Proverbs 29:3

Several months ago, I read Proverbs 29 in the ESV and noticed an ambiguity in verse 3:

He who loves wisdom makes his father glad, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth.

It's unclear whether the antecedent of "his" in the second half of the verse ("his wealth") is the father of this "companion" (similar to how the first half mentions the father of "he who loves wisdom") or the "companion" himself.

The connection between this verse and the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, where the son does squander the father's wealth, suggests that the antecedent is an implied father.  Additionally, in this reading, the two halves of the verse parallel each other:  "he" with "companion," "wisdom" with "prostitutes" (in an inverted sort of way), and "father" with "his."

Alternatively, this "his" could indicate the "companion" himself ("his [own] wealth"), and this understanding results in an-other contrast between these two men.  The first half ("he who loves wisdom makes his father glad") contains three characters:  "he," personified "wisdom," and "father."  If "companion" is the antecedent of "his" in the second half, there are only two entities there (although, admittedly, one is plural):  "companion"/"his" and "prostitutes."  The first man ("he who loves wisdom") maintains his familial relationships, but the second (the "companion of prostitutes") lacks them.

I lookt up this verse in languages that have distinct forms for "his" and "his own" (reflexive possessive) and discovered that both follow this second reading ("his own").

Norwegian:

En mann som elsker visdom, gleder sin far; men den som holder vennskap med skjøger, øder sitt gods.

Esperanto:

Homo, kiu amas saĝon, ĝojigas sian patron; sed kiu komunikiĝas kun malĉastulinoj, tiu disperdas sian havon.

I'm not sure to what degree (if any) all of this applies to the original Hebrew text, though, because it has no "his" in the second clause; it's just "a companion of prostitutes squanders wealth":

אִֽישׁ־אֹהֵב חָכְמָה יְשַׂמַּח אָבִיו וְרֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת יְאַבֶּד־הֽוֹן׃

Proverbs 29:27

While reading Proverbs in the NKJV a couple months ago, I found yet an-other significant chiasm, this time in Proverbs 29:27:

An unjust man

is an abomination to the righteous,

and he who is upright in the way

is an abomination to the wicked.

The same structure is present in the ESV:

An unjust man

is an abomination to the righteous,

but one whose way is straight

is an abomination to the wicked.

And, very bluntly, in the NIV:

The righteous

detest the dishonest;

the wicked

detest the upright.

It's also in my German translation of Proverbs:

Ein ungerechter Mensch

ist dem Gerechten ein Greuel;

und wer recht wandelt,

ist dem Gottlosen ein Greuel.

This structure is in the Hebrew but inverted from the above:

תּוֹעֲבַת צַדִּיקִים אִישׁ עָוֶל וְתוֹעֲבַת רָשָׁע יְשַׁר־דָּֽרֶךְ׃

The word order in the Latin Vulgate is comparable:

Abominantur iusti

virum impium

et abominantur impii

eos qui in recta sunt via

Something like:

An abomination to the righteous

is an unjust man

and an abomination to the wicked

are those who are in the straight way.

In the English and German translations, the order is [unjust | righteous || upright | wicked], where in the Hebrew and the Latin Vulgate, it's [righteous | unjust || wicked | upright], but in both, the structure highlights the mutual animosity.

Proverbs 29:6

Last week, I read some more chapters in Proverbs and noticed two contrasts in the verbs in Proverbs 29:6:  "An evil man is ensnared in his transgression, but a righteous man sings and rejoices."  In the first clause, there's one verb, and it's passive ("is ensnared"); in the second clause, there are two verbs, and both are active ("sings" and "rejoices").  These contrasts emphasize the trapped nature of the evil man.  Even in the language used to describe him, he has no agency.  He is acted upon; he himself doesn't act.  The righteous man, on the other hand, is the active agent in his clause and does two actions.

This may not be the case in the original Hebrew though.  As I've mentioned before, I don't understand Hebrew verbs well enough yet to be able to comment on this, but in my German translation of Proverbs, what's rendered as "is ensnared" in English is translated as an active voice verb:  "Wenn ein Böser sündigt, verstrickt er sich selbst" ("when an evil man sins, he ensnares himself").