Armenia in comments -- Book: Proverbs (tProv) Առակներ
Searched terms: aram
tProv 9:4 Now follows the street-sermon of Wisdom inviting to her banquet:
4 Who is simple? let him come hither!"
Whoso wanteth understanding, to him she saith:
5 "Come, eat of my bread,
And drink of the wine which I have mingled!
6 Cease, ye simple, and live,
And walk straight on in the way of understanding."
The question מי פּתי (thus with Munach, not with Makkeph, it is to be written here and at Pro 9:16; vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 40), quis est imperitus, is, as Psa 25:12, only a more animated expression for quisquis est. The retiring into the background of the נערות (servants), and the immediate appearance of Wisdom herself, together with the interruption, as was to be expected, of her connected discourses by the אמרה לּו, are signs that the pure execution of the allegorical representation is her at an end. Hitzig seeks, by the rejection of Pro 9:4, Pro 9:5, Pro 9:7-10, to bring in a logical sequence; but these interpolations which he cuts out are yet far more inconceivable than the proverbial discourses in the mouth of Wisdom, abandoning the figure of a banquet, which besides are wholly in the spirit of the author of this book. That Folly invites to her, Pro 9:16, in the same words as are used by Wisdom, Pro 9:4, is not strange; both address themselves to the simple (vid., on פּתי at Pro 1:4) and those devoid of understanding (as the youth, Pro 7:7), and seek to bring to their side those who are accessible to evil as to good, and do not dully distinguish between them, which the emulating devertat huc of both imports. The fourth verse points partly backwards, and partly forwards; 4a has its introduction in the תקרא of Pro 9:3; on the contrary, 4b is itself the introduction of what follows. The setting forth of the nom. absolutus חסר־לב is conditioned by the form of 4a; the מי (cf. 4a) is continued (in 4b) without its needing to be supplied: excors (= si quis est excors) dicit ei (not dixit, because syntactically subordinating itself to the תקרא). It is a nominal clause, whose virtual predicate (the devoid of understanding is thus and thus addressed by her) as in Pro 9:16.
Pro 9:5
The plur. of the address shows that the simple (inexperienced) and the devoid of understanding are regarded as essentially one and the same class of men. The בּ after לחם and שׁתה proceeds neither from the idea of eating into (hewing into) anything, nor from the eating with anything, i.e., inasmuch as one makes use of it, nor of pampering oneself with anything (as ראה ב); Michaelis at last makes a right decision (cf. Lev 22:11; Jdg 13:16; Job 21:25, and particularly לחם בּ, Psa 141:4): communicationem et participationem in re fruenda denotat; the lxx φάγετε τῶν ἐμῶν ἄρτων. The attributive מסכתּי stands with backward reference briefly for מסכתּיו. That Wisdom, Pro 9:2, offers flesh and wine, but here presents bread and wine, is no contradiction, which would lead us, with Hitzig, critically to reject Pro 9:4 and Pro 9:5 as spurious; לחם is the most common, all-comprehensive name for nourishment. Bertheau suitably compares Jahve's invitation, Isa 55:1, and that of Jesus, Joh 6:35.
Pro 9:6
That פתאים is a plur. with abstract signification (according to which the four Greek and the two Aramaean translations render it; the Graec. Venet., however, renders τοὺς νηπίους) is improbable; the author forms the abstr. Pro 9:13 otherwise, and the expression here would be doubtful. For פתאים is here to be rendered as the object-accus.: leave the simple, i.e., forsake this class of men (Ahron b. Joseph; Umbreit, Zckler); or also, which we prefer (since it is always a singular thought that the "simple" should leave the "simple"), as the vocative, and so that עזבוּ means not absolutely "leave off" (Hitzig), but so that the object to be thought of is to be taken from פתאים: give up, leave off, viz., the simple (Immanuel and others; on the contrary, Rashi, Meri, and others, as Ewald, Bertheau, decide in favour of פתאים as n. abstr.). Regarding וחיוּ, for et vivetis, vid., Pro 4:4. The lxx, paraphrasing: ἵνα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα βασιλεύσητε. אשׁר is related to אשׁוּר (אשׁוּר) is דּרך to דּרך; the Piel, not in its intrans. (vid., Pro 4:14) but in its trans. sense (Isa 1:17; Isa 3:12, etc.), shows that the idea of going straight out and forwards connects itself therewith. The peculiarity of the פתי is just the absence of character. Proverbs 9:7 tProv 9:7 In what now follows the discourse of Wisdom is continued; wherefore she directs her invitation to the simple, i.e., those who have not yet decided, and are perhaps susceptible of that which is better:
7 "He who correcteth a scorner draweth upon himself insult;
And he who communicateth instruction to a scorner, it is a dishonour to him.
