Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Karl

KR:  This is starting to go around in circles.

Jerry:  Yes, primarily because your lexicographical methodology is so
circular.

KR:  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.

Jerry:  First of all, tohu is used exactly 19 times in the Tanakh.  All of
these occurrences have to be looked at in their contexts.  I have done
that, and I can assure you that the meanings they have in those contexts is
very much consistent with the translations that I and many others have
suggested.  To be sure, there is a spectrum to the degree of "waste" or
"devastation" in each of the passages.  That is, of course, why the context
needs to be examined in each case.  And, no, "lifeless" does not fit in all
the occurrences.  It does not work, e.g., in Deut 32:10; Job 6:18; 26:7;
Isa 24:10; 29:21; 34:11; 40:17; 40:23; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 49:4; 59:4; Jer
4:23.  To take just one of these, in Isa 49:4, does your translation, "I
have spent my strength for lifelessness" really work better than "I have
spent my strength for nothing."  Do you really want to argue that
"lifeless" is the best meaning for tohu in that verse.   Or, in Job 26:7,
do you really want to argue that rather than "He spreads out the north over
lifelessness," the better rendering would be "He spreads out the north over
lifelessness"?  This is where your lexicography is seriously deficient.
And your last sentence, "Good lexicography goes with the majority fit," are
you actually being serious here?  No attention to context?  No nuancing for
the particularities of individual texts.  Good lexicography just does not
proceed by reading the "majority" meaning into all occurrences.  This is
very disappointing.

When I mention that Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23 are the only two passages where
these two terms occur together, it is irresponsible for you to simply wave
off this data as "irrelevant."  These are the kinds of things that good
lexicographers pay special attention to.

In trying to explain the context of Isa 34 and Jer 4 you say, "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."

And I all can say is, did you actually read Jer 4?  This chapter is not
talking about some abandoned mining town that has now become a ghost town.
It is talking about a city that has been reduced to ruins because Yahweh
has brought enemies against it who have razed the city and turned it into a
devastated ruin.  Your take here is absolutely incredible.  And you
actually accuse me and others of eisegesis?

KR:  "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?"

Jerry:  I wasn't trying to impress you with by citing the translations and
scholars.  But I think you show an incredible lack of humility in simply
waving them off.  What is my lexicographic method?  I look at every single
occurrence of a word.  I check out the lexicons, realizing that the work of
other scholars who have already used their expertise and skill in looking
at a particular word and checking out the use of that word or similar words
in the cognate languages could actually be quite valuable.  I read various
translations, commentaries, monographs, and journal articles.  But what I
do not do is simply rely on my hunches and intuitions.  One of the books in
the Tanakh, Proverbs, has a lot to say about those who have inflated views
of their own abilities, and are unwilling to learn from others.  And I do
not want to fall under the condemnation of those passages.

You say, "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."

Again, sorry Karl, this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with
medieval cosmology.  Hey kids, can you say, "red herring"?

After I listed all the translations that render the last line in Ecc 1:5
along the lines of "hurries back to where it rises," you then replied, "Did
you see above about trying to impress me with translations? They’re all
wrong."  All I can do is laugh.  You remind me of that story about the
mother who went to see her son marching in a military parade.  After the
parade, she brags to all her friends, "Oh, I was so proud of my son.  In
that whole company of troops, 800 soldiers, they were all out of step
except for my son, John."  Karl, seriously?  They're all wrong?  Incredible!

KR:  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.

Jerry:  I am not going to get into this kind of game with you Karl.  But
then again, maybe I'll be like the Apostle Paul for just a bit, "I am out
my mind to talk like this" (2 Cor 11:23).  I have taught Hebrew, Hebrew
exegesis, and related courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level
for nearly thirty years now.  "Poetry especially?"  I regularly teach
courses at the seminary where I am employed on Psalms and the Wisdom
literature.  Ok, that's all I'm going to do; I won't play that game with
you any more.

After I mentioned that the scholars who work on these translations followed
good lexicographical practice, and consulted standard critical lexicions
like HALOT, you replied, "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."

This is probably the most telling paragraph in your reply.  Frankly, it's
hard to know how to respond to something like this.  You isolate
yourself from the world of scholarship, and yet, somehow, you know for
sure that they followed "no lexicographical practice, just uncritically
accepted the lexicons that they bought in stores."  Incredible.

Blessings,

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta