Hebrew for Biblical Interpretation.

Kaye, Alan S.

Hebrew for Biblical Interpretation. By ARTHUR WALKER-JONES. SBL Resources for Biblical Study, vol. 48. Atlanta: SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, 2003, Pp. xviii + 276. $34.95 (paper).

What? Yet another textbook for introductory Biblical Hebrew? The author reveals in the introduction that he has developed a "new (emphasis mine) approach designed to promote better learning outcomes" (p. 1). He rejects grammar-translation pioneered long ago to teach Latin, opining that this teaching methodology is not effective. But then, in an apparent reversal, the author has this to say: "Grammar-translation works against fluency, but has its advantages in biblical studies ..." (p. 4). From my perspective as both a linguist and a teacher of Biblical Hebrew, the pedagogical technique employed does not make too much of a difference, since the target language is dead, and the usual desired result of reading comprehension, accurate translation, and appreciation of the grammatical and lexical intricacies can easily be accomplished with grammar-translation. In other words, most instructors expect their students to become adequate philologists of simple Biblical Hebrew prose after a year of intensive study. This involves the ability to use a dictionary and parse grammatical forms. Since oral proficiency is not a desideratum nor a possibility, unlike in the case of Modern Hebrew, recent advances in applied linguistics are not particularly germane.

The author, who teaches at the University of Winnepeg, developed this work especially for seminary students. I believe they will have a difficult time trying to cope with, e.g., the intricacies of the weak verb and derived stems early on. While I can understand the rationale behind Walker-Jones' decision to introduce the weak verb from the outset (the most commonly occurring verbs are weak), introducing the strong verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'write' only on p. 139 is perplexing. Other vocabulary items which introductory students usually learn at the beginning of their studies include words such as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'peace' and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](h) 'Torah,' which do not appear until p. 158.

Let us now turn to some details:

pp. 9-10: The names of some Hebrew letters of the alphabet use aw to indicate the vowel [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in a traditional pronunciation; e.g., awlef, vawv, sawmech, tsawday. This will surely mislead the learner.

p. 17: The vowel patah is said to be pronounced as the "short a as in 'man.'" Although the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] pronunciation is commonly taught in theological seminaries, it is not accurate. As the name patah indicates, it is to be pronounced as the lower front (open) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

The qamets is said to be pronounced as the "long a as in 'father.'" This was pronounced [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Tiberian Hebrew (see Geoffrey Khan, "Tiberian Hebrew Phonology," in Phonologies of Asia and Africa, vol. I, ed. Alan S. Kaye [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997], 91).

p. 35: It is incorrect to define lexicons as "dictionaries of ancient languages." In most contexts, dictionaries and lexicons are synonymous (see Cambridge International Dictionary of English [Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995], 815). Of course, there are lexicons of medieval and modern languages as well.

p. 37: Discussing etymology, we read that the word 'nice' in English originally meant 'stupid.' Rather, it meant 'ignorant' < Latin nescius (see The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth ed. [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000], 1187).

It is hyperbolic to affirm that Biblical Hebrew etymologies based on Arabic constitute "another danger." The author puts it as follows: "The lexicons of Semitic languages, particularly Arabic, contain so many meanings that an interpreter can choose any meaning that suits her or his (sic) purposes." While I certainly agree that some have overused or misused the Arabic lexicon (e.g., John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965]), correct nuances have been ascertained by the use of Arabic cognates.

p. 180: The daghesh is missing in 'assur 'Assyria; Assyrian.' A short vowel in an unaccented open syllable does not occur in Biblical Hebrew.

The word 'why' has three variants in Biblical Hebrew. The form cited with a final mem is a typographical error for a final he (not he', p. 9) and the form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](h) should also be listed (see Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958], 483).

p. 230: gil 'adi 'Gileadite' is erroneously translated in the plural.

p. 269: It is incorrect to list the following two works under "Reference Grammars," the first being a well-known textbook, while the second is a treatise on syntax: Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971); Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. [Univ. of Toronto Press, 1976].

Notwithstanding the author's claim to have developed a new approach, there is not much new (with two exceptions--see below) in this tome, nor is there much that is better presented than in the plethora of textbooks currently available. The exceptions are chapters 12 on textual criticism (pp. 95-104), which discusses parablepsis and homoioteleuton, among other interesting topics, and chapter 16 on translation (pp. 121-26), which treats many ideas found in Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber's The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969). The latter chapter also includes a caution to avoid "vulgar language," which goes much too far, in my opinion (p. 125): "The RSV of Psalm 50:9 reads: 'I will accept no bull from your house.' Most translations for church reading try to avoid such unintentional misunderstandings, associations, and vulgarisms. Therefore, the NRSV translates: 'I will accept no ox from your house.'" English speakers do not consider the word "bull" to be vulgar.

A.S.K.