From The Eclipse To The Art Narrative of Biblical Narrative. Reflections On Methods of Biblical Exegesis - Eep Talstra - 1998

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative.
Reflections on Methods of Biblical Exegesis*

Eep Talstra
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
0. Introduction
Trying to define ones own position among the many views on methods of interpretation of the Old Testament is no simple task. Some would even take it to be
perilous, because one is never able to cover the entire field: one cannot but
disappoint scholars who favour quite different positions and who could feel that
they have not been understood correctly. Others would consider it an uninspiring undertaking, since the debate on method can end only in repeating wellknown choices and options. In spite of these possible hazards, this paper hopes
to cover a considerable portion of the field, as the title indicates.
FREI1 and ALTER2 describe in their works the domain of biblical interpretation
from different angles, thus providing a good picture of the two extremes which
still dominate the methodological debate. From FREI, one learns why texts came
to be assessed by the use of text-external statements taken from history,
anthropology, philosophy or dogmatic theology. From ALTER one learns why
texts should now be studied in their own rights as literary compositions, as
pieces of art. It was primarily curiosity that prompted me to delve into the
famous study by FREI to learn how that in the course of many generations of
biblical research the narrative had to give way to various types of propositional
or historical theology, whereas in recent days the study by ALTER has
demonstrated how the narrative has made a strong comeback into the centre of
exegetical work. It will be clear that the very return from biblical studies that
were allowed to contribute only to natural or dogmatic theology to biblical
studies that concentrate on the texts as we have them, did not in itself create
anything like a unified methodology. On the contrary, as recent introductions to
exegetical work demonstrate, we have to face a multiplicity of methods. For
example, MCKENZIE and HAYNES3 describe no less than thirteen methods of
My thanks are due to dr. Janet W. DYK for comments and for correcting the English text of my paper.
H.W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics,
New Haven/Londen, 1974.
R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York: Basic Books, 1981; For more art see, for example, S.
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOT Supplement Series, 70), Sheffield, 1989; J.P. Fokkelman,
Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A full interpretation based on stylistic and structural analysis.
Vol 1-4, Assen, 1981ff.
S.L. McKenzie and S.R. Haynes (eds.), To Each Its Own Meaning. An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms
and their Application, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative
biblical interpretation. Only one of these is called an approach, the other twelve
are all labelled criticism. The number alone makes one understand why
KCKERT, announcing this work in ZAWs Bcherschau, had clearly become somewhat fatigued by reading it. After describing the books contents, he restricted
himself to just one statement4: "Nach so viel Criticism braucht man die Erhohlung
durch schlichte Bibellektre." This is also my hope concerning todays debate: a
plain reading of the Bible may be preferable to running the risk of boring the
reader by a mere repetition of well-known viewpoints. The same applies when
the topic itself has become dangerous due to the great variety of hermeneutical
interests.
Simplistic as it may seem, this paper is organised around the process of reading
as the main issue. First, I will address a number of choices made and questions
asked about method in exegetical work. Second, I want to propose a model for
giving a significant order to the application of various approaches or methods.
Third, I will concentrate on some textual details to test the proposed order in
methods. Finally, I will make some conclusive statements about methods.
1. Oppositions and Debates.
1.1. Current debate on method
This paper will not attempt to present all kinds of methods used for biblical
interpretation, even less to argue which one would be the best. On the other
hand, I do not agree with some modern statements that a maximum of methods
should be used, that every single method has its own way of asking questions of
the text, so that applying all of them would help us achieve a maximum of
insight. In my view such a position would mean the end of all dialogue and is,
therefore, hermeneutically merely naive. Rather, the goal of the debate on
methods could be compared to the task of the Speaker of the House of Commons
who must proclaim: Order!, when the honourable members tend to confuse
sound argumentation with the argument of sound.
I begin with an inventory of some major disagreements in the area of biblical
interpretation. As is the case with parliaments, this appears to be an area where
rather strong and sometimes confusing statements are made, as can be illustrated
by some pairs of conflicting positions on the nature of textual data:
a. Archive of religion versus one holistic, theological intention.
This debate on historical criticism versus literary, form-critical or rhetorical
analysis is represented, for example, in a discussion by PERLITT and LOHFINK on
the book of Deuteronomy5. Do various elements in a text come from various
periods or movements in Israelite religion? Or do all elements in a text have a
4
ZAW 107 (1995) 349.
L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium 1-3 im Streit der exegetische Methoden, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, (BETL 68), Leuven, 1985, 149-163.
Eep Talstra
theologically motivated meaning and are all linguistic elements part of one
literary design, demonstrating a special rhetorical style and showing a particular
theological interest?
b. History versus ideology.
The discussion on historical narrative versus a synchronic reading combined with
the so-called late dating of Old Testament texts is represented by the fierce
debate among PROVAN6, DAVIES7 and THOMPSON8. Should the historian stay as
far as possible away from the exegete and consider literary data by definition to
be data of a secondary nature? Could one find a methodology able to combine
archeological and textual knowledge?
c. Literary strategy versus reflection of human experience.
This debate is closely related to the one mentioned under b, being in fact its
literary counterpart. A representative there of is HARDMEIER9 who struggles with
views reported by HERRMANN10, especially the approach of CAROLL11 to the
book of Jeremiah. Have prophetic texts been freely (re-)created to serve as
material for the expression of the theological and political interests of post-exilic
religious parties, or can one read the texts as discourse not merely created to
express ideology, but reflecting the mixture of traditions and answers to
historical experiences?
d. Religious data versus a particular religious tradition or orthodoxy.
Should archeologists and Hebrew scholars define their task mainly with the field
of the history of religion? Should the study of Old Testament theology be kept
entirely separate from that area? The recent proposal by ALBERTSZ to present a
theology of the Old Testament as a history of changes and choices, rather than
as a first step in the direction of a systematic theology, has reopened the debate
on historical and normative description.12 One may ask, however, who is
6
I.W. Provan, Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel,
JBL 114 (1995) 585-606.
P.R. Davies, Method and Madness: Some Remarks on Doing History with the Bible, JBL 114 (1995)
699-705. He claims, contra Provan, that he does not argue from assumptions about the historical
unreliability of biblical historiography: "What I actually argued was that because it is historically
unreliable it has to be understood as ideology." (p. 702).
T.L. Thompson, A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?, JBL 114 (1995) 683698.
C. Hardmeier, Geschichte und Erfahrung in Jer 2-6. Zur theologischen Notwendigkeit einer geschichts- und erfahrungsbezogenen Exegese und ihre methodischen Neuorientierung, Evangelische
Theologie 56 (1996) 3-29. On "raw data" and "ideology": What we have is not history, but text. We need
a new literary historical method capable of reading texts as discourse (Argumentationstruktur) (p. 12).
10
S. Herrmann, Jeremia. Der Prophet und das Buch, (EdF 271), Darmstadt, 1990.
11
R.O. Carrol, Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL), London, 1986.
12
R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (ATD Ergnzungsreihe Band 8), Gttingen, 1992. See the debate in: Baldermann, Ingo (and others) (eds.), Jahrbuch fr Biblische Theologie
(JBTh), Band 10 (1995) Religionsgeschichte Israels oder Theologie des Alten Testaments?, Neukirchen, 1995,
e.g., N.P. Lemche, Warum die Theologie des Alten Testaments einen Irrweg darstellt, 79-92, and N.
neutral and who operates from an ideology. It is interesting to see that historians
of religion have their own hermeneutics as well. After an extensive survey of
archeological findings of drawings and inscriptions, KEEL - UEHLINGER13,
express a clear theological choice. Discussing how the archeological findings
indicate some of the religious struggles about what kind of god JHWH should
be understood to be, they say that even Jewish religion had its own Sndenfall
in its searching for identity through conflict with Canaanite religion, rather than
accepting the mother-goddess figures from the Canaanite tradition.
e. Theological hermeneutics versus reader - response hermeneutics.
The debate mentioned under d. makes clear that hermeneutical positions are
always implied. The interpretation of a text is always a critical theological
undertaking. A major hermeneutical question, however, remains: who criticises
whom? Theoretically speaking two extremes exist. One may prefer the one
extreme, i.e., analysing a text as a consistent system of values, capable of
evaluating and criticising its reader. One may prefer the other extreme, i.e.,
analysing a text according to a system of values current in the readers world.
Generally the two extremes imply that in biblical studies the relation of reader
and text is one of tension: does the R stand for Rabbenu or for Reader? Who
criticises whom? Thus, one hears, for example the Voices from Amsterdam14
who, in an interesting blend of literary analysis, BARTH and BUBER, give priority
to the claims of texts as evaluating the reader. At the same moment, one hears
the opposite statements by critical hermeneutics, where the text represents a
culture or a system of values that provokes the reader to opposition.15
The main hermeneutical point shared in these various debates is the question
of what ones perception is on the relationship between the texts of the Bible and
the world of human, religious experience. In what mode should one read? Do the
texts represent a freely composed religious programme, an historical report, an
ideology of particular or universal moral recommendations, or a mixture of
experience and interpretation in which the reader is invited to share?
The hermeneutical question of how to relate text and experience is not the only
domain of methodological debate. In addition to the differences of opinion listed
above, reference also needs to be made to a number of scholars who are in search
Lohfink, Fcherpoker und Theologie, 207 - 230.

