Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 26:26 - 26:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
26 Hatred may conceal itself behind deceit:
Its wickedness shall be exposed in the assembly.
Proverbs which begin with the fut. are rarely to be found, it is true; yet, as we have seen, Pro 12:26, they are sometimes to be met with in the collection. This is one of the few that are of such a character; for that the lxx and others translate ὁ κρύπτων, which gives for רָעָתוֹ a more appropriate reference, does not require us to agree with Hitzig in reading הַכֹּסֶה (Pro 12:16, Pro 12:23) - the two clauses rendered fut. stand in the same syntactical relation, as e.g., Job 20:24. Still less can the rendering of במשׁאון by συνίστησι δόλον, by the lxx, induce us to read with Hitzig חֹרֵשׁ אָוֶן, especially since it is doubtful whether the Heb. words which floated before those translators (the lxx) have been fallen upon. מַשָּׁאוֹן (beginning and ending with a formative syllable) is certainly a word of rare formation, to be compared only to מִסְדְּרוֹן, Jdg 3:23; but since the nearest-lying formation מַשָּׁא signifies usury (from נָשָׁא, to credit) (according to which Symmachus, διὰ λήμματα, to desire gain), it is obvious that the language preferred this double formation for the meaning deceiving, illusion, or, exactly: fraud. It may also be possible to refer it, like מַשּׁוּאוֹת (vid., under Psa 23:1-6 :18), to שׁוֹא = שָׁאָה, to be confused, waste, as this is done by Parchon, Kimchi (Venet. ἐν ἐρημίᾳ), Ralbag, and others; משׁאון, in this sense of deepest concealment, certainly says not a little as the contrast of קָהָל [an assembly], but יְשִׁימוֹם [a desert] stood ready for the poet to be used in this sense; he might also have expressed himself as Job 30:3; Job 38:27. The selection of this rare word is better explained if it denotes the superlative of deceit - a course of conduct maliciously directed toward the deception of a neighbour. That is also the impression which the word has made on Jerome (fraudulenter), the Targ. (בְּמוּרְסְתָא, in grinding), Luther (to do injury), and according to which it has already been explained, e.g., by C. B. Michaelis and Oetinger (“with dissembled, deceitful nature”). The punctuation of תכסה, Codd. and editions present in three different forms. Buxtorf in his Concordance (also Fürst), and the Basel Biblia Rabbinica, have the form תְּכַסֶּה; but this is a mistake. Either תִּכָּסֶה (Niph.) תִּכַּסֶּה (Hithpa., with the same assimilation of the preformative ת as in הֻכַּבֵּס, Lev 13:55; נִכַּפֵּר, Deu 21:8) is to be read; Kimchi, in his Wörterbuch, gives תִּכַּסֶּה, which is certainly better supported. A surer contrast of במשׁאון and בקהל remains in our interpretation; only we translate not as Ewald: “hatred seeks to conceal itself by hypocrisy,” but: in deceitful work. Also we refer רָעָתוֹ, not to במשׁאון, but to שִׂנְאָה, for hatred is thought of in connection with its personal representative. We see from 26b that hatred is meant which not only broods over evil, but also carries it into execution. Such hatred may conceal itself in cunningly-contrived deception, yet the wickedness of the hater in the end comes out from behind the mask with the light of publicity.