Pro 8:22-26 | KD | STEP | Wisdom takes now a new departure, in establishing her right to be heard, and to be obeyed and loved by men. As the Divine King in opposes to His adversaries the self-testimony: “I will speak concerning a decree! Jahve said unto me: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee;” so Wisdom here unfolds her divine patent of nobility: she originates with God before all creatures, and is the object of God’s love and joy, as she also has the object of her love and joy on God’s earth, and especially among the sons of men: “Jahve brought me forth as the beginning of His way, As the foremost of His works from of old.” The old translators render קנני (with Kametz by Dechî ; vid ., under ) partly by verbs of creating (lxx ἔκτισε, Syr., Targ. בּראני), partly by verbs of acquiring (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Venet. ἐκτήσατο; Jerome, possedit ); Wisdom appears also as created, certainly not without reference to this passage, Sir. 1:4, προτέρα πάντων ἕκτισται σοφία; 1:9, αὐτὸς ἕκτισεν αὐτήν; 24:8, ὁ κτίσας με. In the christological controversy this word gained a dogmatic signification, for they proceeded generally on the identity of σοφία ὑποστατική ( sapientia substantialis ) with the hypostasis of the Son of God. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus , i.e. , of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο, and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε of the lxx by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum ; Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum ). But (1) Wisdom is not God, but is God's; she has personal existence in the Logos of the N.T., but is not herself the Logos; she is the world-idea, which, once projected, is objective to God, not as a dead form, but as a living spiritual image; she is the archetype of the world, which, originating from God, stands before God, the world of the idea which forms the medium between the Godhead and the world of actual existence, the communicated spiritual power in the origination and the completion of the world as God designed it to be. This wisdom the poet here personifies; he does not speak of the person as Logos, but the further progress of the revelation points to her actual personification in the Logos. And (2) since to her the poet attributes an existence preceding the creation of the world, he thereby declares her to be eternal, for to be before the world is to be before time. For if he places her at the head of the creatures, as the first of them, so therewith he does not seek to make her a creature of this world having its commencement in time; he connects her origination with the origination of the creature only on this account, because that à priori refers and tends to the latter; the power which was before heaven and earth were, and which operated at the creation of the earth and of the heavens, cannot certainly fall under the category of the creatures around and above us. Therefore (3) the translation with ἔκτισεν has nothing against it, but it is different from the κτίσις of the heavens and the earth, and the poet has intentionally written not בּראני, but קנני. Certainly קנה, Arab. knâ, like all the words used of creating, refers to one root-idea: that of forging ( vid ., under ), as ברא does to that of cutting ( vid ., under ); but the mark of a commencement in time does not affix itself to קנה in the same way as it does to ברא, which always expresses the divine production of that which has not hitherto existed. קנה comprehends in it the meanings to create, and to create something for oneself, to prepare, parare ( e.g. , ), and to prepare something for oneself, comparare , as κτίζειν and κτᾶσθαι, both from kshi , to build, the former expressed by struere , and the latter by sibi struere . In the קנני, then, there are the ideas, both that God produced wisdom, and that He made Himself to possess it; not certainly, however, as a man makes himself to possess wisdom from without, Pro 4:7. But the idea of the bringing forth is here the nearest demanded by the connection. For ראשׁית דּרכּו is not equivalent to בּראשׁית דרכו (Syr., Targ., Luther), as Jerome also reads: Ita enim scriptum est : adonai canani bresith dercho (Ep. cxl. ad Cyprian.); but it is, as shows, the second accusative of the object (lxx, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). But if God made wisdom as the beginning of His way, i.e. , of His creative efficiency (cf. and ), the making is not to be thought of as acquiring, but as a bringing forth, revealing this creative efficiency of God, having it in view; and this is also confirmed by the חוללתי ( genita sum ; cf. , קניתי, genui ) following. Accordingly, קדם מפעליו (foremost of His works) has to be regarded as a parallel second object. accusative. All the old translators interpret קדם as a preposition [before], but the usage of the language before us does not recognise it as such; this would be an Aramaism, for קדם, , frequently מן־קדם (Syr., Targ.), is so used. But as קדם signifies previous existence in space, and then in time ( vid ., Orelli, Zeit und Ewigkeit , p. 76), so it may be used of the object in which the previous existence appears, thus (after Sir. 1:4): προτέραν τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ (Hitzig).

