וְלֹֽא־לָמַ֥דְתִּי חָכְמָ֑ה וְדַ֖עַת קְדֹשִׁ֣ים אֵדָֽע׃
1. Confessional Tone through Verb Forms: לָמַדְתִּי and אֵדָע
The first clause begins with וְלֹֽא־לָמַ֥דְתִּי—“And I have not learned.” This is a Qal perfect 1st person singular verb from the root למד (“to learn”). The perfect form expresses a completed action in the past, here negatively. The speaker confesses a lack of formal acquisition of wisdom, suggesting humility or limitation.
The final verb, אֵדָע (“I know”), is a Qal imperfect 1st person singular from ידע. The imperfect tense in this context does not imply future knowledge but rather a continued or general state—“I do not know” or “I am not knowing.” The parallel with לָמַדְתִּי (perfect) and אֵדָע (imperfect) reflects both past limitation and present inability, forming a theological and poetic statement of epistemological humility.
2. Noun Forms: חָכְמָה and דַּעַת קְדֹשִׁים
חָכְמָה (“wisdom”) is a feminine singular noun, often personified in Proverbs. Its placement without a definite article suggests not just “wisdom” generically but the essence or source of wisdom. The speaker’s confession that he has not “learned wisdom” reinforces the contrast between divine and human understanding, a major theme in Proverbs 30.
דַּעַת קְדֹשִׁים (“knowledge of the holy ones” or “of the Holy One”) forms a construct phrase. דַּעַת (“knowledge”) is a feminine singular noun in construct with קְדֹשִׁים (“holy ones” or “holy”). The plural form קְדֹשִׁים has been interpreted variously:
- As a plural of majesty: “the Holy One”—a circumlocution for God.
- As referring to heavenly beings or divine council members (“holy ones”).
- As a poetic plural for the realm of holiness itself.
The ambiguity invites theological reflection: is the speaker confessing ignorance of divine mysteries, the transcendent God, or angelic insight? The grammar opens multiple pathways.
3. Poetic Parallelism and Structural Flow
The verse is a classic example of Hebrew parallelism:
וְלֹֽא־לָמַ֥דְתִּי חָכְמָ֑ה // וְדַ֖עַת קְדֹשִׁים אֵדָֽע
The first clause states what the speaker has not learned (perfect), the second what he does not know (imperfect). The grammatical progression from past to present draws attention to the speaker’s ongoing epistemological limitation. The two clauses mirror and deepen each other, moving from general (wisdom) to specific (knowledge of the holy).
4. Theological and Existential Implications
This verse presents a radical humility rarely found in wisdom literature, which typically praises the acquisition of knowledge. The speaker, traditionally identified as Agur, presents himself as lacking both חָכְמָה and דַּעַת, undermining human pride in intellectual attainment.
The use of קְדֹשִׁים underscores the transcendent nature of the knowledge in question—it is not merely moral or practical but sacred. The grammatical structure—two independent clauses joined with וְ (and)—presents this confession not as a lament, but as a posture of reverence before divine mystery.
5. Spiritual and Literary Reflection
The verse is structured as a poetic confession. It prepares the reader for the following verses, which exalt God’s incomprehensibility. The lack of conjunctions beyond the simple וְ keeps the verse sparse and weighty, giving the impression of careful speech.
Theologically, this verse is a liturgical posture. The grammar helps embody the idea that true wisdom begins not with mastery, but with reverent ignorance. By stating what he does not know or has not learned, the speaker models the fear of YHWH as the beginning of knowledge.
In this way, the Hebrew grammar becomes theology: the perfect and imperfect verbs, the construct chains, the parallel structures—all reinforce the core message that divine knowledge is a gift, not an achievement.
