¹ tn The Niphal imperfect from נָכַר (nakhar) means “to act [or, treat] as a foreigner [or, stranger]; to misconstrue; to disguise.” The direct object (“it”) is not present in the Hebrew text but is implied. In this passage it means that the hater speaks what is “foreign” to his thought; in other words, he dissembles.

³ tn The verb form used twice here is יִתְיַצֵּב (yityatsev), the Hitpael imperfect of יָצַב (yatsav), which means “to set or station oneself; to take one’s stand” in this stem. With the form לִפְנֵי (lifne) it means “to present oneself before” someone; so here it has the idea of serving as a courtier in the presence of a king.

³ sn The second half of the proverb presents the logical inference: The liar would be without “loyal love” entirely, and so poverty would be better than this. A poor person who wishes to do better is preferable to a person who makes promises and does not keep them.

² tn Heb “the contentions of a wife” (so KJV, NASB); NAB “the nagging of a wife.” The genitive could be interpreted (1) as genitive of source or subjective genitive—she is quarreling; or (2) it could be a genitive of specification, making the word “contentions” a modifier, as in the present translation.

¹ tn The Hitpael of עָשַׁר (ʿashar, “to be rich”) means “to pretend to be rich” (BDB 799 s.v. עָשַׁר Hithp). Here the Hitpael means to show or present oneself in a state (cf. GKC 1256 §54e, Joüon 147 §53i, IBHS 431 §26.2f).

³ tn Here the conjunction vav begins a second conditional sentence, laying down an antithetical condition. It uses the perfect form of a dynamic verb in contrast to the first verb (the stative perfect for present time). While it is advantageous to be or become wise at any time, once you have mocked, there will be a consequence for it.

² sn The sage uses these verb forms in contrast with the following verse, which is present tense. The antithetic parallelism contrasts not just the subject (who finds vs. who misses) and the verb (to find vs. to harm) but also the state of the outcome. This person found life and continues in the benefit: “had found life.”

¹ tn The verb שָׁכַנְתִּי (shakanti) is a perfect form which should normally be past or perfective. Some of this root’s perfect forms follow stative morphology (though the imperfect forms consistently use the morphology of dynamic verbs). The meanings of some verbs drift across the stative vs. dynamic boundary over time. If interpreted as a stative verb, it would be present tense.

³ tn The verb is an imperfect, either present or future, saying what they do or forecasting what they will do. Being paired with a perfect verb in the beginning of the verse, the description combines their past pattern with what they continue to do.

¹ tn The form הֹרֵתִיךָ (horetikha) is the Hiphil perfect with a suffix from the root יָרָה (yarah, “to guide”). This and the parallel verb should be taken as instantaneous (or performative) perfects, translated as an English present tense: The sage is now instructing or pointing the way.

¹ tn The perfect tense has the nuance of instantaneous (or performative) perfect; the sage is now calling the disciples to listen. It could also be a perfect of resolve, indicating what he is determined to do, or a present perfect reflecting his proven past history, “Indeed I have given you X.”

¹ tn Heb “her ways are ways of pleasantness” (so KJV, NRSV). The present translation contracts this expression for the sake of smoothness. The plural of דֶרֶךְ (derekh, “way”) is repeated for emphasis. The noun נֹעַם (noʿam, “pleasantness”) functions as an attributive genitive: “pleasant ways.”

³ tn Heb “from a song of Zion.” Most modern translations read, “one of the songs of Zion,” taking the preposition מִן (min, “from”) as partitive and “song” as collective. The present translation assumes the mem (ם) is enclitic, being misunderstood later as the prefixed preposition.

³ sn The psalmist asks the Lord to demonstrate his loyal love and faithfulness, not simply so Israel may benefit, but primarily so that the Lord will receive honor among the nations, who will recognize, contrary to their present view (see v. 2), that Israel’s God is committed to his people.

¹ tc Heb “you covered it.” The masculine suffix is problematic if the grammatically feminine noun “earth” is the antecedent. For this reason some emend the form from כִּסִּיתוֹ (kissito) to a feminine verb with feminine suffix, כִּסַּתָּה (kissattah, “[the watery deep] covered it [i.e., the earth]”), a reading assumed by the present translation.

¹ tc Heb “and his attendants a flaming fire.” The lack of agreement between the singular “fire” and plural “attendants” has prompted various emendations. Some read “fire and flame.” The present translation assumes an emendation from מְשָׁרְתָיו (m^eshar^etayv, “his attendants”) to מְשָׁרְתוֹ (m^eshar^eto, “his attendant”), a reading supported by one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q⁹³.

¹ tn The present translation (like most modern translations) follows the Qere (marginal reading), which reads literally, “and to him [are] we.” The Kethib (consonantal text) has “and not we.” The suffixed preposition לוֹ (lo, “to him”) was confused aurally with the negative particle לֹא (loʾ, “not”) because the two sound identical.

³ tn The perfect verbal forms in vv. 1-3 are understood here as describing characteristic divine activities. Another option is to translate them as present perfects, “has performed…has accomplished deliverance, etc.” referring to completed actions that have continuing results.

² tn Heb “like a warrior overcome with wine.” The Hebrew verb רוּן (run, “overcome”) occurs only here in the OT. The phrase “overcome with wine” could picture a drunken warrior controlled by his emotions and passions (as in the present translation), or it could refer to a warrior who awakes from a drunken stupor.

² tn Heb “for you judge nations fairly, and [as for the] peoples in the earth, you lead them.” The imperfects are translated with the present tense because the statement is understood as a generalization about God’s providential control of the world. Another option is to understand the statement as anticipating God’s future rule (“for you will rule…and govern”).