‏ Proverbs 8:22-26

Wisdom takes now a new departure, in establishing her right to be heard, and to be obeyed and loved by men. As the Divine King in Psa 2:1-12 opposes to His adversaries the self-testimony: “I will speak concerning a decree! Jahve said unto me: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee;” so Wisdom here unfolds her divine patent of nobility: she originates with God before all creatures, and is the object of God’s love and joy, as she also has the object of her love and joy on God’s earth, and especially among the sons of men: “Jahve brought me forth as the beginning of His way,

As the foremost of His works from of old.”

The old translators render קנני (with Kametz by Dechî; vid., under Psa 118:5) partly by verbs of creating (lxx ἔκτισε, Syr., Targ. בּראני), partly by verbs of acquiring (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Venet. ἐκτήσατο; Jerome, possedit); Wisdom appears also as created, certainly not without reference to this passage, Sir. 1:4, προτέρα πάντων ἕκτισται σοφία; 1:9, αὐτὸς ἕκτισεν αὐτήν; 24:8, ὁ κτίσας με. In the christological controversy this word gained a dogmatic signification, for they proceeded generally on the identity of σοφία ὑποστατική (sapientia substantialis) with the hypostasis of the Son of God. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus, i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο, and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε of the lxx by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum; Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum). But (1) Wisdom is not God, but is God's; she has personal existence in the Logos of the N.T., but is not herself the Logos; she is the world-idea, which, once projected, is objective to God, not as a dead form, but as a living spiritual image; she is the archetype of the world, which, originating from God, stands before God, the world of the idea which forms the medium between the Godhead and the world of actual existence, the communicated spiritual power in the origination and the completion of the world as God designed it to be. This wisdom the poet here personifies; he does not speak of the person as Logos, but the further progress of the revelation points to her actual personification in the Logos. And (2) since to her the poet attributes an existence preceding the creation of the world, he thereby declares her to be eternal, for to be before the world is to be before time. For if he places her at the head of the creatures, as the first of them, so therewith he does not seek to make her a creature of this world having its commencement in time; he connects her origination with the origination of the creature only on this account, because that à priori refers and tends to the latter; the power which was before heaven and earth were, and which operated at the creation of the earth and of the heavens, cannot certainly fall under the category of the creatures around and above us. Therefore (3) the translation with ἔκτισεν has nothing against it, but it is different from the κτίσις of the heavens and the earth, and the poet has intentionally written not בּראני, but קנני. Certainly קנה, Arab. knâ, like all the words used of creating, refers to one root-idea: that of forging (vid., under Gen 4:22), as ברא does to that of cutting (vid., under Gen 1:1); but the mark of a commencement in time does not affix itself to קנה in the same way as it does to ברא, which always expresses the divine production of that which has not hitherto existed. קנה comprehends in it the meanings to create, and to create something for oneself, to prepare, parare (e.g., Psa 139:13), and to prepare something for oneself, comparare, as κτίζειν and κτᾶσθαι, both from kshi, to build, the former expressed by struere, and the latter by sibi struere. In the קנני, then, there are the ideas, both that God produced wisdom, and that He made Himself to possess it; not certainly, however, as a man makes himself to possess wisdom from without, Pro 4:7. But the idea of the bringing forth is here the nearest demanded by the connection. For ראשׁית דּרכּו is not equivalent to בּראשׁית דרכו (Syr., Targ., Luther), as Jerome also reads: Ita enim scriptum est: adonai canani bresith dercho (Ep. cxl. ad Cyprian.); but it is, as Job 40:19 shows, the second accusative of the object (lxx, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). But if God made wisdom as the beginning of His way, i.e., of His creative efficiency (cf. Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15), the making is not to be thought of as acquiring, but as a bringing forth, revealing this creative efficiency of God, having it in view; and this is also confirmed by the חוללתי (genita sum; cf. Gen 4:1, קניתי, genui) following. Accordingly, קדם מפעליו (foremost of His works) has to be regarded as a parallel second object. accusative. All the old translators interpret קדם as a preposition [before], but the usage of the language before us does not recognise it as such; this would be an Aramaism, for קדם, Dan 7:7, frequently מן־קדם (Syr., Targ.), is so used. But as קדם signifies previous existence in space, and then in time (vid., Orelli, Zeit und Ewigkeit, p. 76), so it may be used of the object in which the previous existence appears, thus (after Sir. 1:4): προτέραν τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ (Hitzig). Pro 8:23

A designation of the When? expressed first by מאז (Isa 48:8, cf. Isa 40:21), is further unfolded: “From everlasting was I set up,

From the beginning, from the foundations of the earth.”

