without limitation of the nature or source of that which is uttered. | names should occur but once, and that a third should occur but But in all the numerous passages where it has this sense, it is twice. Doubtless there were proper names among the Hebrews, used exclusively of a Divine utterance, a Divine communication, or what professed to be such (Lam. 2: 14); and this, in the nature of the case, might be prophetic or didactic.

The remainder of the verse is construed as it is here by Gesenius, Fürst, Umbreit (except the immaterial relative construction), Rosenmüller, Maurer, De Wette. It has in its favor the weighty authority of the Masoretic punctuation; which, though occasionally at fault, is the product of the ablest Hebrew scholarship that has come down to us, and as a commentary on the Hebrew text is not to be set aside without very cogent

reasons.

According to this construction, & is a common noun with the art.; Jakeh, Ithiel, and Ucal are proper names; the two latter, of persons to whom the words of Agur, at least the first division of them (vv. 1—6), are addressed.

The objections to the Masoretic construction of the text are the following:*

that do not occur even once in our Scriptures.-The etymology of such names is sometimes quite obscure and uncertain, on account of the comparatively meagre remains of the ancient language. It is an unsafe ground for conjectural emendation of the traditional text.

Jakeh, according to Gesenius (by comparison with the Arabic) means devout, pious. The etymology of Ucal is less satisfactory (Thes. I. p. 91, formae, nisi est i. q. b, possum).

2. The repetition is sufficiently accounted for on the ground of parallelism alone; * and there is a possible, though not very probable, ground for it in the personal relations of the parties.†

3. There is as good reason for addressing two unknown persons here, as for addressing one, also unknown, in ch. 31 : 1; and they need not be mentioned twice in one short discourse.

1. Occurrence of proper names (♬ and bx) not found else- which the particle serves for "a wider introduction to direct where, and of uncertain etymology. discourse even at the beginning of a new section," is conceded by

2. Repetition of the name Ithiel, in the second member of the Fürst (Lex. 5, c), and by Muehlau (p. 9); and this is all that parallelism. need be claimed for it here.

3. Address of the message, or discourse, to two persons, otherwise unknown, and not afterward referred to.

4. Use of affirmatively, at the beginning of a discourse. 5. Use of the article with a noun in the constr. st., in case RUZA and DN are in apposition (Stuart).

6. Use of the article with sun, followed not by one single discourse, but by many sayings of dissimilar purpose and tenor.Moreover, it is not elsewhere used with the art., unless followed by the demonstrative pronoun (Is. 14 : 28; Ezek. 12: 10), or by a relative clause (Hab. 1 : 1; Is. 22: 25).

5. The words Uz and DN are not in apposition.

6. x is probably used only with reference to the first discourse which follows; certainly there is no necessity for including more. That in every other passage it happens to require the demon. pron. or is followed by a relative clause, when it takes the art., is no proof that it may not, in a different connection, take the art. alone. With the heading, "Words of Agur," the oracle means the one imparted to or through him, in what inmediately follows.

7. The exception is not well taken; both subject and indirect 7. The dative of the one addressed, after , which is no-object being thus used after in Ps. 110 : 1, "8b mımı 08). where else followed by the indirect object.†

(Muehlau).

8. x, by etymology an utterance, by usage what is divinely

8. Unauthorized use of x, elsewhere meaning a Divine uttered or communicated, in the nature of the case may be either utterance, an oracle, in the special sense of a prophecy. prophetic or didactic. Here it may include only what is strictly 9. Use of the article, without significance, in ¬ connected with it (vv. 1—6), and in matter and manner is ap10. must be used here as in ch. 31 : 1, where it can only propriate to it. be a proper name, and the genitive after; since" Lemuel the

9. The article is not without significance, indicating one noted

.for superior wisdom . המלך למואל or, למואל המלך king must in Hebrew be either

To these objections it may be answered:

1. It ought not to be accounted strange, that two proper

* Hitzig (Zeller's theolog. Jahrbb. 1844; die Sprüche Salomo's); Bertheau (die Sprüche Salomo's, Einleit. § 2, 5); Stuart (Commentary on the Book of Proverbs); Zöckler (Lange's Bibelwerk, 1867); Muehlau (de proverbiorum quae dicuntur Aguri et Lemuelis origine atque indole, 1869).

*Repetitur b . . . in parallelismi gratiam (Maurer). † Quod forsan et ipse illis temporibus vel ob sapientiam celebris, vel primariae tum dignitatis vir esset (Rosenmüller). ‡ Gesenius (Lex., 1, a), " by an ellipsis of a like formula, is put affirmatively even at the beginning of an oracle, Is. 15: 1."

? Such reasoning, common with some German writers, is quite

† Nusquam enim hic reperitur dicendi modus (Muehlau, p. 8). | illogical.

משא

V. 4. That thou shouldst know

and come down?

Who has gathered the wind in

his fists ?

Who has bound the waters in a

mantle ?

Who has founded all the ends
of the earth?

What is his name, and what his
son's name?
For thou knowest!

