Pro 26:23-28 | KD | STEP | The proverbs next following treat of a cognate theme, hypocrisy (the art of dissembling), which, under a shining [ gleissen ] exterior, conceals hatred and destruction: 23 Dross of silver spread over an earthen vessel - Lips glowing with love and a base heart. Dross of silver is the so-called glätte (French, litharge ), a combination of lead and oxygen, which, in the old process of producing silver, was separated (Luther: silberschaum , i.e. , the silver litharge ; Lat. spuma argenti , having the appearance of foam). It is still used to glaze over potter’s ware, which here (Greek, κέραμος) is briefly called חרשׂ for כּלי חרשׂ; for the vessel is better in appearance than the mere potsherd. The glossing of the earthenware is called צפּה על־חרשׂ, which is applicable to any kind of covering (צפּה, R. צף, to spread or lay out broad) of a less costly material with that which is more precious. 23a contains the figure, and 23b its subscription: שׂפתים דּלקים ולב רע. Thus, with the taking away of the Makkeph after Codd., to be punctuated: burning lips, and therewith a base heart; burning, that is, with the fire of love (Meîri, אשׁ החשׁק), while yet the assurances of friendship, sealed by ardent kisses, serve only to mask a far different heart. The lxx translate דלקים [burning] by λεῖα, and thus have read חלקים [smooth], which Hitzig without reason prefers; burning lips (Jerome, incorrectly: tumentia ; Luther, after , חמת: Gifftiger mund = a poisonous mouth) are just flattering, and at the same time hypocritical lips. Regarding שׂפתים as masc., vid ., p. 85; לב רע means, at , animus maestus ; here, inimicus . The figure is excellent: one may regard a vessel with the silver gloss as silver, and it is still earthen; and that also which gives forth the silver glance is not silver, but only the refuse of silver. Both are suitable to the comparison: the lips only glitter, the heart is false (Heidenheim).

‏ Proverbs 26:23-28

The proverbs next following treat of a cognate theme, hypocrisy (the art of dissembling), which, under a shining [gleissen] exterior, ^{▼▼Vid., regarding gleisen (to give a deceitful appearance) and gleissen (to throw a dazzling appearance), Schmitthenner-Weigand’s Deutsches Wörterbuch.} conceals hatred and destruction: 23 Dross of silver spread over an earthen vessel - Lips glowing with love and a base heart.

Dross of silver is the so-called glätte (French, litharge), a combination of lead and oxygen, which, in the old process of producing silver, was separated (Luther: silberschaum, i.e., the silver litharge; Lat. spuma argenti, having the appearance of foam). It is still used to glaze over potter’s ware, which here (Greek, κέραμος) is briefly called חרשׂ for כּלי חרשׂ; for the vessel is better in appearance than the mere potsherd. The glossing of the earthenware is called צפּה על־חרשׂ, which is applicable to any kind of covering (צפּה, R. צף, to spread or lay out broad) of a less costly material with that which is more precious. 23a contains the figure, and 23b its subscription: שׂפתים דּלקים ולב רע. Thus, with the taking away of the Makkeph after Codd., to be punctuated: burning lips, and therewith a base heart; burning, that is, with the fire of love (Meîri, אשׁ החשׁק), while yet the assurances of friendship, sealed by ardent kisses, serve only to mask a far different heart. The lxx translate דלקים [burning] by λεῖα, and thus have read חלקים [smooth], which Hitzig without reason prefers; burning lips (Jerome, incorrectly: tumentia; Luther, after Deu 32:33, חמת: Gifftiger mund = a poisonous mouth) are just flattering, and at the same time hypocritical ^{▼▼Schultens explains the labia flagrantia by volubiliter prompta et diserta. But one sees from the Arab. dhaluḳa, to be loose, lightly and easily moved (vid., in Fleischer’s Beiträgen zur arab. Sprachkunde the explanation of the designation of the liquid expressed with the point of the tongue by dhalḳiytt, at Pro 1:26-27; cf. de Sacy’s Grammar), and dalḳ, to draw out (of the sword from its scabbard), to rinse (of water), that the meaning of the Heb. דלק, to burn, from R. דל, refers to the idea of the flickering, tongue-like movement of the flame.} lips. Regarding שׂפתים as masc., vid., p. 85; לב רע means, at Pro 25:20, animus maestus; here, inimicus. The figure is excellent: one may regard a vessel with the silver gloss as silver, and it is still earthen; and that also which gives forth the silver glance is not silver, but only the refuse of silver. Both are suitable to the comparison: the lips only glitter, the heart is false (Heidenheim). Pro 26:24-25

Pro 26:24 and Pro 26:25 form a tetrastich. 24 With his lips the hater dissembleth, And in his heart he museth deceit. 25 If he maketh his voice agreeable, believe him not, For seven abominations are in his heart.

All the old translators (also the Venet. and Luther) give to יגּכר the meaning, to become known; but the Niph. as well as the Hithpa. (vid., at Pro 20:11; Gen 47:17) unites with this meaning also the meaning to make oneself known: to make oneself unknown, unrecognisable = (Arab.) tanakkr, e.g., by means of clothing, or by a changed expression of countenance. ^{▼▼Vid., de Goeje’s Fragmenta Hist. Arab. ii. (1871), p. 94. The verb נכר, primarily to fix one’s attention, sharply to contemplate anything, whence is derived the meanings of knowing and of not knowing, disowning. The account of the origin of these contrasted meanings, in Gesenius-Dietrich’s Lexicon, is essentially correct; but the Arab. nakar there referred to means, not sharpness of mind, from nakar = הכּיר, but from the negative signification prevailing in the Arab. alone, a property by which one makes himself worthy of being disowned: craftiness, cunning, and then also in bonam partem: sagacity.}

The contrast demands here this latter signification: labiis suis alium se simulat osor, intus in pectore autem reconditum habet dolum (Fleischer). This rendering of ישׁית מרמה is more correct than Hitzig’s (“in his breast) he prepares treachery;” for שׁית מרמה is to be rendered after שׁית עצות, Psa 13:3 (vid., Hupfeld’s and also our comm. on this passage), not after Jer 9:7; for one says שׁית מוקשׁים, to place snares, שׁית ארב, to lay an ambush, and the like, but not to place or to lay deceit. If such a dissembler makes his voice agreeable (Piel of חנן only here, for the form Psa 9:14 is, as it is punctuated, Kal), trust not thyself to him (האמין, with ב: to put firm trust in anything, vid., Genesis, p. 312) ^{▼▼The fundamental idea of firmness in האמין is always in the subject, not the object. The Arabic interpreters remark that âman with ב expresses recognition, and with ל submission (vid., Lane’s Lexicon under âman); but in Hebr. האמין with ב fiducia fidei, with ל assensus fidei; the relation is thus not altogether the same.} for seven abominations, i.e., a whole host of abominable thoughts and designs, are in his heart; he is, if one may express it, after Mat 12:45, possessed inwardly of seven devils. The lxx makes a history of 24a: an enemy who, under complaints, makes all possible allowances, but in his heart τεκταίνεται δόλους. The history is only too true, but it has no place in the text. Pro 26:26 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 רעתו a more appropriate reference, does not require us to agree with Hitzig in reading הכּסה (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 חרשׁ און, especially since it is doubtful whether the Heb. words which floated before those translators (the lxx) have been fallen upon. משּׁאון (beginning and ending with a formative syllable) is certainly a word of rare formation, to be compared only to מסדּרון, Jdg 3:23; but since the nearest-lying formation משּׁא signifies usury (from נשׁא, 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 משּׁוּאות (vid., under Psa 23:1-6 :18), to שׁוא = שׁאה, 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 קהל [an assembly], but ישׁימום [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. (בּמוּרסתא, 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 תּכסּה; but this is a mistake. Either תּכּסה (Niph.) תּכּסּה (Hithpa., with the same assimilation of the preformative ת as in הכּבּס, Lev 13:55; נכּפּר, Deu 21:8) is to be read; Kimchi, in his Wörterbuch, gives תּכּסּה, 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 רעתו, not to במשׁאון, but to שׂנאה, 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. Pro 26:27 27 He who diggeth a pit falleth therein; And he that rolleth up a stone, upon himself it rolleth back.

