Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

 

1. With regard to the Luther example, I think you are confusing pedagogy with research.  To force students to do their own working-through of exegesis on the text is sound practice, and that continues in seminary education today.  There is definite heuristic value in doing one's own work on a text, without immediately consulting the work of previous scholars.  But there is no value at all in letting one's work on the text stop there.  Luther himself did not do that; and though he may not refer to what other commentators have said on every page of his own commentaries, studies have shown that he was well acquainted with prior scholarship on the text, and that that scholarship had an effect on his own interpretation.  Luther's exegesis was influenced by both the ancient church fathers and by medieval exegetes.  As the old saying goes, "If Lyra hadn't piped, Luther wouldn't have danced (referring to Nicholas of Lyra, 14^th century exegete).  Luther did not want to "strip away the commentaries."  You introduce a false dichotomy when you say, "If an analysis of the text agrees with what ancient commentators said, well and good. But if it differs, which takes precedence?"  I believe Luther's answer would rather have been, "Well, maybe I need to check my analysis again."  Luther was not against consulting the wealth of scholarship that preceded him.  He was only against the idea that the proper interpretation of the text resided with the official magisterium of the church and that that interpretation could not be challenged.

 

2. The plurals in Jer 2:4 and 2 Chron 20:15 are collective plurals.  In these situations, sometimes the imperative will be in strict grammatical agreement with the addressee, as in the shema in Deut 6:4.  Other times, it will rather be in sense agreement.  It is impossible to tell in these two examples whether the plural is used because of multiple addresses, or because the first addressees is seen as a collective plural.

 

3. There are many places in the Hebrew Bible where imperatives are addressed to parties who are not present; e.g., Ps 2:10-12.  However,  in Num 16:16, there is no reason to think that Korah's followers and Aaron are not there.  "All your followers" refers to the the 250 men Korah had brought with him.

 

4. I don't know that Ruth would affirm your way of phrasing it, that "the conjugation is not an imperative in action."  But I do know that I wouldn't put it that way.  I am simply saying that all conjugations have their nuances and that the "regular" function of the conjugation can be modified by the context.  A grammatical imperative in English can be used to make a request, form a conditional clause, etc.  A present tense in English can be used to describe actions in the past (e.g., "I go into this bar, see, and I say to the bartender . . .").  Nevertheless, grammatically, they are still imperatives and present tenses.  So in Numbers 16:16, it is possible to understand the imperative as a softer request.  My reading of the context still regards it as a very angry and very authoritative imperative.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com