Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Ken,


Still you have not told us what "the conventional view of Hebrew tenses" is." 
But your quote from Joosten suggests that there is no such thing as a 
"conventional view" of Hebrew verbs. By using such a term in connection with 
Karl, you have in reality said: "You cannot trust Karl's comments, because he 
is not a member of the good company." Previously, you have in reality said, 
"Do not listen to Rolf, because his view is highly idiosyncratic and does not 
interact with recent standard literature—he is not a member of the good 
company." (Your post "Verbal Aspect" of 05.29.2013).

The scholarly way is not to use negative characteristics of the works or 
views of other scholars—this scholar is in and this one is out—but to present 
your own arguments and telling why you disagree with other viewpoints. When I 
pointed out that your language in your post of 05.29.2013 was not good, you 
said in your post of 05.30.2013 : "I recognize that my previous post was not 
constructive; I mainly pointed out problems without suggesting possible 
resolutions. I hope to remedy that by a series of posts as I have time over 
the next month." So far, no such posts have appeared. The reason may be lack 
of time. But if you get time, why not start with your analysis with the 
future use of verbs in Jeremiah, chapters 50 and 51?

My main point is: We should not characterize scholars as "in" or "out," but 
rather present our case with arguments from the Hebrew text of the Tanakh.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway








Torsdag 26. September 2013 17:12 CEST skrev Ken Penner <kpenner AT stfx.ca>:

> I would agree with Joosten's assessment in " Do the Finite Verbal Forms in 
> Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect?" JANES 29 (2002; 
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/1455404 ). "In light of these diverging views, 
> no consensus can be said to exist. Nevertheless, the theory according to 
> which the verbal forms of BH have an aspectual function is by far the most 
> influential one" (50).
>
> I would nominate Garr's introduction as a description that comes close to a 
> conventional view these days.
>
> Garr, W. Randall. 1998. ‘Driver’s Treatise and the Study of Hebrew: Then 
> and Now’. In A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other 
> Syntactical Questions, by Samuel R. Driver, xviii-lxxxvi. Grand Rapids: 
> Eerdmans.
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=v9c3uksXdDEC&pg=PR18
>
>
> Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Religious Studies
> 2329 Notre Dame Avenue, 409 Nicholson Tower
> St. Francis Xavier University
> Antigonish, NS  B2G 2W5
> Canada
> (902)867-2265
> kpenner AT stfx.ca
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rolf Furuli
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:41 AM
> To: B-Hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tenses in Isaiah 44:24
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> Reading your article did not help, so I repeat my questions: "What is the 
> "conventional" view  of the Hebrew "tenses"? And who are the scholars who 
> hold this conventional view?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Rolf Furuli
> Stavern
> Norway
>
>