Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 30:17 - 30:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The proverb of the ‛Alûka is the first of the proverbs founded on the figure of an animal among the “words” of Agur. It is now followed by another of a similar character:
17 An eye that mocketh at his father,
And despiseth obedience to his mother:
The ravens of the brook shall pluck it out,
And the young eagles shall eat it.
If “an eye,” and not “eyes,” are spoken of here, this is accounted for by the consideration that the duality of the organ falls back against the unity of the mental activity and mental expression which it serves (cf. Psychol. p. 234). As haughtiness reveals itself (Pro 30:13) in the action of the eyes, so is the eye also the mirror of humble subordination, and also of malicious scorn which refuses reverence and subjection to father and mother. As in German the verbs [verspotten, spotten, höhnen, hohnsprechen signifying to mock at or scorn may be used with the accus., genit., or dat., so also לָעַג [to deride] and בּוּז [to despise] may be connected at pleasure with either an accusative object or a dative object. Ben-Chajim, Athias, van der Hooght, and others write תִּלְעַג; Jablonski, Michaelis, Löwenstein, תִּֽלְעַג, Mühlau, with Norzi, accurately, תִּֽלְעַג, with Munach, like תִּֽבְחַר, Psa 65:5; the writing of Ben-Asher
(Note: The Gaja has its reason in the Zinnor that follows, and the Munach in the syllable beginning with a moveable Sheva; תִּלְעַג with Scheva quiesc. must, according to rule, receive Mercha, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 26.)
is תִּֽלַעַג, with Gaja, Chateph, and Munach. The punctuation of ליקהת is more fluctuating. The word לִקְהַת (e.g., Cod. Jaman.) may remain out of view, for the Dag. dirimens in ק stands here as firmly as at Gen 49:10, cf. Psa 45:10. But it is a question whether one has to write לִיקְּהַת with Yod quiesc. (regarding this form of writing, preferred by Ben-Naphtali, the Psalmen-Comm. under Psa 45:10, in both Edd.; Luzzatto's Gramm. §193; Baer's Genesis, p. 84, note 2; and Heidenheim's Pentateuch, with the text-crit. Comm. of Jekuthiël ha-Nakdans, under Gen 47:17; Gen 49:10), as it is found in Kimchi, Michlol 45a, and under יקה, and as also Norzi requires, or לְיִקְּהַת (as e.g., Cod. Erfurt 1), which appears to be the form adopted by Ben-Asher, for it is attested
(Note: Kimchi is here no authority, for he contradicts himself regarding such word-forms. Thus, regarding וִילְלַת, Jer 25:36, in Michlol 87b, and under ילל. The form also wavers between כִּֽיתֲרוֹן and כְּיִתְרוֹן, Ecc 2:13. The Cod. Jaman. has here the Jod always quiesc.)
as such by Jekuthiël under Gen 49:10, and also expressly as such by an old Masora-Cod. of the Erfurt Library. Löwenstein translates, “the weakness of the mother.” Thus after Rashi, who refers the word to קָהָה, to draw together, and explains it, Gen 49:10, “collection;” but in the passage before us, understands it of the wrinkles on the countenance of the aged mother. Nachmani (Ramban) goes still further, giving to the word, at Gen 49:10, everywhere the meaning of weakness and frailty. Aben Ezra also, and Gersuni (Ralbag), do not go beyond the meaning of a drawing together; and the lxx, with the Aram., who all translate the word by senectus, have also קָהָה in the sense of to become dull, infirm (certainly not the Aethiopic leheḳa, to become old, weak through old age). But Kimchi, whom the Venet. and Luther
(Note: Jerome translates, et qui despicit partum matris suae. To partus there separates itself to him here the signification expectatio, Gen 49:10, resting on a false combination with קוה. To think of pareo, parui, paritum (Mühlau), was not yet granted to him.)
follow, is informed by Abulwalîd, skilled in the Arab., of a better: יִקְהָה (or יִקְּהָה, cf. נִצְּרָה, Psa 141:3) is the Arab. wakhat, obedience (vid., above יָקֶה under 1a). If now it is said of such a haughty, insolent eye, that the ravens of the brook (cf. 1Ki 17:4) will pluck it out, and the בְנֵי־נָֽשֶׁר eat it, they, the eagle's children, the unchildlike human eye: it is only the description of the fate that is before such an one, to die a violent death, and to become a prey to the fowls of heaven (cf. e.g., Jer 16:3., and Passow's Lex. under κόραξ); and if this threatening is not always thus literally fulfilled, yet one has not on that account to render the future optatively, with Hitzig; this is a false conclusion, from a too literal interpretation, for the threatening is only to be understood after its spirit, viz., that a fearful and a dishonourable end will come to such an one. Instead of יִקְּרוּהָ, as Mühlau reads from the Leipzig Cod., יקרוה, with Mercha (Athias and Nissel have it with Tarcha), is to be read, for a word between Olewejored and Athnach must always contain a conjunctive accent (Thorath Emeth, p. 51; Accentuationssystem, xviii. §9). ערבי־נָחַל is also irregular, and instead of it ערבי־נַחַל is to be written, for the reason given above under Pro 30:16 (מַיִם).