Gesenius — Not Biblical Hebrew

[Jason Hare]

Are these reference works to be thrown out because they used pointed Hebrew texts?

The obvious answer is YES! I mean, how can they be useful when they disagree with Karl’s subjective opinions? Throw out the Masoretic Text. Throw out HALOT. Throw out DCH. Throw out every grammar and every lexicon. Throw out every theological workbook or textual commentary. Start over and use Karl as your model. This is the way.

[kwrandolph]

I though you would understand, but it looks as if I have to bee more explicit. When I refer to the consonantal text, I refer to the grammar expressed by the consonantal text, to the lexical stock found in the consonantal text, the same is true of the syntax and expressions of the language as used in the Bible. They all differ from the grammar, lexical stock, syntax, and expressions of the language as indicated by the Masoretic points.

Let’s say that you find the word דברתי in the consonantal text. How do you know if this should be read as qal or as piel? For example, we find the following:

How would you know if it is Qal or Piel? Oh yes, you unthinkingly follow the Masoretic points.

To answer that, what is the function indicated by the Piel? How does it differ from the function of the Qal? What evidence from the consonantal text can you show to indicate the difference? Don’t you think that those who natively (emphasis on the natively) spoke Biblical Hebrew would have recognized the functional differences and therefore would have recognized which is which, a recognition that had been lost by the time of the Masoretes?

Adding points (pronunciation) doesn’t shift the syntax to a different period of the language.

Pronunciation isn’t the question. After all, the pronunciations preserved by the Masoretes are not the same as when Biblical Hebrew was spoken natively, not as a second language. But the points do indicate meaning and syntax. True, much of Tanakh was written with simple syntax that is easy to recognize even when unpointed. But there are other times …

It may add an interpretation to a word or verse, but it doesn’t shift the language into a different period of its linguistic development.

We know from historical evidence of the documents that were preserved, that Hebrew went through different phases in its development:
• Biblical Hebrew from before the Babylonian exile
• Late Biblical Hebrew after the Babylonian exile, when Hebrew was spoken as a second language
• DSS Hebrew, from documents authored during the DSS period, some of which were preserved along with the Biblical texts
• Rabbinic Hebrew of the Mishnah
• medieval Hebrew of the Talmud and the Masoretic points
• modern Israeli Hebrew
I have not studied post-Biblical Hebrews, therefore I must defer to people who have studied those languages. The descriptions I have read about those different periods of linguistic development show significant differences from the grammar and syntax indicated by the consonantal text of Tanakh.

You are very far from establishing your case. The only case you have made is that you feel it’s not biblical Hebrew because you choose to read words differently. That’s not a real case.

It’s not based on feelings, rather linguistic analysis, which you have not done.

What you call the Wayyiqtol in its by far most common use, is a continuation of the previous thought or further information, also found in narration to indicate what comes next.

Yet, in texts that give instructions or speak of the future (prophecies, for example), the vayyiqtol doesn’t appear, but rather the veqatal (vav with irreal qatal). Do you try to make sense of this or just ignore it? Why doesn’t this “continuation of thought” appear in such verses as:

Genesis 4:14
הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיֹּ֗ום מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי׃

If it’s just a continuation and has no indication of tense, why is the qatal used here instead of the yiqtol? Have you done any kind of comparison between these forms or read what anyone other than your own brain has to argue about the various forms of the verb? How can you think that you are right and everyone else’s arguments are worthless?

Did you look at the context of the surrounding verses? Apparently not.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

Now you, Dewayne, mention “all current scholars and grammarians, as well as teachers of Hebrew”—how many of them have read Tanakh completely through at least once? Or at the most two or three times? I expect that the answer would be zero. At least that’s my experience when asking professors. Oh, they know all the other major professors and the minutiae of what they have to say about the language, they have studied cognate languages such as Ugaritic, Akkadian, Arabic, modern Israeli Hebrew, etc. but how much do those studies help in understanding the quirks of Biblical Hebrew? Why wouldn’t those studies work against a person’s ability to get a working feel for Biblical Hebrew language?