That נסּכתּי cannot be translated: I was anointed = consecrated, vid., at Psa 2:6. But the translation also: I was woven = wrought (Hitzig, Ewald, and previously one of the Greeks, ἐδιάσθην), does not commend itself, for רקּם (Psa 139:15), used of the embryo, lies far from the metaphorical sense in which נסך = Arab. nasaj, texere, would here be translated of the origin of a person, and even of such a spiritual being as Wisdom; נסדתּי, as the lxx reads (ἐθεμελιωσέ με), is not once used of such. Rightly Aquila, κατεστάθην; Symmachus, προκεχείρισμαι; Jerome, ordinata sum. Literally, but unintelligibly, the Gr. Venet. κέχυμαι, according to which (cf. Sir. 1:10) Böttcher: I was poured forth = formed, but himself acknowledging that this figure is not suitable to personification; nor is it at all likely that the author applied the word, used in this sense of idols, to the origin of Wisdom. The fact is, that נסך, used as seldom of the anointing or consecration of kings, as סוּך, passes over, like יצק (הצּיק), צוּק (מצוּק, a pillar), and יצג (הצּיג), from the meaning of pouring out to that of placing and appointing; the mediating idea appears to be that of the pouring forth of the metal, since נסיך, Dan 11:8, like נסך, signifies a molten image. The Jewish interpreters quite correctly remark, in comparing it with the princely name נסיך [cf. Psa 83:12] (although without etymological insight), that a placing in princely dignity is meant. Of the three synonyms of aeternitas a parte ante, מעולם points backwards into the infinite distance, מראשׁ into the beginning of the world, מקּדמי־ארץ not into the times which precede the origin of the earth, but into the oldest times of its gradual arising; this קדמי it is impossible to render, in conformity with the Hebr. use of language: it is an extensive plur. of time, Böttcher, §697. The מן repeated does not mean that the origin and greatness of Wisdom are contemporaneous with the foundation of the world; but that when the world was founded, she was already an actual existence. Pro 8:24-26

This her existence before the world began is now set forth in yet more explicit statements: 24 “When there were as yet no floods was I brought forth, When as yet there were not fountains which abounded with water; 25 For before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth, 26 While as yet He had not made land and plains, And the sum of the dust of the earth.”

The description is poetical, and affords some room for imagination. By תּהומות are not intended the unrestrained primeval waters, but, as also Pro 3:20, the inner waters, treasures of the earth; and consequently by מעינות, not the fountains of the sea on this earth (Ewald, after Job 38:16), but he springs or places of springs (for מעין is n. loci to עין, a well as an eye of the earth; vid., Gen 16:7), by means of which the internal waters of the earth communicate themselves to the earth above (cf. Gen 7:11 with Gen 49:25). נכבּדּי־מים(abounding with water) is a descriptive epitheton to מעינות, which, notwithstanding its fem. plur., is construed as masc. (cf. Pro 5:16). The Masora does not distinguish the thrice-occurring נכבדי according to its form as written (Isa 23:8-9). The form נכבּדּי (which, like בּתּים, would demand Metheg) is to be rejected; it is everywhere to be written נכבּדּי nettirw (Ewald, §214b) with Pathach, with Dagesh following; vid., Kimchi, Michlol 61b. Kimchi adds the gloss מעיני מים רבים, which the Gr. Venet., in accordance with the meaning of נכבד elsewhere, renders by πηγαῖς δεδοξασμένων ὑδάτων (as also Böttcher: the most honoured = the most lordly); but Meîri, Immanuel, and others rightly judge that the adjective is here to be understood after Gen 13:2; Job 14:21 (but in this latter passage כבד does not mean “to be numerous”): loaded = endowed in rich measure.