⁴ tn The verb נִשְׁכָּח (nishkakh) is a future perfect—it describes an event that is portrayed as a past event from the perspective of the future: “they will have been forgotten.” The emphasis of the past perfect is not simply that the future generations will begin to forget him, but that he will already have been forgotten long ago in the past by the time of those future generations. This past perfect situation is brought out by the emphatic use of the temporal adverb כְּבָר (k^evar) “already” (HALOT 459 s.v. I כְּבָר; BDB 460 s.v. I כְּבָר); see, e.g., Eccl 1:10; 2:12, 16; 3:15; 4:2; 6:10; 9:6-7.

³ tc The Hebrew text reads עָשׂוּהוּ (ʿasuhu, “they have done it”; Qal perfect third person masculine plural from עָשַׂה [ʿasah] plus third person masculine singular suffix). However, many medieval Hebrew mss read עָשָׂהוּ (ʿasahu, “he has done”; Qal perfect third person masculine singular from עָשַׂה), reflected in the LXX and Syriac. The error was caused by dittography (ו, vav, written twice) or by orthographic confusion between ו and ה (hey) in הוו (confused as והוו) at the end of 2:12 and beginning of 2:13. The third person masculine singular referent of עָשׂוּהוּ “what he has done” is the king, that is, Qoheleth himself. The referent (the king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² sn Previously the noun דִּין (din, judgment”) was used, signifying the legal rights or the pleas of the people. Now the imperative דִּין is used. It could be translated “judge,” but in this context “judge the poor” could be misunderstood to mean “condemn.” Here advocacy is in view, and so “plead the cause” is a better translation (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV “defend the rights”). It was—and is—the responsibility of the king (ruler) to champion the rights of the poor and needy, who otherwise would be ignored and oppressed. They are the ones left destitute by the cruelties and inequalities of life (e.g., 2 Sam 14:4-11; 1 Kgs 3:16-28; Pss 45:3-5; 72:4; Isa 9:6-7).

⁵ tn There have been numerous attempts to reinterpret the first two verses of the chapter. The Greek version translated the names “Ithiel” and “Ukal,” resulting in “I am weary, O God, I am weary and faint” (C. C. Torrey, “Proverbs Chapter 30,” JBL 73 [1954]: 93-96). The LXX’s approach is followed by some English versions (e.g., NRSV, NLT). The Midrash tried through a clever etymologizing translation to attribute the works to Solomon (explained by W. G. Plaut, Proverbs, 299). It is most likely that someone other than Solomon wrote these sayings; they have a different, almost non-proverbial, tone to them. See P. Franklyn, “The Sayings of Agur in Proverbs 30: Piety or Skepticism,” ZAW 95 (1983): 239-52.

³ tn Heb “and the upright seek his life.” There are two ways this second line can be taken. (1) One can see it as a continuation of the first line, meaning that the bloodthirsty men also “seek the life of the upright” (cf. NIV, NRSV). The difficulty is that the suffix is singular but the apparent referent is plural. (2) One can take it is as a contrast: “but as for the upright, they seek his life”—a fairly straightforward rendering (cf. ASV). The difficulty here is that “seeking a life” is normally a hostile act, but it would here be positive: “seeking” a life to preserve it. The verse would then say that the bloodthirsty hate the innocent, but the righteous protect them (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 637; cf. NAB, NASB, TEV).

³ tn The form is the Niphal imperfect of סָתַר (satar, “to hide”); in this stem it can mean “to hide themselves” or “to go into hiding.” In either case the expression would be a hyperbole; the populace would not go into hiding, but they would tread softly and move about cautiously. G. R. Driver suggests the Akkadian sataru instead, which means “to demolish,” and is cognate to the Aramaic “to destroy.” This would produce the idea that people are “destroyed” when the wicked come to power (“Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32 [1951]: 192-93). That meaning certainly fits the idea, but there is no reason for the change because the MT is perfectly readable as it is and makes good sense.

⁴ tn Heb “his praise.” The pronominal suffix could be an objective genitive (about him, i.e., the praise he receives) or a subjective genitive (by him, i.e., the praise he gives). If intended to be an objective genitive, the proverb could mean two things. A person must test, sift through and evaluate, the praise he or she receives. Or a person must prove, verify by being worthy of, the word of praise he or she receives. If it is a subjective genitive, it means a person must refine, make valuable, the praise that he or she gives. Some commentators interpret a subjective genitive to mean that people stand revealed by what or how they praise (D. Kidner, Proverbs [TOTC], 168). But the structure of the saying positions the person as one performing a test, along with the crucible and the furnace.