8 Instruct not a scorner, lest he hate thee;
Give instruction to the wise, so he will love thee.
9 Give to the wise, and he becomes yet wiser;
Give knowledge to the upright, and he gains in knowledge."
Zckler thinks that herewith the reason for the summons to the "simple" to forsake the fellowship of men of their own sort, is assigned (he explains 6a as Ahron b. Joseph: הפרדו מן הפתאים); but his remark, that, under the term "simple," mockers and wicked persons are comprehended as belonging to the same category, confounds two sharply distinguished classes of men. לץ is the freethinker who mocks at religion and virtue (vid., Pro 1:22), and רשׁע the godless who shuns restraint by God and gives himself up to the unbridled impulse to evil. The course of thought in Pro 9:7 and onwards shows why Wisdom, turning from the wise, who already are hers, directs herself only to the simple, and those who are devoid of understanding: she must pass over the לץ and רשׁע dna , because she can there hope for no receptivity for her invitation; she would, contrary to Mat 7:6, "give that which is holy to the dogs, and cast her pearls before swine." יסר, παιδεύειν (with the prevailing idea of the bitter lesson of reproof and punishment), and הוכיח, ἐλέγχειν, are interchangeable conceptions, Psa 94:10; the ל is here exponent of the object (to bring an accusation against any one), as Pro 9:8, Pro 15:12 (otherwise as Isa 2:4; Isa 11:4, where it is the dat. commodi: to bring unrighteousness to light, in favour of the injured). יסר לץ is pointed with Mahpach of the penultima, and thus with the tone thrown back. The Pasek, placed in some editions between the two words, is masoretically inaccurate. He who reads the moral to the mocker brings disgrace to himself; the incorrigible replies to the goodwill with insult. Similar to the לקח לו here, is מרים tollit = reportat, Pro 3:25; Pro 4:27. In 7b מוּמו is by no means the object governed by וּמוכיח: and he who shows to the godless his fault (Meri, Arama, Lwenstein: מומו = על־מומו, and thus also the Graec. Venet. μῶμον ἑαυτῷ, scil. λαμβάνει); plainly מומו is parallel with קלון. But מומו does not also subordinate itself to לקח as to the object. parallel קלון: maculam sibimet scil. acquirit; for, to be so understood, the author ought at least to have written לו מוּם. Much rather מומו is here, as at Deu 32:5, appos., thus pred. (Hitzig), without needing anything to be supplied: his blot it is, viz., this proceeding, which is equivalent to מוּמא הוּא ליהּ (Targ.), opprobrio ipsi est. Zckler not incorrectly compares Psa 115:7 and Ecc 5:16, but the expression (macula ejus = ipsi) lies here less remote from our form of expression. In other words: Whoever correcteth the mockers has only to expect hatred (אל־תוכח with the tone thrown back, according to rule; cf. on the contrary, Jdg 18:25), but on the other hand, love from the wise.
Pro 9:8
The ו in ויאהבך is that of consequence (apodosis imperativi): so he will love thee (as also Ewald now translates), not: that he may love thee (Syr., Targ.), for the author speaks here only of the consequence, not of something else, as an object kept in view. The exhortation influences the mocker less than nothing, so much the more it bears fruit with the wise. Thus the proverb is confirmed habenti dabitur, Mat 13:12; Mat 25:29.
Pro 9:9
If anything is to be supplied to תּן, it is לקח (Pro 4:2); but תן, tradere, παραδιδόναι, is of itself correlat. of לקח, accipere (post-bibl. קבּל), παραλαμβάνειν, e.g., Gal 1:9. הודיע ל = to communicate knowledge, דעת, follows the analogy of הוכיח ל, to impart instruction, תוכחת. Regarding the jussive form ויוסף in the apod. imper., vid., Gesen. 128, 2. Observe in this verse the interchange of חכם and צדיק! Wisdom is not merely an intellectual power, it is a moral quality; in this is founded her receptivity of instruction, her embracing of every opportunity for self-improvement. She is humble; for, without self-will and self-sufficiency, she makes God's will her highest and absolutely binding rule (Pro 3:7). Proverbs 9:10