comparing two Hebrew words

I found two Hebrew words that are synonyms. I'd like to know the difference between the two. What is the best way to do that?

The first one is translated "overflow" in Psalm 23 -- my cup overflows.

The second is "then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine." Proverbs 3:10 (NIV)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

The definition of synonym is two words that in a particular context can be substituted for each other without changing the meaning. So are you asking about usage over time (e.g. which is the more common at time x), what are common patterns of usage (if it modifies x, which is more likely to be used or are they equally likely, or do they have differing connotations (which I just read the 5 forms of but don't recall where). Does that help?

Josh Hunt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/698357#Comment_698357

do they have different connotations?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/698360#Comment_698360

Sorry I'm more of a linguist than a Hebracist [:(] But the way you tell is to look at occurrences of the words noting any meaning, implication, evoked emotion or valuation that is not in the strick meaning of the word but is clearly intended by the author. If you find clusters of such additional meaning, the word has a cultural connotation. I add the word cultural because a word can have a personal connotation due to your own past experiences ... for example, a nephew who dislikes giraffes or other long necked animals.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/698360#Comment_698360

do they have different connotations?

Yes. prima facie (and in a nutshell) מל"א is more spatial while רו"ה refers to fluids - usually with the meaning of quenching thirst or wetting thoroughly/ satiate or saturate. There is no way to understand the subtle semantic differences between words without mastering the original language.

Dave Moser

What you really want to do is complete a comprehensive word study on both words. If I were you I'd search my library for resources that have sections (i.e. set search range to headings and large text) named "word study" and get acquainted with the methodology:

My library search returns results in one Greek grammar, several hermeneutics texts, and a few other resources. From similar resources in your library you'll be able to learn best practices and then apply the methodology (using Logos to speed things up dramatically).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/698429#Comment_698429

There is no way to understand the subtle semantic differences between words without mastering the original language.

Thanks David - with the emphasis on "mastering"

David Paul

I found two Hebrew words that are synonyms. I'd like to know the difference between the two. What is the best way to do that?

The first one is translated "overflow" in Psalm 23 -- my cup overflows.

The second is "then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine." Proverbs 3:10 (NIV)

David is, in my estimation, more fluent in Hebrew than I, so I tend to defer to his knowledge...up to a point. I don't fault his comments at all, but I think there is another available approach to answering your question, Josh. Applying a prophetic perspective to your two verses, I immediately notice that both have a generally unrecognized negative connotation. Most people don't perceive the negative connotation of Psa. 23 at all, because the positive connotation (nothing less than the very presence of God) seems so strong and overwhelming--even the valley of the shadow of death seems to shrivel into insignificance. Certainly, the positive connotation garners one's attention...but prophecy works in such a way (though this fact is disputed as a matter of principle by some) that two opposing concepts, even seemingly contradictory concepts, can coexist and both be perfectly true. Generally speaking, this may or may not constitute paradox, but it will usually seem like paradox to those who allow for the possibility.

Taking into consideration the concept of "overflowing", notice that while in your two Bible verses the idea seems to constitute "plenty" and "abundance", one should be careful to not assume those perceived contexts are concrete and inviolable terms for "blessing". Consider rain--in some contexts it is considered the greatest of blessings...especially in the face of famine (recall Elijah's drought and his rain cloud). In other contexts, rain can be the source of great terror, such as Noah's flood or Samuel's inopportune thunderstorm (1 Sam. 12:17, 18). Returning to "overflowing", we can easily recognize how the word can apply to Noah's flood--not a good thing.

Take another example: the concept of "covering". Is it good or bad? It depends on whether you are being covered by the shade of Yeishuu`a's wings or His blood, or whether you are being covered by mountains of piled up water or six feet of earth. Take fire: is it good or bad? Again, it depends on what the fire is doing. If you are chaff, fire isn't your friend...it obliterates you. If you are gold, it purifies you...it causes you to shine.

Back again to "overflows". I won't go into great depth on the overflowing cup of Psa. 23 here, since I will eventually have a whole book devoted to that overflowing cup. But let's consider Prov. 3:10's use of the word "overflowing" (per Prov. 3:10 NIV). Is this a good thing? David Knoll responded to your NIV version of the verse, but notice the NASB version...Prov. 3:10 NASB. See that it is the vats and not the barn that is described as overflowing. The word for overflowing in the NASB is paarats. This is the verb form that lent itself to the name of Perez, whose name means "breach". Paarats means to burst open, break open, break out, or break through. Now, consider what is being said here...and especially consider (or RE-consider, as the case may be) that this is widely viewed as a description of a good and positive circumstance. The proverb says that the vats will "burst with new wine". Does that ring any bells? Hopefully it does.

