Pro 27:21 | KD | STEP | There follow here two proverbs which have in common with each other the figures of the crucible and the mortar: 21 The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold, And a man according to the measure of his praise; i.e. , silver and gold one values according to the result of the smelting crucible and the smelting furnace; but a man, according to the measure of public opinion, which presupposes that which is said in , “according to the measure of his wisdom is a man praised.” מהלל is not a ῥῆμα μέσον like our Leumund [renown], but it is a graduated idea which denotes fame down to evil Lob [fame], which is only Lob [praise] per antiphrasin . Ewald otherwise: “according to the measure of his glorying;” or Hitzig better: “according to the measure with which he praises himself,” with the remark: “מהלל is not the act, the glorifying of self, but the object of the glorying (cf. מבטח, מדון), i.e. , that in which he places his glory.” Böttcher something further: “one recognises him by that which he is generally wont to praise in himself and others, persons and things.” Thus the proverb is to be understood; but in connection with it seems to us more probable that המלל is thought of as going forth from others, and not as from himself. In line first, is repeated; the second line there is conformable to the first, according to which it should be here said that the praise of a man is for him what the crucible and the furnace is for metal. The lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, and the Venet . read לפי מהללו, and thereby obtain more concinnity. Luther accordingly translates: A man is tried by the mouth of his praise, As silver in the crucible and gold in the furnace. Others even think to interpret man as the subject examining, and so they vocalize the words. Thus e.g. , Fleischer: Qualis est catinus argento et fornax auro, talis sit homo ori a quo laudatur , so that “mouth of his praise” is equivalent to the man who praises him with his mouth. But where, as here, the language relates to relative worth, the supposition for לפי, that it denotes, as at , pro ratione , is tenable. And that the mouth of him who praises is a smelting crucible for him who is praised, or that the praised shall be a crucible for the mouth of him who praises, would be a wonderful comparison. The lxx has here also an additional distich which has no place in the Heb. text.

‏ Proverbs 27:21

There follow here two proverbs which have in common with each other the figures of the crucible and the mortar: 21 The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold, And a man according to the measure of his praise;i.e., silver and gold one values according to the result of the smelting crucible and the smelting furnace; but a man, according to the measure of public opinion, which presupposes that which is said in Pro 12:8, “according to the measure of his wisdom is a man praised.” מהלל is not a ῥῆμα μέσον like our Leumund [renown], but it is a graduated idea which denotes fame down to evil Lob [fame], which is only Lob [praise] per antiphrasin. Ewald otherwise: “according to the measure of his glorying;” or Hitzig better: “according to the measure with which he praises himself,” with the remark: “מהלל is not the act, the glorifying of self, but the object of the glorying (cf. מבטח, מדון), i.e., that in which he places his glory.” Böttcher something further: “one recognises him by that which he is generally wont to praise in himself and others, persons and things.” Thus the proverb is to be understood; but in connection with Pro 12:8 it seems to us more probable that המלל is thought of as going forth from others, and not as from himself. In line first, Pro 17:3 is repeated; the second line there is conformable to the first, according to which it should be here said that the praise of a man is for him what the crucible and the furnace is for metal. The lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, and the Venet. read לפי מהללו, and thereby obtain more concinnity. Luther accordingly translates:

A man is tried by the mouth of his praise,

As silver in the crucible and gold in the furnace.

Others even think to interpret man as the subject examining, and so they vocalize the words. Thus e.g., Fleischer: Qualis est catinus argento et fornax auro, talis sit homo ori a quo laudatur, so that “mouth of his praise” is equivalent to the man who praises him with his mouth. But where, as here, the language relates to relative worth, the supposition for לפי, that it denotes, as at Pro 12:8, pro ratione, is tenable. And that the mouth of him who praises is a smelting crucible for him who is praised, or that the praised shall be a crucible for the mouth of him who praises, would be a wonderful comparison. The lxx has here also an additional distich which has no place in the Heb. text.