13
O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gttinnen, Gtter und Gottessymbole. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte
Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonografischer Quellen (Qaestiones Disputatae 134),
Freiburg, 1992, 469f., 474f.
14
M. Kessler, Voices from Amsterdam. A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative. Selected, translated
and edited by Martin Kessler (Semeia Studies), Scholars Press: Atlanta, 1994.
15
P.R. House (ed.), Beyond Form Criticism. Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (CBTS [Sources for
Biblical and Theological Study] 2), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992; cf. M.T. Wacker, Religionsgeschichte Israels oder Theologie des Alten Testaments - (k)eine Alternative? Anmerkingen aus
feministisch-exegetischer Sicht, in: Jahrbuch fr Biblische Theologie (JBTh), Band 10 (1995) Religionsgeschichte Israels oder Theologie des Alten Testaments?, 129 - 156.
Eep Talstra
of strategies to bridge the oppositions, e.g., BARR16, BARTON17, NOORT18 and

UTZSCHNEIDER19. Their efforts tend to concentrate more on procedures, on the
puzzling details that present themselves as soon as one begins reading the
biblical texts. The main point of interest can be summarised as a debate about
synchrony and diachrony, described by BARTON20, using a nice Old-Testament
metaphor, as hostilities between "two armies on opposite hills". In my view, too,
it seems most effective to start the debate in terms of procedures, rather than in
terms of hermeneutical positions, e.g., in exegetical practice what is the relation
of synchronic and diachronic analysis?21 Only hereafter may one have sufficient
material to re-address the hermeneutical arguments that dominate the debate,
i.e., how does one relate the texts to views on history, religion or human society?
1.2. Hermeneutics and procedures
The previous paragraph has taken stock of the main points on which exegetes
differ as to methods. Exegetical practice of the past decades clearly has led to a
multiplication of methods. Is this because knowledge has increased? We have
come to know more about ancient near eastern texts and history, about general
linguistics, the theory of literature and many other topics. The multiplication of
methods can partially be explained by developments in these neighbouring
disciplines. The main reason for the multiplication, however, can be deduced
from the oppositions listed above: the views scholars hold on the nature of the
relationship between biblical texts and human experience have changed
substantially.
FREI describes the changes that have taken place in biblical scholarship in the
course of 18th and 19th century thinking on Bible and hermeneutics, which can
be summarised as a shift from reading texts concerning the special narrative
about God and man to the reading of texts in relation to theories of human
knowledge. It is a movement from history to truth, from special identity to
general propositions. Once history is seen as an ad hoc scenery, as merely an
16
J. Barr, The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?, in: J.C. de
Moor, Synchrony or Diachrony? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Papers Read at the Ninth
Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi and The Society for Old
Testament Study, held at Kampen, 1994 = Oudtestamentische Studin 34 (1995) 1-14.
17
J. Barton, Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any Common Ground?, in: S.E.
Porter, P. Joyce, D.E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries. Essay in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of
Michael D. Goulder, Leiden: Brill, 1994, 3-16.
18
E. Noort, Land in the Deuteronomistic Tradition - Genesis 15: The Historical and Theological
Necessity of a Diachronic Approach, in: J.C. de Moor, Synchrony or Diachrony? [ftn 16], 129-144.
19
H. Utzschneider, Die renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturwissenschaft und das Buch Exodus.
berlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung, ZAW 106 (1994) 197-223.
20
Art.cit. [ftn. 17], 3.
21
Cf. E. Talstra, The Prayer of Solomon. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14 -61,
Kampen: Kok, 1992.
illustration of general truth, then biblical exegesis can only be performed in the
context of general hermeneutics: can a text stand up to analysis by human
rationality? The movement from the world of biblical narrative to the world of
truth claims resulted in the eclipse of biblical narrative.
As the work of ALTER and many others illustrate, we seem now to be moving
from general knowledge back into the narrative. That, however, is not the case:
on the contrary, we are moving on, i.e., from truth claims into the art of persuasion, the art of composing and deconstructing texts. The history narrated is a
history skillfully imposed upon or criticised by the readers. The hermeneutics of
truth claims and general knowledge is replaced by critical hermeneutics: texts do
not represent general knowledge, but the interests of the writers and their context. Reading becomes the struggle between being manipulated and being critical. When texts represent the particular interests of certain groups, interpretation
becomes the task of a demasque: reveal the intentions and interests of the writers!
In my view the claim is correct that within the routines of theological reading,
critical hermeneutics22 asks the right questions; however, sometimes it comes
close to an easy criticism on behalf of a particular audience, without much
awareness of hermeneutical and theological dialogues.23
The current hermeneutical situation leads to a number of questions on method,
which can be divided into two sets.
First, questions concerning the hermeneutical issues: what is the relation between
texts and human experience? The two extremes are clear historical reference on
the one hand and religious ideology on the other.
Second, questions concerning the instrumental issues: how is one to get entrance
into a text? Should textual analysis concentrate on sources, settings, structures
or rhetorical skills? Biblical scholars tend to concentrate on the second set of
questions only, arguing that exegesis can not wait until hermeneutical questions
have been settled or, they may show fatigue, as illustrated by KCKERTs longing
for "schlichte Bibellektre". Besides accepting the pragmatic value of these
arguments, I also see a methodological reason for concentrating on the
instrumental issues first: it is preferable to argue from data to principles rather
than from principles to data, even when admitting that pure data do not exist.
In my contribution I will proceed along this line.
1.3. Is there any agreement on techniques and tools?
The aim of the previous paragraphs was to bring out two points. First, the
methodological debate is raised by fundamental disagreements on hermeneutical
22
Cf. the article by Wacker [ftn. 15].
23
Cf. the way A. Brenner in her article, On Prophetic Propaganda and the Politics of "Love" , simply
starts from assumptions about biblical literature as propaganda: "Let us agree that the Hebrew Bible
(...) is a political document", in: F. Van Dijk-Hemmes, A Brenner (eds.), Reflections on Theology and
Gender, Kampen, 1994, 87-107.
Eep Talstra
questions. Second, exegetes tend to make it into a dispute of instrumental

questions: what techniques of analysis and description do we have? What
procedures are there for drawing conclusions? These attempts to find answers
to questions of interpretation in terms of techniques and procedures should not
be judged negatively. One might call it the minimalist approach: it is first
necessary to find agreement on the tools to be used. In my view this is necessary,
though it certainly is not sufficient for reaching a fully argued methodology.
Generally speaking one can say that the current concentration on the art of persuasion in a text implies an interest in its language prior to its content or
theology. Thus the present situation furthers the debate on instrumental issues.
At the same time, however, a clear distinction remains between scholars
interested in linguistics, i.e., the study of language as a system, a tool for human
communication, and scholars interested in literature and stylistics, i.e., the study
of language as material used by the literary artist. For that reason it is understandable that recent works on method struggle and experiment with a proper
position for the analysis of language among the classical tools of literary critical
or historical analysis. What are our tools and in which order are they to be
applied?
The work of STECK24 exhibits openness towards modern, language-oriented
methods, though at the same time having difficulties in granting linguistic
analysis its proper place. Linguistic analysis, according to STECK, is a general tool
to be applied as a checking mechanism at all levels of interpretation. As a method
it is not granted equality with the classical methods. This is understandable if one
agrees with STECKS definition of the goal of exegetical work, i.e., to understand
the development of a text. In that context linguistic analysis is used to identify
writers, layers and structures, and thus it will be employed in all stages of the
analysis.
In his chapter on interpretation STECK makes clear why analysing the growth of
a text is crucial in his method. In theology we are considering the texts historical
meaning in the light of the present. Therefore a distinction must be made
between what is historical and what is compelling in the text. After all historical
and analytical procedures have been applied, a "theological procedure" is needed
to help the exegete "to adopt the compelling character of the text which is not
historically limited".25 Here one observes the archeological function of the
exegete: one does not agree or conflict with the text as it is read; rather, that
which is historically limited is put aside in an attempt to rescue what is essential
(timeless?). In the end, the result of exegetical work is formulated in terms of
statements or propositions.
24
O.H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments. Leitfaden der Methodik, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971 (199313);
English translation of this edition by J.D. Nogalski: Old Testament Exegesis. A Guide to the Methodology
(SBL Resources for Biblical Study 33), Atlanta: Scolars Press, 1995.
25
Op.cit. [English edition], 172. Cf. a similar statement by Lemche, art.cit. [ftn. 12], discussing the work
of Albertsz, about the study of Old Testament Theology: it can only be "ein normatives Unternehmen",
91.
This model is no longer functional, once one states, as critical hermeneutics do,
that everything in a text is "historically limited". Newer developments - rightly,
in my view - start form a different angle: to understand a text one must give up
the idea of finding some eternal kernel hidden behind the raw data. There is no
end to peeling away the historical. It may seem paradoxical, but if one accepts a
text in full as it has been handed down by tradition, the effect is that it will have
a much better chance of speaking for itself. This shift of interest to text and
reading necessitates the implementation of linguistics as a more fundamental
instrument. For that reason linguistic analysis is increasingly becoming an
important topic in newer methodologies.
The classics of the newer methodogies, RICHTER26 and FOHRER27, give linguistic analysis a prominent position, i.e., directly after literary criticism. It becomes
a tool for characterising redactors or authors, once literary analysis has succeeded
in identifying larger of smaller textual compositions. Linguistics as a tool to
describe the grammatical and lexical structure of complete texts, before their
segmentation according to literary critical standards, is, however, rejected, since
that would imply that a linguistic analysis would be made of a text that is
historically and, therefore, linguistically not a unity. An example of the
application of this particular sequence of the procedures is DIETRICHs28
linguistic and theological characterisation of deuteronomistic redactions in the
book of Kings: DtrG, DtrP and DtrN.
SCHWEIZER29 takes a further step towards a more independent position for the
study of the linguistic material. The study of language is not intended to bring
to light the characteristics of an author, but is a means of characterising a text, its
line of argumentation, its categories, its way of addressing the reader. The reader
is in dialogue with the texts, not with individual authors. This shift of interest
from author to text also implies more emphasis on the relation of linguistics to
human communication. As in the work of RICHTER, linguistic analysis begins
with the analysis of form, i.e., the linguistic phenomena of the texts surface.
Thereafter extensive analysis is needed of semantics (lexical meaning) and
pragmatics (the communicative effects of the actual text). Similarly to RICHTER,
Schweizer defines linguistic analysis as a second step in the exegetical procedure:
his first step is much less literary critical, being rather a procedure for deciding
at which stage the text is be read30 and a preparation of the text by segmentation
into clause-level syntactic units.
26
W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft. Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und

