Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew

Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. By David A. Dawson. JSOT Sup 177. Sheffield: JSOT,1994, 241 pp., $55.00.

Discourse (or text-) linguistics, a relatively new branch of linguistics that rigorously analyzes post-sentence-level language features, is generating a growing level of interest among Biblical language scholars who hope to find in it a powerful new tool for analyzing and understanding the sacred text. Reflective of this is the fact that dissertations and theses treating discourse linguistic issues of Biblical languages are being generated at both evangelical and nonevangelical institutions. I am aware of ones either completed or now being written at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the University of Chicago and the University of California, and there are doubtless others. David Dawson's recent work, the outgrowth of his 1993 dissertation at the University of Edinburgh, takes its place among these other works.

Dawson attempts in this book "to form a bridge between the rarified works of the ultra-trained linguists and the minimally trained (in linguistics, that is) Hebrew scholars" (p. 7). To accomplish this task he (1) examines and evaluates discourse linguistics works authored by A. Niccacci, M. Eskhult, F. I. Andersen, G. Khan and R. Longacre; (2) distills from them (particularly from Longacre) methodological principles and hypotheses useful for the study of Biblical texts; and then (3) applies these principles in the analysis of five different Biblical texts.

While accomplishing the first of his three tasks, Dawson concludes that the discourse-linguistic work most helpful for Biblical Hebrew scholars is that of R. Longacre. After carefully analyzing Longacre's Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence, he concludes that "the book represents the most significant advancement in Hebrew textlinguistics seen to date; it contains much of near-revolutionary value to the student of Classical Hebrew syntax" (p. 56). The degree of Dawson's appreciation of Longacre can perhaps be measured by his bibliography: In it he includes ten works by Longacre-more than three times more than those by any other author. Nevertheless, he faults Longacre for "leapfrogging over too many steps in the theoretical logic [underlying discourse linguistics], thus leaving behind all but the most astute reader, and fellow linguists" (p. 57).

Thus Dawson proceeds to his second task, that of introducing the reader to the fundamentals of discourse linguistics. Such abstruse terms as "deep structure," "surface structure," "slot/class," "filler/set," "constituent structure," "tagmeme," "syntagmeme," and "exponence" are carefully discussed. Longacre's three greatest contributions(1) his matrix of text types, (2) clarification of mainline versus offline information patterns, and (3) verb-rank clines-are given due treatment (pp. 94-103, 115-116).

In proposing a methodology for analyzing Biblical texts, Dawson suggests that the Hebrew version of the passage be laid out in chart form "one clause per line," with syntactically subordinated materials being placed in a separate column, and quotations be separated from nonquotational materials (p. 119; cf. appendix 1 charts, pp. 220-236). He emphasizes the use of the Hebrew data, since they "are only independently existing, and in that sense the only truly real element of language description" (p 113). Though he does not use the term, he is essentially advocating the use of Longacre-Levinsohn charting techniques.

Dawson's final task is to apply his interpretation of Longacre's analytic method to specific Biblical texts. The texts he has chosen are primarily narrative in nature: Exod 36:8-38:20; Judg 2:1-23; 10:6-12:7; Ruth 1:1-4:22. Two are nonnarrative: Exod 25:10-27:19; Lev 14:1-32. Dawson uses these analyses to affirm the validity of Longacre's discourse linguistic insights and to demonstrate how Hebrew scholars who have received no formal linguistic training might proceed in undertaking original discourse linguistic research on Biblical texts.

Dawson's work is helpful, but surely not the last word. It was not written with an awareness of the discussions or published results of Summer Institute of Linguistics' 1993 Seminar on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (published in 1994 as Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics [reviewed above]), which went beyond the work presented in Dawson's work in some areas. His work does not convincingly answer his plea for "solid linguistic study of the language, written in such a way that it makes a difference to those who use the language on a day-to-day basis" (p. 216). Even so, it is a step in the right direction.

Robert D. Bergen

Hannibal-LaGrange College, Hannibal, MO

Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Mar 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved