"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.)
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.