Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Bekins <pbekins AT fuse.net>]

Karl:

>>The backwards gap is problematical because
>>there is no other example where it can be clearly demonstrated,  
nor is
>>there any example (known to me) with a gap going from a negation to a
>>positive.

Hey, I thought you were giving me a few days. You can't start  
pronouncing it dead yet! O'Connor's thesis worked from selected  
poetic texts, just because he only came across two really bad  
examples doesn't mean that there wasn't any backwards gapping.

Here is the best backwards gapping I have found so far:

Song 4:8
‏ אִתִּ֤י מִלְּבָנוֹן֙ כַּלָּ֔ה
 אִתִּ֖י מִלְּבָנ֣וֹן תָּב֑וֹאִי‎

"with me from Lebanon O Bride,
with me from Lebanon come"

Ps 94:3
‏עַד־מָתַ֖י רְשָׁעִ֥ים ׀ יְהוָ֑ה
 עַד־מָ֝תַ֗י רְשָׁעִ֥ים יַעֲלֹֽזוּ׃‎

"until when the wicked, O Lord,
until when the wicked, will they exult?"

Now, I already know what you are thinking. Sure, that's "backwards  
gapping" but the other two units of meaning were repeated verbatim.  
In Prov 13:1 we have both a subject and an object that change. Fair  
enough, I will keep looking for better examples. But, these examples  
do demonstrate the basic idea that the verb can be omitted from the  
first colon and supplied from the second colon.

And of course there is the negative thing. Technically, the verb is $M 
(, the negation follows the contrast between the BN XKM and the LC.  
What, you're not going to give me that? Well, I'll see if I can at  
least get you to consider it and I will keep working on a stronger  
argument.

JCR wrote:
>>For what it's worth I just thought I'd through the LXX
>>tradition into the debate

You can't use the LXX for Proverbs, its a total mess. However, the  
Targum to Proverbs (which follows the Syriac, and does not represent  
Rabbinical tradition) reads:

‏ ברא חכימא מקבל מרדותא דאבא וברא  
ממיקנא לא מקבל בעתא‎
a wise son receives the disciple of a father,
but the scornful son does not receive rebuke

You can see that the Syriac obviously reads the verb as gapped back  
into the first clause, and that they take the LC as a scornful son,  
seeing a direct parallel to the son from the first clause. I am  
guessing that Karl will not admit this as evidence since he does not  
use translations. I still feel that in context it is most natural to  
see the wise son as someone who listens to rebuke rather then someone  
who understands it (BTW do you have a son Karl? I am more than happy  
just to have mine pay attention!)

Slowly reading through Proverbs,
Peter Bekins