Okay, let's get one thing out the way here: neither the Massoretes, Gesenius, or anybody else who studies or teaches BH is/was perfect. The fact that people and scholars are imperfect does not give us carte blanche to dismiss any contributions they may have made because they came to conclusions that differ from our own. Not to say our conclusions may not have value, but it's best to avoid the Lone Ranger mentality when it comes to language study. (And I happen to like the Lone Ranger character. Just an illustration.)

The value of cognate language study is that it often sheds light on rare Hebrew words that even the ancient versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, Greek versions, Latin versions, Syriac versions, etc.) seem to have not understood at all or misunderstood. At the very least, it is a resource that should be considered when translations and scholars disagree on what is meant by a rare Hebrew term or a hapax. They are from the same linguistic family, after all. In the same way, Latin and Greek often shed light on each other when considering difficulties in texts in these languages. The value of this study has been repeatedly demonstrated as in the cases of Akkadian and Ugaritic. Of course, any such study has its potential pitfalls, but that does not negate the potential rewards.

I haven't done any polls or surveys about the Tanakh reading habits of scholars, et al. However, from my own experience, I draw a different conclusion than you did about their competence. I took 4 Biblical Hebrew courses under a professor with a PhD. We studied the basic vocab and grammar first. Then, we did 3 reading courses. We looked at and translated and discussed passages from Genesis, 1-2 Samuel, Ruth, Psalms, and Jeremiah. In every case, the professor clearly was at home in the Hebrew text and had no difficulty whatsoever explaining it from the Hebrew prospective. At least in his case, I would wager (if I were a betting man, which I'm not) that he had read Tanakh in Hebrew numerous times long before teaching his Hebrew courses. Similarly, I can tell from comparing my own reading and the readings and grammar commented on by numerous Bible commentators and Hebrew scholars I've read that they too must have read Tanakh thoroughly in Hebrew many times.

My criticism of Gesenius is even stronger when it comes to his dictionaries. Not only were they derivative, not based on original research, but he was one of the founders of a school to teaching that was later named JEPD, then JEPDr, Form Kritik, or whatever nom du jour it has today, and his dictionaries were designed to push that teaching. BDB continued that tradition. The professor who taught the class where I first learned Hebrew, had us all buy Gesenius’ dictionary. The more I read Tanakh, the more I noticed Gesenius’ definitions don’t match the contexts. I bought Lisowski’s concordance in order to do original research, and noticed that Lisowski’s glosses tend to follow actual uses more closely than Gesenius.

Just because a work may have depended somewhat on earlier works in the same field does not necessarily make it valueless. All dictionaries, in all languages, have this defect, if you want to consider it as such. Your own dictionary came about eventually after your use of Lisowski. So, even if Lisowski did his work from scratch, your own dictionary is derivative. Does that make it worthless? I think not, not necessarily, as I have downloaded it and used it, along with the various updates.

I would caution against rejecting out of hand a linguistic work simply because you may disagree with some or all of the compiler/editor's theology or religious beliefs, or lack of such. The two do not necessarily bear on each other. To give a Hebrew example, Even-Shoshan's BH concordance is a valuable tool. I do not know his religious background, though it may be that he is an observant Jew. But whether he is or not has no bearing on the value of his work for learning Hebrew, unless it could be shown his beliefs have biased his handling of the Hebrew text. I am not aware of such if it exists. To use a couple of NT examples, William Barclay and A.T. Robertson both have produced useful works that illuminate the the Greek New Testament and the Koine dialect. They are pretty well polar opposites when it comes to their theological beliefs. I can look past disagreements with their theologies when they shed light on Greek. Once in a while they slip up and use faulty Greek arguments to support questionable theological conclusions, in my view. But their overall value is without question, in my opinion. You and I both regard the JEPD school as mistaken. However, that view of his does not necessarily devalue Gesenius' lexical and grammatical studies.

I expect, as has happened before, that you and I, Karl, will agree to disagree on Gesenius. And the Masoretes. And that's fine.

[Jason Hare]

Did you look at the context of the surrounding verses? Apparently not.

