Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 19:7 - 19:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 אַף כִּי, quanto magis, vid., at Pro 11:31; Pro 15:11; Pro 17:7. In a similar connection Pro 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 Pro 17:17, are brothers-german, including kindred by blood relation. כָּל has Mercha, and is thus without the Makkeph, as at Psa 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 Isa 40:12, where כָּלוְ is a verb. But that is incorrect. The case is the same as with אֶת, Pro 3:12; Psa 47:5; Psa 60:2. As here ě with Mercha remains, so ǒ with Mercha in that twice occurring כָּלוְ; that which is exceptional is this, that the accentuated כל is written thus twice, not as the usual כֹּל, but as כָּל 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. רָֽחֲקוּ does not stamp מרעֵהוּ as the defectively written plur.; the suffix ēhu is always sing., and the sing. is thus, like הָרֵעַ, 6b, meant collectively, or better: generally (in the sense of kind), which is the linguistic usage of these two words, 1Sa 30:26; Job 42:10. But it is worthy of notice that the Masoretic form here is not מֵרֵעֵהוּ, but mמְרֵעֵהוּ, 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 מְרעהו mean that the word is here to be derived from מֵרֵעַ, 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 מֵרֵעַ, amicus, fluctuates. This word מֵרֵעַ 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 מִרְעֶה. 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 Pro 19:7, but at Pro 19:4 we have also found amicus ejus more probable than ab amico suo (= מן רעהו).) and elsewhere, as unchangeable, and here in מְרעהו 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 מְרַדֵּף must be used of the poor, and לֹא־הֵמָּה, or לוֹ־הֵמָּה (vid., regarding the 15 Kerîs, לּוֹ for לא, at Psa 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 לוֹ־הֵמָּה 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 לֹא הֵמָּה they are not; but this expression characterizes the words as vain, so that it is to be interpreted according to such parallels as Hos 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: מִלּוֹי לָא שְׁרִיר; Symmachus, ῥήσεσιν ἀνυπάρκτοις. The expression is not to be rejected: לֹא הָיָה sometimes means to come to לֹא, i.e., to nothing, Job 6:21; Eze 21:32, cf. Isa 15:6; and לֹא הוּא, he is not = has no reality, Jer 5:12, אֲמָרִים 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 שְׂנֵאֻהוּ [they hate him] and רָֽחֲקוּ [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, Pro 5:2 = מְזִמּוֹת), 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.