² tn Heb “thighs dangle from the lame.” The verb is דַּלְיוּ (dalyu), from דָּלָה (dalah) or דָּלַל (dalal) biforms which mean “to hang down” and possibly by extension “to let down/lower/be low” and “to draw [water]” i.e., lowering a bucket into a well and drawing it up. We might imagine paralyzed legs either as “dangling” or “pulled up” to a stable position where a person sits, both indicating the uselessness of the legs—they are there but cannot be used. Since the verb must function in both halves of the verse, “dangling” is the most likely picture. Luther gave the verse a fanciful but memorable rendering: “Like dancing to a cripple, so is a proverb in the mouth of the fool.”

¹ sn This section of the book of Proverbs contains proverbs attributed to Solomon but copied by Hezekiah’s sages (between 715 b.c. and 687 b.c.). Some scholars conclude that this has no historical value other than to report the later disposition that people thought they came from Solomon’s time, but if that were the only consideration, then that in itself would have to be considered as a piece of historical information. But if the reference is an earlier note in the collection, then it becomes more valuable for consideration. The proverbs in these lines differ from the earlier ones in that these are multiple line sayings using more similes; chapters 28-29 are similar to 10-16, but chapters 25-27 differ in having few references to God.

² sn The two infinitives form the heart of the contrast—“to conceal a matter” and “to search out a matter.” God’s government of the universe is beyond human understanding—humans cannot begin to fathom the intentions and operations of it. But it is the glory of kings to search out matters and make them intelligible to the people. Human government cannot claim divine secrecy; kings have to study and investigate everything before making a decision, even divine government as far as possible. But kings who rule as God’s representatives must also try to represent his will in human affairs—they must even inquire after God to find his will. This is their glorious nature and responsibility. For more general information on vv. 2-27, see G. E. Bryce, “Another Wisdom ‘Book’ in Proverbs,” JBL 91 (1972): 145-57.

³ tn The form rendered “rebels” is difficult; it appears to be the Qal active participle, plural, from שָׁנָה (shanah), “to change”—“those who change.” The RV might have thought of the idea of “change” when they rendered it “political agitators.” The Syriac and Tg. Prov 24:21 have “fools,” the Latin has “detractors,” and the LXX reads, “do not disobey either of them,” referring to God and the king in the first line. Accordingly the ruin predicted in the next line would be the ruin that God and the king can inflict. If the idea of “changers” is retained, it would have to mean people who at one time feared God and the king but no longer do.

² tn The verb אִוְּתָה (ʾivv^etah) is a Piel perfect. Categorically, Piel verbs are dynamic rather than stative, so the perfect form should be understood as past or perfective. In the Qal, some verbs for “desire” are stative and some dynamic; so semantically the question could be raised whether this is a rare, or lone, stative in the Piel. If stative, it could be understood as present tense, as rendered in most translations. But it is doubtful that more recent developments in linguistics and biblical Hebrew influenced any of the translations. However, as perfective we should understand that this is what they have set their desire on, and that is ongoing, so a present time relevance is appropriate. In this proverb the first colon provides the setting as a basis, and the second colon gives the result. We may understand it as “because [he/she] has desired evil, his/her neighbor will not be shown favor.”

⁴ tn The Hebrew has “seekers of death,” meaning “[they that seek them] are seekers of death,” or that the fortune is “a fleeting vapor for those who seek death.” The sense is not readily apparent. The Greek and the Latin versions have “snares of death”; the form מוֹקְשֵׁי (moq^eshe) was read instead of מְבַקְשֵׁי (m^evaqq^eshe). This reading does not make a more credible metaphor, and one must explain the loss of the letter ב (bet) in the textual variant. It is, however, slightly easier to interpret in the verse, and is followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). But whether the easier reading is the correct one in this case would be difficult to prove.

² tc The word הֲמִיתוֹ (hamito) is the Hiphil infinitive construct of מוּת (mut, “to die”) plus third masculine singular suffix, “to cause/allow his death.” The LXX gives “do not lift up your soul to excess,” perhaps having read חֵמוֹת (khemot, “anger, rage”) with a ח (het) instead of a ה (he) and without the suffix. The KJV rendered as “let not thy soul spare for his crying.” Perhaps they read as if from the similar sounding root מוּט (mut, “to shudder,” as in “at making him shudder”) or from the verb הָמָה (hamah, “to murmur, be in commotion”), whose Qal infinitive construct with suffix would be הֲמוֹתוֹ (hamoto). It is not clear that either of these latter roots should be associated with crying.