Look at the context of what, exactly?

Genesis 4:8–16 (BHS)
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּהְיֹותָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קָם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ׃ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־קַ֔יִן אֵ֖י הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי הֲשֹׁמֵ֥ר אָחִ֖י אָנֹֽכִי׃ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָ קֹ֚ול דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ צֹעֲקִ֥ים אֵלַ֖י מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ וְעַתָּ֖ה אָר֣וּר אָ֑תָּה מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר פָּצְתָ֣ה אֶת־פִּ֔יהָ לָקַ֛חַת אֶת־דְּמֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ מִיָּדֶֽךָ׃ כִּ֤י תַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֥ף תֵּת־כֹּחָ֖הּ לָ֑ךְ נָ֥ע וָנָ֖ד תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה בָאָֽרֶץ׃ וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה גָּדֹ֥ול עֲוֹנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא׃ הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיֹּ֗ום מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי׃ וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לֹ֣ו יְהוָ֗ה לָכֵן֙ כָּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם יְהוָ֤ה לְקַ֨יִן֙ אֹ֔ות לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכֹּות־אֹתֹ֖ו כָּל־מֹצְאֹֽו׃ וַיֵּ֥צֵא קַ֖יִן מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־נֹ֖וד קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן׃

Key:
red – vayyiqtol (narrative past)
blue – qatal of knowing / feeling (present)
green – qatal (past reference)
purple – yiqtol (future reference / irreal)
pink – veqatal (future reference / irreal)

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּהְיֹותָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קָם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ׃
Cain said to Hevel (Abel) his brother, and it happened when their were in the field that Cain rose up against Hevel his brother, and he k illed him.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־קַ֔יִן אֵ֖י הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי הֲשֹׁמֵ֥ר אָחִ֖י אָנֹֽכִי׃
And Yahweh said to Cain, “Where is Hevel your brother?” And he said, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָ קֹ֚ול דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ צֹעֲקִ֥ים אֵלַ֖י מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
And he [Yahweh] said, “What have you done? The sound of your brother’s lifeblood cries out to me from the ground.

וְעַתָּ֖ה אָר֣וּר אָ֑תָּה מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר פָּצְתָ֣ה אֶת־פִּ֔יהָ לָקַ֛חַת אֶת־דְּמֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ מִיָּדֶֽךָ׃
And now are you cursed from the ground that has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s lifeblood from your hand.

כִּ֤י תַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֥ף תֵּת־כֹּחָ֖הּ לָ֑ךְ נָ֥ע וָנָ֖ד תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה בָאָֽרֶץ׃
Though you work the land, it will no longer give its strength to you. You will be a wanderer and a fugitive in the land.

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה גָּדֹ֥ול עֲוֹנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא׃
And Cain said to Yahweh, “My iniquity is too great to bear!”

הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיֹּ֗ום מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי׃
See! You have banished me this day from upon the face of the earth and I shall be hidden from your face! I shall be a wonderer and fugitive in the land, and it shall happen that anyone who finds me will k ill me.

וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לֹ֣ו יְהוָ֗ה לָכֵן֙ כָּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם יְהוָ֤ה לְקַ֨יִן֙ אֹ֔ות לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכֹּות־אֹתֹ֖ו כָּל־מֹצְאֹֽו׃
And Yahweh said to him, “Therefore, anyone who k ills Cain shall be avenged seven times.” And Yahweh placed on Cain a mark that no one who finds him strike him.

וַיֵּ֥צֵא קַ֖יִן מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־נֹ֖וד קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן׃
And Cain went out from before Yahweh and dwelt in the land of Nod east of Eden.

I’d really like to know how I have missed something from the context that would affect my understanding of the verse quoted in my previous post, to which you logged this objection. I’ve marked all of the finite verbs in the passage (not participles or infinitives) with the key at the beginning of the post. I’d love for you to point out how I ignored the context or how I am wrong in my understanding.