10. Nu is not necessarily used here as in ch. 31 : 1.-Nor in of Jakeh, the Massaite. Muehlau (changing both the consoch. 31:1 is it necessarily a proper name, on account of the nants and the order of words), “Saying of the man of Massa”

. נאם הגבר מִבַּשָּׂא (הַבּטָאִי,The anarthrous construction is | (or . מלך absence of the art. with

there appropriate to the brevity of a superscription, and to the

Others might be added. But these may suffice to show where

abstract expression of official dignity* in distinction from the we are, or rather where we might not be, after abandoning the actual relation of reigning monarch.-In saying that "king only trustworthy traditional exegesis, with which the Chaldee Lemuel must necessarily be in Hebrew, Muehlau and partially the Syriac coincide. See the Introd. ? ***, ** and compare the articles Agur, Jakeh, Ucal, in Smith's Bible DicOf the different constructions and renderings of the passage, the tionary, and the art. Massa, with Dr. Hackett's addition in the following are examples: American edition of that work.

. למלך יהוה צבאות,167 :14 .overlooked Zech

1. Retaining the Masoretic punctuation, and treating the proper names as symbolical of different classes of thinkers, represented under fictitious and significant names. Ewald; "Said to Ged-with-me, to God-with-me-and-I-am-strong." Keil regards box, "I-am-strong," as representing still another class, the strong spirits.

་

V. 2. Yea. Gesenius, Lex. 1, a: "By an ellipsis of a like formula [of asseveration] is put affirmatively even at the beginning of an oracle, Is. 15: 1." Sane (Rosenmüller and Maurer); Ja (Umbreit, De Wette, Ewald).

The supposition, that we have here a dialogue between Ithiel and Agur, as assumed by Doederlein* and Ewald, has no foundation in the structure of the discourse, and only mars its beauty and significance.

Than any Hitzig's construction, "I am a beast and not a man," barely possible in itself (compare Gesenius' reference to Is. 53: 14, lex. 7, 6, b), is not justified by his appeal to Is. 44:11; and its pertinency here, admitted by Zöckler, is rightly questioned by Dr. Aiken (Lange's Biblework, Am. ed.). V. 3. The Holy. See the note on ch. 9 : 10.

2. Rejecting the punctuation, but retaining the Masoretic text. Hitzig: "Words of Agur, son of the Mistress of Massa ” (after the pointing, son of her whom Massa obeys); “ I have wearied myself about God,-wearied myself about God, and became dimmed" (in mental vision), with the division b, as in one cod. of Kennicott and two of De Rossi,† and the pointing. ; Berthean, and fainted (fut Kal of bɔ—b), Stuart, and have failed (fut. apoc. of mb), Böttcher (Neue Aehrenl. p. 35) and made an end.-Davidson V. 4. Who has ascended to heaven, and come down? By (Introd. to the Old Testament, Vol. II. p. 338), with the same Zöckler (Lange's Biblework) this question, like those which foldivision and pointing, "I am weary, O God. I am weary, O God. | low, is understood to express "an activity belonging exclusively | and am become weak." So Delitzsch (Herzog's Realencyklop., to God, and characteristic of him in his supermundane nature' art. Sprüche Salomo's, p. 702). (Am. edition, p. 248). This certainly is possible. But the

3. Rejecting the Masoretic punctuation, and re-writing the consonant text. Davidson (as above) and Delitzsch (as above). Agur, son of Jakeh of Massa" ( instead of 27). Böttcher, Neue Aehrenl. p. 34 (changing to 2) son

* Noch leichter sind Fälle wie 23, was eben so gut möglich ist wie unser könig Lemôel, Spr. 31 : 1 (Ewald, Lehrb. 8 277, b, extr).

separatim, ut legit Michaelis, defatigatus sum Deo, Kenn. 147, mei 380, 607 (De Rossi Var. Lect. V. T. Vol. IV. p. 103).

* Itaque dialogici carminis formam imitari videtur hic locus, qui primum Ithielis meliora edoceri optantis sensus et dicta refert, dein Aguri vatis divini institutionem, brevem quidem sed aptam huic argumento, atque sic institutam ut aditum ad verae religionis mysteria monstret menti docili et ingenuae, recenset. Doederlein, Scholia in libros V. T. Poet. (Grotii annotationum in Vet. Test. auctarium).

† Bardus ego sum prae viro, i. e. stupidior sum alio quoque. (Rosenmüller). So Maurer, and Kamphausen ; than a man, Ewald

and Bertheau.

and disappoints expectation, by its empty and unsubstantial seeming. His prayer is, that he may seek only the true and substantial good. If he was not above temptation to the practice of deception and lying, as the words are sometimes understood, he was on a very low moral plane.

words, "has ascended to heaven, and come down," expressing | V. 7. Withhold them not: the pronominal object of the verb ascent from a lower sphere and return to it, seem not to be implied, as is often the case (Gesenius, Gram. 2 121, Rem. 2). characteristic of Him "in his supermundane nature." They V. 8. Vanity is the proper rendering,*—that which deceives, imply, rather, one belonging to the lower sphere, and his ascent to the higher, for something with which he revisits the sphere to which he belongs. This, moreover, is pertinent in the connection. After professing his own imperfect knowledge of " the Holy," and as a preliminary to his rebuke of arrogant pretensions to it, he pertinently demands, whether any has ascended where that knowledge can be gained, and has brought it back to earth; * following this question with others, significant of our ignorance of all that might thus have been known.

