Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

This is starting to go around in circles.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
> The problem you have here, Karl, is that you are choosing to ignore
> evidence that doesn't fit with the way you want the text to read.
>

You haven’t provided any valid evidence.

תהו is used at least ten times in Tanakh, then you want to use the contexts
of two of those times to insist that a third use is consistent with outside
beliefs that are elsewhere condemned in Tanakh and inconsistent with the
rest of the teachings of Tanakh? “Lifeless” as the meaning of תוה fits all
its uses in Tanakh, while “chaos” fits only a subset of those uses. Good
lexicography goes with the majority fit.

>
> Yes, I read your description of your lexicographic method, and
> unfortunately, it is seriously deficient.  You simply aren't taking all the
> data into account.  Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23 are not simply, as you
> say,  "taking only a subset of its uses, then making a determination, a
> determination that contradicts other uses," rather, it is taking the ONLY
> other places in the Hebrew Bible where the terms tohu and bohu occur
> together, and indeed the ONLY other places where bohu even occurs at all.
>

Irrelevant. Yes I know that בהו is found only three times, and all three
times in connection with תהו, so it’s difficult to recognize with certainty
its meaning, but if the one term doesn’t refer to chaos, then the
combination can’t either.


> It is simply not good lexicographical method to ignore these important
> factors with regard to the usage of these terms in other contexts.  And,
> indeed, the contexts in Isa 34 and Jer 4 are contexts of devastation.  The
> NRSV, for example, in Isa 34:11 translates as "the line of confusion [tohu]
> . . . the plummet of chaos [bohu]".  And most translations do something
> similar.  NIV:  chaos and desolation.  NET:  ruin and destruction.  I am
> not saying they are necessarily correct, but I am saying that the scholars
> who worked on these translations followed credible lexicographical
> methods.  The same goes for Jer 4, which is a picture of complete
> devastation -- creation uncreated.
>

Have you ever been to a ghost town? I mean not one that has been turned
into a tourist magnet and park, but one of the many towns that grew up over
a mine, and when it played out, was abandoned? The recognition that you and
maybe a friend or two who came with you are the only living people in that
town is overwhelming, where you speak with hushed tones in the face of the
solitude and silence. The Isaiah 34 and Jeremiah 4 passages describe this
very well.

If you think you can impress me by citing translations and other scholars,
forget it. You need to meet me on my own ground, namely the analysis of
Hebrew itself.

Yes there are other lexicographic methods that people consider valid, but
are they? I already mentioned one, according to semantic fields, which I
rejected because it fits neither modern languages nor ancient ones. Another
is to follow tradition, but all too often the traditional meanings are
based on later uses of words, later uses that have different meanings than
they had in Biblical times. Another is to follow cognate languages: while
cognate language use can sometimes clarify our understanding of rarely used
words, but cognate language use can also lead us astray, as words often
have very different meanings, sometimes even opposite meanings in those
cognate languages than in Hebrew. Then there’s the non-lexicographic
method: just read and translate texts according to traditional readings,
ignoring lexicographic evidence that may contradict those readings.
Therefore, I think the best lexicographic method would study the text
itself as the main source. Other people prefer other lexicographic methods,
which one do you choose and why?

>
> You say, "The only way you can make Genesis 1 and other Biblical texts to
> read similarly to the other ANE cosmologies is to apply the rules of
> “medieval cosmology”, which is why I bring it up. This does violence to
> Hebrew way of reading the text."
>
> How many ways do I have to say it?  I am not in the slightest interested in
> medieval cosmology.  My only interest is in ANE cosmology, which, by my
> calcuations, precedes medieval cosmology by at least 1500 years.  I have
> absolutely no idea what you hope to gain by throwing this "medieval" charge
> around.  I'm not looking at medieval texts; I'm looking at ANE comparative
> literature.
>

How can I make it more clear? I’m not referring to the “medieval cosmology”
itself, but to the method used to arrive at the “medieval cosmology”. It’s
not the timeline, but the ideas that count. And whether you want to admit
it or not, the method you employ ends you up with the “medieval cosmology”,
though dated far earlier than the medieval period.

>
> With regard to Ecc 1:5, you say, "The text does not say “it hurries back”,
> that is your eisegesis."
>
> Okay Karl, notice the following:
>
> NIV: "hurries back to where it rises"
> NRSV: "hurries to the place where it rises"
> ESV: "hastens to the place where it rises"
> NASB: "hastening to its place it rises there again"
> NET: "hurries away to a place from which it rises again"
> KJV: "hasteth to his place where he arose"
> NJB: "to is place it speeds and there it rises"
> NLT: "hurries around to rise again"
>

Did you see above about trying to impress me with translations? They’re all
wrong.

How much have you struggled with the Biblical Hebrew language? Poetry
especially? You need to show me your understanding from the Hebrew text
itself, and forget any tradition and translation.

>
>
> Now, I am not arguing that these very standard translations are necessarily
> correct.  But I will argue that the translators who worked on these
> translations followed good lexicographical practice, consulted standard

critical lexicons (such as HALOT).


I would argue that most of them followed no lexicographical practice, just
uncritically accepted the lexicons that they bought in the stores. No, I
don’t have access to HALOT. Before a few years ago, I didn’t know it
existed and now I can neither defend nor detract it because I don’t know
what’s in it.


>   And frankly, it is very irresponsible
> on your part to just wildly and blindly throw out the "eisegesis" charge.
>

Before you quoted the translations above, I had only the text in Hebrew and
your rendition. Since the idea of ‘hurrying back’ is not in the Hebrew
text, what is it when someone mentions something not in the text? Is that
not eisegesis?


> And as far as your rendering, "and unto his place hunted down for rising,"
> have you been able to convince any translation committees to go with that?
>

Irrelevant.


> You're just not dealing fairly with the data.
>
> Finally, you ask, "So modern, post-Copernican historians who recount that
> an event occurred at “sunrise” or “sunset” are teaching a geocentric
> understanding. Is that what you are saying?"
>
> As I've already said, for post-copernicans to talk about sunrise and sunset
> is metaphorical.  But for pre-copernicans to use the same language is not
> metaphorical.  The author of Genesis and the author or Ecclesiates believed
> that the sun went around the earth.  The sun literally rose and set.
>

You are making statements for which you have no evidence. Uses of Biblical
Hebrew words and phrases contradict that claim. In the lack of clear
evidence pro- or con-, it is irresponsible to make definitive statements as
to their understanding and beliefs. Taking into account Biblical uses of
language and literature, a modern understanding is not eisegesis.

According to physics, all motion is relative to the observation point. The
setting of the observation point is arbitrary. If that observation point is
set on a point on the surface of the earth, then the sun circles the earth.
But for mathematical purposes (the math is much cleaner), modern people
prefer to put that arbitrary observation point for the solar system in the
sun. (The geocentric universe is mathematically impossible.) That’s why
even moderns talk about “sunrise” and “sunset”.

>
> Blessings
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> jshepherd53 AT gmail.com
>
> Karl W. Randolph.