⁵ tc The MT reads בָּם (bam, “in them”) while the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a reads במה (bamah, “high place”). The syntax of בָּם is difficult in context and only translated by the KJV, “as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.” The KJV’s reference to casting leaves assumes other emendations, or misinterprets or guesses at another meaning for the rare term שַׁלֶּכֶת (shalleket, “felled”). The other major translations omit rendering בָּם into English. The LXX has omitted this among several words lost to haplography.

¹ sn The imagery of v. 6 is romantic: (1) His mother originally conceived him with his father under the apple tree, (2) his mother gave birth to him under the apple tree, and (3) the Beloved had now awakened him to love under the same apple tree. The cycle of life and love had come around full circle under the apple tree. While his mother had awakened his eyes to life, the Beloved had awakened him to love. His parents had made love under the apple tree to conceive him in love, and now Solomon and his Beloved were making love under the same apple tree of love.

⁴ sn There is a phonetic wordplay (paronomasia) between אֶשָּׁקְךָ (ʾeshaq^ekha, “I would kiss you” from נָשַׁק, nashaq, “to kiss”) in 8:1 and אַשְׁקְךָ (ʾashq^ekha, “I would cause you to drink” from שָׁקָה, shaqah, “to drink”) in 8:2. This wordplay draws attention to the unity of her “wish song” in 8:1-2. In 8:1 the Beloved expresses her desire to kiss Solomon on the lips when they are outdoors; while in 8:2 she expresses her desire for Solomon to kiss her breasts when they are in the privacy of her home indoors.

² tn Alternately, “noble daughter” or “magnificent daughter.” The title בַּת־נָדִיב (bat nadiv, “princely daughter” or “daughter of the prince”; HALOT 673 s.v. נָדִיב; BDB 622 s.v. נָדִיב 2) suggests to some that this woman is not the Israelite country maiden of chapters 1-4 and 8, but the daughter of Pharaoh whom Solomon later married (1 Kgs 11:1). While the term נָדִיב often denotes nobility of position (“nobleman”), it can also denote nobility of character (“noble, willing, magnificent”) (e.g., Prov 17:26; Isa 32:5, 8) (HALOT 673-74; BDB 622 s.v. 2).

² tn The root סָבַב (savav) in the Qal stem means “to go around, to do a circuit” (1 Sam 7:16; 2 Chr 17:9; 23:2; Eccl 12:5; Song 3:3; Isa 23:16; Hab 2:16), while the Polel stem means “to prowl around” (Ps 59:7, 15; Song 3:2) (HALOT 739-740 s.v. סבב). The idea here is that the Beloved is determined to “look all around” until she finds her beloved.

¹ tn The form is the Niphal participle of יָדַע (yadaʿ); it means that her husband is “known.” The point is that he is a prominent person, respected in the community. While the description of the wife’s work is given in the past tense (primarily through perfect and preterite verbs), the husband is described in the present tense with a participle. Her husband’s status has resulted to some degree from her faithful work and was not confined to the past but continues into the present time frame of the passage.

¹ tn The verb בָּטַח (batakh) means “to trust; to have confidence in.” With the subject of the verb being “the heart of her husband,” the idea is strengthened—he truly trusts her. Cf. NCV “trusts her completely”; NIV “has full confidence in her.” The verb בָּטַח (batakh) may be stative or dynamic (the evidence is inconclusive). The perfect form of a stative verb could be past tense or present tense, while a dynamic verb would be past or perfective. Given the context of past time verbs throughout the description, it is best to understand this verb as perfective, “has trusted.”

² tn The verb אָשִׁית (ʾashit) is an imperfect form of a dynamic root in a past time setting. The previous verb, a preterite, is part of establishing the past time setting. Because this is a long prefixed form (spelled with the mater lectionis yod), it is not written as a preterite and should be understood as imperfective. Typically an imperfect in a narrative background clause is habitual (which could not work in this context) or past progressive. It may however be an abilitive modal expression “I was able to set my mind to it.” In either case this verb does not advance the timeline but expresses something happening while the sage scrutinized the field.

⁴ tn The verb רָאִיתִי (raʾiti) is a perfect verb meaning “to see” and by extension “to understand.” It could refer to the looking that the sage was doing, or to realizing the lesson. Together with the previous imperfect and following perfect verb, it is part of the past tense time frame established by the preterite verb beginning the verse. If רָאִיתִי refers to the looking, then within the preterite’s time frame this verb represents an onset while the next verb represents a conclusion to the act of pondering. If this verb refers to realizing, then together with the next verb it represents the conclusion of the act of pondering.

¹ tn The construction uses the Hitpael perfect tense הִתְאַוָּה (hitʾavvah) followed by the cognate accusative תַאֲוָה (taʾavah). While the Piel verb means “to desire, wish for,” the reflexive meaning of the Hitpael appears to mean to encourage or build one’s desire. An English idiom might be to fan the flames of desire. It is not inherently immoral (the king will build desire for his bride in Ps 45:11) but often more often refers to a greedy craving or lust. This verse has been placed with the preceding because of the lexical connection with “desire/craving.”