Methodologie, Gttingen, 1971.
27
G. Fohrer, Exegese des Alten Testaments, Einfhrung in die Methodik, UTB 267, Heidelberg, 1973.
28
W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen

Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108) Gttingen, 1972.
29
H. Schweizer, Biblische Texte verstehen. Arbeitsbuch zur Hermeneutik und Methodik der Bibelinterpretation,
Stuttgart, 1986.
30
Op.cit., 37 ftn. 2.
Eep Talstra
HARDMEIER31 also aims at detecting the function of texts. In his approach, text
linguistics, concentrating on linguistic marking, is to be supplemented by text
theory, the study of text-communicative functions. Text linguistics defined in this
way is the tool for describing a text both as the result of an original process of
communication and as the start of additional processes, theoretically covering the
span from early redactions until the contemporary reading of the text.
Much recent methodology has been discussed by JONKER32 who attempts to
define a multidimensional framework for exegetical methods in which linguistic
description and literary analysis are combined. Though JONKER sometimes seems
a little too anxious to accept and combine existing methods, his study certainly
points in the direction where the discussion of methods should go.
We are left, however, with at least one intriguing complication, i.e., the relationship of linguistic and literary analysis. Similarly to how the above mentioned
methods relate themselves directly to linguistics, modern literary approaches
also exploit linguistic categories and speak of synchrony or structure. Though
pointing to general linguistics as their model, they tend to skip linguistic analysis
as their tool. Literary methods jump right into the art of textual compositions,
rather than looking into their grammar.
From the history of exegesis this is understandable. In his well-known article
Form criticism and beyond33, MUILENBURG tried to disconnect biblical idiom
from fixed contexts of genre and public ceremony and to trace it back to the
creative power of the text writers. In this way a step was taken directly from the
view of language in form criticism to that in rhetorical criticism. As a result the
position of linguistics as an analytical tool in itself was passed over, as one still
can observe in much modern study of poetic or prophetic rhetorics which present
a wealth of chiasms and inclusions, impertinently crossing any grammatical type
of text-linguistic ordering.
This remarkable situation is well illustrated by the fact that introductions
focussing on literary types of exegetical methods, e.g., MCKENZIE and HAYNES34,
do not even take the trouble of referring to linguistic approaches as a possible
instrument (let alone a method) for biblical interpretation.
We may conclude that indeed the study of exegetical methods tends to concen-
31
C. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas. Erzhlkommunikatieve Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzhlungen in II Reg 18-20 und Jer 37-40 (BZAW 187), Berlin, 1990;
C. Hardmeier, Umrisse eines vordeuteronomistischen Annalenwerks der Zidkijazeit. Zu den
Mglichkeiten Computergesttzter Textanalyse, VT 40 (1990) 165-185.
32
L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety. Perspectives on Multidimensional Exegesis, Contributions to Biblical
Exegesis and Theology 19, Kampen 1996.
33
JBL 88 (1969) 1-18; reprinted in: P.R. House (ed.), op.cit. [ftn. 15], 49-69.
34
S.L. McKenzie and S.R. Haynes (eds.), op.cit. [ftn. 3], do not even mention it. Similar, the volume edited
by P.R. House, op.cit. [ftn 15].
10
trate more on instruments and procedures than on hermeneutical issues, while

the balance between language and literature remains a problem still needing to
be addressed. Linguistic approaches in their concentration on syntax and on the
pragmatics of linguistic communication demonstrate a strong awareness of what
a text is. Literary approaches, on the contrary, in their concentration on language
as the material used by the literary artist seem inclined to overlook the systematic
and conventional aspects of language.
So the actual challenge for the discussion of methods is not only to confront
classical procedures of analysing textual growth with modern procedures of
analysing textual communication, but also to attempt to find a balance between
arguments taken from the general linguistic system and those referring to special
literary design.
Eep Talstra
11
2. Proposal for a Procedure

It seems most promising for exegetes to start experimenting with methods which
concentrate on the real data, i.e., on the final texts received from tradition and the
textual materials recently discovered by archeological findings. Concentration on
data is observable in current historical research and in textual criticism. Existing
general models are challenged from data found: inscriptions, drawings, seals and
manuscripts. It would be naive to suggest that one could do textual analysis
without assuming some hermeneutical position. In biblical studies one never
starts fully from scratch: manuscripts have been transmitted, scholarly editions
represent choices and grammars have their traditions. So it may be better not to
speak of data versus models, but to speak of approaching a text from the
reading process, prior to a textual analysis of the process and conditions of its
production, i.e., the writing.
2.1. An Ordering of Methods
As stated before, several classical and modern disciplines contribute to the task
of textual interpretation. The challenge does not lie in the selection of the best
one, but in finding the order in which the methods can be applied and made to
cooperate effectively. My proposal is to position classical and modern disciplines
in a schema of two main oppositions:
I.
II.
general (material)
language (system)
special (composition);
literature (design).
The following matrix results:

linguistic
debate:
distribution
text level
< > function

< > clause level
general special
--------------------------|
|
|
language
| General
| Philology |
| Linguistics|
|
|
+---+
|
newer methods -->>-- | T.| --<<-- classical methods
|
+---+
|
|
|
|
literature
| Gen. Theory| Exegesis |
|
of
|
|
| Literature |
|
--------------------------literary
debate:
structure < >

synchronic < >
author
diachronic
12
The well-known opposition synchronic diachronic is not a primary one in

this schema, but in fact results from different choices made concerning various
types of research. Generally speaking one can state that the classical tools of
biblical interpretation concentrate more on the special side: the particular,
ancient language of the text and its author or background. As a result, the
classical methods demonstrate a greater interest in diachrony. The newer tools
tend to concentrate more on the general side: linguistic method or literary and
stylistic devices. As a result they are more of a synchronic nature. If this is
correct, one could say that much debate on method can be characterised as a
difference of opinion about the order in which to proceed through this schema.
The approach I propose and want to test (partially) in this paper is based on two
assumptions concerning the oppositions mentioned above:
1. analysis in terms of the general comes prior to analysis in terms of the special
(=opposition I).
2. linguistic analysis comes prior to literary analysis (=opposition II).
When one proceeds through the matrix of oppositions on the basis of these
assumptions, the outcome is a proposal for a basic order of analytical procedures:
- SYSTEM BEFORE DESIGN
The explanation of linguistic features in a text in terms of the system (general
linguistics) has priority over an explanation in terms of design (literary devices).
This implies that if phenomena in a text can be explained on the basis of the
linguistic system, they should not be ascribed to the author or theology. This
would, for example, entail a critical revision of the overabundance of chiasms,
inclusions and lexical repetitions presented in current studies on Hebrew poetry.
- DESIGN BEFORE RECONSTRUCTION
The analysis of a completed text as handed down by literary tradition has
priority over the analysis of its reconstruction (production process). This implies
that phenomena in a text may originate from various redactions, but their
contribution to the existing text is the first thing being registered in the process
of reading. In terms of the current debate this means assuming a position in
favour of synchronic analysis prior to diachronic analysis35. At the same time
one should bear in mind that synchronic analysis is a reading connected to
history as well36. The linguistic and the additional, extra-linguistic information
represent historical knowledge. This fact does not change the order of methods:
synchrony, the textual composition, first and diachrony, the textual
reconstruction thereafter. One should be careful, however, not to interprete this
as a-historical versus historical.
35
Cf. E. Talstra Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.)
Synchrony or Diachrony? [ftn 16], 187 - 210.
36
Cf. J. Barr, art. cit. [ftn 16], 1-14.
13
Eep Talstra
- RECONSTRUCTION BEFORE DIALOGUE

The analysis of the historical setting of a text within the larger textual corpus has
priority over the reader-response dialogue over the actual text. This implies that
the modern critical dialogue with a text runs the risk of being based on a misunderstanding if one has no insight into the kind of claims the text made towards
its addressee within the situation of its historical setting. In diachronic analysis
a text is compared to other texts in terms of language and structure. Shifts in
lexical and syntactic features, or shifts in the pattern of actors detected by
synchronic analysis allow for constructing a hypothesis about earlier layers and
subsequent redactions. From this hypothesis one may attempt to evaluate the
texts position in the context of the religion of Israel and Old Testament
Theology; it also keeps the exegete aware that the addressee or implied reader
of a text differs from the contemporary reader.
- DIALOGUE
Textual interpretation has not ended until the present-day reader has decided
about his/her reaction to the text. The choices to be made here depend only to
a limited extent on the application of analytical procedures: they are as much a
matter of the hermeneutic choices made. Is the position a reader takes towards
a text a relation of identification with one of the actors in the text? Is it a position
of criticism based on modern cultural values or is it a position of participation in
generations of readership? Here the instrumental issues are again combined with
hermeneutic issues. In my conclusions I will briefly address that topic.
Presented in one schema, the suggested basic order of procedures to be applied
would be:
Linguistic system
Literary design
/
Synchrony
Diachrony
/
Addressee
contemporary reader
14
3. Sample texts: Dtn. 29,17-27; I Kgs. 9,1-9; Jer. 22,1-9

Without suggesting that a researcher would always have to apply the full set of
procedures, grammatical and lexical research comes first when following the
order presented above. In exegetical research this is basic to all other procedures.
It should be noted, however, that linguistic analysis does not only mean the
study of grammar and semantics in general or the study of the Hebrew or
Aramaic lexicon and grammar in particular, for it entails the linguistic analysis
of textual structures as well.
As a case study I take the well-known dialogues found in Dtn. 29, I Kgs. 9 and
Jer. 22: in some future situation after the destruction of the land, the temple or the
city, certain people will ask: "For what reason has God acted in this way to
them?". And the answer will be: "This is because they forsook the covenant ...,
served other gods ..." .
Since we happen to have access to the three clearly parallel Hebrew texts
mentioned and also to a few non-biblical parallel texts, I think these data can be
helpful in reflecting on methods. I made this choice since the position of the
Hebrew texts in their particular contexts gives rise to questions on language,
structure and genre, while the presence of non-biblical parallels gives grounds
for raising questions on origin and religious background.
3.1. Current questions and answers.
Reading the commentaries, one quickly notes that the interpreters main interests
is a discussion about the origin of these biblical texts: who made these
statements, to whom, in what situation and for what reason?
Commentators rarely ask questions of the type: what do these texts achieve in
their particular contexts? As far as I can see, commentators avoid questions of the
type: what was expected from the intended readers? Or, since we ourselves have
become the readers, what does the present-day reader decide? Would he agree
with the statements being made in these texts? Would the reader have reasons
to judge the answer: "it is because they have left the covenant of the Lord", to be
right or wrong?
Current questions are ususally restricted to the religious or the literary
background of the texts.
3.1.1.
Concerning the religious background
Due to an interest in the history of religion or in the history of literature, inquiries

are made as to when and why biblical writers copied or imitated certain genres
Eep Talstra
15
from Assyrian royal inscriptions37.

The non-biblical material functions in various approaches. ALBREKTSON38 in
reference to these texts, argues that in biblical theology one should not claim
exclusivity for the Old Testament in terms of God directing history. In a formcritical approach the discussion is about whether the Assyrian material is an
example of an ancient near eastern genre which was copied and used by biblical
writers. WEINFELD39 assumes that the writers of deuteronomic literature were
acquainted with and used Assyrian treaty terminology. Deuteronomy is the work
of scribes, who could be supposed to be familiar with such foreign texts.
SKWERES40, however, emphasises the difference. The use of these texts in the
biblical tradition represents a literary motif different from the Assyrian usage.
The genres used by critical prophets and developed by deuteronomistic writers
are different from Assurbanipals inscriptions. The Bible uses these texts in the
context of liturgy of covenant and ceremony. Within this context the
Strafgrunderfragung is a motif, comparable to similar motifs in Assyrian texts.
It is not a genre by itself.
3.1.2.
Concerning biblical interpretation
It is interesting to see how exegetes in their interpretation of each of these texts

refer to the two parallel texts. The main interest seems to be a discussion of
origin. With origin being the main line of questioning, the possible answers are
more or less predictable. Generally speaking, exegetes make a choice among
three options:
- either, the question: "Why has JHWH done thus to this land or city?" and its
answer are seen as taken directly from ancient near eastern treaty terminology
and applied in setting of covenant;
- or: this exchange is judged to be an original prophetic genre that may have a
cultic ceremony as its background;
- or: this is taken to be a general literary convention that functioned in various
ways in the context of ancient near eastern religious and political discourse. In
biblical texts it is applied by the redactors of deuteronomistic texts.
Commentators of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah hold opposite views. According
37
M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Knige bis zum Untergange Ninevehs, I-III (VAB 7:1-3),
Leipzig, 1916. Vol II, 1916, 76ff. D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia I-II, Chicago
1926-1927. Vol II, 318f.; 367f.
38
B. Albrektson, History and the Gods. An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in
the Ancient Near East and in Israel, Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament series 1, Lund, 1967, 105 n 23;
Concluding Remarks, 115.
39
Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the deuteronomic School, Oxford, 1972, 115 n 2.
40
D.E. Skweres, Das Motiv der Strafgrunderfragung in biblischen und neuassyrischen Texten, BZ NF,
1970, 181-197.
16
to WEINFELD41, Dtn. 29 was the original text and the Jeremiah version is
dependent on it. His argument is based on the view that Deuteronomy is the
work of scribes. From that point of view it is claimed that the Deuteronomy text
is closest to the original genre of the treaty texts and royal Assyrian inscriptions.
The assumed dependency also requires that the Deuteronomy text be read as a
text of self-condemnation, as it is the case in the Assyrian text. LABUSCHAGNE42
in his commentary, objects - rightly so - to WEINFELDs claim that Dtn. 29 would
be a matter of self-condemnation. He agrees with SKWERES view that the text has
its background in Israelite cultic ceremony. If there were to be any kind of
literary dependency, then the dependency would be on Jeremiah. Another view
opposite to WEINFELDS position is formulated in the commentary of ROSE43:
"Die Antwort (V 24) ist wrtlich aus Jer. 22,9 bernommen und erweitert worden", with reference to Jer. 12,14 7,15 21,5 32,37. In this line of argumentation
the prophetic genre is seen as basic and the Deuteronomy text as a later
application. MCKANE44 again reverses the argument, making the Jeremiah text
the secondary one, characterised as a "poorly made conflation of Dtn 29 and
IKi9."
From these examples it may be clear that the current exegetical comments to
these texts concentrate directly on their theological origin and their form-critical
aspects. Linguistic features are analysed only as indicative of theological theme,
genre or redaction. The point is not that such analysis would be wrong, rather,
methodologically speaking, the analysis of genre or background is done
prematurely, that is, before analysing the linguistic features and syntactic
structures of the individual texts in their contexts. I will, therefore, try to analyse
the texts in the order of procedure outlined in the previous paragraph. The
reader will understand that in the context of this paper I have to restrict myself
to selecting a number of examples of each procedural step.
41
Weinfeld, op.cit., 114ff., about the astonishment of both the former and later generations. This theme
is treated in Dtn. 29 and was later adopted by deuteronomic historiography (1 Kgs.9:8-9) and in the
deuteronomic prose sermons of the book of Jeremiah: 16,10-11 22,8-9; cf. 138ff. On p. 115: in
Deuteronomy it is a case of self-condemnation; the Deuteronomy text is closest to treaty texts.
42
C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium deel III (POT), Baarn, 1997, 131.
43
M. Rose, 5. Mose. Teilband 2: 5.Mose 1-11 und 26-34. Rahmenstcke zum Gesetzeskorpus (Zrcher
Bibelkommentare) Zrich, 1994, 553ff,. refers frequently to Jeremiah.
44
W. McKane, Jeremiah, Vol I Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV (ICC), Edinburgh, 1986, 522.
Eep Talstra
17
3.2. The order of analytical procedures

The first step is to describe the details of the language. To do this first furnishes
the option of studying a text in itself, before relating it to genre or author. The
process of reading the text will be guided by
- general linguistic markers (grammatical features of cohesion45);
- markers of the particular textual structure (textual coherence, text-internal
shifts, connections to other texts).
On the basis of this material it will be possible to analyse the linguistic structure
of each individual text and to define the interplay of its actors. Not all
observations will contribute only to a synchronic analysis: the observation of
shifts in textual cohesion and the points of contact with other texts may also give
reason for analysis of a diachronic type.46 From there additional steps can be
taken into the area of synchronic and diachronic research and the comparison
with parallel texts. In this way I will proceed according to the three stages of
complementary types of analysis described above.
3.2.1.
Linguistic system
Literary design
Deuteronomy 29,17-27
Markers of linguistic structure: grammatical features.
From a grammatical point of view one has to take at least verses 17-27 as the
context in order to be able to find the grammatical
connection of the WeQatal

clause in verse 21, which
connects
back
to
the
-yiqtol
clause of verse 17

(...

), from which the marker of the audience - is picked
up. Verse 28 is excluded here because of its switch from the 2nd plural form of
address into the 1st plural form (cf. verses 12 and 16).
Markers of the particular textual structure:
Lexical markers
The
lexical material operates within the syntax of the text, e.g., the repetition of

in the announcement (verse 19), in the question (verse 23 [it is not used in the
question in I Kgs. 9 and Jer. 22] ) and in the
answer (verse 26). Note also the

repetition of in verses 19, 24 and of
in verses 19, 20, 26.
Text internal shifts
Alongside the markers of coherence, also the shifts introducing new elements
should be noted:
45
J. Lyons, Linguistic Semantics. An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 262ff.
46
Cf. my article on Deuteronomy 9 and 10 [ftn. 35].
18
- the shift from singular to plural, i.e., from Gods wrath against the individual
towards the wrath directed to the land (verses 17 and 20).
- the shift in the group asking the why-question: the later generation, the stranger
and even all the peoples.
Repeatedly new actors and new terminology are being introduced, which needs
to be registered.
Connections to other texts.
Some of the terms used underline the connection to the parallel texts, e.g., Jer. 22,
, while others imply different relations, e.g., the phrase in verse 21: the
later generation is related to a number of Psalms.
Selected Output from a Quest-search for: !#"%$'&
(adj) + "(#)
(noun):
D
"+*,&.-#"0/2132546/7-#"%$8&:9;<96#=6-5">*,&?4:/7-@1<A B C " $E &F73G"(#) 3G">9&H
... I'&H&H#383KJ8"L&73KIHM/'9GI'&NO&8"( 38=2#$'"PJ'"%&:9Q&2A8T
R S " $U &V "W<) XNO"0YZ8I <[:9X?36-<IH!1O9c "%&N!\Z:YQ3'X2-<$'X]4:/7A^XN#I6-M*
`_``_O[H532<36-I2OX738IK46-#"0YZ79 a b " $d &e "W<) X?4836-@1<A9G)8$6/21f&8X
m 37g,[K"+*,&Nh-<I2#&8X6Y21M
4836-@1<A^XNO"0YZ6-i <9'=6-j#)'XHh-42-@1<A k s l " $n &o
"W<) O[7)6-<[:9X
36-5X8X736-5&8"WA61p4'[L q r " $t &u
"W<) X?I'&H_AvI:/I
deuter 29: 21
psalmi 48: 14
psalmi 78: 4
psalmi 78: 6
psalmi102: 19
In Deuteronomy 29, those that ask the question will be a general group, including
the later generation. In Kings: your sons is the generation that turns away from
JHWH; in Deuteronomy it is the later generation that will ask the question,
which means that the distance to the actor addressed is greater then in Kings.
From the texts listed above it is clear that the later generation is usually
connected to telling, writing down and teaching about God. In Dtn. 29, however,
the later generation assumes the role of an outsider, joined by the stranger and
the peoples. WEINFELD sees treaty terminology here (with reference to Job 18,20).
In my view he is overextending the inference. NIELSEN,47 speaks of the text as
reflecting a ceremony of lamentation (cf. Psalms 74 and 79). The language used,
however, does not point to those Psalms. In my view it points to a really later
generation coming after the generation that will have to face exile. The situation
sketched in chapter 29 as a whole points back a number of times to the Horeb
scene in chapter 5, as can be observed in the opening of the new discourse (29,1
5,1), the combination of actual and coming generations to enter the covenant
(29,13 5,3) and the role of the elders (29,9 5,23). Also 31,13 and 4,10 (Horeb)
mention the generation of the children that has yet to learn the Torah. The later
generation of chapter 29 is not that one: it is the generation that will see what is
going to happen. So, linguistically speaking ,wxyz it is a well-known
form that is used here in a special way, in semantic contrast to other texts. The
late generation is not primarily those who are to be taught the Torah, but those
who will see the wrath of God.
47
E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium, (HAT I/6), Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1994.
Eep Talstra
19
The text, whatever its literary background may be, fits into the context by
continuing the plural audience and the terminology of covenant, book and wrath.
It seems to make a deliberate contrast between the sons to be taught (chapter 4,
29, 31) and the later generation that will ask questions (different from in the cited
Psalms). These peculiarities make it worthwhile to explain the individual text in
its context first, before explaining it in terms of genre or background.
I Kings 9, 1-9
From a linguistic point of view one has to take at least verses 1-9 as the context.
The opening clause {| + prep. + infinitive clause (Subj. = Solomon) in verse 1
is grammatically continued by the {| + PP + ^ -clause (Subj. = Solomon) in
verse 10. Within this section the verses 3 - 9 are one direct speech section. Within
this section we have an address in the singular (verse 4), starting with the
personal pronoun x , then a yiqtol in the second person (}x~x ) continued
by WeQatal in the first person ({ ), and a similar address in the plural
(verse 5), also using a yiqtol in the second person ( |y{ ) continued by
WeQatal in the first person ({x ). The opening clause of verse 6 is a contrastive continuation of the first clause of verse 4. The continuation is expressed in
parallel syntax; the contrast is due to the shift from singular to plural and a
semantic contrast by walk before and turn away from after.
Lexical markers
Some of the lexical material used contributes to the textual coherence. Verses 4
and 6 mention observing or not observing Gods commandments. Verses 1, 3,
7 and 8 refer to the house built by Solomon. Verses 3 and 7 mention the Name.
The statement about the commandments also indicates a text internal shift from
singular to plural addressee. This phenomenon is not uncommon: in the first
chapters of Kings sometimes the king, sometimes his sons or the people are
addressed: 2,3-4: you and your sons; 6,12 (you sing.) 8, 25: you and your sons; 8,
58: we (king and people) observe the commandments.
Connections to other texts
The question is asked not by a later generation or by other peoples, but by
anyone passing by, cf. Jer. 19,8 49,7 50,13. Israel will become a ~ for all
peoples, cf. Jer. 24,9 (used here as a contrast to I Kgs. 5,14?).
The formula (+inf.abs.) |{ has a parallel in Jos. 23,12: if indeed you turn
back ..., where the situation is comparable, involving a change in the loyalty of
the later generation. This confirms that the texts oscillates between the next
generation of the dynasty and the next generation of the people, cf. your sons
20
in Ex. 12,26 Num. 32,15 Dtn. 12,12 Jos. 4,6.

An important difference with Dtn. 29 is that your sons, the next generation, is
the addressee and the one to be blamed. Your sons is not a separate actor in the
text who will ask questions much later.
A second difference is the answer in verse 9: they left , not the , which
may be intended as a contrast to the prayer for Gods presence in 8, 57: Do not
leave us, help us keep your commandments.
The text does fit its broader context, interacting with its terminology, though also
having strong connections to both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 22, 1-9
From a linguistic point of view one has to take at least verses 1-9 as the context;
otherwise one will not be able to find the syntactic position of the WeQatal clause
of verse 8: grammatically it connects back to the first person yiqtol-WeQatal construction in verses 6f. Verse 6 is part of a section introduced by ,xf|
that connects back to the expression x,x in verse 1. The repetiton of
z{}~| in verses 1 and 6 confirms this.
Lexical markers
One does not find many lexical markers of coherence. The why-question of verse
8 mentions this great city. Cities are only referred to in verse 6.
The reference to the throne of David and the king of Judah is repeated (verses 1,
2, 5, 6). This connects the text to its larger context. The full section 21,11-23,8 is
about the kings of the house of David.
If one reads the complete section Jer. 22,1-9, it is easy to find features that indicate
the complexity of the text. The text exhibits a shift from house and king to
city. Since the house of the king of Judah is strongly connected to his servants
and his people it is understandable that with disobedience not only the house,
but also the city will be affected. One observes first a shift of terminology using
house and king to the contrastive terms Lebanon and wilderness in verses
6-7, with a shift to other terminology in verses 8-9: numerous people, this city.
It is only the expressions: they have forsaken the and served ,wx{~
that are also used in the parallel text Dtn. 29,24f.
Connections to other texts
Within the complexity of the text one can observe some linguistic features that
especially tie the text to the book of Jeremiah.
- Verse 8 mentions the | | that will pass by and ask why God has done
Eep Talstra
21
this to the city. The text mentions neither all the nations as Dtn. 29 does, nor a
later generation. So the text does not seem to refer to some far away future. The
phrase numerous peoples (the translation of | is not always clear, cf. Dtn.
7,1) is not commonly used in Jeremiah, whereas the expression |
~ used
in Dtn. 29 can also be found frequently (14X) in Jeremiah, e.g., in 25, 9, 13, 15, 17
where it refers to all the nations towards whom God will take action or to
whom Jeremiah has been sent as a prophet. The expression confirms Jeremiahs
role as prophet to the nations. (The book of Jeremiah has {~ only once
[34,1]. This is a different case indeed, since that expression refers to the allies that
were fighting with Babel against Jerusalem.)
The expression | is found only three times in Jeremiah. It appears thus
that in comparison to Dtn. 29 and also within the context of the book of Jeremiah
the idiom of 22,8 reflects a deliberate choice. Twice we find in a
context where the words contrast semantically with |
~ : in Jer. 25,14 and
27,7 it is said that after all the peoples had to serve the king of Babylon,
numerous peoples and great kings will force him into service48. Both texts are
lacking in the LXX version, which is one reason why they are usually regarded
as belonging to the later and larger Massoretic version of the book49. The
semantic contrast may enhance that. The third time, in Jer. 22,8, the situation is
0W>
0W>
different. LXX here uses
. It uses 8
, as the rendering of |
~ in, e.g., 3,17 9,25. Did an earlier version of MT use only |O ? In any case it
may be that in the Hebrew text of 22,8 the phrase all peoples was avoided, since
it appears to have a special meaning in Jeremiah. The phrase numerous peoples
may have been coined in a revision of the text together with the formulations
made in 25,14 and 27,7. For the reader of the final text it implies that one has to
say more about the text than that it is just dtr language: expressions may have
a particular function in the context of the book.
- In my view this latter statement is corroborated by a second observation
concerning the expression the king, his servants and his people of 22, 2 and 4.
...46-#"%[:*AQ46-#&2Av3K79[ 52-<)6A^[
3 I &?)2#)G&7Z:/X8[NA*-<3?38)2#36-'X:9
4 -h/vX:9G32_#3?I6-Àv3;-#"%[:*'A?O&2A7532_#3G"WAv)83KI'&<g[7IN<g[?48&.-h/
6
<9[ #)6A^[
& 3K46-<Z2#Z;A7A8/v"A42-À'/v"O&7Z:/X8[?)2#)'X]46-À*'-
Jer 22,2
Jer 22,4
Usually exegetes connect this phrase to similar idioms in Jer. 21,7 and 37,2,18,
48
Cf. BDB, 713, >2 Qal.2: "work by means of another, use him as a slave". From Jeremiah is listed: 22,13
30,8 34,9,10.
49
Cf. P.M. Bogaert, Les mcanismes rdactionnels en Jr 10,1-16 (LXX et TM) et la siginifications des
supplments, in: P.M. Bogaert (ed.), Le Livre de Jrmie. Le prophte et son milieu. Les oracles et leur
transmission (BETL 54) Leuven, 1981, 222-238; esp. 235 and - in the same volume - E. Tov, Some
Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah, 145-167, esp. 166f. For a fuller
discussion of the text see also E.Tov, Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah
27 (34), ZAW 91 (1971) 73-92, esp. 85.
22
adding an explanation in rather general terms: the judgment could not be

explained by referring exclusively to the kings, therefore his servants and his
people had to be mentioned as well.50 In my view this again is an example of
linguistic material being related too directly to some redactors theology, rather
than to its function in a particular text. The expression of the type king, servants,
people is not used in a general theological way, but much more specifically:
a. In the actual context of the book of Jeremiah it refers to king Zedekiah (cf. 21,1
and 37,1). In my view Zedekiah is still the addressee for statements about the
Davidic dynasty in general in Jer. 22, 2 and 4 as well51.
b. Outside of the book of Jeremiah the expression is only found in the book of
Exodus (and in Neh. 9,10 which we leave aside here), where in the plague stories
it is used to refer to Pharaoh, his servants and his people: 5,16 7,28 8,5,7,17,25,27
9,14. Therefore in the book of Jeremiah the expression seems to belong to the
rhetoric of the debate between Jeremiah and king Zedekiah about his politics of
hope towards Egypt52 cf. Jer. 24, 8). The effect is that Zedekiah is described in
the way Moses addressed the Pharaoh: it is the incomparable God that you are
resisting (Ex. 9,14). The connection Zedekiah - Pharaoh is clear in chapter 37. Jer.
37,1 states that the kings, his servants and his people did not listen to the
prophet. Jer. 37, 5,11 mentions that the army of the Pharaoh is coming. It is
interesting to see that in chapter 25, where Jeremiah is sent to all peoples, the
Pharaoh, again with his servants (his officers) and his people, is mentioned
directly after Jerusalem and Judah. Jer. 25,19 is the only case outside of the book
of Exodus that uses this expression.
Whatever the background or the genre may be, the text has been made to fit its
context and it adds its comments to it.
The procedures applied when implementing the first pair of instruments, i.e., the
linguistic and the literary or stylistic rhetorical research, serve two goals. First,
they uncover general patterns of language in order to establish the grammatical
structure of the texts. Second, they bring to light special patterns of language
particular to the individual literary composition. As a result one may conclude
that the analysis of the three texts observed should not be restricted to the few
parallel verses, i.e., the why-question and the answer. The texts are well
connected to their respective contexts and in each case they contribute to the
larger discourse of the full text.
50
W. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25, (WMANT 41), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973, 239;
cf. 234.
51
Cf. Thiel, op. cit., 238. Weinfeld, op.cit., 155, assumes that 22,1ff. refer to King Josiah who is addressed
according to the standards of the ideal Davidic king; cf. 354f., the idiom. In my view this implies that
one prematurely concentrates on idiom and possible original text-external reference rather than on
textual composition.
52
Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit... [ftn. 31], about the contacts with Egypt (247, 257f., 259, 268f., 285, Ezek.
17,12-21) and the opinion of the prophet on the policy of relying on Egypt (263).
Eep Talstra
3.2.2.
Synchrony
23
Diachrony
The second step is an analysis of a text in terms of the opposition between

synchronic and diachronic. The linguistic structures established and the
comparison with other texts are now used to analyse the texts, first, in terms of
discourse and textual communication, and, second, in terms of literary
production and the history of the text.
Synchrony
The synchronic analysis uses the linguistic and stylistic observations and concentrates further on the text as discourse, analysing the balance of its actors or
participants. The results are summarised here in an overview of the three texts:
Deuteronomy 29:
Narrator to Reader:
MOSES to Israel (Moab generation) about "the fate of this land"
the later generation; the foreigner; all peoples will ask:
For what reason has JHWH done thus to this land?
What does this great wrath mean?
one will answer:
It is because they (Israel) left the ,|H of JHWH the God of their fathers; they
served other gods. JHWH banished them into another land; as it is the case
today.
I Kings 9:
Narrator to Reader:
JHWH to Solomon
and to you (plural) and the sons:
I will remove Israel and remove this house
anyone passing by will ask:
For what reason has JHWH done thus to this land and to this house?
one will answer:
It is because they (Israel) left JHWH; they served other gods. JHWH brought
this great evil on them.
Jeremiah 22:
Narrator to Reader:
PROPHET to House of the King of Judah:
The word of JHWH to the king, servants and people:
if you do ... ;
if you do not listen,
this house will be a ruin.
numerous peoples passing by this city will ask:
For what reason has JHWH done thus to this great city?
one will answer:
It is because they (Israel) left the ,|H of JHWH the God of their fathers;
they served other gods.
24
This overview allows for two conclusions.

First, though being parallel in theme and wording, these texts differ in the focus
of their discourse, since they operate in different larger compositions.
In the Deuteronomy text, the focus is on the group that asks the questions: it is
the later generation, the later sons, later even than the sons that enter the
covenant in Moab. They have a position similar to that of foreigners.
In Kings, the focus is on the group that is held responsible, it is the plural
addressee you including the sons, the coming generation. Questions are asked
by anyone passing by.
In Jeremiah, the focus is on the choice to be made by the king and his party. If
they choose wrongly, a destruction will follow similar to the one threatening all
the peoples. Others, numerous people, will ask questions, later.
What these texts have in common, however, is the high authority of the one who
is speaking: Moses, God and God through Jeremiah. As a reader one is on the
side of the addressee that has to expect or to undergo ruination.
Second, it is at this level of synchronic analysis that a meaningful comparison can
be made between the biblical texts and the texts of Ashurbanipals inscriptions.
Usually exegetes only compare the words of the short, parallel sections, without
giving attention to their respective larger literary contexts. In that way one is
forced to compare words and concepts, instead of the structures and actors
involved. My view is that one should compare on a structural level, which means
comparing not only the words, but also the actors in the text.
The so-called Assam cylinder, dated about 640, was set up in commemoration of
the royal buildings by Ashurbanipal in Nineveh and it bears inscriptions
reporting various military campaigns against Egypt, Elam, Babylon and others.
Col. I, begins with an introduction of himself:
I, Ashurbanipal, offspring of Ashur and Belit (...) whose name Assur and Sin (...) have
named for the kingship from earliest days (...)
Cols. VII - X deal with the ninth campaign which was carried out against Arabian
tribes. After reporting many victories over Arabian tribes and cities,
Ashurbanipal mentions that Uate, king of Arabia was defeated by famine and
pest, because he had not kept the oaths, the treaty with Ashur. Then comes the
frequently quoted section53: The people of Arabia asked one another: Why is it that
such calamities have befallen Arabia? (and answered themselves) thus: Because we did
not keep the great oaths to Ashur, (because) we have sinned against the kindness of
Ashurbanipal, the king, beloved of Enlils heart.
In this section the treaty sworn by oaths is mentioned three times (adi-ia, oaths
to me; ade-unu, their oaths; or ade-e rabuti, great oaths54) comparable to the
repeated x~ in Dtn. 29. It is important to bear in mind that these texts in their
reports consistently use the first person singular. As a reader one is on the side
53
Following the translation given by Albrektson.
54
Frankena, art.cit., 134.
Eep Talstra
25
of the winner. The same is true for a parallel text written on tablets,55 which has
the format of a letter, addressed to Ashur:
Thy knowledge, O Assur, lord of the gods, extends from the former to the latter days.
Then a similar passage about Uate, king of Arabia follows, ending with the same
questions asked by the people of Arabia.
Though the genre of this letter, of course, is different from the text of a building
inscription, when analysing the text in terms of actors and readership, one can
still maintian that as a reader one is on the side of the winner, thanking his god
for his victory.
In my view there is no doubt that the Hebrew texts and the Assyrian texts can be
compared, since they clearly demonstrate a shared literary or cultural background. The question, however, is: if one compares these texts, at what points
exactly is a comparison meaningful and at what point would it contribute to the
explanation of the biblical texts?
The types of argumentation used are:
- literary imitation: R. FRANKENA56 is of the opinion that the Hebrew writers
imitated the Assyrian texts: "showing that the Hebrew compilers had also
knowledge of other historical texts from Assyria, as Deut xxix 24-8 (and Jer.xxii
8-9), in form and phrasing, are identical to Annals, IX.ll.53-74." This is more or
less similar to the view of WEINFELD quoted above.
- similar religious concepts: ALBREKTSON57 quoted these texts in a collection of
examples of the theme: Historical Events as Divine Revelation. He writes: " not
only the idea of historical calamities as a revelation of a heavenly wrath (...) but
also the very wording is remarkably reminiscent of some passages in the Old
Testament ...". He concludes that the Assyrian text expresses the idea of moral
retribution in the same way as the Old Testament texts do. Thus, in opposition
to theological explanations, he claims that the Hebrew texts do not present an
exclusive prophetic interpretation of history, but a doctrine that is not
questioned in any known cuneiform text.
This way of reading the words of the texts identifies their communication as their
statements or propositions, i.e., the religious or theological concepts expressed.
The roles or actors are not differentiated, so actually the tension is removed from
the text.
If one, however, compares texts on the level of their discourse structure, different
types of communication come to light. In the Hebrew texts, actors in the text
speak about their experience of the destruction of the land, the house or the city.
The narrator introduces an authority (God, Moses) to cite the question and the
critical answer, spoken by an actor who is external to the situation. The reader is
supposed to be on the side of the first audience, those who suffer destruction.
In the Assyrian inscription the balance of the actors is different.
55
Luckenbill, op.cit., 348ff.
56
R. Frankena, The vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon, OTS 14 (1965) 122-154, esp. 153.
57
Op.cit., 104, 117.
26
Ashurbanipal to reader:
about OTHERS: I conquered them;
they ask about themselves: why did it happen?
they answer: we have been unfaithful.
The question with its critical answer is uttered by one of the actors in the text,
and it is addressed to themselves as the audience. The reader, however, is
supposed to be on the side of the speaker, the conqueror, who proclaims: this is
my or perhaps even our victory.
This indicates that one would do more justice to both biblical and non-biblical
texts, if one were to analyse the linguistic details, the syntax and discourse
structure of each text. After that, one may switch to literary inquiries with a focus
on historical issues.
In my view there is no reason to reject the conclusions of FRANKENA, ALBREKTSON
or WEINFELD about the literary priority of the Assyrian treaty texts. Since it is not
difficult to see that the Assyrians were by far the most dominant power of their
time, culturally and politically, it only seems natural that scribes in Judah and
Jerusalem were acquainted with Assyrian political genres and documents. The
question, however, is, what does one actually mean if one states that the
doctrine of divine retribution in history was the same in Assyria as it was in
Israel? Is the explanation of a text completed, once one has identified where the
religious ideas came from? Interpretation is not about reducing a text to its
propositional contents or finding out where they came from, but it is about the
balance of the actors in a particular text, about whos side are you as the implied
reader supposed to take. At this point the texts mentioned differ substantially,
and it is this fact that demands historical and hermeneutical inquiries.
As a procedure for text-level analysis, a synchronic approach not only produces
discourse analysis, but it also creates a basis for formulating diachronic
questions. First, the comparison of texts at a synchronic level may reveal
structural differences that demand further theological and historical research.
Second, each of the individual texts may have a specific set of linguistic and
literary features. The question then arises how one possibly could explain the
detected differences in communication and addressee. Here one approaches the
questions of literary growth, literary redaction and historical or theological
background.
Diachrony
For the sake of brevity I mention only some diachronic approaches and their
views of the literary origin of the texts chosen. Generally speaking one can see
a broad agreement concerning the literary character of these texts as late
deuteronomistic texts, reflecting the latest contribution to the composition of the
books of Deuteronomy, Kings and Jeremiah. Differences of opinion arise when
Eep Talstra
27
one considers questions of originality and background: did the redactors of the
section in one book take the text from one of the parallel sections? Did they adapt
an existing genre to fit their composition? (cf. 3.1.2). What one misses actually
is a broader perspective: how would DIETRICHs DtrN in Kings relate to THIELs
Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah? Would these redactors fit at all into
WEINFELDs Deuteronomistic School?
One could try to produce some kind of a relative chronology, describing what
parts of a book may be of earlier or of later redactional work. One could also
attach the redactional or compositional work identified to certain groups or
writers in pre-exilic Jerusalem, in the Golah or in Jerusalem of the Persian times.
Once this is attempted, it may be wise to read LOHFINKs58 questions as to
whether a Deuteronomic movement ever existed at all.
Form criticism
Form-critical research has opposed the conclusion of FRANKENA and others that
the texts of the question-answer genre were imitations of Assyrian texts. NICHOL59
SON , emphasises that it is an Old Testament text type that belongs to an exilic
style of preaching, commenting upon the fate of Judah and Jerusalem: no explanation is needed from Assyrian texts. Similarly THIEL60 speaks of common
catechetical style. The discussion does not seem to be very fruitful, since it concentrates on historical scenery much more than on the actual texts as discourse.
Taking a different approach, the commentary of W. MCKANE61 argues that one
cannot simply claim one genre for all cases of question-answer. Dtn. 29, I Kgs. 9
and Jer. 22 are special cases. Actually, MCKANE uses the change of actors (i.e., the
fact that outsiders are speaking about Judah) as an argument that Jer. 22, 8-9 is
exceptional, or in his words: "Odd, why should people speak about JHWH?". He
evaluates the text as: Unskilful use of borrowed material. A poorly made
conflation of Dtn. 29 and I Kgs. 9. This illustrates the recent transition from
focussing on genre to concentration on redaction.
Redactional Analysis and History of Religion
As illustrated from the remarks by MCKANE, redaction criticism assumes a
greater distance between the Assyrian texts and the texts in the Hebrew Bible. It
renders the question of the origin of the genre less important. The emphasis is
more on the particular theology that a certain redaction may have wanted to
express in inserting these texts into their contexts. Thus, though referring to the
58
N. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, in W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim, 1995, 313-382, = Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III (SBAB 20 [Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbnde]), Stuttgart, 1995, 65-142.
59
E.W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles. A Study of the Prose Tradition in the book of Jeremiah, Oxford, 1970,
61.
60
Thiel, W., op.cit., 240; 297ff.
61
McKane, W., op.cit. [ftn. 44], 520-522.
28
texts of Ashurbanipal, CARROL62, in speaking of Jer. 22, 8-9 states that it is

