and which has given occasion to Hitzig to make a remarkable conjecture (“He who conceals hatred, close lips,” which no one understands without Hitzig's comment. to this his conjecture). But (1) to hide hatred (cf. Pro 10:11, Pro 26:24) is something altogether different from to cover sin (Pro 10:12, Pro 17:9), or generally to keep anything secret with discretion (Pro 10:13); and (2) that δίκαια is a corrupt reading for ἄδικα (as Grabe supposes, and Symmachus translates) or δόλια (as Lagarde supposes, and indeed is found in Codd.). Michaelis well remarks: odium tectum est dolosi, manifesta sycophantia stultorum. Whoever conceals hateful feelings behind his words is שׂפתי־שׂקר, a mouth of falsehood (cf. the mouth of the fool, Pro 10:14); one does not need to supply אישׁ, but much rather has hence to conclude that a false man is simply so named, as is proved by Psa 120:3. There is a second moral judgment, 18b: he who spreadeth slander (וּמוצא, according to the Masoretic writing: he who divulges it, the correlate to הביא, to bring to, Gen 37:2) is a Thor fool, stupid, dull, כּסיל (not a Narr fool, godless person, אויל); for such slandering can generally bring no advantage; it injures the reputation of him to whom the דבּה, i.e., the secret report, the slander, refers; it sows discord, has incalculable consequences, and finally brings guilt on the tale-bearer himself.
Verse 19
Pro 10:19 19 In a multitude of words transgression is not wanting; But he who restrains his lips shows wisdom.
We do not, with Bertheau, understand 19a: by many words a transgression does not cease to be what it is; the contrast 19b requires a more general condemnation of the multitude of words, and חדל not only means to cease from doing (to leave off), and to cease from being (to take away), but also not at all to do (to intermit, Eze 3:11; Zec 11:12), and not at all to be (to fail, to be absent), thus: ubi verborum est abundantia non deest peccatum (Fl.). Michaelis suitably compares πολυλογία πολλὰ σφάλματα ἒχει by Stobäus, and כל המרבה דברים מביא חטא in the tractate Aboth i. 17, wherewith Rashi explains the proverb. פּשׁע is not here, as elsewhere, e.g., Psa 19:14, with special reference to the sin of falling away from favour, apostasy, but, like the post-biblical עברה, generally with reference to every kind of violation (פשׁע = Arab. fsq dirumpere) of moral restraint; here, as Jansen remarks, peccatum sive mendacii, sive detractionis, sive alterius indiscretae laesionis, sive
