CHAPTER VII.

THE TEXT OF PROVERBS.

The sense of proverbs is naturally most difficult to catch when there has been no attempt to group them by subjects. Hence the textual difficulties of so large a part of the earliest anthology. Grätz has made some valuable among many too arbitrary corrections; but a systematic use of the ancient versions is still a desideratum. Lagarde, Oort, Bickell, and others have led the way; but much yet remains to be done. My space only allows me to give some preliminary hints, which may at least stimulate further inquiry, on the relation of the Hebrew text to the versions, especially the Septuagint version (if I should not rather speak of ‘versions’). How comes it, we may ask first of all, that the Septuagint contains so many passages not found in the Hebrew? One answer is that in a foreign land, with a new language and a new circle of ideas, explanation was as necessary to the Hellenistic Jews as translation. Hence the tendency of the Septuagint translators to introduce glosses. But the form of the Book of Proverbs specially favoured interpolations. Sometimes only a few words were inserted to make the text more distinct (e.g. i. 22, xii. 25, xxiv. 23); at other times explanatory or suggested remarks were added, at first perhaps in the margin. Of course, it is perfectly conceivable that the received Hebrew text itself may contain similar additions; the analogy of other books, in which such interpolations occur, even favours this idea. One such insertion is patent; there can be no doubt that i. 16 was added in the Hebrew, to the detriment of the connection, from Isa. lix. 7. As this passage is wanting in the best MSS. of the Septuagint, we might be tempted to use this version as a means of detecting other interpolations in the Hebrew. This however would lead us into researches of too much complexity.

Some of the Septuagint additions are also found in the Vulgate, some again also in the Peshitto; and where a Septuagint addition is not found in the Vulgate we may, at least in some cases, assume that the Septuagint text did not in St. Jerome’s time contain the additional matter. Among the most interesting passages from a text-critical point of view peculiar to the Septuagint are those found at iii. 15, iv. 27, vi. 8, 11, vii. 2, ix. 12,[252], 18, xi. 16, xii. 13, xv. 18, xvi. 5, xix. 7, xxvi. 11, xxvii. 20, 21, xxviii. 10. Most of these can be rendered back into Hebrew, though this is difficult with vi. 11_b_ as it stands, and impossible with vi. 8 (‘the bee’). In any case the Hebrew origin of a proverb does not prove that it was inserted by the original collector or collectors. With regard to the Targum and its deviations from the Hebrew text, it is to be observed that this version has the same relation to the Peshitto as the Vulgate to the old Latin version on which it is based. The Peshitto translates from a Hebrew text substantially the same as our own; though the translator has consulted the Septuagint (according to Hitzig) in the portion of the book beginning at vii. 23.

There are also some remarkable transpositions in the Septuagint Proverbs, reminding us of those in the Septuagint Jeremiah. The three appendices to the Hezekian collection are given in a very different order from that of the Hebrew. The first fourteen verses of chap. xxx. are inserted between ver. 22 and ver. 23 of chap. xxiv., and all the remainder, together with xxxi. 1-9, is placed before chap. xxv. The treatment of the headings in the Septuagint is also remarkable, and seems arbitrary; e.g. it looks as if the translator had expunged all those peculiarities in the superscriptions which suggested a variety of authorship. The proper names in chaps. xxx., xxxi. have been explained away, and the heading in x. 1, which limits the Solomonic authorship too much for the translator, has been actually omitted.

On the Septuagint additions to Proverbs, comp. Deane in _Expositor_, 1884, pp. 297-301; on the larger subject of the Greek and the Hebrew text, see introduction to Hitzig’s commentary, Lagarde’s _Anmerkungen &c._, and a series of papers, thorough but less masterly than Hitzig’s or Lagarde’s work, by Heidenheim (title in ‘Aids to the Student,’ below).

NOTE ON PROVERBS XXX. 31.

Some assume here a corruption of the text, but the margin of the Revised Version gives an appropriate sense. It implies indeed the admission of a downright Arabism, but there are parallels for this in vv. 15, 16, 17, and _alqūm_ for the Arabic _al-qaum_ is (see Gesenius) like _elgābhīsh_ (Ezek. xiii. 11, 13, xxxviii. 22) and _almōdād_ (Gen. x. 26). ‘The king when his army is with him’ may very fitly be adduced as a specimen of the ‘comely in going.’ M. Halévy indeed has suggested that _qūm_ in _alqūm_ may be the _Qāvam_ or _Qājam_ often mentioned in the Sinaitic inscriptions (_Bulletin_ No. 28 of the Société de Linguistique; see _Academy_, March 27, 1886). But the former view is still the more plausible one. Why should a king with whom is ‘God Qavam’ be described as specially ‘comely in going’? Wetzstein too has stated that _alqaum_ is still pronounced _al-qōm_ by the Bedawins. Comp. Blau, _Zeitschr. d. deutschen morg. Ges._, xxv. 539.

Footnote 252:

The addition here is very poetical, and may, as Ewald says, have been extracted from an ancient anthology. But it disturbs the connection.