Again this is from John Cook...
________________________________
James Spinti E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.comPhone: 260-445-3118 Fax: 574-269-6788
Begin forwarded message:
Karl:
I'm not entirely sure your reference is to me and my blog post when you write about how "he" reads the Hebrew text. Really now, isn't surmising my motives the sort of ad hominem approach that Rolf has claimed does not take place here? In any case, isn't it a false distinction to make between solving the philological puzzle (i.e., interpreting the text) and applying it? How do I know how to apply any linguistic message if I don't first interpret it?? As you state, you wanted to know how to apply the biblical text better so you read it (i.e., you interpreted it!). My overriding interest in interpreting the text is because all too often those religious users of the text (Jewish and Christian) seem to skip that step and apply whatever meaning (ostensibly a meaning from the text) to their lives. We can all agree that the Bible has been misinterpreted often enough to make us wary of either abandoning interpretation or pretending we are not doing it anyway.
John
_______________________________
John A. Cook
Associate Professor Old Testament
Asbury Theological Seminary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:02:57 -0800
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] More on verbs
To: James Spinti <jspinti AT eisenbrauns.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<CAAEjU0vJzMcV_68AWcvFenuJg40hCObV8t5-GVppBWn_kndyug AT mail.gmail.com" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="8">CAAEjU0vJzMcV_68AWcvFenuJg40hCObV8t5-GVppBWn_kndyug AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
James:
I agree that in discussion the first step is not to use non-standard
definitions of terms that have already been defined. It?s better to use a
neologism than to repurpose a term already in use. Repurposing terms often
causes even negative emotional responses as people realize that clear
communication is not achieved.
Another response: it appears that when he reads the Hebrew text, that he
does so as a philological puzzle to be solved, not as a message to be
applied to his life. Or in other words, his study is heavy on theory but
light on application. This shows some of my personal bias: I started
reading in Hebrew because I was having trouble understanding the only
translation we had in the house, in archaic English (KJV) and all I wanted
to do was more accurately to understand what God has to say to the world.
Learning the Hebrew language was merely the means to the goal, not the goal
itself. As a result, my studies have been light on theory, emphasizing
instead application.
George: is part of the problem of understanding Biblical Hebrew the very
effort to try to make it fit our models? For example, is there really a
polarity in the use of Qatal-Yiqtol differentiation, or is this a case as
in other languages that don?t have a separate form for each usage, that
forms can be reused for more than one purpose? While the
perfective-imperfective polarity is clearly wrong, are there not times that
the Qatal is used for indefinite actions, and many times that Yiqtol used
for definite actions?
I hope you have a good vacation.
Karl W. Randolph.
|
