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." 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. 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? As well, isn't this an overstatement? Is it really true that "all" you had been taught was wrong? My Hebrew teachers were Groves, Dillard, and Waltke. 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. 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. 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. Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected]
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
