Meaning of proverbs 23: 4

[Isaac Fried]

Chris,

I agree on the spirit. לֹא יִנָּקֶה means 'he will not escape unscathed.' In today's parlance: "He who runs with his money to the stock market (in the hope of getting rich overnight), may well end up losing his pants".
Next time I see Warren Buffett I will point this out to him.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Michael W Abernathy]

All I can say is that every resource I have says that חֲדָֽל is an imperative. The Word Biblical Commentary states, "Literally the line reads 'cease from your understanding.'" In the context it could mean, "Stop even considering the proposal to get rich" or "Because of your understanding stop." I'm not sure what Karl is seeing as evidence that this is a participle.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernath

Rowland E. Murphy, Proverbs, vol. 22, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 173.

[kwrandolph]

All I can say is that every resource I have says that חֲדָֽל is an imperative. The Word Biblical Commentary states, "Literally the line reads 'cease from your understanding.'" In the context it could mean, "Stop even considering the proposal to get rich" or "Because of your understanding stop." I'm not sure what Karl is seeing as evidence that this is a participle.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernath

Rowland E. Murphy, Proverbs, vol. 22, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 173.

Because I read the Hebrew text, not commentaries.

Seriously, the context indicates that it can’t be an imperative. I notice that you have the Masoretic points, and if they indicate that it’s an imperative, then the points are wrong.

Because of the context that it can’t be an imperative, what is it? Right now my educated guess is that it’s a participle. Do you have something better?

The whole context of the book of Proverbs is the acquisition of wisdom and insight, not the abandonment thereof. If this were an imperative, that would go against the whole rest of the book. But as a participle, it modifies the first part of the sentence indicating that the main effort of a man is not getting rich, but in acquiring and maintaining insight.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Michael W Abernathy]

Karl,
While I understand your emphasis on reading the text, instead of relying on other sources, I have to consider the testimony of well-known scholars such as Rowland Murphy. Ignoring the vowel pointing, is not a problem for me.
אל־תיגע להעשיר מבינתך חדל
You paraphrased this as, “not to abandon your insight in your exertion to get rich.”
Maybe it’s my mistake but I find it much more natural to connect אל with תיגע rather than חדל. I also find more places where חדל would translate as stop or cease than abandon. Aside from all this, what do you see in the context that makes a participle make more sense? The imperative would not mean that the reader is supposed to stop understanding. He is supposed to use his understanding to stop striving for wealth.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
While I understand your emphasis on reading the text, instead of relying on other sources, I have to consider the testimony of well-known scholars such as Rowland Murphy.

Before you mentioned him today, I had never heard of him. So mentioning the name means nothing to me.

Ignoring the vowel pointing, is not a problem for me.
אל־תיגע להעשיר מבינתך חדל
You paraphrased this as, “not to abandon your insight in your exertion to get rich.”
Maybe it’s my mistake but I find it much more natural to connect אל with תיגע rather than חדל.

Now I understand part of your objection. My paraphrase is an extreme paraphrase where I merely tried to get the idea, rather than a more literal translation. More literally, I would have written:

“Don’t wear yourself out to cause to get rich, (in the process) abandoning from your insight.”

The “(in the process)” is required by English, implied in Hebrew.

I also find more places where חדל would translate as stop or cease than abandon.

In my dictionary I list it as follows:

‎חדל to abandon as in forsaking (person or effort), quitting (“forget about it”) abandon the effort → חדל place of abandonment, forsaken place Is 38:11, חדלה action of abandonment Ex 23:5 (synonym שבת)

Aside from all this, what do you see in the context that makes a participle make more sense? The imperative would not mean that the reader is supposed to stop understanding. He is supposed to use his understanding to stop striving for wealth.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

The verb of the proverb is יגע with the negative אל modifying the verb. The verb is a Yiqtol indicating subjunctive in the imperative sense. The subject of the verb is the second person singular masculine indicated by the prefix on the verb. להעשיר is the object of the verb, an infinitive. מבינתך חדל ceasing or abandoning from your insight. This is a phrase starting with the prefixed mem indicating away from. If חדל were an imperative, that would be a command to abandon insight. But as a participle, we then have a participle phrase that modifies the main sentence.

