Pengkhotbah 9:15-16

9:15 However, a poor but wise man lived in the city, ¹ 

and he could have delivered ²  the city by his wisdom,

but no one listened ³  to that poor man.

9:16 So I concluded that wisdom is better than might, ⁴ 

but a poor man’s wisdom is despised; no one ever listens ⁵  to his advice. ⁶ 

Kejadian 37:2

37:2 This is the account of Jacob.

Joseph, his seventeen-year-old son, ⁷  was taking care of ⁸  the flocks with his brothers. Now he was a youngster ⁹  working with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. ¹⁰  Joseph brought back a bad report about them ¹¹  to their father.

Amsal 19:1

19:1 Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity ¹² 

than one who is perverse in his speech ¹³  and is a fool. ¹⁴ 

Amsal 28:6

28:6 A poor person ¹⁵  who walks in his integrity is better

than one who is perverse in his ways ¹⁶  even though ¹⁷  he is rich. ¹⁸ 

Amsal 28:15-16

28:15 Like ¹⁹  a roaring lion or a roving bear, ²⁰ 

so is a wicked ruler over a poor people. ²¹ 

28:16 The prince who is a great oppressor lacks wisdom, ²² 

but the one who hates ²³  unjust gain will prolong his days.

[9:15]  ¹ tn Heb “was found in it”; the referent (the city) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:15]  ² tn Or “he delivered.” The verb וּמִלַּט (umillat, from מָלַט, malat, “to deliver”) is functioning either in an indicative sense (past definite action: “he delivered”) or in a modal sense (past potential: “he could have delivered”). The literal meaning of זָכַר (zakhar, “to remember”) in the following line harmonizes with the indicative: “but no one remembered that poor man [afterward].” However, the modal is supported by v. 16: “A poor man’s wisdom is despised; no one ever listens to his advice.” This approach must nuance זָכַר (“to remember”) as “[no one] listened to [that poor man].” Most translations favor the indicative approach: “he delivered” or “he saved” (KJV, RSV, NRSV, NAB, ASV, NASB, MLB, NIV); however, some adopt the modal nuance: “he might have saved” (NEB, NJPS, NASB margin).

[9:15]  ³ tn Heb “remembered.”

[9:16]  ⁴ tn Or “power.”

[9:16]  ⁵ tn The participle form נִשְׁמָעִים (nishma’im, Niphal participle mpl from שָׁמַע, “to listen”) is used verbally to emphasize a continual, durative, gnomic action.

[9:16]  ⁶ tn Heb “his words are never listened to.”

[37:2]  ⁷ tn Heb “a son of seventeen years.” The word “son” is in apposition to the name “Joseph.”

[37:2]  ⁸ tn Or “tending”; Heb “shepherding” or “feeding.”

[37:2]  ⁹ tn Or perhaps “a helper.” The significance of this statement is unclear. It may mean “now the lad was with,” or it may suggest Joseph was like a servant to them.

[37:2]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “and he [was] a young man with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, the wives of his father.”

[37:2]  ¹¹ tn Heb “their bad report.” The pronoun is an objective genitive, specifying that the bad or damaging report was about the brothers.

[37:2]  sn Some interpreters portray Joseph as a tattletale for bringing back a bad report about them [i.e., his brothers], but the entire Joseph story has some of the characteristics of wisdom literature. Joseph is presented in a good light – not because he was perfect, but because the narrative is showing how wisdom rules. In light of that, this section portrays Joseph as faithful to his father in little things, even though unpopular – and so he will eventually be given authority over greater things.

[19:1]  ¹² sn People should follow honesty even if it leads to poverty (e.g., Prov 18:23; 19:22).

[19:1]  ¹³ tn Heb “lips.” The term “lips” is a metonymy for what one says with his lips. The expression “perverse in his lips” refers to speech that is morally perverted. Some medieval Hebrew mss, the Syriac, and Tg. Prov 19:1 have “his ways” rather than “his lips” (e.g., Prov 28:6); cf. NAB.

[19:1]  ¹⁴ tc The Syriac and Tg. Prov 19:1 read “rich” instead of MT “fool.” This makes tighter antithetical parallelism than MT and is followed by NAB. However, the MT makes sense as it stands; this is an example of metonymical parallelism. The MT reading is also supported by the LXX. The Hebrew construction uses וְהוּא (vÿhu’), “and he [is],” before “fool.” This may be rendered “one who is perverse while a fool” or “a fool at the same time.”

[28:6]  ¹⁵ sn This chapter gives a lot of attention to the contrast between the poor and the rich, assuming an integrity for the poor that is not present with the rich; the subject is addressed in vv. 6, 8, 11, 20, 22, 25, and 27 (G. A. Chutter, “Riches and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs,” Crux 18 [1982]: 23-28).

[28:6]  ¹⁶ tn The Hebrew term translated “ways” is in the dual, suggesting that the person has double ways, i.e., he is hypocritical. C. H. Toy does not like this idea and changes the form to the plural (Proverbs [ICC], 497), but his emendation is gratuitous and should be rejected.

[28:6]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and he is rich.” Many English versions treat this as a concessive clause (cf. KJV “though he be rich”).

[28:6]  ¹⁸ sn This is another “better” saying, contrasting a poor person who has integrity with a rich person who is perverse. Of course there are rich people with integrity and perverse poor people, but that is not of interest here. If it came to the choices described here, honest poverty is better than corrupt wealth.

[28:15]  ¹⁹ tn The term “like” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.

[28:15]  ²⁰ sn The comparison uses animals that are powerful, terrifying, insensitive, and in search of prey. Because political tyrants are like this, animal imagery of this sort is also used in Dan 7:1-8 for the series of ruthless world powers.

[28:15]  ²¹ sn A poor nation under the control of political tyrants who are dangerous and destructive is helpless. The people of that nation will crumble under them because they cannot meet their demands and are of no use to them.

[28:16]  ²² tn Heb “A prince lacking of understanding [is] also a great oppressor” (both KJV, ASV similar) The last clause, “and a great oppressor,” appears to modify “the prince.” There is little difference in meaning, only in emphasis. The LXX has “lacks income” (reading תְּבוּאוֹת [tÿvu’ot] instead of תְּבוּנוֹת [tÿvunot]). C. H. Toy (Proverbs [ICC], 501) suggests deleting the word for “prince” altogether, but this emendation is gratuitous.

[28:16]  ²³ tc This follows the Qere reading of the participle which is singular (as opposed to the plural). The implication is that this one is also a ruler, paralleling the first half. But since he “hates” (= rejects) unjust gain he will extend [his] days, meaning he will enjoy a long and happy life (cf. NIV, NRSV, CEV).