Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bill Ross" <wross AT farmerstel.com>]

<Bill>
Hi, perhaps someone can help clarify this?

What is the usage of /qananiy/ in Proverbs 8:22?

Is /qananiy/ in any way related to/derived from /bara/?

Many thanks in advance,

Bill Ross



><Glen>
>To be fair, there is at least anecdotal evidence of the word in question
>being used in reference to a kind of creative idea.  The word in question
is
>/qananiy/ which is basically /qanah/ with the
>/-y, -niy/ pronomial (masculine first person singular) ending.  It is
>a Qal qatal (active perfect) verb.
>
>This word is certainly not related to /bara/ at all.
>
><Bill>
>>From the "Theological Wordbook of the OT" (Moody Press) Vol 2 page 803:
>
>"These radicals involve three (KB,) not two (BDB) rrots. In qana we discern
>one root denoting a commercial financial acquisitino of moveable goods
>(except in some uses in Prov where wisdom is to be acquired: 4:5, 7, etc),
>and another root denoting "creation" by God (bara). For the third root,
>see..."
>
>So yes, actually, it is related to bara ("create" as in "When God began to
>create the heavens and the
>earth...".

Hmmm, I don't have a copy of the Theological Wordbook, and while I
have historically been quite neutral about it's use, reading this I
am concerned.  I will have to go to the Library tomorrow and have a
look at it.

The main problem with the above, is that /qanah/ is the word in
question, and /qanah/ is itself a primitive root consisting of the
radicals /qof nun he/.

A primitive root will not have a root in Hebrew lexography.  Perhaps
the etymology of a primitive can be tracked down in the earlier
Phoenician or the even earlier Proto-Sianatic languages, but you
simply will not find the root of a primitive root in the Biblical
Hebrew lexicon.

Nevertheless, let's look at the roots you chose for /qanah/ in the
prior message:

/qana/ - to be jealous, envious  /qof nun aleph/
/bara/ - to create  /beth resh aleph/

Now while acquiring wealth might create jealousy, that's where the
similarities end.  I surely do not see a participial connection nor a
radical interspersion which is common amongst late roots (as opposed
to primitive roots) and only late roots will have their roots within
the biblical lexicon.

Now, I can see that it might just be possible for these words to come
from a common root in Phoenician or Proto-Sianatic, since all three
of these words are themselves primitive roots, and while a late root
certainly has heavy theological bearing on our understanding, how
much theology can really be drawn from an alleged common
lexigraphical ancestor from before the time of Abraham?  (and for
early Phoenician and Proto-Sianatic there can only be allegation
since there is not the weight of textural evidence)

Certain things are indisputable here.  First, /qanah/ is a primitive
root, and bears none of the earmarks of a late root.  Second, because
/qanah/ is a primitive root, while there may be other words in the
biblical lexicon which share a common ancestor from predecendent
languages, there can be no word in the biblical lexicon that is,
itself, a root of /qanah/, otherwise it would be a late root.

Therefore, given only the information you quote above, I must
respectfully disagree with the Wordbook.  On the other hand, it's
possible that the Wordbook from within the context of the passage you
quoted, speaks to the origins of these primitives from a common
predecendent lexicon.  Without a copy of the text, I simply cannot
know, and will not know until I go to the Seminary library tomorrow
and look it up.

But the point remains that without the annotation of a common
predecendency, these words cannot be related, since they are all
primitive triradical roots.  Therefore, given only the information
you quoted, I must respectfully disagree with the Wordbook in this
case.

><Glen>
>There are only 4 other passages where /qanah/ could potentially denote a
>creative idea...But the vast vast majority of uses of /qanah/ denote a kind
>of purchasing or redeeming or possessing, not only by translation but
>clearly by context....Therefore, we see that not only is the use of /qanah/
>almost
>universally connected to an idea of purchasing, acquiring, or possessing,
>but in the few instances where it might possibly connote an idea of
>creation, it is only inferred by the most vague of
>inferences.
>
><Bill>
>While I do appreciate the legitimacy of showing that Proverbs did use qana
>in the sense of "acquiring" I find that context compels me to accept the
>usage of "create" since:
>
>* as you pointed out, this is God we're talking about. Where does God shop
>for his wisdom?
>* the context clearly describes graphically God "bringing forth" Sophia:
>
>22  The LORD possessed /qana/ me in the beginning of his way [the first of
>his works], before his works of old.
>23  I was **set up** from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the
earth
>was.
>24  When there were no depths, I was **brought forth**; when there were no
>fountains abounding with water.
>25  Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I **brought
>forth**:

But again, there is a distinction between a creative idea and an
expressive idea.  Granted, the distinction becomes extremely fine and
minute when taken to the extreme, and at that extreme, it can
legitimately be argued that a person who 'expresses' poetry is in
fact 'creating' that poetry.

Nevertheless, there remains a distinction even if it is an extremely
fine distinction.  I imagine that such a discussion would be heavily
philosophical, and that a discussion on the distinction between a
creative connotation and an expressive connotation would quickly wind
up laden with notions such as the Platonic 'form.'

But if we were to equate this /chokmah/ with /logos/ then I think
that will be extraordinarily difficult to do.

I, like Alex, do not hang Trinitarianism on this passage in any way.
Therefore, I am really not bothered with whether the understanding
here is one of creating, purchasing, possessing, or acquiring.

To my ideological framework, in this passage it's quite irrelevant to
the nature of the Godhead.

Nevertheless, I really do not see a creative connotation involved in
Proverbs 8:22.

><Glen>
>Further, Solomon does not seem to have been familiar with the creative
>connotation of /qanah/ at all when we look at every single instance of his
>using in the scriptures, the nearest thing to a creative idea coming from
>Proverbs 15:32.
>
><Bill>
>Glen, I commend you for approaching this question with more legitimate data
>than in our previous discussions. However, the TWOT confirms my assertion
>that /qana/ is derived from /bara/ and the context demands this reading.
>
>By the way, you did not respond. Were you wrong or not about the
>transalation "to forever from forever?"
>And how is being corrected for supplying misinformation (never mind
>interpretation) "suffering for Jesus?"

No, I was not wrong about that, and I was under the impression that I
had made it abundantly clear that I was through discussing the Greek
New Testament with you.  All the points which needed to be
established were clearly established, and any further argumentation
was detrimental and counterproductive.  Therefore, that discussion is
finished.  The jury will decide for themselves.

And as far as the Wordbook goes, I addressed that above.  Unless the
context from the passage you quoted delineates a common root from a
predecendent language, then in this case the Wordbook is wrong.
/qnh/ and /qna/ and /bra/ are all primitive roots, and therefore
cannot have their roots within the Biblical lexicon.

That is the very definition of a primitive root.

Shalom!
Glen

--
          kol-l'kabawd Yehavah Adonai
                            Shalom!
              Glen Allen Bradley
   ( the pŸalmsmith in the valley of peace )

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
christian-philosophy-unsubscribe AT egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.