Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Tense

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tense
  • Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:06:55 +0100

Dear list-members,

In the last two weeks John Cook and I have had some interactions. I have sent
three posts that Cook has not commented upon, and that is of course his
privilege.

Because Cook introduced his review of my dissertation to the list, I think I
have the right to make some comments on this review, for the benefit of those
reading it. I note that he does not expresses a single positive word
regarding my work, and I am put in the same category as Andrason from
Stellenbosch, who is "naive" and who "has no clear grasp of the Hebrew data."
This is particularly evident in the last clauses of Cook's review. A review
must of course be short, and that may be the reason why Cook in several
instances misrepresents me and do not tell the readers what the dissertation
actually says. I shall not bother the list-members with details, which I of
course am ready to give. But I will make some comments on one issue where
Cook uses the same strong language that he uses on his blog.

One of my basic approaches he says is "absurdly unrealistic!" I cannot recall
that I ever have seen such a strong condemnation one scholar's work in
another scholar's review of this work. What is the issue in connection with
this condemnation? I have not any exact statistics, but I think that of the
14.500 WAYYIQTOLs, at least 10.000 occur in narratives. These narrative
WAYYIQTOLs, and other WAYYIQTOLs have past reference, but this past reference
do not tell us whether these WAYYIQTOLs represent past tense, the perfective
aspect or the imperfective aspect. My argument was that because the nature of
these WAYYIQTOLs with past reference is not transparent, the great number of
past references do not prove that WAYYIQTOL represents past tense or is
perfective. On the other hand, if we have a reasonable number of WAYYIQOLs
whose nature is transparent, and we can see that they have non-past reference
or imperfective characteristics, that would be positive evidence against the
pas
t tense/perfective view.

Why is this reasoning "absurdly unrealistic," according to Cook? He says:
"However, taking such an approach to an ancient, composite text in which
differences among forms were preserved through a long oral tradition before
being preserved ortho-graphically is absurdly unrealistic!" Firstly, we know
nothing about a long oral tradition, and we cannot say that a conclusion is
absurd on the basis of something we know nothing about. Secondly, we have to
deal with the written text of the Tanakh alone; to base one's conclusions on
that which is supposed to have been before the written text is really special
pleading. Thirdly, I do not fail to problematize the situation where a great
number of positive factors (93.1% of WAYYIQTOLs with past reference) cannot
be accepted as evidence, but a small number of contradictory factors (6.9% of
WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference) can be used as evidence. (BTW, This
accords with Carl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," 1980). The
concl
usion of this preblematization is that if a reasonable number of transparent
WAYYIQTOLs have non-past reference, the WAYYIQTOL cannot represent past
tense. And further, if a reasonable number of transparent WAYYIQTOLs have
imperfective characteristics, the WAYYIQTOL cannot represent the perfective
aspect. In the tables of the dissertation, 1,402 WAYYIQTOLs which have a
bearing of on the issue, are discussed.

I find it interesting that two of the three posts where Cook has not given
any comments, have a bearing on my "absurdly unrealistic" conclusion. The
assumption Cook builds on when he draws a conclusion diametrically opposite
of my conclusion, is that because the preferred form for past narrative is
WAYYIQTOL, this form grammaticalizes past tense. However, Cook contradicts
his own assumption in his comments on the Phoenician Karatepe inscription,
when he admits the verb form preferred for Phoenician past narrative does
not grammaticalize past tense. If the preferred narrative form in Phoenician
is not grammaticalized past tense, the preferred Hebrew form needs not be
grammticalized past tense. In one post that Cook has not commented upon, I
appeal to the Ugaritic evidence. In the narrative account of the Saga of
Keret, particular roots in the YAQTUL conjugation were used. Before this,
there is a mirror account with future reference where the same roots in the
YAQTUL conjugat
ion are used. (We find the same use of YAQTUL throughout the Ugaritic
documents.) This shows that the form preferred for a past narrative in
Ugaritic needs not grammaticalize past tense. So, in view of the Phoenician
and Ugaritic evidence, my conclusion regarding the Hebrew WAYYIQTOL may not
be absurd after all.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page