Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] wayyiqtol

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] wayyiqtol
  • Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:53:08 -0700

Jerry:

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl,

 

Thanks for your thoughts.  Here's a few things by way of response.

 

When I mentioned that my interests were more with hermeneutics and biblical theology, you said: "This looks like more a studies about the Hebrew text, rather than studies of the Hebrew text."


What???? But when I looked back at my message, I realize I could have been clearer, the response was aimed more at your previous sentence than the one you quote here. And even this sentence was taken in the context of that previous sentence.

 

Not at all, Karl.  All I meant by this was that I hadn't kept up as much as I would have liked with the scholarly research in the sub-discipline of Hebrew grammar.  My work in biblical theology has still been very much involved with the Hebrew text.

 

You said, with regard to reading the Tanakh, that "it appears that such studies are exceedingly rare, even among top scholars."

 

I think you're really underestimating the work done by scholars, who are very much involved with the Hebrew text.


I base my response on the interaction I have had on this list, as well as some limited contacts elsewhere. One needs both a broad and a narrow focus on the text, and the only way to get the broad focus is by reading large sections at a time. The best way to get the broad focus is to read the text through cover to cover, and that’s the lack that I see.

Almost none of those who are called scholars have sat down and read Tanakh cover to cover, and of the rare ones who have, almost never more than once or twice. That’s not enough. The first couple of times is just an introduction.

Another thing I notice is that a broad focus will also catch details of the language that a narrow focus will often miss, such as phrases that are used only a few times in Tanakh. Those details can often be important for an understanding of Biblical Hebrew language. These details are often missed if Tanakh is read only once or twice.

 

When I mentioned that I'd like to read Joosten's work, you replied: "I wonder if your time would be better spent just reading through Tanakh, cover to cover, to try to get a sense of the flow of the language. It won’t come at once, that takes time. For example, it took me about five times reading the text through before I came to the conclusion that all I had been taught about verbal conjugations was wrong, all the different views."

 

You've laid out a false dichotomy here.  There's no reason why both can't be done.  It reminds me of what B. B. Warfield once said about those who suggested that it was more important to spend 10 minutes in prayer on your knees rather than 10 hours with your books.  His reply was: why not 10 hours, on your knees, with your books? 


I don’t know who B.B. Warfield is or was, but that’s irrelevant. The question is, when there’s only a limited amount of time for study, and let’s admit that that’s the case, which is more fruitful—reading someone’s opinions about the text, or reading the text itself. On the other hand, if you have plenty of time, then do both. 

 

As well, isn't this an overstatement?  Is it really true that "all" you had been taught was wrong?


Please read that in context again, it wasn’t that “all” that I was taught, rather “all I had been taught about verbal conjugations was wrong”. That’s a far more narrow field than the whole of the language.

That “was wrong” does not extend to other parts of grammar, such as nouns, adjectives, and paradigms. But I’m willing to question everything. Then often I get no answer, or “I don’t know” with one saying that whoever can answer that question, deserves to get a PhD.
 

  My Hebrew teachers were Groves, Dillard, and Waltke.


I’ve read some of Waltke, and if I understand him correctly, he teaches the aspectual nature of Biblical Hebrew conjugation. If that’s correct (giving myself some wiggle room, i.e. that I misunderstood him), then he’s wrong.

I don’t know Groves or Dillard.
 

  There are certainly things I was taught about Hebrew grammar that I question now, even as I did then.  But I believe that what they taught me was mostly right.  Maybe your teachers were all wrong; but perhaps you shouldn't judge all scholarship to be defective simply in the light of your experience.


If I were to list my teachers, it would include Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah and the rest of the crew. Most of the Biblical Hebrew I know, I learned from reading Tanakh over and over again. We need to evaluate what others say on the basis of what my teachers wrote. If it matches, well and good, it matches. If it doesn’t match, it doesn’t match. 

 

You asked: "Instead of reading what others say about the text, would it not be better just to sit down and read a chapter or two a day of the text? Wouldn’t that better fit your goals of hermeneutics and Biblical Theology?"

 

Again, this is a false dichotomoy.  My hermeneutical and biblical-theological work is based on my reading of the Hebrew and Greek texts.  I've been teaching the Hebrew text for nearly thirty years now.  But there is no reason why I can't learn as well from other scholars, who may see something I don't see.  I do both myself and my students a disservice by not availing myself of the work of those whose lives have been given over to a study of the text.


Often it is the teachers who have the most trouble changing. They’ve been taught certain patterns, and have taught the same for so long, that those patterns seem right. But I, on the other hand, have no investment in any particular theory, so if people can show me that I’m mistaken, I can turn on a dime and go in a new direction. Further, I have no respect for persons as unimpeachable resources, so it doesn’t matter what is a person’s reputation, if what he says can’t be supported, it’s wrong.

But you also need to evaluate whether or not other resources are right or wrong. What often seems plausible or even correct based on a few verses, can be badly wrong compared to the whole of Tanakh. In fact, what may appear to be the default pattern based on a few verses, may have a different meaning in the light of many other verses.

But I’ll grant you one thing, if you’re teaching students, you should know what are the popular false ideas being spread about, and warn your students against them and why they’re wrong. If that means naming names, so be it.

 

Nevertheless, I appreciate the advice.  Work in the primary texts is essential.  But work in the primary texts should not be done exclusive of work in the secondary material.


For me much of the secondary material is discussions on this list and elsewhere. I find discussion often more illuminating than reading books. The feedback is quicker, showing me when I’m wrong, and far more effective as well.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry


Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
 

Karl W. Randolph. 




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page