Proverbs 23:7

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by SteveMiller »

Thanks Isaac! What resource gives you that kind of info?
kwrandolph wrote:
My first reaction was, how did you get “calculated” here? Then I see you got it as a happax legomenon from a dictionary.
correct
kwrandolph wrote:From where did the dictionary get that meaning?
Isaac gave a good answer.
kwrandolph wrote: I tend to distrust happax meanings when there is another meaning used more than once and already recognized.
I do also.
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:I don't think "gate" makes sense here.
And why not?

Look at the action. What is the purpose of a gate, in particular the city gate of a fortified city? So look at the actions of this not so friendly person—he offers food and drink, but his heart is not with you. Is that action not like a gate, shut to keep you out even as he offers food and drink? Isn’t that action repeated in the closing phrase of the verse “without his heart being with you”?
"gate" is used symbolically rather often in the Bible, but I am not aware of it having the symbolic meaning that you are giving it.
I think what Isaac said, that shaar mainly means the opening, is true.
There is no need for the author to be so mysterious or complicated to understand.
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:Also, I think כֶּ֫ן should go with כְּמוֹ as in Isa 26:17.
It does. In both verses כֶּ֫ן introduces the next clause.
I was not clear. What I mean is that the cmo and kaan go together like caasher and kaan, which is more common: As xxxxxx, so xxxxxx.
As xxxx in his soul, so he is.
Your translation does not have "so he is", but "so 'eat and drink' he will say...
You are taking the ה֥וּא which follows the kaan, and putting it before the kaan and giving it the meaning "very". But the kaan starts the "so" part of the simile, so I don't think you can take a word following the kaan and move it to the previous clause.
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:A weakness for this translation is that שָׁעַ֥ר never has this meaning elsewhere, but I don't see another that makes sense.
As a noun, it has the meaning of "measure" in Gen 26:12.
How do you get that שער “never has this meaning elsewhere”? I estimate around 300 other verses.
I agree with you. What I meant to say was "a weakness for translating shaar as calculate".
kwrandolph wrote:Is there a DSS reading for Gen. 26:12? Does it differ? Are there not other verses where the measurement is assumed when talking about grains? I seem to remember that there are verses like that, but I don’t remember where. I read this verse as 100 measures of barley.
No DSS for Gen 26:12. Samaritan Penteteuch matches the MT.
Yes, you have a good Hebrew memory! Ruth 3:15, 17; cf 2Chron 27:5
2Kings 7:1, 18 are interesting because they have shaar as both barley and as gate in the same verse.
It does appear that Gen 26:12 would be better translated as 100 measures of barley.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by S_Walch »

SteveMiller wrote:S_Walch,
I would prefer the idea of a storm too, but I can't make a sentence out of it that makes sense. Can you?
Well, to further on your discussion with Karl on how to take the כן הוא, I personally would translate the verse as "For like a storm within his soul, so "eat and drink" he will say to you, but his heart won't be with you."

I'm of course reading the verse as:
1. כי כמו שער בנפשו
2. כן הוא אכול ושתה יאמר לך
3. ולבו בל עמך

The issue is whether to take כן הוא as an end to 1., or as I (and I believe Karl) take it as the beginning of 2.

However personally, I believe we have a corrupt Hebrew text in Prov 23:7-8. The LXX makes a heck of a lot more sense to me, which is quite possibly a translation of a different Hebrew version compared to that which we've been handed down by the Masorites.

Plus oddly enough, taking כן הוא to be with 2. instead of 1. is how the LXX translator seems to have taken the Hebrew (or his underlying Hebrew version read), translating כן as ουτως/in this way/so.
Also, forum rules require that you sign your posts with your first and last name at least. Put it into your signature, and it will happen automatically.
Done. Sorry for not doing so earlier :)
Ste Walch
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by kwrandolph »

SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:I don't think "gate" makes sense here.
And why not?

