Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Liz:

And your reading that there three Isaiahs 
and two Jeremiahs and so forth is not 
eisegesis?

A couple of months ago I got called to 
the carpet for postulating a different 
scenario, which led to me noticing a 
pattern of linguistic development that 
your scenario will obscure. That was in a 
message that acknowledged that there is a 
difference of opinion. And now you insist 
that only your reading is valid? Is that 
not out of line for this group?

I acknowledge that your view exists and 
that many people share it. However, it 
appears to me to be more based on 
eisegesis than mine.

Concerning verb “tenses”, I was taught 
that one of the features of the Qatal 
binyan was that it referred to a one time 
event while the Yiqtol to a repeating or 
continuing event. Hence a Qatal future 
would refer to an event that would happen 
only once. That’s in addition to its 
usual referral to completed action while 
the Yiqtol to incompleted action. But I 
haven’t followed up on this, has anyone 
else?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
>  
> Dear Harold,
> We don't have the same view of biblical origins.
> There is no point in discussing this.
> 
> I just want to call attention to the fact that one's suppositions
> color one's translations. People think they are being objective,
> but when they turn perfective voice into imperfective out of a 
> desire to see the text as prophetic, then what can I say?
> It is eisegesis, not exegesis.
> Best,
> Liz
> >
> 
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm