Gerald Klingbeil - Chantal J. Klingbeil, «‘Eyes to Hear’: Nehemiah 1,6 from a Pragmatics and Ritual Theory Perspective», Vol. 91 (2010) 91-102
This study of the enigmatic phrase K1d:@b;(a tla@pit@-l)e (amo#$li tw$xw%tup; K1yney('w: “and your eyes open to listen to the prayer of your servant” (Neh 1,6) utilizes an interdisciplinary approach involving insights from linguistic pragmatics and ritual theory. We will begin with a brief review of the history of interpretation of this phrase. Particular attention will then be given to elements of ritual theory, such as trigger point, ritual language, time, place, sequence, etc. Finally, we will examine the pragmatic context, discourse, and conversational strategies involved with this phrase.
97
‘EYES HEAR’ : NEHEMIAH 1,6
TO
a c t u a l language use, pragmatics deal with the accompanying
circumstances. It involves “a speaker-hearer’s tacit knowledge of the
conditions governing the appropriate use of language†23. In the following
section we would like to take Ferrara’s definition of pragmatics as our
s t a r t i n g point. Ferrara defines socio-linguistic pragmatics as the
“ systematic study of the relations between the linguistic properties of
utterances and their properties as social action†24. In other words, rather
than asking what does the phrase “eyes to hear†means we need to ask what
did the speaker/writer wish to communicate by using this strange phrase.
Probably the first question that needs to be addressed is whether or not
this is a legitimate communication attempt. In answer to this question we
have four basic options. Either, this obviously strange expression is a
scribal error, or Nehemiah was unaware of what he was doing 25 that is to
For the use of pragmatics in biblical studies see C. HARDMEIER, “Die
textpragmatische Kohärenz der Tora-Rede (Dtn 13) im narrativen Rahmen des
Deuteronomiums : Texte als Artefakte der Kommunikation und Gegenstände
der Wissenschaftâ€, Was ist ein Text? Alttestamentliche, ägyptologische und
altorientalische Perspektiven (eds. L.D. MORENZ – S. SCHORCH) (BZAW 362;
Berlin 2007) 207-257; F.H. POLAK, “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech
Community in the Achaemenid Empireâ€, Judah and the Judeans in the Persian
Period (eds. O. LIPSCHITS – M. OEMING) (Winona Lake, MN 2006) 589-628;
W.M. SCHNIEDEWIND, “Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical
Hebrew â€, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5 (2004) n.p. [cited 30 June 2008].
Online : http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/articleo36.pdf; N. WINTHER-
NIELSEN, “Fact, Fiction, and Language Use: Can Modern Pragmatics Improve
on Halpern’s Case for History in Judges?,†Windows Into Old Testament
History. Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel†(eds.
V.P. LONG – D.W. BAKER – G.J. WENHAM) (Grand Rapids, MI 2002) 44-81;
A.L.H.M. VAN WIERINGEN, “The Reader in Genesis 22:119. Textsyntax -
Textsemantics - Textpragmaticsâ€, EstBÃb 53 (1995) 289-304; H. SIMIAN-
YOFRE, “PragmalingüÃstica: comunicación y exégesisâ€, RevistB 50.23 (1988)
75-95 ; E.R. HOPE, “Pragmatics, Exegesis, and Translationâ€, Issues in Bible
Translation (ed. P.C. STINE) (United Bible Societies Monograph Series 3;
London 1988) 113-128; and earlier in a pioneering effort C. HARDMEIER,
T e x t t h e o r i e und biblische Exegese. Zur rhetorischen Funktion der
Trauermetaphorik in der Prophetie (Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 79;
München 1978).
R . P. B O T H A , T h e World of Language. A Carrollinian Canvas
23
(Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 29; Stellenbosch 1995) 125.
A. FERRARA, Pragmatics. Handbook of Discourse Analysis (London
24
1985) II, 138.
Regarding the issue of the authorship of Nehemiah see K.-J. MIN, The
25
Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah (JSOTSS 409; London 2004), and the
introductory section of the standard commentaries.
FOLLOW US