Look at the action. What is the purpose of a gate, in particular the city gate of a fortified city? So look at the actions of this not so friendly person—he offers food and drink, but his heart is not with you. Is that action not like a gate, shut to keep you out even as he offers food and drink? Isn’t that action repeated in the closing phrase of the verse “without his heart being with you”?
"gate" is used symbolically rather often in the Bible, but I am not aware of it having the symbolic meaning that you are giving it.
I think what Isaac said, that shaar mainly means the opening, is true.
In the Bible and archaeology we find that the gates were the strongest fortifications in the wall around a city. But a city gate was made up of several parts—the leaves of the door, the hinges and the posts that held the hinges, and the fortification surrounding the door, it was not just the opening. As such it could be mentioned that the “gates were locked” Joshua 2:5, 7, Isaiah 45:1, 60:11, Ezekiel 46:2, 11, Nehemiah 13:19. There’s also talking about “opening the gates” Isaiah 60:11, Psalm 118:19.

Likewise, the “gate” of the curtain surrounding the enclosure within which was found the tent of meeting was the most impressive part of the curtain, and it included not only the opening, but also the covering, its poles and bases. Exodus 27:16, 35:17, 38:15, 31.

As for “opening”, the Hebrew word for that is פתח and is mentioned as the “opening of the gate” in Joshua 8:29, 20:4. Often “opening” is used for a particular type of opening, namely a doorway.

As for “door”, that word in Hebrew is דלת which refers to the physical object that separates two spaces. Both its etymology and shape of the oldest writing indicate it was used for a hanging in a tent that could be pulled aside to allow for opening and shutting between two spaces, but later it came to be applied also to wooden doors on hinges.

It’s good to be challenged on these, as in doing the research to see what is right, I learn as well. Thanks.
SteveMiller wrote:There is no need for the author to be so mysterious or complicated to understand.
This is poetry, and Biblical Hebrew poetry, just like English poetry, often is difficult to understand. There’s no need for the author “to be so mysterious or complicated to understand”, but often they’re more so than Solomon here.

It’s because poets often like to make allusions and round about ways of saying things that I never cared for poetry while growing up, and still prefer straight talk to poetry. But much of the Bible is poetry, even much of recorded conversation is in poetic style, so I have to deal with it.
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:Also, I think כֶּ֫ן should go with כְּמוֹ as in Isa 26:17.
It does. In both verses כֶּ֫ן introduces the next clause.
I was not clear. What I mean is that the cmo and kaan go together like caasher and kaan, which is more common: As xxxxxx, so xxxxxx.
As xxxx in his soul, so he is.
Your translation does not have "so he is", but "so 'eat and drink' he will say...
You are taking the ה֥וּא which follows the kaan, and putting it before the kaan and giving it the meaning "very". But the kaan starts the "so" part of the simile, so I don't think you can take a word following the kaan and move it to the previous clause.
The question here is, is כן-הוא אכול ושתה יאמר לך ולבו בל-עמך one phrase, or is it two phrases כן-הוא followed by אכול ושתה יאמר לך ולבו בל-עמך as a separate phrase? Grammatically, reading it as one phrase fits, as כמו xxxx followed by כן xxxx.
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Is there a DSS reading for Gen. 26:12? Does it differ? Are there not other verses where the measurement is assumed when talking about grains? I seem to remember that there are verses like that, but I don’t remember where. I read this verse as 100 measures of barley.
No DSS for Gen 26:12. Samaritan Penteteuch matches the MT.
Yes, you have a good Hebrew memory! Ruth 3:15, 17; cf 2Chron 27:5
2Kings 7:1, 18 are interesting because they have shaar as both barley and as gate in the same verse.
It does appear that Gen 26:12 would be better translated as 100 measures of barley.
I should remember at least a little, seeing how many times I’ve read it. This is the difference between those who believe and trust the message given by God, and those who merely study it as an academic subject: those who study it as an academic subject may read Tanakh once, maybe twice, if even once, while those who trust it read it over and over and over again.

Even so, I go to electronic searches and a concordance to double-check myself in these discussions.

Karl W. Randolph.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by Isaac Fried »

Another try. What if שער is 'frame, form'? Then
כי כמו שער בנפשו כן-הוא
would translate as
"As his soul is framed (formatted) so is he"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by Isaac Fried »

maybe even "delineate".
"The way his heart is delineated so is his behavior"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by SteveMiller »

Ste and Karl,
About the Hebrew text being corrupt: When we compare the MT to the DSS, I understand that there is a word for word correspondence, the only difference being letters within words, which can make for a different word. So the errors that you see in the MT are letter errors. If the LXX were the correct text here, then the MT text would be more in error than just in letters. We don't see that big of an error that I know of when MT is compared to DSS. LXX does have gross errors. So I give more credence to the MT here.

