|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Mar 15, 2015 23:21:41 GMT -6
Still ongoing research certainly! The target seems to move the more I aim, perhaps adding credence to your point that it is not wise to build strong opinions on poetical works. I agree that it would be great to find other examples of the "poetical" use of the pronoun as a "bridge." I admit I haven't gone down that path yet. Jastrow does not speak about a collective, but interestingly, he does write with regard to Psalm 139, "read גולמים" without any explanation, evidently meaning that he considers the singular form to be a corruption. You can find his dictionary here (http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow/). Here's the text of the Psalm Scroll (https://archive.org/stream/TheBiblicalQumranScrolls/61301866-The-Biblical-Qumran-Scrolls-Eugene-Charles-Ulrich#page/n733/mode/1up). Yes, the translation of the Scroll is not my own. I decided also this week to contact four Hebrew scholars/colleagues to ask for their translations. Three are liberal. One is conservative, and he is the only one who has not yet responded. Thus far all three give no credence to the use of a collective for "embryo." All three likewise argue that the pronoun modifies days, based on context. Two deny any intimation of predestination: the first renders it "days of formation," the second "days of gestation." The third believes that it speaks clearly of predestination, though I am quite certain that he does not hold to predestination. I'm still hoping to hear back from my conservative friend to hear what he has to say. Whew!
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Mar 16, 2015 10:06:30 GMT -6
Great Stuff, my Brother! Thanks for the links!
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Mar 22, 2015 22:37:45 GMT -6
Brian, The more I research the more I feel confident with my initial translation. But certainly one must be careful not to build theological towers on poetical foundations. In any event I wrote a Hebrew professor who I've learned quite a bit from over the years. He replied with the following: In almost any language (maybe all) most pronominal references are going to point backward to something already mentioned but cataphoric references do exist, especially in poetry. In this verse I would say that the evidence favours a cataphoric reference (pointing forward to days) for the following reasons: - it makes more sense contextually, - the anaphoric references does not match in number. If you want to take embryo as a collective it would require some evidence other than the pronominal reference here which would be circular reasoning. "Embryo" here is a hapax legomenon so I don't know if there is much to go on. - the cataphoric reference is not a distant one; it's only two words later. - the argument from silence that one can't find any other cataphoric pronominal suffix references is weak, because cataphoric references are rare to begin with and we have a limited corpus with the Hebrew Bible. "since cataphoric references are relatively rare..." books.google.ca/books?id=qyF0fHr2_3cC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=cataphoric +pronouns+in+hebrew&source=bl&ots=CXEYnOlB1e&sig=-DK9PyIl3Sr05PiDoJrrN4CeZUk&a mp;hl=en&sa=X&ei=iFQPVZvMOqXIsATJgoHoDA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cataph oric%20pronouns%20in%20hebrew&f=false |
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Mar 23, 2015 11:59:14 GMT -6
Thanks Daniel for your continued work. I love learning new grammatical terms. I hope, even with my old age, that I can hang on to this term in my memory for future use to impress my students! :-) I do think we will need to find one other example from the OT before I adopt this verse as an example of cataphora. Recently I also was wondering if the antecedent might even go back earlier to verse 15, and the word עֹצֶם , though, if it does, I am still in the same bind, viewing that word as a collective noun (bones) though I have not been able to find enough proof to show it as a collective noun either.
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Mar 23, 2015 15:02:08 GMT -6
I'll see what I can find.
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Apr 7, 2015 10:22:40 GMT -6
Haven't found any cataphora that are similar to Psalm 139, but I've not searched extensively. Been sidetracked lately by taxes in my spare time. Not sure I will find anything since I know you've looked too. In the end we will likely have to decide what weight to give to a possible cataphoric reference vs. the need for harmonizing the numbers (singular and plural).
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Oct 30, 2015 11:46:53 GMT -6
Hey Daniel, I had this discussion on another site with a friend and he pointed to Isaiah 56:10 as an example of cataphora that he could find. He did point out that there is not the same verb problems however that Psalm 139:16 has, with one verb in between the pronoun and its referent and one verb after the referent. Also found was Lev 25:33. Though it is a little bit of a stretch as an example of cataphora, for it seems similar to a predicate nominative construction “it is their possession”. But I guess you could say it is an example of cataphora since the pronoun comes before the noun that it is referring to.
K&D tried to point to Isaiah 43:14 as an example, in there discussion of Ps 139:16, especially since it used the “all of them” combination. But in that verse there is a conjunction before the noun that is supposed to be the referent being pointed forward to. There is also a plural substantival adjective with a preposition, “among the ones fleeing”, immediately before this pronoun phrase “all of them” that could easily work as its antecedent, and also the composite noun – Babylon, as the subject of the sentence, could also be the antecedent. NKJV “…For your sake I will send to Babylon, And bring them all down as fugitives– The Chaldeans, who rejoice in their ships.” It is interesting that this verse also has a funny last phrase, like Ps 139:16, without a main verb! I personally think “with cries of anguish” fits better than “who rejoice” here is Is 43:14. :-)
|
|
