Sunday, January 03, 2016

Proverbs 2:3-5 (NET Bible Notes)

2:3 indeed, if 10 you call out for 11 discernment 12 – raise your voice 13 for understanding –

2:4 if 14 you seek 15 it like silver,16 and search for it 17 like hidden treasure,

2:5 then you will understand 18 how to fear the Lord,19 and you will discover 20 knowledge 21 about God. 22


Notes 18-22

18 tn The verb בִּין (bin, “to perceive; to understand; to discern”) refers to ability to grasp, discern or be sensitive to what it means to fear the Lord.

19 tn Heb “the fear of the Lord.” The noun is an objective genitive; the Lord is to be the object of fear and reverence.

20 tn Heb “find” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV).

21 tn The term דַּעַת (da’at, “knowledge”) goes beyond cognition; it is often used metonymically (cause) for obedience (effect); see, e.g., Prov 3:6, “in all your ways acknowledge him,” and BDB 395 s.v. This means that the disciple will follow God’s moral code; for to know God is to react ethically and spiritually to his will (e.g., J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 18).

22 tn Heb “knowledge of God.” The noun is an objective genitive.


Duncan said..."understood+as+an+objective+genitive"+ancient+egyptian&source=bl&ots=YUEBaz24pO&sig=m02Xv4H-ZcQnIryQe1tAiDKZCV8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm-b_Rl5HKAhXDrxoKHYIMBw0Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%22understood%20as%20an%20objective%20genitive%22%20ancient%20egyptian&f=false

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks for the links. The first one agrees with NET that we have an objective genitive in Prov 2:5.

The second and the first link both allow for understanding expressions like "the fear of X" as a fear directed toward X. Ultimately, context is likely the determinant. An oft-used example (which appears in the second link you provided) is the "love of God," an expression that refer to God's love for us or it can reference our love for God.

The third link has good reminders from Wallace, but I'm not sure how it pertains to the OP. I didn't see much to disagree with Wallace there.



Duncan said...

In the second link note the quote at the bottom of page 407 as a no Egyptian example, and the preceding paragraph indicating that middle through late Egyptian probably have different understandings of the same sentence.

The third link is focused on this point:-

"There are other ‘fallacies’ which themselves are fallacious, however. Below are enumerated three of these:

a word has no meaning apart from context;

diachronics are not helpful; instead one must focus entirely on synchronics;

etymology is always worthless."

When it comes to Egyptian terms we have a more reliable source for diachronics & an example that construct style states were not constant over time.

Bringing us full circle to our discussion of Isaiah 9:6 and context controlling (or not) the meaning of words & how the construct state should be applied.

If one has a single word in a sentence of questionable understanding but the rest of the sentence is quite solid then context can help in our understanding. In many Hebrew sentences the whole structure is quite fluid and can have a range of reasonable meanings in entirety. Here we have to attempt the dubious use of diachrony as demonstrated here:-

The world of the LXX translation is not really helpful as LXX Isaiah translation style is quite removed from Torah.

So I am not disputing that objective genitive exist in a certain time frame but is that time frame applicable to the text under analysis?

Duncan said...

Not certain on all the implications of this and it's relationship to Semitic languages in general but Arabic is being used quite frequently for research purposes:-

"Syntactic Comparison
The major syntactic difference between English and Arabic genitive constructions is in word order. In the former the modifying noun precedes the head noun, whereas in the latter the head noun precedes the modifying noun. Although advancement and postposition are allowed in Arabic, this does not apply to genitive constructions. That is why (Al-Suyuti, Ham9:/ assures, 'the modifying noun is not permitted to pre-modify the head noun and neither is the agent of the modifying noun.'"

Duncan said...

footnote 6 on pg 33