Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Luther also complained about the amount of time he wasted in studying texts and commentaries that he found were in error, useless or even counter-indicated when put in comparison to what he found in Bible.

 

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.

I’ve noticed a pattern, that collectives are sometimes addressed using a plural verb, sometimes a singular one. I haven’t made a study of that pattern, but I’m guessing that when a collective is addressed with a singular verb, that it refers to the group as a whole. When the group is addressed with a plural, that it refers to the members of the group.

Therefore I wouldn’t have used those examples. 

 

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.

Were all 250 there with him, or a smaller group representing the 250? Actually more, because some of the people listed in verses 1–2 were not physically present, as revealed in verse 12. 

 

4. I don't know that Ruth would affirm your way of phrasing it, that "the conjugation is not an imperative in action."

In earlier messages, she insisted that we not use terms referring to forms to indicate actions. The reason an imperative form is called an imperative is because in English and other European languages, that form is connected to the action of giving commands. So now I question, are we giving this form an incorrect name?

Incidentally, the command action is carried also by Yiqtol and Qatal forms, so it appears that form may not have the meaning of command, rather it’s the context that tells whether or not a command is meant.

I also then bring up, what then is the significance of the form called “imperative”?

 

  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.

This misuse of the English language used to be a sign of low-class, ignorant or sloppy people, and limited to such. That it’s becoming more common even among “educated” people is a sign of societal decay, one that is having its affects on linguistic use.

 

  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.

If that were the case and I were one of the followers physically present hearing it, I’d have flipped Moses the bird and left, and that would have been a polite response.

Here we may have to part ways and agree to disagree.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

Karl W. Randolph.