Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

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