Cause he said so
sbfnet at netvision.net.il
Mon Sep 11 03:49:34 EDT 2000
On 9/10/00 (Re: Cause he said so) Kimmo Huovila wrote:
< snip >
>I find some linguistic DH arguments rather unconvincing in cases where
>there is an alternative analysis from a discourse perspective. That does
>not, of course, disprove the DH analysis in such cases by any means. It
>only shows that in these cases there is another way to explain the same
>I am not trying to argue against (or for) DH. Just noting that sometimes
>DA gives a plausible alternative.
Dear Kimmo Huovila,
I appreciate you argument in favor of "discourse analysis." True, literary critics usually disregard grammar, style, and the way ANE texts are composed.
What is particularly disturbing for me is the fact that sometimes they assume oddities, not to say errors, in grammar and syntax, as if the Biblical authors did not know Hebrew, while of course the exact opposite is true. One sees more and more clearly that the Biblical writers are real authors, not mere "redactors" in the sense current in literay-critical work. However, is also true that Biblical writers made use of ancient records that were at their disposal both in oral and in written form.
The problem for the Documentary Hypothesis--in which I believe, although I do not work in that fild--is to find convincing arguments for tracing the history of a text. Besides, what is more important to me is the final form of te text, though the development of a text may of course be important for the history of religion, etc. However, i would not speak of discourse analysis as "a plausible alternative" to Documentary hypothesis simply because they pursue different goals.
Peace and all good.
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Home Page: http://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email mailto:sbfnet at netvision.net.il
More information about the b-hebrew