The interpretation timeline

Prov 14:34

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

1 Jewish · 2 Reformed · 1 Catholic · 1 Lutheran

Prov 14:34 · Douay-Rheims
“Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable.”
Scholastic c. 1100 – 1500
1105
A.D.
Rashi Jewish
1040–1105
“Charity will elevate a nation Israel. but the kindness of the kingdoms is sin They are the heathens, who rob one to give another.”
609 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Post-Reformation c. 1650 – 1900
1714
A.D.
Matthew Henry Reformed
1662–1714
“Note, 1. Justice, reigning in a nation, puts an honour upon it. A righteous administration of the government, impartial equity between man and man, public countenance given to religion, the general practice and profession of virtue, the protecting and preserving of virtuous men, charity and compassion to strangers (alms are sometimes called righteousness), these exalt a nation; they uphold the throne, elevate the people's minds, and qualify a nation for the favour of God, which will make them high, as a holy nation, Deu 26:19. 2. Vice, reigning in a nation, puts disgrace upon it: Sin is a reproach to any city or kingdom, and renders them despicable among their neighbours. The people of Israel were often instances of both parts of this observation; they were great when they were good, but when they forsook God all about them insulted them and trampled on them. It is therefore the interest and duty of princes to use their power for the suppression of vice and support of virtue.”
Source
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“Miserable. This sentence ought to be engraven in all public places. Hebrew, “and mercy the sinful people,” whom God spares on account of their alms-deeds, (Daniel iv. 24.) or “sin is the shame of peoples.” (Calmet) — Montanus renders chesed mercy, and Pagnin “ignominy.” The former is scarcely intelligible, et misericordia populorum peccatum, unless sin be here taken for a sin-offering, (Haydock) as it is by Vatable, Grotius, &c. (Calmet)”
Source
1871
A.D.
1871
“Righteousness--just principles and actions. exalteth--raises to honor. is a reproach--brings on them the ill-will of others (compare Pro 13:6).”
1875
A.D.
Keil & Delitzsch Lutheran
1861–1875
“Two proverbs follow regarding the state and its ruler: 34 Righteousness exalteth a nation, And sin is a disgrace to the people. The Hebr. language is richer in synonyms of "the people" than the German. גּוי (formed like the non-bibl. מוי, water, and נוי, corporealness, from גּוה, to extend itself from within outward; cf. Pro 9:3, גּפּי, Pro 10:13, גּו) is, according to the usus loq., like natio the people, as a mass swollen up from a common origin, and עם, 28a (from עמם, to bind), the people as a confederation held together by a common law; לאם (from לאם, to unite, bind together) is the mass (multitude) of the people, and is interchanged sometimes with גוי, Gen 25:23, and sometimes with עם, Pro 14:28. In this proverb, לאמּים stands indeed intentionally in the plur., but not גוי, with the plur. of which גּוים, the idea of the non-Israelitish nations, too easily connects itself. The proverb means all nations without distinction, even Israel (cf. under Isa 1:4) not excluded. History everywhere confirms the principle, that not the numerical, nor the warlike, nor the political, nor yet the intellectual and the so-called civilized greatness, is the true greatness of a nation, and determines the condition of its future as one of progress; but this is its true greatness, that in its private, public, and international life, צדקה, i.e., conduct directed by the will of God, according to the norm of moral rectitude, rules and prevails. Righteousness, good manners, and piety are the things which secure to a nation a place of honour, while, on the contrary, חטּאת, sin, viz., prevailing, and more favoured and fostered than contended against in the consciousness of the moral problem of the state, is a disgrace to the people, i.e., it lowers them before God, and also before men who do not judge superficially or perversely, and also actually brings them down. רומם, to raise up, is to be understood after Isa 1:2, cf. Pro 23:4, and is to be punctuated תּרומם, with Munach of the penult., and the העמדה-sign with the Tsere of the last syllable. Ben-Naphtali punctuates thus: תּרומם. In 34b all the artifices of interpretation (from Nachmani to Schultens) are to be rejected, which interpret חסד as the Venet. (ἔλεος δὲ λαῶν ἁμαρτία) in its predominant Hebrew signification. It has here, as at Lev 20:17 (but not Job 6:14), the signification of the Syr. chesdho, opprobrium; the Targ. חסדּא, or more frequently חסּוּדא, as among Jewish interpreters, is recognised by Chanan'el and Rashbam. That this חסד is not foreign to the Mishle style, is seen from the fact that חסּד, Pro 25:10, is used in the sense of the Syr. chasedh. The synon. Syr. chasam, invidere, obtrectare, shows that these verbal stems are formed from the R. הס, stringere, to strike. Already it is in some measure perceived how חסד, Syr. chasadh, Arab. hasada, may acquire the meaning of violent love, and by the mediation of the jealousy which is connected with violent love, the signification of grudging, and thus of reproach and of envy; yet this is more manifest if one thinks of the root-signification stringere, in the meaning of loving, as referred to the subject, in the meanings of disgrace and envy, as from the subject directed to others. Ewald (51c) compares חסל and חסר, Ethiop. chasra, in the sense of carpere, and on the other side חסה in the sense of "to join;" but חסה does not mean to join (vid., Psa 2:12) and instead of carpere, the idea more closely connected with the root is that of stringere, cf. stringere folia ex arboribus (Caesar), and stringere (to diminish, to squander, strip) rem ingluvie (Horace, Sat. i. 2. 8). The lxx has here read חסר (Pro 28:22), diminution, decay, instead of חסד (shame); the quid pro quo is not bad, the Syr. accepts it, and the miseros facit of Jerome, and Luther's verderben (destruction) corresponds with this phrase better than with the common traditional reading which Symmachus rightly renders by ὄνειδος.”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.