Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rhapsode (review)

Hebrew Studies 47 (2006) 439 Reviews Generative Perspective (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), in which both Topic and Focus phrases are proposed and empirically justified. In this same vein, Lamprecht should not have avoided revising in light of N. Chomsky’s subsequent works available to him (The Minimalist Program [Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995]; particularly chapter 4 “Categories and Transformations,” and N. Chomsky, “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka [Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000], pp. 89–155), since some of the projections so prominent in Lamprecht’s analysis have been dispensed with on both theoretical and empirical grounds. However, these criticisms and qualifications should not detract from my recommendation: this work should be read by anyone interested in the issues of verb movement and/or word order in Aramaic (or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language, for that matter). Lamprecht displays a sure competence in the theory and application of formal (generative) linguistics that is not common in Biblical Aramaic and Hebrew studies. The fields of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic studies would benefit from dozens more studies like this. Robert D. Holmstedt University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada robert.holmstedt@utoronto.ca BIBLICAL NARRATIVE AND THE DEATH OF THE RHAPSODE. By Robert S. Kawashima. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Pp. xi + 293. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2004. Cloth, $39.95. In this book, Kawashima correlates two well-examined intellectual developments of ancient Israel: the first is the creation of biblical narrative (as “written verbal art”) out of earlier epic (as “oral verbal art”); the second is the epistemic revolution of monotheism. The basis of this correlation is the philosophical-linguistic dichotomy of subjective versus objective time: the former Kawashima associates with epic and its accompanying “pagan” myth based on a monistic cosmos; the latter he associates with biblical narrative and the transcendent dualism that accompanied the monotheistic revolution in ancient Israel. The basis of this association is far from clear, but appears to work by analogy: inasmuch as biblical narrative developed from epic through an “alienation” (i.e., objectifying) of time, so also the transcendent Hebrew Studies 47 (2006) 440 Reviews dualism of Israel’s monotheistic thought came through the “alienation” of God. After introducing his thesis in chapter 1, Kawashima illustrates the rise of biblical narrative from epic in chapter 2 through a comparison of Judges 4 and 5. In the following two chapters Kawashima argues that Ann Banfield’s (Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction [Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982]) two types of “unspeakable sentences,” characteristic of the modern novel, are likewise characteristic of biblical narrative: “pure narration” (chap. 3) and “represented consciousness” (chap. 4). In chapters 5 and 6, Kawashima draws on Homeric scholarship to contrast the techniques for expressing simultaneity (chap. 5) and use of type-scenes (chap. 6) in Homer, “as an exemplary achievement of the oral tradition” (p. 15), and biblical narrative. Finally, in the concluding seventh chapter, Kawashima engages in what he calls “archaeology of ancient Israelite knowledge” in an attempt to correlate the “novelty” of biblical narrative with the equally novel monotheistic revolution in ancient Israel. Kawashima’s comparison between Homeric epic and biblical narrative casts into relief some of the artful features of the latter. However, ultimately I am unpersuaded by his thesis for two basic reasons: first, his failure to interact with the historical issues of Israelite religion and composition of the Bible makes his correlation of biblical narrative and monotheistic revolution an intriguing yet unsubstantiated claim; second, his analogy between the modern novel and biblical narrative is forced at times when he attempts to sweep away problematic data as inconvenient details. This latter point is indicative of Kawashima’s general problem in doing justice to the Hebrew data, which is the focus of the remainder of this review. In chapter 3, Kawashima applies Banfield’s “pure narration” category to biblical narrative by introducing Emile Benveniste’s (Problèmes de linguistique générale [Paris: Gallimard, 1966]) distinction between French passé simple and passé composé, with which he finds an analogous dichotomy in Hebrew wayyiqtol and...