Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

> Harold:
>
> I think I see what you claim. In other words, 
> this is a question in the form of a statement, 
> also often done in English, in this case 
> expecting a negative answer. If that is your 
> interpretation, would not the best translation 
> be, “And the people said unto Samuel, ‘Who is he 
> who said, ‘Saul will be king over us?’?’ Allow 
> us that we may cause him to die.”. In this case, 
> that the second half of the question is 
> understood as a question in itself, is not a 
> grammatical feature, but a stylistic use of a 
> statement to carry the idea of a question. Is 
> that what you mean?

HH: No, it is not what I meant. The opponents of 
Saul originally asked a question:

1Sam. 10:27 But some troublemakers said,  "How 
can this fellow save us?" They despised him and 
brought him no gifts. But Saul kept silent.

HH: After Saul wins a victory over the Ammonites 
(1 Sam 11:1-11), the people think back to what 
these troublemakers said and despise them for 
saying it. They ask Samuel the identity of these 
men, quoting the substance or thrust of the 
original question in a slightly different form, 
perhaps giving the implication of the original 
words ("How can this fellow save us?"). So they 
say to Samuel: "Who is the one who said, 'Should 
Saul reign over us?' Bring the men so that we may 
kill them."

It is the words "Should Saul reign over us?" that 
are an unmarked question in Hebrew. They are to 
be read as a question. The question "Should Saul 
reign over us?" was a restatement in slightly 
different terms of the original question "How can 
this fellow save us?" We know that biblical 
narrative is often condensed, and it may be that 
the troublemakers originally asked both 
questions. And any rate, the quotation by the 
people corresponds to the original questioning of 
the troublemakers.

> Even if I understand correctly your meaning for 
> 1 Samuel 11:12, I don’t see the connection 
> between that and Proverbs 5:16. There are other 
> questions that you haven’t addressed.

HH: The example shows that the imperfect verb can 
be used in unmarked questions in Hebrew. Bryan 
was saying that the imperfect verb is not clause 
initial in 1 Sam 11:12 as in Prov 5:16. I realize 
that but do not know that this distinction 
disallows the possibility of an unmarked 
rhetorical question in Prov 5:16. I say this 
because my observation of unmarked questions is 
that they are unmarked. It is the context that 
requires one read them as questions. So I would 
not expect that any particular marking would have 
to be present, such as a subject first word 
order, which is what Bryan seemed to be requiring 
with use of the imperfect. He is right that a 
subject-first word order is present in some 
otherwise unmarked questions.

                                Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard