Again this is from John Cook... ________________________________ James Spinti E-mail marketing, Book Sales Division Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com Phone: 260-445-3118 Fax: 574-269-6788
Begin forwarded message: > >> From: John Cook <[email protected]> >> Date: December 12, 2012, 12:18:39 PM EST >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re. More on verbs >> >> Karl: >> >> I'm not entirely sure your reference is to me and my blog post when you >> write about how "he" reads the Hebrew text. Really now, isn't surmising my >> motives the sort of ad hominem approach that Rolf has claimed does not take >> place here? In any case, isn't it a false distinction to make between >> solving the philological puzzle (i.e., interpreting the text) and applying >> it? How do I know how to apply any linguistic message if I don't first >> interpret it?? As you state, you wanted to know how to apply the biblical >> text better so you read it (i.e., you interpreted it!). My overriding >> interest in interpreting the text is because all too often those religious >> users of the text (Jewish and Christian) seem to skip that step and apply >> whatever meaning (ostensibly a meaning from the text) to their lives. We can >> all agree that the Bible has been misinterpreted often enough to make us >> wary of either abandoning interpretation or pretending we are not doing it >> anyway. >> >> John >> _______________________________ >> John A. Cook >> Associate Professor Old Testament >> Asbury Theological Seminary >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:02:57 -0800 >> From: K Randolph <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] More on verbs >> To: James Spinti <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <caaeju0vjzmcv_68awcvfenujg40hcobv8t5-gvppbwn_knd...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> James: >> >> I agree that in discussion the first step is not to use non-standard >> definitions of terms that have already been defined. It?s better to use a >> neologism than to repurpose a term already in use. Repurposing terms often >> causes even negative emotional responses as people realize that clear >> communication is not achieved. >> >> Another response: it appears that when he reads the Hebrew text, that he >> does so as a philological puzzle to be solved, not as a message to be >> applied to his life. Or in other words, his study is heavy on theory but >> light on application. This shows some of my personal bias: I started >> reading in Hebrew because I was having trouble understanding the only >> translation we had in the house, in archaic English (KJV) and all I wanted >> to do was more accurately to understand what God has to say to the world. >> Learning the Hebrew language was merely the means to the goal, not the goal >> itself. As a result, my studies have been light on theory, emphasizing >> instead application. >> >> George: is part of the problem of understanding Biblical Hebrew the very >> effort to try to make it fit our models? For example, is there really a >> polarity in the use of Qatal-Yiqtol differentiation, or is this a case as >> in other languages that don?t have a separate form for each usage, that >> forms can be reused for more than one purpose? While the >> perfective-imperfective polarity is clearly wrong, are there not times that >> the Qatal is used for indefinite actions, and many times that Yiqtol used >> for definite actions? >> >> I hope you have a good vacation. >> >> Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
