Meditations, Musings and Memorial Stones

AVANIM :: Ex Libris :: Milton Terry: Biblical Hermeneutics :: 2.15 - Proverbs and Gnomic Poetry

2.15 - Proverbs and Gnomic Poetry

February 05, 2005 | Comments: 2

Biblical Hermeneutics Part Second Chapter 15

Terry now turns to the discussion of proverbs and gnomic poetry. As discussed previously, proverbs are usually distichs comprised of synonymous, antithetic and synthetic parallelisms. The Hebrew word for proverb, ??? , “to liken or compare” and most proverbs will show themselves to be comparisons or similitudes. Proverbs are, properly speaking, brief pithy statements in which some wise counsel or moral lesson is expressed in a memorable manner. Hence we apply the term “gnome” to this species of trope, since it connotes some short pithy statement which expresses a general truth. Proverbs thus defined are found in the histories of all nations, and occur in Scripture in many places outside the Book of Proverbs.

For the principles of interpretation, we must apply those apropos to the figures employed in a given proverb, e.g. simile, metaphor, parable or allegory. Therefore the first task of the interpreter is to determine to which classes of trope the proverb belongs. He must next carefully seek to understand the proverb’s scope and bearing, which is sometimes difficult due to the lack of context, or to context which is not explicit and perhaps known only to the original audience. Because of this we cannot construe all proverbs as propositions with universal application and scope. Where context is present to provide help, it should bear great weight in the interpreters work. But when it is lacking, good sense and sound judgment must rule the day.

Comments

are you familiar with the significant differences in English translations on certain proverbs? how do you help people in the church with this range of translation? nathan.


nathan on February 16, 2005 at 07:07 AM

I am aware of some of them. I think the best way to help is to make a careful study of the original text, consult respected commentators, and then give it our best shot.

As far as translations in general, while parts of NIV are very good indeed, I object to this translation in principle, since I believe it takes far too many interpretive liberties. I would much rather have a translation which aims for literal equivalence and may therefore be a little wooden (NASB?), than one which presumes to attempt “dynamic equivalence” and is thus abashedly interpolating men’s thoughts and ideas in between the original texts and the reader.


andrew on February 19, 2005 at 07:35 PM

Post a comment


(required, but not displayed)

(optional)


(required)