Pro 28:3 | KD | STEP | A proverb of a tyrant here connects itself with that of usurpers: A poor man and an oppressor of the lowly - A sweeping rain without bringing bread. Thus it is to be translated according to the accents. Fleischer otherwise, but also in conformity with the accents: Quales sunt vir pauper et oppressor miserorum, tales sunt pluvia omnia secum abripiens et qui panem non habent , i.e. , the relation between a poor man and an oppressor of the needy is the same as that between a rain carrying all away with it and a people robbed thereby of their sustenance; in other words: a prince or potentate who robs the poor of their possessions is like a pouring rain which floods the fruitful fields - the separate members of the sentence would then correspond with each other after the scheme of the chiasmus. But the comparison would be faulty, for גּבר רשׁ and אין לחם fall together, and then the explanation would be idem per idem . A “sweeping rain” is one which has only that which is bad, and not that which is good in rain, for it only destroys instead of promoting the growth of the corn; and as the Arab, according to a proverb compared by Hitzig, says of an unjust sultan, that he is a stream without water, so an oppressor of the helpless is appropriately compared to a rain which floods the land and brings no bread. But then the words, “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly,” must designate one person, and in that case the Heb. words must be accentuated, גבר רשׁ ועשׁק דלים (cf. ). For, that the oppressor of the helpless deports himself toward the poor man like a sweeping rain which brings no bread, is a saying not intended to be here used, since this is altogether too obvious, that the poor man has nothing to hope for from such an extortioner. But the comparison would be appropriate if 3a referred to an oppressive master; for one who belongs to a master, or who is in any way subordinated to him, has before all to expect from him that which is good, as a requital for his services, and as a proof of his master’s condescending sympathy. It is thus asked whether “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly” may be two properties united in the person of one master. This is certainly possible, for he may be primarily a poor official or an upstart (Zöckler), such as were the Roman proconsuls and procurators, who enriched themselves by impoverishing their provinces (cf. lxx ); or a hereditary proprietor, who seeks to regain what he has lost by extorting it from his relatives and workmen. But רשׁ (poor) is not sufficient to give this definite feature to the figure of the master; and what does this feature in the figure of the master at all mean? What the comparison 3b says is appropriate to any oppressive ruler, and one does not think of an oppressor of the poor as himself poor; he may find himself in the midst of shattered possessions, but he is not poor; much rather the oppressor and the poor are, as e.g. , at , contrasted with each other. Therefore we hold, with Hitzig, that רשׁ of the text is to be read rosh, whether we have to change it into ראשׁ, or to suppose that the Jewish transcriber has here for once slipped into the Phoenician writing of the word; we do not interpret, with Hitzig, גּבר ראשׁ in the sense of ἄνθρωπος δυνάστης, Sir. 8:1, but explain: a man (or master = גּביר) is the head (cf. e.g. , Jdg 11:8), and oppresses the helpless. This rendering is probable, because גּבר רשׁ, a poor man, is a combination of words without a parallel; the Book of Proverbs does not once use the expression אישׁ רשׁ, but always simply רשׁ ( e.g. , ; ); and גּבר is compatible with חכם and the like, but not with רשׁ. If we stumble at the isolated position of ראשׁ, we should consider that it is in a certain measure covered by דלים; for one has to think of the גבר, who is the ראשׁ, also as the ראשׁ of these דלים, as one placed in a high station who numbers poor people among his subordinates. The lxx translates ἀνδρεῖος ἐν ἀσεβείαις as if the words of the text were גּבּור רשׁע (cf. the interchange of גּבר and גּבּור in both texts of ), but what the lxx read must have been גּבּור להרשׁיע ( ); and what can גּבּור here mean? The statement here made refers to the ruinous conduct of a גּבר, a man of standing, or גּביר, a high lord, a “wicked ruler,” Pro 28:15. On the contrary, what kind of rain the rule of an ideal governor is compared to, tells.

‏ Proverbs 28:3

A proverb of a tyrant here connects itself with that of usurpers:

A poor man and an oppressor of the lowly -

A sweeping rain without bringing bread.