That’s how I see this proverb.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Karl,

In your take on the verse (your translation) you carry the negative of the first clause over to the second clause. I am not inclined to take it this way as there is no waw conjunctive attached to מבינתך. The presence of a waw would allow carrying the negative over to the second clause. I think in this case I prefer Isaac's idea. The idea could be "Stop scheming", not literally, but this could be the idea behind בינה. My understanding is earthly; it is rooted in craftiness. We have Biblical warrant for this. Remember Sarah who suggested Hagar to Abraham, or Rebecca, who acted "from her own understanding," resulting in a crafty scheme to secure the blessing of the first born for Jacob.

[normansimonr]

I've updated the list of options:

*Karl: "Do not wear yourself out to get rich, (in the process) abandoning from your insight"
*Alternative: "Do not wear yourself out to get rich, desist from your understanding [in the sense of purpose or intention]"

According to Davidson's lexicon חֲדַל is an imperative, though at least a bit difficult to identify, since none of my verb tables lists such a form in Qal. If we were to stick to Davidson and Murphy's view, which seemingly would imply sticking to the masoretic points, it would be the Alternative translation the right one. This, however, presents a semantic challenge since, as Karl said, the verse would be commanding you to desist of your understanding, which is at best somewhat weird in the context of Proverbs. I can't remember reading an instance of "understanding" with a meaning like this in Proverbs.

Now, Karl's option is semantically appealing, because if the advice is that you shouldn't wear yourself out to get rich, then it implies that wearing yourself out to get rich is a lack of sense, it's 'desisting of your understanding.' I don't feel any grammatical problem with it, even in the book of Proverbs, which is grammatically very peculiar. Karl's thesis, however, contradicts Davidson and Murphy in the classification of chadal as an imperative. But, maybe, this unusual pointing shouldn't be read as an imperative. Perhaps it's not an unusual imperative but an unusual participle?

As for the context, Chris, it brings up another issue. Verse 22:20 speaks of thirty proverbs (does it really say thirty?) and as I'm counting them this verse should be a separate proverb in order to complete the 30. But maybe that's the matter of another thread.

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

In your take on the verse (your translation) you carry the negative of the first clause over to the second clause.

Oh? How do you figure that? Other than the implied negative carried by the definitions of the words themselves, I don’t see any negative. Especially not any carried over from the first and main clause.

I am not inclined to take it this way as there is no waw conjunctive attached to מבינתך. The presence of a waw would allow carrying the negative over to the second clause.

Not necessarily. Not if חדל is treated as a verb.

Anyways, in this proverb, one doesn’t want the negative from the main clause to be carried over to this secondary clause.

I think in this case I prefer Isaac's idea. The idea could be "Stop scheming", not literally, but this could be the idea behind בינה. My understanding is earthly; it is rooted in craftiness. We have Biblical warrant for this. Remember Sarah who suggested Hagar to Abraham, or Rebecca, who acted "from her own understanding," resulting in a crafty scheme to secure the blessing of the first born for Jacob.

That may work in modern Israeli, a language I don’t know, but not in Biblical Hebrew. Word definitions rule that out. In Biblical Hebrew there are other words and phrases that bring out the idea of crafty scheming.

I forgot to mention when responding to Michael Abernathy, that when addressing a second person singular masculine, that the form that חדל has here is almost always a participle.

According to Davidson's lexicon חֲדַל is an imperative

It’s an imperative only because of the Masoretic points. The consonantal text has wider possibilities, including participle.

I don't feel any grammatical problem with it, even in the book of Proverbs, which is grammatically very peculiar.

Proverbs is poetry, and sometimes takes liberties with grammar in order to fit within the poetic style. Similar styles are found among the Psalms and other poetry.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Oh for crying out loud, those of you who believe that proverbs is about wisdom and therefore this verse can not possibly be asking you to abandon wisdom are mistaken. The whole of scripture you will find the following: Do not be wise in your own eyes and even proverbs at the beginning issues a warning to you: Do not trust in your own understanding... and again in another proverb Be not wise in your eyes

This verse being discussed is not, I repeat not about wisdom at all, has nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom, it is about your own special brand of insight which man calls wisdom, that cocky arrogance that thinks life and fortune and blessing are in his own hands, under his control. The Word מִבִּינָתְךָ in this context is the self cultured, man-made wisdom that is negated in this particular proverb by the word חֲדָל which some now think they have justification for correcting because of their 'wisdom' .

