Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/1617

 Our editions have דברי רשׁעים, but the right sequence of the accents (in Cod. 1294 and elsewhere) is דברי רשׁעים; the logical relation in this transformation, which is only rhythmically conditioned, remains the same. The vocalization wavers between ארב־, which would be imper., and ארב־, which is infin., like אמר־, Pro 25:7, ענשׁ־, Pro 21:11, אכל־, Gen 3:11. However one punctuates it, the infin. is intended in any case, in which the expression always remains sketchy enough: the words of the godless are lying in wait for blood, i.e., they are calculated to bring others to this, into the danger of their lives, e.g., before the tribunal by false charges and false witness. דּם is the accus. of the object; for instead of ארב לדם (Pro 1:11), to lurk for blood, a shorter expression, ארב דּם, is used (Ewald, §282a). The suffix of יצּילם might appear, after Pro 11:6, to refer back to the ישׁרים; but the thought that their mouth saves the upright, that they thus know to speak themselves out of the danger, is by far less appropriate (vid., on the contrary, בדעת, Pro 11:9) than the thought that the mouth of the upright delivereth from danger those whose lives are threatened by the godless, as is rightly explained by Ewald, Bertheau, Elster. The personal subject or object is in the Mashal style often to be evolved from the connection, e.g., Pro 14:26; Pro 19:23.

Verse 7
Pro 12:7 7 The godless are overturned and are no more,   But the house of the righteous stands. Bertheau and Zöckler explain: The wicked turn about, then are they no more; i.e., as we say: it is over with them “in the turning of a hand.” The noun in the inf. absol. may certainly be the subject, like Pro 17:12, as well as the object (Ewald, §328c), and הפך may be used of the turning about of oneself, Psa 78:9; 2Ki 5:26; 2Ch 9:12. That explanation also may claim for itself that הפך nowhere occurs with a personal object, if we except one questionable passage, Isa 1:7. But here the interpretation of the רשׁעים as the object lies near the contrast of בית, and moreover the interpretation of the הפך, not in the sense of στρέφεσθαι (lxx), but of καταστρέφειν (Syr., Targ., Jerome, Graec. Venet., Luther), lies near the contrast of יעמד. The inf. absol. thus leaves the power from which the catastrophe proceeds indefinite, as the pass. יהפפכוּ would also leave it, and the act designedly