Thus it is to be translated according to the accents. Fleischer otherwise, but also in conformity with the accents: Quales sunt vir pauper et oppressor miserorum, tales sunt pluvia omnia secum abripiens et qui panem non habent, i.e., the relation between a poor man and an oppressor of the needy is the same as that between a rain carrying all away with it and a people robbed thereby of their sustenance; in other words: a prince or potentate who robs the poor of their possessions is like a pouring rain which floods the fruitful fields - the separate members of the sentence would then correspond with each other after the scheme of the chiasmus. But the comparison would be faulty, for גּבר רשׁ and אין לחם fall together, and then the explanation would be idem per idem. A “sweeping rain” is one which has only that which is bad, and not that which is good in rain, for it only destroys instead of promoting the growth of the corn; and as the Arab, according to a proverb compared by Hitzig, says of an unjust sultan, that he is a stream without water, so an oppressor of the helpless is appropriately compared to a rain which floods the land and brings no bread. But then the words, “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly,” must designate one person, and in that case the Heb. words must be accentuated, גבר רשׁ ועשׁק דלים (cf. Pro 29:4). For, that the oppressor of the helpless deports himself toward the poor man like a sweeping rain which brings no bread, is a saying not intended to be here used, since this is altogether too obvious, that the poor man has nothing to hope for from such an extortioner. But the comparison would be appropriate if 3a referred to an oppressive master; for one who belongs to a master, or who is in any way subordinated to him, has before all to expect from him that which is good, as a requital for his services, and as a proof of his master’s condescending sympathy. It is thus asked whether “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly” may be two properties united in the person of one master. This is certainly possible, for he may be primarily a poor official or an upstart (Zöckler), such as were the Roman proconsuls and procurators, who enriched themselves by impoverishing their provinces (cf. lxx Pro 28:15); or a hereditary proprietor, who seeks to regain what he has lost by extorting it from his relatives and workmen. But רשׁ (poor) is not sufficient to give this definite feature to the figure of the master; and what does this feature in the figure of the master at all mean? What the comparison 3b says is appropriate to any oppressive ruler, and one does not think of an oppressor of the poor as himself poor; he may find himself in the midst of shattered possessions, but he is not poor; much rather the oppressor and the poor are, as e.g., at Pro 29:13, contrasted with each other. Therefore we hold, with Hitzig, that רשׁ of the text is to be read rosh, whether we have to change it into ראשׁ, or to suppose that the Jewish transcriber has here for once slipped into the Phoenician writing of the word; ^{▼▼The Phoen. writes רש (i.e., רשׁ, rus); vid., Schröder’s Phönizische Gram. p. 133; cf. Gesen. Thes. under ראשׁ.} we do not interpret, with Hitzig, גּבר ראשׁ in the sense of ἄνθρωπος δυνάστης, Sir. 8:1, but explain: a man (or master = גּביר) is the head (cf. e.g., Jdg 11:8), and oppresses the helpless. This rendering is probable, because גּבר רשׁ, a poor man, is a combination of words without a parallel; the Book of Proverbs does not once use the expression אישׁ רשׁ, but always simply רשׁ (e.g., Pro 28:6; Pro 29:13); and גּבר is compatible with חכם and the like, but not with רשׁ. If we stumble at the isolated position of ראשׁ, we should consider that it is in a certain measure covered by דלים; for one has to think of the גבר, who is the ראשׁ, also as the ראשׁ of these דלים, as one placed in a high station who numbers poor people among his subordinates. The lxx translates ἀνδρεῖος ἐν ἀσεβείαις as if the words of the text were גּבּור רשׁע (cf. the interchange of גּבר and גּבּור in both texts of Psa 18:26), but what the lxx read must have been גּבּור להרשׁיע (Isa 5:22); and what can גּבּור here mean? The statement here made refers to the ruinous conduct of a גּבר, a man of standing, or גּביר, a high lord, a “wicked ruler,” Pro 28:15. On the contrary, what kind of rain the rule of an ideal governor is compared to, Psa 72:1-8 tells.