3rd fem. sing. of רָנַן; for, that the Hebr. has such an emphatic form, corresponding to the Arab. taktubanna, is shown by these three examples (keeping out of view the suspicion of a corruption of the text, Olsh. p. 452), Jdg 5:26; Job 17:16; Isa 28:3; cf. תִּשְׁלַחְנָה, Oba 1:13 (see Caspari, l.c.), an example of the 2nd masc. sing. of this formation. רָנַן (with רָנָה) is a word imitative of sound (Schallwort), used to denote “a clear-sounding, shrill voice (thence the Arab. rannan, of a speaker who has a clear, piercing voice); then the clear shrill sound of a string or chord of a bow, or the clear tinkle of the arrow in the quiver, and of the metal that has been struck” (Fl.). The meaning of רְחֹבוֹת is covered by plateae (Luk 14:21), wide places; and חוּץ, which elsewhere may mean that which is without, before the gates of the city and courts, here means the “open air,” in contradistinction to the inside of the houses.