Mt. 9:17...here the "new wine" bursts old wineskins, and this is perceived to be an extremely negative outcome. Why is Proverbs 3's new wine bursting vats therefore perceived to be a great symbol of blessing? Is one a great blessing and the other a great tragedy? Are you sure??? Notice something else...recall the NIV says that the barns will "overflow" (just to be clear, this word in not paarats; it is maalei', meaning "filled" or "made full"). Does this ring any bells? Lk. 12:16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21...where overflowing barns are a symbol of impending doom and destruction. Granted, the two passages together indicate that appropriate human behavior consists in putting matters in their proper order and perspective (YHWH first). But one cannot escape the fact that overflowing barns do not inevitably demand the conclusion that YHWH is providing blessing. He may be a heartbeat away from imposing a great curse.

Let's turn to the word that David mentioned regarding the cup. The word r'waayaah (shown above) is commonly described as meaning "saturation", but I don't think that is the best concept for it since in English saturation denotes being soaked through. The cup isn't being soaked through...or is it? If it was, it would certainly result in a collapse, bursting under the weight and pressure of the liquid it contained. Interesting, no? So again, what is almost always viewed as a positive keeps turning up negative connotations under examination. But since cups almost by definition are non-porous and resist absorption, let's go with the idea of being "watered" or filled up (the KJV's "overflows") rather than "liquidated". That still puts us right back with the concept of "overflowing" and its "is-it-good-or-bad?" connotations.

Let's broaden our scope a bit...

The last derivative, 2130c, is the word r'waayaah that we examined above. Let's now look at the base word, raawaah, which means to be sated, satiated, or filled. Notice a few of its uses...Jer. 46:10; Isa. 34:5, 7; Lam. 3:15. Not all uses have a negative sense, of course. Certainly, being filled can be a good thing, if the circumstances provide. But even when some of the surrounding contextual markers suggest positive (or negative) circumstances, prophecy may well be "pinging" on the less apparent and opposing aspect of a given word.

The point I just made is rejected by the likes of James Barr, D. A. Carson, and Larry Hurtado (and virtually all Bible scholars that I have familiarity with), but in earlier threads I've shown with ironclad examples why their perspective regarding the interpretive possibilities and usage of the Hebrew language is seriously flawed. Barr called it the "root" fallacy. The Barr and Carson example was embarrassing (for them), but the Hurtado example was a real hoot.

I have a quick question for David. The word kohssiy (כּוֹסִי) means "cup of me". This is almost universally interpreted as meaning "my cup", but is it even remotely possible that "cup of me" could mean "cup that is me"?

Anyway, Josh, I could pound all of this out for a considerable time, but hopefully I have conveyed the point--apparent contexts do not exclude other associated meanings, even ones that seem contradictory. That is precisely how prophecy works (or to be more specific, how it "can" work).

Btw, the screenshots above are from Theological Wordbook of the OT. If you have it, great--it's a good place to answer (at least in part) questions like this. If you don't have it, you're out of luck. It's a Moody title and no longer available in Logos.

Final comment--at the end of the second TWOT screenshot, there is an extended comment regarding Prov. 11:25 that calls the verse "difficult". The reason they call it difficult is Isa. 29:11...according to YHWH, those who can read (literally "those who know the book", i.e.scholars and clergy) have zero vision for prophecy. There is a prophetic reason for that. On the other hand, a seer can immediately recognize what is being described, and knows that it applies directly to another Bible verse that is mentioned in that TWOT article (but which unfortunately isn't in the screenshot). Fwiw, it pertains to the Anti-messiah and the one who reveals him. It's amazing what you can do with "root" words.

EDIT: Readers, just so you know, if you come across a longish post of mine, like this one, and it's been less than 10-15 minutes since I posted it, you may want to reread it later or just wait a few minutes. I usually have to do a bit of editing to smooth and fix a few things. I think I'm done now with this one.

Josh Hunt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/698665#Comment_698665

thanks for taking the time!

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/698665#Comment_698665

1. There are two verbs in Prov 3:10. One from the root מל״א and the other from the root פר״צ. No English translation can change that. I refered to מל״א.

2. Regarding כוסי (which should be transliterated simply as kosi) the yod is simply an attached possessive pronoun of the singular first person. You seek an interpretation of a relative clause modifying the cup which is to my understanding impossible. I don't even think it is possible in Biblical Hebrew to interpret the noun and its attached possessive pronoun as forming a complete sentence, or in other words infer a predication between the noun and its suffix.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/698749#Comment_698749

I also want to explain why I don't refer to the rest of your post. Your point of deprature is that the text in question is revelational. A point of view which I don't subscribe to. For you proverbs and psalms are prophecy for me the first forms part of the wisdom literature and must be read in the context of parallel wisdom literature from the ANE and the second is a liturgical poem which must be read in its cultic context. This gap between us cannot be bridged in this discussion. I respect your beliefs and views but we speak in two different dimensions. I see data and try to analyse it in an objective scientific manner in its original context (that is the context of a reader who lived two thousand years ago). This is not written in disrespect and I value your opinion and enjoyed reading your response!