Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/1860

 who held an honourable place among the shalish-men, but yet reached not to that first trias, 2Sa 23:8. (= 1Ch 11:11.). The name השּׁלישׁים (Apoc. 2Sa 23:8, השּׁלשׁי, and 2Sa 23:13, 1Ch 27:6, incorrectly השּׁלשׁים) occurs here with reference to the threefold division of this principal host; and in regard to the use of the word in the time of Pharaoh, as well as in the time of the kings, it may be granted that shalish denotes the Three-man (triumvir), and then generally a high military officer; so that שׁלשׁים here has the same relation to נגידים, Pro 8:6, as ducalia to principalia. The name of the chief men (members of the chief troop) is transferred to the chief proverbs, as, Jam 2:8, that law which stands as a king at the head of all the others is called the “royal law;” or, as Plato names the chief powers of the soul, μέρη ἡγεμόνες. As in this Platonic word-form, so shalishim here, like negidim there, is understood neut. cf. under Pro 8:6, and ריקים, Pro 12:11; ישׁרים, Pro 16:13. The ב of בּמעצות (occurring at Pro 1:31 also) Fleischer rightly explains as the ב of uniting or accompanying: chief proverbs which contain good counsels and solid knowledge. In the statement of the object in Pro 22:21, we interpret that which follows להודיעך not permutat.: ut te docerem recta, verba vera (Fleischer); but קשׁט (ground-form to קשׁט, Psa 60:6) is the bearer of the threefold idea: rectitudinem, or, better, regulam verborum veritatis. The (Arab.) verb ḳasiṭa means to be straight, stiff, inflexible (synon. צדק, to be hard, tight, proportionately direct); and the name ḳisṭ denotes not only the right conduct, the right measure (quantitas justa), but also the balance, and thus the rule or the norm. In 21b, אמרים אמת (as e.g., Zec 1:13; vid., Philippi, Status Constr. p. 86f.) is equivalent to אמרי אמת; the author has this second time intentionally chosen the appositional relation of connection: words which are truth; the idea of truth presents itself in this form of expression more prominently. Impossible, because contrary to the usus loq., is the translation: ut respondeas verba vera iis qui ad te mittunt (Schultens, Fleischer), because שׁלח, with the accus. following, never means “to send any one.” Without doubt השׁיב and שׁלח stand in correlation to each other: he who lets himself be instructed must be supposed to be in circumstances to bring home, to those that sent him out to learn, doctrines which are