¹ tc The MT reads מֵהֵבֶל (mehevel) “from vanity” and is followed by KJV and ASV. The word הֵבֶל (hevel) means “vapor” and figuratively refers to that which is unsubstantial, fleeting, or amounts to nothing (BDB 210 s.v.). The Greek and Latin versions, followed by RSV, reflect מְבֹהָל (m^evohal, “in haste”) which exhibits metathesis. A different pointing of the MT has also been proposed: מְהֻבָּל (m^ehubbal) “obtained by fraud” (HALOT 236 s.v. הבל), cf. NASB, NIV, CEV. The proverb favors steady disciplined work and saving over get-rich-quick schemes, be they by fraud or by empty dreams (cf. Prov 20:21; 28:20, 22).

³ tn Heb “acts shamefully and disgracefully.” The verb בָּאַשׁ (baʾash) literally means “to cause a stink; to emit a stinking odor” (e.g., Exod 5:21; Eccl 10:1) and figuratively means “to act shamefully” (BDB 92 s.v.). The verb וְיַחְפִּיר (v^eyakhpir) means “to display shame.” Together, they can be treated as a verbal hendiadys: “to act in disgraceful shame,” or more colorfully “to make a shameful smell,” or as W. McKane has it, “spread the smell of scandal” (Proverbs [OTL], 460). W. G. Plaut says, “Unhappily, the bad odor adheres not only to the liar but also to the one about whom he lies—especially when the lie is a big one” (Proverbs, 152).

³ tn Heb “bent of mind.” The verb עָוָּה (ʿavah) occurs four times in the Niphal. In Isa 21:3 and Ps 38:6 it describes someone who is dazed or bewildered; in 1 Sam 20:30 it is derogatory, probably meaning moral perversity. Here it contrasts wisdom, so “bewildered” is likely, but it may also mean “perverse” (NASB, NRSV, NKJV), “warped” (NIV, NLT), “twisted” (ESV). The noun לֵב (lev, “mind, heart”) is a genitive of specification. It functions as a metonymy of association for “mind; thoughts” (BDB 524 s.v. 3) and “will; volition” (BDB 524 s.v. 4). This person does not perceive things as they are, and so makes wrong choices. His thinking is all wrong.

³ tc The Hebrew text has the singular construct form וּבְהַוַּת (uv^ehavvat) which may be from I הַוָּה (havvah, “desire of”) or II הַוָּה (havvah, “disaster of, destruction of”). The line would read “but in the desire of…” (cf. NLT “the ambition of… entraps them”) or “but in the disaster of the treacherous they will be caught.” The BHS editors propose repointing the word to the plural absolute form וּבְהַוֹּת (uv^ehavvot) resulting in “the treacherous will be ensnared in [their] desires” or “the treacherous will be caught in disasters.” The LXX has a singular form, but it does not represent a Hebrew construct form and not necessarily the same word as the MT: “ungodliness will fall into [the hands of] unrighteousness” or “encounters injustice.”

⁴ tn The consonantal form יסחו (yskhv) is vocalized in the MT as יִסְּחוּ (yiss^ekhu, Qal imperfect third person masculine plural from נָסַח, nasakh, “to tear away”) but this produces an awkward sense: “they [= the righteous in vv. 20-21] will tear away the treacherous from it” (BDB 650 s.v. נָסַח). Due to the parallelism, the BHS editors suggest emending the form to יִנָּסְחוּ (yinnas^ekhu, Niphal imperfect third person masculine plural): “the treacherous will be torn away from it.” However, Tg. Prov 2:22 points the form as יֻסְחוּ (yuskhu) which reflects an old Qal passive vocalization—probably the best solution to the problem: “the treacherous will be torn away from it.”

⁴ tn Heb “perversities.” The plural form of תַּהְפֻּכוֹת (tahpukhot) may denote a plurality of number (“perverse things”) or intensification: “awful perversity.” As here, it often refers to perverse speech (Prov 8:13; 10:31, 32; 23:33). It is related to the noun הֶפֶךְ (hefekh, “that which is contrary, perverse”) which refers to what is contrary to morality (Isa 29:16; Ezek 16:34; BDB 246 s.v. הֶפֶךְ). The related verb הָפַךְ (hafakh, “to turn; to overturn”) is used (1) literally of turning things over, e.g., tipping over a bowl (2 Kgs 21:13) and turning over bread-cakes (Judg 7:13; Hos 7:8) and (2) figuratively of perverting things so that they are morally upside down, so to speak (Jer 23:36). These people speak what is contrary to morality, wisdom, sense, logic or the truth.