[kwrandolph]

Okay, let's get one thing out the way here: neither the Massoretes, Gesenius, or anybody else who studies or teaches BH is/was perfect.

That’s a given, myself included. That’s why I continuously update my dictionary with grammar. Sometimes all I do is correct a typo, other times I realize I have to rewrite an entry, or more.

… but it's best to avoid the Lone Ranger mentality when it comes to language study.

But sometimes the “Lone Ranger mentality” is unavoidable. But I have made my conclusions public and anyone can critique them.

The value of cognate language study is that it often sheds light on rare Hebrew words that even the ancient versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, Greek versions, Latin versions, Syriac versions, etc.) seem to have not understood at all or misunderstood.

The study of cognate languages for individual words is a double-edged sword. Take the example of שכח in Hebrew and Aramaic. Other times it helps. One of my criticisms of Gesenius’ dictionary is that at times he seemed to have taken the cognate language meaning as primary, even in contexts that suggest a very different meaning.

But there’s a big downside to cognate language studies—the problem with cross-language contamination, worse with close cognates. The more languages one studies, the harder it is to keep them separate in one’s mind, the problem is multiplied with close cognate languages. That’s the main reason I have not studied cognate languages to Biblical Hebrew, outside of just enough Aramaic for the Aramaic portions of Tanakh.

I haven't done any polls or surveys about the Tanakh reading habits of scholars, et al. However, from my own experience, I draw a different conclusion than you did about their competence. I took 4 Biblical Hebrew courses under a professor with a PhD. We studied the basic vocab and grammar first. Then, we did 3 reading courses. We looked at and translated and discussed passages from Genesis, 1-2 Samuel, Ruth, Psalms, and Jeremiah. In every case, the professor clearly was at home in the Hebrew text and had no difficulty whatsoever explaining it from the Hebrew prospective. At least in his case, I would wager (if I were a betting man, which I'm not) that he had read Tanakh in Hebrew numerous times long before teaching his Hebrew courses. Similarly, I can tell from comparing my own reading and the readings and grammar commented on by numerous Bible commentators and Hebrew scholars I've read that they too must have read Tanakh thoroughly in Hebrew many times.

You make too many assumptions. Just because a professor is knowledgeable in one section of Tanakh, does not mean that he has read the whole of Tanakh. Not even once.

My criticism of Gesenius is even stronger when it comes to his dictionaries. Not only were they derivative, not based on original research, but he was one of the founders of a school to teaching that was later named JEPD, then JEPDr, Form Kritik, or whatever nom du jour it has today, and his dictionaries were designed to push that teaching. BDB continued that tradition.

I noticed that the school of teaching of which Gesenius was a founding member, often leads to wonky results. That is actually a stronger reason for me to question him.

Your own dictionary came about eventually after your use of Lisowski. So, even if Lisowski did his work from scratch, your own dictionary is derivative. Does that make it worthless? I think not, not necessarily, as I have downloaded it and used it, along with the various updates.

My dictionary is not based on Lisowski’s glosses. I just happened to notice that his glosses tend to be more accurate than Gesenius when compared to actual uses found in Tanakh, something I noticed only after doing the original research on the words in their contexts.

I would caution against rejecting out of hand a linguistic work simply because you may disagree with some or all of the compiler/editor's theology or religious beliefs, or lack of such. The two do not necessarily bear on each other. To give a Hebrew example, Even-Shoshan's BH concordance is a valuable tool. I do not know his religious background, though it may be that he is an observant Jew. But whether he is or not has no bearing on the value of his work for learning Hebrew, unless it could be shown his beliefs have biased his handling of the Hebrew text. I am not aware of such if it exists.

A concordance is a different matter—it is merely a list of words and where they are found in Tanakh. Authoring a dictionary requires judgment calls, dependent on how one understands the text. There one’s theological presuppositions can influence how he understands the text.

To use a couple of NT examples, William Barclay and A.T. Robertson both have produced useful works that illuminate the the Greek New Testament and the Koine dialect. They are pretty well polar opposites when it comes to their theological beliefs. I can look past disagreements with their theologies when they shed light on Greek. Once in a while they slip up and use faulty Greek arguments to support questionable theological conclusions, in my view. But their overall value is without question, in my opinion.

