Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Prov. 30:19

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Prov. 30:19
  • Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:24:20 -0700

On 06/10/2003 16:01, Karl Randolph wrote:

Dear Rodney:
I am a little surprised at the response I am getting from this thread.
To start out, I have never been able to make heads or tails out of this verse. What sort of road does a man have in a virgin? The moment of a physical entrance of a man in knowing a woman, she is no longer a virgin. Therefore, we cannot be talking about the physical action. But if we are not talking about a physical action, how does the man remain the subject? Is not the subject then really the virgin's hopes, expectations and dreams?
Two answers to this one. One is that `alma does not mean strictly a virgin in the medical sense, rather a young unmarried woman who was generally assumed to be a virgin. See any discussion of Isaiah 7:14. The other is that according to your argument no one can ever be accused of "deflowering" or raping a virgin because she is no longer a virgin after the act - but that is no defence as what matters is that she was one before the act. And a third one: we may not be talking about the sex act itself, but rather about the man's active part in winning the girl's attention and affection. The suggestion that this is about "the virgin's hopes, expectations and dreams" doesn't really fit with the male-dominated world of Proverbs.


I proposed that a different definition for (LMH consistent with the unpointed text and grammar would give a reading consistant with the parallelism of the rest of the verse.
As I understand the response, it is that one cannot go against 2000 years of
tradition. ...

I think this shows that you have totally misunderstood the response. References to older versions etc have been meant to show you that there is no evidence at all for your understanding of the word and so it must be totally speculative. You can reject tradition if you like, but you need something to put in its place if you are to read the Hebrew Bible itself. You can't just say that each word means what you want it to mean or what you think fits the context best. I suppose you could try to decipher the text from first principles without reference to dictionaries or older translations, but I don't think you'll succeed - Champollion relied on an ancient translation when he deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ventris on his knowledge of Greek when he deciphered Linear B. So in one way or another you are dependent on tradition.


... Why not? After all, the LXX, which predates the 2000 year old tradition, has a different reading. If my proposed definition is wrong, and it could be, why not consider the LXX translation? It also fits the grammar, parallelism and unpointed text. Yes, I know there are problems with the LXX, but why not at least hear them out on this verse? ...

The LXX reading is certainly worth considering, but I would reject it because it offers no real parallel to sky, rock and sea, whereas the understanding as young woman offers an excellent parallel and makes this into a very vivid image. I just can't understand why you persistently reject this image. Do you perhaps have problems with the idea that there might be sexually explicit language in a holy book? Well, whether you like it or not there is, and much more so than this passage.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page