¹ tc The MT reads שְׁפָטִים (sh^efatim from שֶׁפֶט, shephet), meaning “penalties; judgments.” The text might be מִשְׁפָּטִים (mishpatim) restoring a mem lost by haplography (the previous word ends with mem), and meaning “judicial decisions” (by extension “penalties”). The LXX reads “scourges,” a gloss it uses for שׁוֹטִים (shotim; cf. Prov 26:3), while some propose emending to שְׁבָטִים (sh^evatim) “rods” (cf. 23:14). Rods might be the instrument of the flogging mentioned in the second half of the verse, but any of the proposals conforms to the convention of parallelism. The main choice is between the MT as it stands and the LXX.

² tn Heb “the precious possession of a man, diligent.” The LXX reads “but a valuable possession [is] a pure man” while Rashi, a highly esteemed 11th century Rabbi, interpreted it as “a precious possession of a man is to be diligent” (R. Murphy, Proverbs [WBC] 88). The translation assumes that the word יָקָר (yaqar, “precious”) should either be a construct form or transposed into predicate position. The implication is not to desire or overvalue possessions themselves but to take care of what one has.

⁴ tn The verb נִמְלָט (nimlat) is a Niphal, which usually has a reflexive meaning “to escape,” but can also have a passive meaning “to be delivered.” By implication the person escapes from harm, whether the threat of harm or the harmful situation he or she is already in. The verb form could be either a perfect or a participle (because the pausal accent makes them look identical). The perfect means “have escaped/been delivered,” while the participle would be present tense, “escape/are delivered.”

¹ tc In the second half of v. 14 instead of אֲנִי (ʾani) the editors propose reading simply לִי (li) as the renderings in the LXX, Latin, and Syriac suggest. Then, in place of the לִי that comes in the same colon, read וְלִי (v^eli). While the MT is a difficult reading, it can be translated as it is. It would be difficult to know exactly what the ancient versions were reading because their translations could have been derived from either text. They represent an effort to smooth out the text.

¹ sn While this verb is a Hebrew perfect (and so past tense in English) the next verb is an imperfect (past progressive). The sage is taking us inside the transition in the man’s mind. He is hooked but not yet reeled in. He has turned and maybe taken a step in her direction, but not really committed yet inside. The second half of the verse points to her continuing enticement to keep him coming until he commits; she is close to closing the deal.

² tc The LXX reads “sit down,” presumably from תֵּשֵׁב (teshev) while the MT reads תִּשְׁכַּב (tishkav, “lie down”). Either the LXX translator worked from a text which had lost the כ (kaf) or the MT copyist had a damaged text and restored a verb from the root שָׁכַב (shakav, “to lie down”) based on the following verb. The text restored from the LXX would present a progression from walking (v. 23), to sitting, to lying down: “When you sit down, you will not fear, then you will lie down and your sleep will be pleasant.”

⁴ sn As the perfect verb of a dynamic root, the verb reports what she has done not what she is doing (the way the participle in 2:12 describes the men speaking). While it is likely true that she would regularly flatter every man who crossed her path, we are given the picture of the young man carrying on his mind what she has said to him. Part of succumbing to temptation often involves becoming narrowly focused on something potentially pleasurable and blocking out the consequences. Compare Eve in Genesis 3. The man has been flattered—how will he let that sit in his mind?

² tn Heb “before the sun may his name increase.” The Kethib (consonantal text) assumes יָנִין (yanin; a Hiphil of the verbal root נִין, nin) or יְנַיֵן (y^enayen; a Piel form), while the Qere (marginal reading) assumes יִנּוֹן (yinnon; a Niphal form). The verb נִין occurs only here, though a derived noun, meaning “offspring,” appears elsewhere (see Isa 14:22). The verb appears to mean “propagate, increase” (BDB 630 s.v. נוּן, נִין) or “produce shoots, get descendants” (HALOT 696 s.v. נין). In this context this appears to be a prayer for a lasting dynasty that will keep the king’s name and memory alive.

⁴ tn Heb “humbling himself.” The verb form is a Hitpael participle from the root רָפַס (rafas, “to trample”). The Hitpael of this verb appears only here and in Prov 6:3, where it seems to mean, “humble oneself,” a nuance that fits nicely in this context. The apparent subject is “wild beast” or “assembly,” though both of these nouns are grammatically feminine, while the participle is a masculine form. Perhaps one should emend the participial form to a masculine plural (מִתְרַפִּם, mitrappim) and understand “bulls” or “calves” as the subject.

³ tn The verb form is jussive (note the negative particle אַל, ʾal). The Kethib (consonantal text) has a Hiphil form of the verb, apparently to be understood in an exhibitive sense (“demonstrate stubborn rebellion”; see BDB 927 s.v. רוּם Hiph), while the Qere (marginal reading) has a Qal form, to be understood in an intransitive sense. The preposition ל (lamed) with pronominal suffix should be understood in a reflexive sense (“for themselves”) and indicates that the action is performed with the interest of the subject in mind.