To say that this second clause in verse 4 could possibly mean that one should 'continue to have insight' is totally out of rythm and context, and especially so when you continue on to the first line of verse 5. By out of context I mean just take a look at all 8 verses, there is not one positive, they are full of negative particles everywhere, the leading theme is "NOT followed by the RATIONALE". To say : "continue in your own wisdom" is a Complete and utter Break in the theme, it states a positive when there are no positives. Verse 1 lays the foundation for a positive perspective on ALL 8 verses when it begins with: consider diligently everything that is before you. This is the ONLY wisdom you need. Consider diligently.

And finally Proverbs is not about wisdom, it is about the fear (respect) of God who is the One that gives you wisdom in the first place, it is about His wisdom, not the gaining of it by mental exercise, self taught philosophy and educated intellect, Proverbs 1:1-7

To comment on the grammar I do believe that
1. a negative command can only be used with the imperfect verb, which rules out על influencing בין in this verse.
2. Verse 10, though not a part of this discourse, clearly demonstrates where על is governing also the second verb, and it does this via the addition of the vav.

Kindest regards
chris

[kwrandolph]

Oh for crying out loud, those of you who believe that proverbs is about wisdom…

Have you read Proverbs in Hebrew?

Proverbs 1:1 gives the identity of the author. The very first of the Proverbs starts in Proverbs 1:2 לדעת חכמה “to know wisdom”. Further there are several verses talking about acquiring wisdom and insight. The noun בינה is used 14 times in Proverbs, and the person who has insight נבון nine times. That’s not counting the times חכמה “wisdom” and חכם “wise person” are used.

and therefore this verse can not possibly be asking you to abandon wisdom are mistaken. The whole of scripture you will find the following: Do not be wise in your own eyes and even proverbs at the beginning issues a warning to you: Do not trust in your own understanding... and again in another proverb Be not wise in your eyes

Don’t take out of context. In each of the examples that you cited, you quoted only part of the Proverb. In each of those, the contrast is made between man’s wisdom verses God.

That contrast doesn’t exist in Proverbs 23:4. Further, there are plenty of Proverbs that talk about the person having insight and wisdom.

This verse being discussed is not, I repeat not about wisdom at all, has nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom, it is about your own special brand of insight which man calls wisdom, that cocky arrogance that thinks life and fortune and blessing are in his own hands, under his control. The Word מִבִּינָתְךָ in this context is the self cultured, man-made wisdom that is negated in this particular proverb by the word חֲדָל which some now think they have justification for correcting because of their 'wisdom' .

Are you sure that it’s not your wisdom that’s at fault here?

You sent me a strange 50 page article arguing that the Masoretic points are God inspired on equal footing with the consonantal text. Further it made the claim that the points were in existence during the second temple period. But the arguments for that are … weird, to put it bluntly. And they have no, nada, zilch, evidence to back them up. I read a random set of paragraphs after the first few pages, and saw that the weirdness continues throughout the whole document.

So how can we be assured that your wisdom is not just an attempt to justify your belief in the 100% accuracy of the MT and its points?

To say that this second clause in verse 4 could possibly mean that one should 'continue to have insight' is totally out of rythm and context, and especially so when you continue on to the first line of verse 5. By out of context I mean just take a look at all 8 verses, there is not one positive, they are full of negative particles everywhere, the leading theme is "NOT followed by the RATIONALE". To say : "continue in your own wisdom" is a Complete and utter Break in the theme, it states a positive when there are no positives. Verse 1 lays the foundation for a positive perspective on ALL 8 verses when it begins with: consider diligently everything that is before you. This is the ONLY wisdom you need. Consider diligently.

You have completely misread what we said, and what we think the proverb says. This is not a positive, rather the reason for the negative. That’s why it’s NOT an imperative.

The first line of verse five talks about riches, not insight. The grammar, as well as context, tells us that.

And finally Proverbs is not about wisdom, it is about the fear (respect) of God who is the One that gives you wisdom in the first place, it is about His wisdom, not the gaining of it by mental exercise, self taught philosophy and educated intellect, Proverbs 1:1-7

Have you read those verses? Verse five already mentions people who are wise and have insight.

To comment on the grammar I do believe that
1. a negative command can only be used with the imperfect verb, which rules out על influencing בין in this verse.
2. Verse 10, though not a part of this discourse, clearly demonstrates where על is governing also the second verb, and it does this via the addition of the vav.

Kindest regards
chris

Chris: did you look at the Hebrew of these verses? Or are you just citing some commentary? Your notes on the grammar are inaccurate.

Karl W. Randolph.