sentence de Saussure, Bloomfield, Chomsky to the realisation that the analysis of the text as a unit was the way to open up new possibilities.
Linguists working in Bible translation recognized the need to work in units beyond the sentence in the 1950s. In 1964 Kenneth Pike called for discourse analysis
within the tagmemic model, based on the tagmeme, the smallest functional element in the grammar of a language. Longacre began his study of discourse on the Mexican language
of Totonac in 1965 and has written extensively in the field. Although there is now a vast bibliography on discourse analysis, according to
Bodine writing in 1995, the theoretical underpinnings are still in the process of being established.
30
Alongside this, developments have been made in recent years in the study of Biblical Hebrew from a discourse perspective. Not all scholars agree on how texts should
be described, or even on what constitutes a discourse, but it is acknowledged that discourse linguistics may be able to open up new ways to solve problems concerning
grammatical constructions in Biblical Hebrew.
31
2. Survey of literature on Zephaniah
2.1 Introduction
Zephaniah can hardly be considered great as a poet. He does not rank with Isaiah, nor even with Hosea in this particular. He has no great imaginative
powers; no deep insight into the human heart is reflected in his utterances; nor any keen sensitiveness to the beauties of nature. His harp is not attuned to the
finer harmonies of life like that of Jeremiah. He had an imperative message to deliver and proceeded in the most direct and forceful way to discharge his
responsibility. What he lacked in grace and charm, he in some measure atoned for by the vigour and clarity of his speech. He realized the approaching terror so
keenly that he was able to present it vividly and convincingly to his hearers. No prophet has made the picture of the day of Yahweh more real.
32
Paul House begins his book with this quotation from John M P Smith, which he then takes issue with. He considers the initial criticism unfair and that commentators have
not appreciated the richness and structure of Zephaniah because they have treated it as separate pericopae rather than as a single discourse.
33
We agree that to appreciate the book it must be treated as one text, and we will attempt to show that it is reasonable to take the book as a single discourse with a single
30
Bodine, Discourse Analysis, 1-4.
31
van der Merwe, “Discourse Linguistics” 13.
32
Smith, Ward Bewer, Micah, Zephaniah, 176.
33
House, Zephaniah, 9-10.
purpose. We also need to bear in mind, of course, that the text is part of the canon of Scripture and that it must be considered in that context.
According to Berlin, ‘The Book of Zephaniah is a study in intertextuality. A highly literate work, it shares ideas and phraseology with other parts of the Hebrew Bible
to such an extent that at times it may appear as nothing more than a pastiche of borrowed verses and allusions.’ In certain cases others may have borrowed from Zephaniah rather
than vice versa.
34
We will attempt to show that Zephaniah borrowed from other sources for legitimate reasons, not because he did not know how to produce an original piece of
effective communication, and that precisely by borrowing, he succeeded in producing a masterful piece of communication.
2.2 Date and author