The LXX takes ה֥וּא as the subject of "eat and drink". That is fine. But the 2 of you are taking hoo and making it the subject of "say", skipping over "eat and drink". How can you do that? Why should the hoo even be there? In your translations it shouldn't be there. The "he" subject is included in the verb "say". There is no reason to make the "he" emphatic, nor to separate it from its verb by 2 other verbs. The only reason for hoo is to say, "so he is", ending the first part of the verse.

Karl,
Poetry says a lot in a few words. It says something deep by means of a picture. What would gate be saying? That he is closed to you? I don't see gate as meaning closed. But you right that gate refers to more than just the opening. And I don't see the idea of being closed as a deep idea that would justify such a hard to understand picture.
Also the idea is not that he is closed to you, but that he is being disingenuous to you, and from the previous verse, has an evil eye. Don't believe him. A gate is not disingenuous nor does it have an evil eye.

You have convinced me that "calculate" is not a correct translation.

How about:
For as rotten in his soul, so he is. Eat and drink he says to you, but his heart is not with you.
rotten comes from Jer 29:17 and has to do with not being edible. If you eat it, you'll vomit.
Jer 5:30; 23:14; 18:13; Hos 6:10 may be related.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by S_Walch »

SteveMiller wrote:About the Hebrew text being corrupt: When we compare the MT to the DSS, I understand that there is a word for word correspondence, the only difference being letters within words, which can make for a different word. So the errors that you see in the MT are letter errors. If the LXX were the correct text here, then the MT text would be more in error than just in letters. We don't see that big of an error that I know of when MT is compared to DSS. LXX does have gross errors. So I give more credence to the MT here.
Wherever you got this understanding from, it wasn't from someone who's compared the DSS and the MT. It isn't just a difference of plene and defective spelling. We're talking completely different words; added words; added sections; omitted sections; different book sizes (Jeremiah and Ezekiel); plus a whole host of other things.

If you don't have it already, I'd purchase a copy of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. There's more than enough evidence in that book to show that there isn't a word for word correspondence between the MT and the DSS. It will also point out the places where the DSS and the LXX agree against the MT as well.

The LXX shouldn't be dismissed so easily :)
How about:
For as rotten in his soul, so he is. Eat and drink he says to you, but his heart is not with you.
rotten comes from Jer 29:17 and has to do with not being edible. If you eat it, you'll vomit.
Jer 5:30; 23:14; 18:13; Hos 6:10 may be related.
Could possibly "a rot" be the meaning instead of 'rotten'?

For like a rot in his soul, so he is. "Eat and drink" he says to you, yet his heart is not with you.

"Rotten" is an adjective, rather than a noun/verb.
Ste Walch
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by kwrandolph »

S_Walch wrote:
SteveMiller wrote:About the Hebrew text being corrupt: When we compare the MT to the DSS, I understand that there is a word for word correspondence, the only difference being letters within words, which can make for a different word. So the errors that you see in the MT are letter errors. If the LXX were the correct text here, then the MT text would be more in error than just in letters. We don't see that big of an error that I know of when MT is compared to DSS. LXX does have gross errors. So I give more credence to the MT here.
Wherever you got this understanding from, it wasn't from someone who's compared the DSS and the MT. It isn't just a difference of plene and defective spelling. We're talking completely different words; added words; added sections; omitted sections; different book sizes (Jeremiah and Ezekiel); plus a whole host of other things.
Are you not making the assumption that just because it’s older, it’s higher quality?

My understanding is there’s evidence that already in the first century there was an attempt at textual criticism, at which time inferior versions of books were set aside for better ones. Could some the copies that survived among the DSS be some of the inferior versions that were discarded already in the first century?

However, that doesn’t preclude that the MT has copyist errors even compared to the first century, as Psalm 22:17 and Deuteronomy 32:43 both have variants among the DSS that are superior to the MT.
S_Walch wrote:If you don't have it already, I'd purchase a copy of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. There's more than enough evidence in that book to show that there isn't a word for word correspondence between the MT and the DSS. It will also point out the places where the DSS and the LXX agree against the MT as well.

