Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Karl
>
> KR:  This is starting to go around in circles.
>
> Jerry:  Yes, primarily because your lexicographical methodology is so
> circular.
>

I have written computer programs with recursions, many recursions, each
time getting closer to the correct answer.

Likewise my lexicographic technique is recursive, each time getting closer
to the best answer.

Some lexicographers have taken the lazy way out—in this context it has this
meaning, in that context that completely different meaning, etc.—which can
and I think often does lead to errors compounding upon errors.

>
> 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.


>  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.


I have not compared them with translations. By the time that many
translations became available, I had become so confortable with reading
Tanakh in Hebrew that I never bothered to look at translations.


>  To be sure, there is a spectrum to the degree of "waste" or
> "devastation" in each of the passages.


Not true. The gods of the nations, the carved, molded, and built up images
are condemned as lifeless and not able to do anything to us, but no waste
or devastation in those 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 uninhabited places, i.e. lifeless

; Job 6:18 used as a synonym for wilderness, i.e. uninhabited place i.e.
> lifeless

; 26:7 no destruction here, but uninhabited place

; Isa 24:10 this refers to a depopulated town, where the houses can still
> be locked

; 29:21 the just are put forth into the uninhabited places

; 34:11 depopulated place

; 40:17 This is making a comparison, no destruction here

; 40:23 continuation of above comparison

; 41:29 no destruction, just that their cast idols are lifeless

; 44:9 ibid

; 45:19 again no destruction here. You left out the previous verse where
> the earth was not created to be lifeless, but to be settled.

; 49:4 “for that which is lifeless”

; 59:4 no devastation here, rather a description of wicked people, who
> trust in that which is lifeless.

; Jer 4:23 describing a vision, not physical devastation.


Notice, in none of these verses is devastation or chaos a necessary
component of the meaning for תהו.

Notice, in translation, I use synonyms for “lifeless” or “lifeless place”
because in English they are more understandable using those synonyms. But
that’s translation, not understanding the Hebrew text from within Hebrew.


> .  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?


It’s from context, counting all of them together, that rules out
“devastation” as being a necessary definition for תהו. They also rule out
“formless”. If you had read my description of my lexicographic method, you
would have seen that context is a very necessary part of it.

A lifeless situation can often occur as a result of devastation, but that
doesn’t make lifeless=devastation. Not in English, nor in Hebrew.


>  No nuancing for
> the particularities of individual texts.


If you look at the above comments, translation (which is a different
activity than lexicography, because the way languages differ) will have
nuances that strict reading of the text within the original language will
not have. So when you talk about nuance, are you talking about translation?


>  Good lexicography just does not
> proceed by reading the "majority" meaning into all occurrences.


I never said it so proceeds. Instead I specifically said it doesn’t. Did
you read it?


>  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.
>

That these words are used together, and in this case not as an idiomatic
phrase, then the meanings of the words are not changed by their use
together. Then in this case, it is irrelevant to your argument.

>
> 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?
>

I accused no one of eisegesis in this verse.

When writing the last response, I had merely the verse among a list of
verses that had the word תהו in them. When I read the whole chapter, it is
of a vision, not physical. That still does not change the fact that תהו
does not mean “devastation”.

>
> 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.


Just citing them is a logical fallacy. You need to show me how and why they
came to the results that they produce, and how and why they are valid. The
same with your results.


>  What is my lexicographic method?  I look at every single
> occurrence of a word.


I doubt you looked up every occurrence of a word like דבר or similarly
common 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.


Depends on their methodologies and pre-suppositions. I don’t reject them
out of hand, but if I find their methodology suspect, then the results will
likewise be suspect. GIGO.


>  I read various
> translations, commentaries, monographs, and journal articles.


These I don’t have access to, or at least not in the past.


>  But what I
> do not do is simply rely on my hunches and intuitions.


I don’t know of anyone who relies merely on hunches and intuitions. Do you?


>  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.
>

Proverbs 26:12, after 11 verses of condemning fools says, “Do you see a man
wise in his own eyes, there is more hope for a fool than for him.”

I have written a dictionary, and realizing its limitations as caused by a
one-man effort, have offered it to others to analyze. If you want to make
constructive criticism of it, I can send you a copy.

I turned down Reinier de Blois when he asked me to be part of his Hebrew
Dictionary According to Semantic Domains because I disagreed with his
methodology.

>
> 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"?
>

I see no difference between “medieval cosmology” and what you claim is
Biblical cosmology, neither in method used to construct it, nor in results.
Enlighten me. And you can’t merely say that you can’t be referring to
“medieval cosmology” because the medieval period was much later.

>
> 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!
>

Yes, because there is no word “hurried” in the Hebrew text of that verse.

>
> 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.


Without consulting previous translations to see what others had done before
you? Many of the Psalms, particularly in the first third of the book, are
quite difficult to read, and the easy way out is to see how others had
translated it before you, and not make your reading independent of them.

 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.
>

Well, did the translators write their own dictionaries? Or did they merely
accept the dictionaries that they bought in stores? How many dictionaries
did the translators write? Where can they be found?

I did not isolate myself from the world of scholarship, rather
circumstances isolated me against my will. Then I had to make a choice,
either to continue to read Tanakh while isolated, or forget it. I
considered it preferable to read Tanakh in spite of my isolation than to
neglect it.

I studied both koiné Greek and Biblical Hebrew in college. In Greek, I
found only one word that I think is mistranslated, and the mistranslation
is based on the etymological fallacy. I lost count how many times I read
the New Testament in Greek.

In contrast, Hebrew has been difficult and a challenge, because I’ve had to
unlearn so much of what I was taught, both in class, and in the few study
materials to which I had access. Because I was isolated, I had to analyze
each passage on my own, wrestling with it. Because I didn’t have others’
answers, I had to think for myself. My dictionary started out as notes in
the margins of the dictionary I had, namely, as I read Tanakh, I came
across contexts where the glosses in the dictionary didn’t fit the contexts
I was reading. I expanded it further in the margins of a concordance,
before finally writing it out as a stand-along dictionary.

A similar thing happened to grammar, in particular the conjugation of
verbs: by the fourth or fifth time through, I came to the realization that
the Qatal and Yiqtal coded for neither tense nor aspect, at which point I
was at a loss to explain what they code for.

Getting back to Genesis 1:2, I originally thought תהו ובהו referred to
“formless and void” because that’s what I was taught. ‘Chaos’ can fit
within that description. But as I read Tanakh, I came across verses where
תהו referred to cast and/or carved idols, which are certainly not formless,
so I had to rethink what it means. In comparing and contrasting all
contexts, I came to the conclusion that תהו refers to a lifeless object or
place, often as in uninhabited. That it is lifeless can be the result of
destruction, but not always.

In contrast, it appears to me that you have pre-chosen a certain reading
that you think the verse must have, and are fighting tooth and nail to
defend that reading.

>
> Blessings,
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
>
> Karl W. Randolph.