Greek language is a different matter. There are so many extant texts written by so many authors, that the language is fairly well known. If someone were to try to do something wonky with the language based on his religious presuppositions, others can call him out.

You and I both regard the JEPD school as mistaken. However, that view of his does not necessarily devalue his Gesenius' lexical and grammatical studies.

It influenced his lexical output.

I expect, as has happened before, that you and I, Karl, will agree to disagree on Gesenius. And the Masoretes. And that's fine.

It’s when people want to argue that “You’re wrong” that we have an argument.

But when it comes to the verbal conjugations, I tried, really tried, to read them according to tense—it worked for some passages, but totally fell apart on others. The same with trying to read the conjugations as aspect—same results. Of TAM, that left only the modalities, but the modalities for the most part are not the same as in English. Based on that experience, if someone tries to convince me that Biblical Hebrew conjugations code for tense or aspect, I’ll have to say that he’s wrong. That includes Gesenius. And BDB. Anybody.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

I agree with you about the tense/aspect question. In that respect, Driver's work (Treatise on the Uses of the Tenses in Hebrew) is not as helpful as it could be, but to my mind still has some value. Because of the breadth of coverage and level of detail on grammar treated, Gesenius still has some value to me. As for TAM, it seems to me that context is often the determining factor to time relations, as the same form often is used for various time relations. E.g., the qatal is used for present tense situations in some passages.

[talmid56]

Even Shosan's concordance also partly functions as a dictionary, because it gives short definitions (in Modern Hebrew) for the lexical entries, according to the semantic fields.

[kwrandolph]

I agree with you about the tense/aspect question. In that respect, Driver's work (Treatise on the Uses of the Tenses in Hebrew) is not as helpful as it could be, but to my mind still has some value.

Unfortunately, I have dyslexia (you don’t know how many times I looked up a misread word and not finding it in the dictionary) which makes reading slow and often painful. It also means I don’t have time to read through scads of writings, looking for the needles in the haystack. As for language learning, it forces me to read in context which is a big plus, often anticipating what is written next in a sentence.

Because of the breadth of coverage and level of detail on grammar treated, Gesenius still has some value to me.

Yyeess, but when one realizes that he is not even in the ball park on some of what he says, doesn’t that put the rest of what he says under a shadow of doubt?

As for TAM, it seems to me that context is often the determining factor to time relations, as the same form often is used for various time relations. E.g., the qatal is used for present tense situations in some passages.

The Qatal is the most common form used in recorded conversations for actions that take place even as the person is speaking in pre-Babylonian exile history books in Tanakh. Yes, you are correct, it is the context that is the determining factor in time recognition.

Even Shosan's concordance also partly functions as a dictionary, because it gives short definitions (in Modern Hebrew) for the lexical entries, according to the semantic fields.

It’s been years since I looked (very briefly) at his concordance. If his glosses are in modern Israeli Hebrew, that means that I wouldn’t understand them (I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew) so its only value to me would be as a concordance. (Well, that’s how I treat Lisowski’s concordance, not looking at his glosses.) Anyways, I now usually use electronic searches in Tanakh.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

Well, I only know a little Modern Hebrew, though I want to learn more. My edition of Even-Shoshan has a little paper insert by John Sailhammer (sp?) that glosses the grammar category vocabulary from MH: i.e., terms like "noun", "adjective", "verb", "masculine", "feminine", etc. (I also have a small paperback Modern Hebrew/English dictionary and the book 501 Hebrew verbs for MH.} Sailhammer also explains how to use the concordance. The concordance I have is the print edition from sometime in the 1980's or '90s.

I use electronic searches as well. Have you ever used the SHEBANQ site? I find it useful.

[kwrandolph]

I use electronic searches as well. Have you ever used the SHEBANQ site? I find it useful.

Years ago I looked at SHEBANQ but at that time they had nothing I found useful, so I haven’t looked back.

Karl W. Randolph.