Here's Psalm 24:6:
זֶה דּוֹר דֹּרְשָׁוק̇ מְבַקְשֵׁי פָּנֶיךָ יַעֲקֹב סֶלָה׃
(1) In the first colon, is דּוֹר a construct or absolute noun? Logos' Westminster morphology goes with the former (construct), Andersen-Forbes with the latter (absolute). I'm not sure how to tell.
Here are my translations of the whole verse, following the qeri reading (i.e. דּוֹר is followed by a plural and not singular participle; this is A-F's move too):
Following qeri:
Construct: "this is the generation of those who seek him, of those who search out your face, Jacob."(2) Is the ketiv (i.e. sing. part.) possible? Is it unusual, given the plural participle in the second colon? דּוֹר can be followed by both a singluar or a plural noun (e.g. Deut 2:14). The switch in the verse from singluar to plural in the second colon may be an example of grammatical parallelism ...
Absolute: "this is a generation that seek him, that search out your face, Jacob."
Here are my translations:
Construct: "this is the generation of one who seeks him, of those who search out your face, Jacob."
Absolute: "this a generation that seeks him, that search out your face, Jacob" (Note the lack of an "s" on the second verb. This would work in English, e.g. one can say "Microsoft want" or "Microsoft wants."
3 comments:
In either reading, דּוֹר is construct. Participles are substantives in classical Hebrew, effectively nouns: "one doing..." or "those doing...."
So, instead, the options are:
"This is the generation of those seeking him; those searching out your face, Jacob. Selah."
or
"This is the generation of one seeking him; those searching out your face, Jacob. Selah."
If דּוֹר were absolute, I think you'd see an imperfect here (or a waw+perfect commencing the verse) rather than a participle.
Perhaps the ketiv, with the singular דרשו, makes better sense of that oddly hanging Jacob, making it clearer that the דּוֹר is actually Israel/Jacob:
"This is the generation of one/those seeking him; those searching out your face: [the generation of] Jacob. Selah."
Thanks for your comments, Kevin (I will get back to your e-mail!).
Participles are substantives in classical Hebrew
I thought they were only sometimes substantive. Van der Merwe says the following: "The participle is by definition a verbal adjective. Syntactically the participle in BH functions as a verb, noun or adjective.
BH Biblical Hebrew." In this case, however, it certainly is a noun (A-F call it a pure noun participle).
If דּוֹר were absolute, I think you'd see an imperfect here (or a waw+perfect commencing the verse) rather than a participle.
I'm afraid I don't follow this. There are a number of examples of absolute nouns being standing in apposition to an indefinite participle which functions as a relative clause. Here are some examples which are most related (according to the A-F system and my newly acquired yet shaky syntax searching abilities):
men of Lud, skilled in handling • the bow. / וְלוּדִים תֹּפְשֵׂי דֹּרְכֵי קָשֶׁת׃ (Jer. 46. 9).
Hegai, the • king’s eunuch, who is in charge of the women / הֵגֶא סְרִיס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֹׁמֵר הַנָּשִׁים (Esth. 2:3)
survivors ... who will be brought out / פְּלֵטָה הַמּוּצָאִים (Ezek 14:22).
plants yielding seed / עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע
God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth / לְאֵל עֶלְיֹון קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ׃
In fact, I've even discovered to syntactically similar clauses in which the abosolute noun and its participle qualifier (placed in apposition) are the complement of a demonstrative pronoun (as in our Psalm):
Deut 3:5 כָּל־אֵלֶּה עָרִים בְּצֻרֹות חֹומָה גְבֹהָה / All these were cities fortified with high walls
Is not this a brand plucked from the fire” ? / הֲלֹוא זֶה אוּד מֻצָּל מֵאֵשׁ (Zech 3:2).
Here are some examples of the construction you (and the Westminster Morphology) are proposing:
the gate of his enemies / שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו׃
out of the hand of the shepherds / מִיַּד הָרֹעִים
right ear of him who is to be cleansed / אֹזֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר
all those listed / כָּל־הַפְּקֻדִים
One thing that seems to stand out is that when the noun is in the construct state, the participle really is a pure noun participle. In Ps 24:6, however, I don't think doroshav really is a pure noun participle. I think it is a noun-verb participle (oddly enough, A-F contradict themselves here. They call the ketiv a pure-noun participle, but the qeri, which differs only in that it has plural suffix, they label a noun-verb participle. Wie? Either way, they opt for the qeri).
It seems to me that the function of the clause in Ps 24:6a is to describe the nature of the one outlined in the previous sentence (vv.4-5), not to describe Jacob at the end of this clause (Jacob is a vocative, in my opinion. I may post on that later, though see here).
Finally, I found three instances where a construct noun+participle is the complement of a demonstrative pronoun (just like in Ps 24.6), though I think only one of them is valid as the other two are a pure adjectivce and a pure noun respectively (in Ps24:6 we have a verbal noun, i.e. the focus is on the action and not a fixed status):
This is the law for her who bears a child / זֹאת תֹּורַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת (Lev 12:7).
Having said that, perhaps הַיֹּלֶדֶת is also a pure noun.
In sum, I've managed to convince myself in the process of responding to your comments that dor is most likely absolute. It depends on the semantics of doroshav and the discourse function of dor within the Psalm. The issue is identity. v. 6 identifies the person described in vv. 4-5, who is provided as an (indirect?) answer to the question posed in v. 3, it clarifies the answer.by means of a relative clause (a generation which) rather than simply state a supposed fact (the generation of). The fact that Jacob is a vocative helps this.
These thoughts are rushed and not explained well, but thanks for itneracting. I'll read through this once again and make it the subject of a later post.
Update: I contradicted myself. I stick with what I said at the end of the comment, doroshav is not, in my book, a pure-noun participle. I think that's important to the argument.
Post a Comment