[b-hebrew] Pr. 1:6; riddles

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 11:42:51 EDT 2009


On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Gerry Folbre <gfolbreiii at gmail.com> wrote:

> Karl:
>  I am not rendering Pr. 1:6 where I wrote "in".  I am asking you or anyone
> else who may be interested to please provide an example of a "riddle"
> and/or
> "didactic question" that "the wise" are using *within *one or more of their
> "words" and/or "expressions".  The question still stands.

Just read the “Book of Rules” and the rest of Tanakh where you’ll find
several examples. Just one, for example, Proverbs 23:29, answered in verse

> If you read directly above that particular use of the word "in" you will
> see
> that I wrote the rendering correctly:
> Gerry wrote: "That was the question.  Pr. 1:6 concludes, 'the expressions
> of
> the wise and
> > their didactic questions'."
> That it is not a "riddle" is your personal opinion, not a fact.  You also
> seem to be totally ignoring that Pr. 1:6 most likely pertains to the Book
> or
> Proverbs {משׁלי).  I don't see how ignoring context and Lexicographic
> renderings is going to help anyone comprehend a משׁל or a מליצה.
> First of all, I *wrote* a “lexicon” from Biblical Hebrew to English. It
started as notes in the margins of the lexicons I had because their
renderings did not fit the contexts I read. To be fair, only a small number
of words do I have a radically different meaning than, for example, BDB. So
for you to accuse me of ignoring context ...........

Like Randall, I think you are going into the area of etymological error,
which also affects translations. In other words, words change meanings. Just
because the LXX rendered משל as παροιμια (figure of speech) does not mean
that that’s what Solomon intended centuries earlier. From the contexts of
how משל is used in Tanakh, the LXX is wrong. Is this an example of poor
translation, or of how words change meanings (in this case, I think more
likely the latter)?

We can give several examples: the KJV rendered חסר as “want” which was
accurate four centuries ago. But today, except for a rare and deliberate
archaism, it is no longer used that way. Or to give an example from Greek,
while the English word “mystery” comes from the Greek μυστεριον, somehow
over time it has acquired almost the opposite meaning: in Greek it meant
“revelation”, which was a mystery (English meaning) to those who did not get
the revelation. Unexamined tradition can lead to etymological errors. Are
you doing that? I think so.

> Gerry Folbre

Karl W. Randolph.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list