Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: The "times" of Isaiah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[4]: The "times" of Isaiah
  • Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 22:35:53 -0400


Dear Rolf,

Thank you for your clear and helpful answer.

Let me take up just one point, from the paragraph which remains below.

First, I have not mentioned discourse analysis in this immediate
discussion, but, yes, I believe it is relevant. But, more to the
point, you seem to be forgetting that there has been a continuous
tradition of interpretation and translation of the Hebrew text since
at least the time of the LXX translation, and there is at least a good
probability that this, in general terms, accurately reflects the
meaning of the Hebrew. So we do not need to treat the text as if it
was a newly discovered archeological find in a previously unknown
language. Also, of course, we can get a good idea of the meanings of
the Hebrew verb forms from their usage in simple contexts where the
time etc relationships are clear, as in narrative and such passages as
Exodus 25-40. We can then use the results of these studies to inform
our studies of more complex texts like Isaiah. I accept that this
process could be considered as "inductive", but I do not accept that
it is thereby invalidated, and indeed it can be at least partially
validated if it gives a meaningful and consistent explanation of the
text which we have. I believe it does this, though of course there
remain a small number of problem places.

Peter Kirk




______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: The "times" of Isaiah
Author: furuli AT online.no at internet
Date: 15/08/1999 06:59


Dear Peter,


<snip>

Many of those who are much engaged in discourse analysis behave as if they
*knew* the meaning of the Hebrew forms (just as you know English), or
rather, they fix the meaning beforehand (of course on the basis of an
inductive study of a part of the Hebrew text), and then they do discourse
analysis on the basis of the meaning they ascribe to each form. This is of
course necessary, for how can we do discourse analysis if we do not *know*
the meaning of each form? However, this kind of exercise tells very little
about the very *meaning* of each form, it only shows patterns where
particular forms tend to occur, and of course, it is circular. Discourse
analysis should be used as one tool among others, not as "way, the truth,
and the life".

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page