Proverbs 9:2-4

New English Translation

Footnotes

1. Proverbs 9:2 tn Heb “she has slaughtered her slaughter [animals].” English does not prefer to use a cognate verb and noun for butchering an animal in food preparation. Cf. KJV “hath killed her beasts”; NAB “has dressed her meat”; NASB “has prepared her food.”
2. Proverbs 9:2 sn Wisdom has prepared a sumptuous banquet in this house and sends out her maids to call the simple to come and eat (M. Lichtenstein, “The Banquet Motif in Keret and in Proverbs 9, ” JANESCU 1 [1968/69]: 19-31). The figures of meat and wine represent the good teaching of wisdom that will be palatable and profitable (implied comparisons). Cf. Isaiah 55:1-2 and John 6:51, 55 for similar uses of the figures. The idea of mixing wine could refer to the practice of mixing wine with spices or with water (as the LXX text assumes; e.g., Prov 23:30; Isa 5:22). Mixed wine was the most intoxicating; thus, her wisdom is attractive. All the imagery lets the simple know that what wisdom has to offer is marvelous.
3. Proverbs 9:3 tn The Hebrew imperfect can be a general present. The prior perfect verbs tell what she has done in preparation, while the imperfect tells what she now does. But it is also possible, given the past time context of the previous verbs, that the imperfect should be understood as past habitual, “she would call,” or as a preterite (without the vav consecutive), “she called.” This would be in line with the next verse which uses a perfect, “she has said.”
4. Proverbs 9:3 tn The text uses two synonymous terms in construct to express the superlative degree.
5. Proverbs 9:4 tn Heb “[As for one] lacking of mind—she has said to him.” The pronominal suffix is a resumptive pronoun, meaning, “she has said to the [person] lacking of mind.”
6. Proverbs 9:4 tn The Hebrew word לֵב (lev) means both the “heart” and the “mind.” By metonymy, the mind stands for understanding or judgment.
7. Proverbs 9:4 tn The Hebrew switches to the perfect verb form to introduce the speech in the following verses. It lets us know what her message has been. It is possible that the imperfect verb in the previous verse should be understood as a past habitual, “she would call” or as a preterite (without the vav consecutive), “she called.” tc The LXX supports the reading of the verb as a perfect. But at the similar construction in 9:16, the LXX reads a participle, which would be present time. The consonants are the same for both forms. It is possible that the verb should be read as a participle in both verses. The present tense could certainly fit the context.