The thought that destruction prepared for others recoils upon its contriver, has found its expression everywhere among men in divers forms of proverbial sayings; in the form which it here receives, 27a has its oldest original in Psa 7:16, whence it is repeated here and in Ecc 10:8, and Sir. 27:26. Regarding כּרה, vid., at Pro 16:27. בּהּ here has the sense of in eam ipsam; expressed in French, the proverb is: celui qui creuse la fosse, y tombera; in Italian: chi cava la fossa, caderà in essa. The second line of this proverb accords with Psa 7:17 (vid., Hupfeld and Riehm on this passage). It is natural to think of the rolling as a rolling upwards; cf. Sir. 27:25, ὁ βάλλων λίθον εἰς ὕψος ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ βάλλει, i.e., throws it on his own head. וגלל אבן is to be syntactically judged of like Pro 18:13. Pro 26:28 28 The lying tongue hateth those whom it bruiseth; And a flattering mouth causeth ruin.

The lxx, Jerome, the Targ., and Syr. render ישׂנא דכיו in the sense of non amat veritatem; they appear by דכיו to have thought of the Aram. דכיא, that which is pure; and thus they gain nothing else but an undeniable plain thought. Many Jewish interpreters gloss: מוכיחיו, also after the Aram.: דּכּיו = מדכּיו; but the Aram. דּכּי does not mean pure in the sense of being right, therefore Elia Wilna understands him who desires to justify himself, and this violent derivation from the Aram. thus does not lead to the end. Luther, translating: “a false tongue hates those who punish it,” explains, as also Gesenius, conterentes = castigantes ipsam; but דּך signifies, according to the usage of the language before us, “bruised” (vid., Psa 9:10), not: bruising; and the thought that the liar hates him who listens to him, leads ad absurdum; but that he does not love him who bruises (punishes) him, is self-evident. Kimchi sees in דּכּיו another form of דּכּא; and Meîri, Jona Gerundi in his ethical work (שׁערי תשׁובה = The gates of Repentance), and others, accordingly render דכיו in the sense of ענו (עניו): the lying tongue hates - as Löwenstein translates - the humble [pious]; also that for דכּיו, by the omission of ו, דכּי = זכּי may be read, is supposable; but this does not harmonize with the second half of the proverb, according to which לשׁון שׁקר must be the subject, and ישׂנא דכיו must express some kind of evil which proceeds from such a tongue. Ewald: “the lying tongue hates its master (אדניו),” but that is not in accordance with the Heb. style; the word in that case should have been בּעליו. Hitzig countenances this אדניו, with the remark that the tongue is here personified; but personified, the tongue certainly means him who has it (Psa 120:3). Böttcher’s conjecture ישׁנּא דכיו, “confounds their talk,” is certainly a curiosity. Spoken of the sea, those words would mean, “it changes its surge.” But is it then at all necessary to uncover first the meaning of 28a? Rashi, Arama, and others refer דכּיו to דּכּים = נדכּאים (מדכּים). Thus also perhaps the Venet., which translates τοὺς ἐπιτριμμοὺς (not: ἐπιτετριμμένους) αὐτῆς. C. B. Michaelis: Lingua falsitatis odio habet contritos suos, h. e. eos quos falsitate ac mendacio laedit contritosque facit. Hitzig objects that it is more correct to say: conterit perosos sibi. And certainly this lay nearer, on which account Fleischer remarks: in 28a there is to be supposed a poetic transposition of the ideas (Hypallage): homo qui lingua ad calumnias abutitur conterit eos quos odit. The poet makes ישׂנא the main conception, because it does not come to him so readily to say that the lying tongue bruises those against whom it is directed, as that it is hatred, which is active in this. To say this was by no means superfluous. There are men who find pleasure in repeating and magnifying scandalously that which is depreciatory and disadvantageous to their neighbour unsubstantiated, without being at all conscious of any particular ill-will or personal enmity against him; but this proverb says that such untruthful tongue-thrashing proceeds always from a transgression of the commandment, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother,” Lev 19:17, and not merely from the want of love, but from a state of mind which is the direct opposite of love (vid., Pro 10:18). Ewald finds it incongruous that 28a speaks of that which others have to suffer from the lying tongue, whereas the whole connection of this proverb requires that the tongue should here be regarded as bringing ruin upon its owner himself. But of the destruction which the wicked tongue prepares for others many proverbs also speak, e.g., Pro 12:13, cf. Pro 17:4, לשׁון הוּת; and 28b does not mention that the smooth tongue (written וּפה־חלק with Makkeph) brings injury upon itself (an idea which must be otherwise expressed; cf. Pro 14:32), but that it brings injury and ruin on those who have pleasure in its flatteries (חלקות, Psa 12:3; Isa 30:10), and are befooled thereby: os blandiloquum (blanditiis dolum tegens) ad casum impellit, sc. alios (Fleischer).