The LXX shouldn't be dismissed so easily :)
I never heard of this book before, so I looked it up. It’s a translation. For it to be useful to me, I’d need it to be in Hebrew.

As for the LXX, there are many places where it’s inferior to the MT, so while it’s a witness, it’s a flawed one.
S_Walch wrote:I
How about:
For as rotten in his soul, so he is. Eat and drink he says to you, but his heart is not with you.
rotten comes from Jer 29:17 and has to do with not being edible. If you eat it, you'll vomit.
Jer 5:30; 23:14; 18:13; Hos 6:10 may be related.
Could possibly "a rot" be the meaning instead of 'rotten'?

For like a rot in his soul, so he is. "Eat and drink" he says to you, yet his heart is not with you.

"Rotten" is an adjective, rather than a noun/verb.
Where do you get “rot”? Can you give sources that support that reading? Other verses?

So far in this discussion there are two main questions: 1) the meaning of שער and 2) the division of the verse. Now I’ll bring in another consideration. Looking at כמו I notice that the decided majority of its uses are found in poetry. Secondly in all but one of its uses is it followed by a noun, participle used as a noun, adjective, once by an infinitive, but only once by what appears to be an active verb. And that one example, Psalm 58:8 (7), appears to be a copyist error.

Therefore, should we be looking not for an active verb to follow כמו, rather something else?

Another thing I should add, is that often an object is mentioned in Tanakh, not to point to the object itself, rather as a symbol of an action. For example, the anthropomorphisms in Tanakh concerning God don’t mean that God has physical attributes, rather they indicate the actions that God takes. For example, an “upraised arm” refers to the action of violence or war, not that God has a physical arm.

So likewise, when I looked at שער, I looked for an object that represents an action. A gate represents a fortification designed to keep unwanted people out of a city. So a gate in a person’s life would be to keep unwanted people from being close friends. That’s how I came to understanding שער as meaning “gate”.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by Ken M. Penner »

kwrandolph wrote: I never heard of this book before, so I looked it up. It’s a translation. For it to be useful to me, I’d need it to be in Hebrew.
May I recommend
The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
It's reviewed at http://www.bookreviews.org/BookDetail.asp?TitleId=7647
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Proverbs 23:7

Post by S_Walch »

kwrandolph wrote:Are you not making the assumption that just because it’s older, it’s higher quality?
I hope I wasn't insinuating that. I was mainly pointing out the error in Steve's statement that the DSS and MT were alike word for word, and that the differences were only "letter errors". But it was also to highlight the fact that the LXX isn't to be dismissed just because it disagrees with the MT. Quite a few of the LXX's differences with the MT are also evidenced in the DSS (as are some of those in the Samaritan PT), so as we've been discussing in other threads, the LXX should be considered to be a translation of another Hebrew text-type that was around at least in the 3rd Century BCE.
My understanding is there’s evidence that already in the first century there was an attempt at textual criticism, at which time inferior versions of books were set aside for better ones. Could some the copies that survived among the DSS be some of the inferior versions that were discarded already in the first century?
Guess that depends on how we determine what are to be considered "inferior versions", and exactly how they could determine such a thing in the first Century CE.
However, that doesn’t preclude that the MT has copyist errors even compared to the first century, as Psalm 22:17 and Deuteronomy 32:43 both have variants among the DSS that are superior to the MT.
Suffice to say, the LXX, the DSS and MT all contain copyist errors, so none of them should be dismissed out of hand, which was the point I hopefully made to Steve. :)
I never heard of this book before, so I looked it up. It’s a translation. For it to be useful to me, I’d need it to be in Hebrew.
The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Vol. 1-3 published by Brill are what you'd be looking for. That too highlights the same differences as seen in TDSSB.
Where do you get “rot”? Can you give sources that support that reading? Other verses?
Not off the top of my head, no. I was just trying to make a noun rather than an adj out of שער. Do adjectives not have some sort of noun or verb origin?
And that one example, Psalm 58:8 (7), appears to be a copyist error.
FWIW (sorry, again), the LXX (57:8) has:
ἐντενεῖ τὸ τόξον αὐτοῦ ἕως οὗ ἀσθενήσουσιν
He will stretch his bow until they fall.

The LXX usually translates כמו as ως or one of its derivatives - ἕως is the usual translation of the Hebrew עד.
Ste Walch
Post Reply