His fists : dual because existing in pairs. Zöckler's fanciful supposition, that by "his two fists" is intimated the alternation of "two opposing currents of wind," is justly objected to by Dr. Aiken. A mantle. According to the punctuation, the mantle, in which the punctators have been true to the Hebrew conception, designating by the article the garment of that peculiar shape, as is done in the consonant text itself in Gen. 9: 23

Has founded all the ends of the earth: has laid its foundations, in all its length and breadth.-Zöckler, less in accordance with the use of the terms, "fixeth all the ends of the earth;" referring to “the bounds of the continents against the sea" (Am. edition). For thou knowest! Gesenius (Lex., 2, a, extr.), “ ironically, Prov. 30: 4, what is his name and what his son's name? for thou knowest it of course. That thou shouldst know it (Ewald, Bertheau, Kamphausen) is a proper rendering of the phrase in such a connection as Job 38: 5, and may be here; though an act there takes after it the demonstrative cor junction indicating its sequence, which is not the case here.--If thou knowest (Rosenmüller, Maurer, Hitzig, Delitzsch, Zöckler) is a very questionable use of in such a connection as this.

Food of my allotment my allotted food; my allowance of food,----an amount sufficient for me. Compare the use of pm in Gen. 47: 22, “the priests had a portion from Pharaoh, and they ate their portion (p) which Pharaoh gave them" (the writer's revised version).

V. 9. And deny: namely, make the denial implied in the following question-" Who is Jehovah ?"-refusing to own his relation to me, and my dependence on him. Compare the passages referred to in the Explanatory Notes.

There is no propriety in supplying an object of the verb deny. So De Wette, Ewald, Kamphausen. So Zöckler, Lange's

? Damit ich nicht, übersättiget, verleugne, und spreche: Wer ist Jehovah? (De Wette). Damit ich nicht, zu satt geworden, läugne--und sage: Wer ist Jahve? (Ewald). Dass ich nicht * Quis ascendit in coelum, ut quid illic agatur intelligeret, et satt werde, und verleugne und spreche, Wer ist der Ewige? descendit, ut edoceret mortales quid viderit? (Maurer).

(Kamphausen, in notes).

Bibelwerk, in the original German edition.* In the American the servant to slander his master," there is little need of the cauedition the object is supplied," Lest I, being full, deny (God),”obscuring the true relation of the two members, though expressing the general sentiment.

tion, “lest he curse thee." That might well be expected. Not more happy is the attempted escape from this, by supposing the subject (he) of the second member to be the servant himself; Impugn. Properly, to lay hold of, with violence. Fürst and that one may chance to hit upon the wrong person, a faithful (Lex.), "to lay hold upon, i. e. to do violence to, with the accus. servant, who will only curse the instigator for his pains. The dan □ Prov. 30 : 9."† So De Wette and Kamphausen ‡ So risk would be considerable; but hardly a just ground of moral also Zöckler (Lange's Bibelwerk, in the original German edi- dissuasion.* In any view of this rendering, there is no congruity tion 2); who justly says that it is the "wicked profanation of between the two members. the Divine name, by mockery, cursing, and reviling" [or simply, angry reproach, which is all that is necessarily implied] "and not merely false swearing by the name of God in denying guilt of theft."

|

V. 11. A generation, without the substantive verb (Hitzig, Zöckler in the original German) is the proper expression of the the writer's conception. The form of address, "O generation" (Ewald), is quite remote from it. Compare ch. 28 :16.

V. 10. Slander: after the analogy of other denominatives in Hiphil, like for example, to ear, to use the ear, to hearken; hence to tongue, to make free use of the tongue, to slander. Some would express the Hiph. form by cause to slander. But the idea of slander is itself communicated to the stem by the Hiph. form, expressing the active use of the member (Gesenius, Gr. ¿ 53, 2, Rem. 2d paragr.). With the rendering, "cause not

* Auf dass ich nicht satt geworden verleugne
und spreche: Wer ist Jehovah ?

† Gesenius (Lex.), “to lay hold upon the name of Jehovah. sc.
unlawfully and wrongfully, to do violence to the name of God,
by falsehood and perjury;" a limitation not required by the
connection. Maurer, more correctly, Dei mei nomen violem,
vel pejerando (Exod. 20 : 7), vel deo injustitiæ insimulando,
aut quomodocunque ex impatientia irreverenter de eo loquendo.
‡ Und mich vergreife am Namen meines Gottes.

? Und antasten den Namen meines Gottes.

Veri tamen similius est, Hiph. hic idem esse quod Po. Ps. 101 5, proprie linguam facere, exercere, hinc calumniari (Maurer).

That the traits enumerated in this and the three following verses are not merely "four forms of ungodliness " of one and the same generation Zöckler), seems pretty clearly indicated by the repetition of the word, otherwise quite unnecessary, with each one of them. More consistent is the view of C. B. Michaelis,† followed by Umbreit, Rosenmüller, Maurer, Bertheau.