Page 9

Good Translation
Reflecting the three-part structure:

If, as I have argued,

is merely the lamed preposition, then it is a repeated element

of the three-part structure. In the other two cases it can well be translated "for"--that's a
fairly neutral and appropriately vague gloss for the preposition. To properly reflect the three-
part structure, it should also be translated "for" in the third part. The first two parts are
verbless; if possible, the third part should also be rendered without any verb. This allows the
reader to meditate on the connection between the elements of each of the three parts and on
the relationship of the third clause to the first two. The reader asks, "What is the relationship
of a crucible to silver and a furnace to gold? How is the relationship of a man to his praise
like that relationship?"
Preserving all ambiguity and openness:

Because this Hebrew proverb is verbless, there is no verb explicating the function of a

crucible or furnace. Therefore, it is not the place of the translator to impose a verb on the
proverb, which would force a certain interpretation of that function.

Pr 27:22, with imperfect verbs, is descriptive "Though you grind a fool in a mortar

with a pestle along with grain, you will not separate his foolishness from him." Pr 27:23-24
begins with imperative verbs, and is thus prescriptive "Know well the condition of your
flock, and pay attention to your herds, ..." Since there is no finite verb in 27:21, there is no
way to tell whether the writer is simply making an observation or whether he is overtly
recommending a mode of action--that is, whether this proverb is descriptive or prescriptive.
Is he simply observing that a man does test his praise, or is he urging his reader to do so? In
most cases, there is overlap--what the writer observes is what he commends--but not
always.

I propose that a good translation leaves open either possibility. One way to do that

is to translate descriptively, since a descriptive translation allows a prescriptive
interpretation, but not vice versa: "... and a man tests the words of his praise." The other
way is to translate more "literally" by leaving out the verb: "... and a man for the words of
his praise." It is permissible in English for a proverbial saying to be verbless ("No pain, no
gain.").

In the Hebrew, the genitive is ambiguous--it could be either objective or subjective.

A good translation retains the ambiguity:

A crucible for silver, a furnace for gold,

and a man for the words of his praise.

Bases for Interpretation
Functions of a crucible in the Hebrew lexicon:

There are three Hebrew words that refer to the process of refining metals,

Prx

Njb

and

qqz

. NIDOTTE says "

PårDx

is used of refining metal by removing dross." It proves the

authenticity of the metal. In Jdg 7:4 the function is to sort out Gideon's warriors as an
assayer sorts out a sample. In Is 1:25 the function is to remove dross and alloy. In Jr 6:27-30

giving him praise." None of the English versions is consistent in this way. Further, the explication in the third clause
of Pr 17:3 argues against this inverted sense in the identical first two clauses of these proverbs.

E.g., in Pr 10:14 the writer obviously commends the actions of the wise man: "The wise store up knowledge, but the

mouth of the fool hastens destruction." On the other hand, it would be hard to reconcile a prescriptive interpretation of
Pr 21:14 with the rest of Scripture: "A secret gift soothes anger, and a covert bribe, a fierce rage."

Unless the emendation

wyDlVlAhVm

, mentioned in connection with the LXX, is correct.