Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

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
>data.
>
>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.

Alviero Niccacci





-- 
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:     http://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email       mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il