Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Re:morpho-syntax, was Proverbs 5:16 - a declaration or a question ?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Re:morpho-syntax, was Proverbs 5:16 - a declaration or a question ?
  • Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:03:39 -0500

Hi Steven,

I would like to make a lateral move in the thread. I find your thread review interesting in what it leaves out from my own contribution. Here's a quote from my earlier response to your query:

"Not only does v. 16 not have any sign of a question, as George mentioned, it
also features a clause-initial yiqtol form, which I think is highly unusual
in an unmarked question, particularly in a question that is not parallel
with a question. Neither does a clause-initial yiqtol favor indicative
mood. The vast majority of clause-initial yiqtols are volitional,
preferring the "may" or "let" translation like the KJV uses. I think
context would have to be definite before we would prefer the interpretation
of v. 16 as a question. I will let you decide if you think it is "definite
enough."

I think the above comment could be the key to understanding the proverb, but I understand how such a comment can be overlooked. The comment just does not register sometimes. Many students of BH have not been trained to pay attention to the position of a finite verb within its clause and the significance of word order. However, I believe that the ancients were very sensitive to this syntactical feature, and I suspect it is at least partly responsible for the likes of Rashi who interpreted Pro 5:16 as expressing the hope that one's disciples would increase.

(I personally find that the context in Pro 5:15ff. is not sufficient to over-ride the syntax in v. 16. I believe v. 16 expresses hope: "may your fountains break forth streetwards, your irrigation canals into the plazas." I do not find v. 17 to contradict. I understand that if the addressee is promiscuous, his issue would emerge from sources that are not his alone. But v. 16 refers to *his* fountains and *his* canals. palgey mayim, in particular, is not an image of unrestrained gushing forth such as the profligate man would produce. In particular, palgey mayim are irrrigation ditches that are located carefully and through which the flow of water is regulated.)

Lack of training in appreciation of syntax is also understandable because we have yet to see a comprehensive explanation of the function of morpho-syntax in poetry, which by the way, I personally believe is basically the same as it is in prose.

Shalom,
Bryan

You wrote:

Thread review:

Maurice mentioned the "HOTTP = Hebrew Old Testament Text Project,
which cordially allows both possibilities,
Yigal gave a short voice for the declarative,
George gave the Genesius reference, allowing but not insisting on the interrogatory
Harold gave arguments for the interrogatory, and analyzed detail thereof.
Karl gave a rather unusual suggestion (which I am taking the liberty of considering a bit afield).
Notable basic quote - "There is no grammatical indication that this is a question."
Peter weighed in with Karl's suggestion
Bryan also, with the significant
"leaving the MT as is and wrestling with whether Pro 5:16 is a question or a hope."

One reason I will bypass Karl's suggestion is that I consider the Masoretic vowels as part of the Received Text, not arbitrary or guesswork.

Now let's continue <whew>,

While much as been addressed, originally there were some points that really were not addressed,

Original question posts
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2004-December/021849.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2004-December/021851.html

Which I will re-phrase here.

A) Numerous Hebraic commentators, as mentioned by John Gill, see the verse 16 and 18 as
related to children/descendents or disciples. Afaik, these men were not slow to see
sexual themes, yet they saw a different type of parallelism here, with waters being used
in two different way. This seems to be fundamental to making comfortable the interpretation
of the declarative and yet nobody commented on these ideas.

B) Accepting "A" then seems to lead to a very nice parallelism of verses 15 and 16
to 17 and 18, which would eliminate any supposed difficulties in the text.
(Which magnifies the importance of the reasonableness of "A")
Am I the only one who sees or is concerned with such parallelism ?

Thanks to all for your help on this thread and the Isaiah 9:6 one as well,
as the secular calendar year draws to a close.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/


B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page