conventional terminology. The possible background of the genre in itself does
not contribute much any more. These verses belong to the D layer in Jeremiah
that explains the disaster in terms of ideology.
In effect, redaction criticism tends to create a lot of special theologians, to be
recognised from the various segments of the texts. DIETRICH63 detected DtrN,
who, with a positive ideology about Davidic dynasty, inserted the discourse of
I Kgs. 9 into the Deuteronomic History. WURTHWEIN64 accepts DtrN, adding the
suggestion that ideologists tend to be bad narrators. I Kgs. 9, 1ff. gives
"Theologische Geschichtsdeutung" and parallels 8,22ff., but fails to provide a
good introduction, according to Wrthwein: "DtrN fehlt erzhlerisches Talent".
Verses 6-9, extending the addressee from Solomon to Israel, is taken from a
second hand. NELSON65, following WEINFELD, assumes that I Kgs. 9 depends on
the text of Dtn. 29 and has been written by the second, exilic editor of the DtrH.
Later research detects two (MCKENZIE66) or even three different redactions
(KNOPPERS67).
Redaction analysis creates difficulties in achieving an overall view on the texts.
The tendency is a multiplication of redactions using different theological
statements or concepts. In my view the picture presented is too much in terms
of writers independently expressing their theological concepts in their own
idiom. One may doubt whether it is reasonable to assume so many separate
theological circles all using a special theological dictionary, implemented to
importing their own idiom into the literature. It may be better to see redactional
work more in terms of textual structure than in terms of theological propositions.
Guided by existing texts, redactors struggled to update them for the benefit of
the readers of their own time. The challenge to them was to express themselves
in dialogue with the idiom, the structure and the set of actors present in the
existing literature.
In this respect, LOHFINK68 makes an interesting remark about traditional
methods of identifying redactions by lexical material: since we have new tools
at our disposal, i.e., databases for complex grammatical and lexical searching,
62
R.O. Carrol, Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL), London, 1986, 420.
63
Op. cit., 72.
64
E. Wrthwein, Die Bcher der Knige (ATD 11) Gttingen, 1977 1985-2 (I); 1984 (II). Volume I, 105f.
65
R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOT Supplement Series 18) Sheffield,
1981, 73-76.
66
S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History
(SVT 42) Leiden: Brill, 1991, 140: change of addressee, from Solomon to people.
67
G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God. The deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies.
Volume 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (Harvard Semitic Monographs 52) Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1993, 109ff.: three levels of composition: 1-3 (tempel); 4-5 (throne of Israel, conditions
+ 2,4 and 8,25-26); 6-9 (no dynasty but cult; author blames the people; exile or later).
68
N. Lohfink, art. cit. [ftn. 58], 79.
Eep Talstra
29
there is a certain moral obligation to check the lexical argumentation of older

research concerning sources and redactions. This fits in with the order of
methods defended here: linguistic and structural observations before diachronic
hypotheses.
The three texts treated in this paper can only be read as part of exilic or postexilic versions of the books they contribute to. As LOHFINK69 suggests, together
they may even belong to an overall redaction of the material, based on the experience of exile, though the different balance of actors in these texts may not
allow for that. My impression is that the Deuteronomy version may be the latest
use of the question/answer device. Contrary to the version in I Kings, the sons
are not being blamed, but are late witnesses of the disaster. The I Kings version
uses idiom that is more frequent in Jeremiah (anyone passing; ~ ), so the
Jeremiah version may be closest to the bitter experiences of exile itself: the
destruction of the city, the failure of Davidic kings, the complicated position of
Judah between the great power Babylon and all the nations.
Textual Criticism
Just in passing I want to make one reference to textual criticism. As demonstrated
by E. TOV70, this art appears to be much closer connected to literary criticism
and redactional criticism than classic methodology would allow for. In the
methodology proposed here, this accords with the view that textual criticism is
not the basic tool with which to start textual analysis. It is the basic tool of
diachronic textual analysis, that is, the researcher doing linguistic and synchronic
analysis should postpone historical claims and be aware of the fact that one is
dealing with a medieval manuscript, that at best reflects a Hebrew text of the
third or second century BCE (TOV). Here again, in my view, the principle works
that one should start from the data present, not from theories or reconstructions.
Reconstructions should be products and are to be avoided as points of departure.
3.2.3.
Original Addressee
Present-day Reader
Once the results of both synchronic and diachronic methods have been acquired,
a third pair of contrastive interests remains: the intended reader versus the
present-day reader. This contrast involves concentrating on context and situation
rather than on discourse structure and textual growth only. Thus, it also entails
confronting textual knowledge with extra-textual information from ancient or
from contemporary times. Obviously, this is of importance for the writing of
history in the first place: can one recover the situation to which the text refers?
69
Art. cit., 117, "Bcherbergreifend".
70
E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Assen: Van Gorcum / Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992,
309, calls his dicipline "an art in the full sense of the word". About the connection to literary criticism,
cf. 317ff.
30
What readership was addressed and to what purpose? Difficult as these

questions may be, to address them is important for theology. In theology a
hypothesis about a texts addressee is needed for reasons of hermeneutics. Here
I disagree with exegetes who have an almost exclusive interest in structural
analysis or in the response of the present-day reader. The hermeneutical interest
in the texts original addressee is that without input from historical textual
research, theology cannot develop a view of how biblical literature and human
experience relate. When texts were composed or edited, were they made in the
mode of ideology (design), in the mode of truth claims (doctrine, moral propositions) or in the mode of reflection on experience (gain insight into your own
identity with respect to the past and the future)? For the position of the Bible in
theology and religion it is important to see whether the growth of Scripture
should be traced back to institutions and public offices, to a debate about the
actualisation of traditions, to exilic projects of reconstruction and return or to
other factors.
Addressee
To speak of original readers and writers is to speak of theories. Though, as
LOHFINK71 rightly states, we actually know very little about them, a description
of the characteristics of which we are aware might be sufficient. Questions can
be asked, such as: do the completed texts have their context in institutions of
official religion, in the minorities of an opposition movement or in a larger
restoration movement? Since texts of restoration (legal and cultic texts), texts
about history (Kings) and texts preserving the prophetic legacy are all existant,
it may be wise not to favour just one group as addressee of the biblical texts.
Though, as indicated above, I doubt that one could trace back the questionanswer texts to LOHFINKs overall (Bcherbergreifend) redaction of Deuteronomy and Kings, one might propose that the addressee of these texts is more or
less the same late-exilic or post-exilic readership: a people struggling for identity,
whose attention is guided back to the traditions of words spoken by Moses,
about the land, words of God spoken to Solomon about temple and dynasty and
words of Jeremiah spoken to Davidic kings and their officials about the royal
city. In all cases the point of view quoted is that of outsiders claiming that the
disaster is the result of disloyalty: whatever the institution, it collapsed when
other gods were served. The reader, however, is supposed to be an insider: this
is our history. As a consequence of what happened it can be said that the Torah
still is valid. The ruins only demonstrate that such is the case. The institution is
Torah rather then land, king, or temple. This is the experience reported by
Moses in the opening verses of Dtn. 29: you apparently have no eyes, no ears.
Seeing Gods mighty deeds has not convinced you; so read and obey the Torah.
71
N. Lohfink, art.cit.
Eep Talstra
31
Dialogue with the present-day reader

In what role is the contemporary reader being addressed? A comparison of the
balance of actors in the biblical and non-biblical texts made clear that this
question really does matter. When reading Ashurbanipals text, one is reading
about his victories and one is given the role of an admirer of the king, taking
sides with the stronger party. When reading the Hebrew texts, is one reading as
a member of the people that needs to find a way out after having failed? Most of
the modern readers would not identity with this. Does one have to identify with
one of the actors present in the discourse of a particular text?
The present-day reader who wants to enter into dialogue with the biblical texts
has theoretically two options:
- One can try to draw a lesson from the text read, an option frequently used in
theology: e.g., disaster is to be understood from transgressions committed. It is
an attempt to connect the history of religion with general religious or moral
statements, an attempt to find the wisdom hidden in these old texts. One can do
this more objectifyingly or abstractly (see, for example, ALBREKTSONs remarks
on the doctrine of retribution in ancient near eastern texts). One can also
generalise a text in searching for generally applicable truths and values (see, for
example, STECKs formulation: search for what has a general religious value). In
both ways, explaining a text by generalising its message implies that the reader
assumes a safe position: watch, read and evaluate. This is the position of much
of traditional academic methods. It provides a good scholarly standard, but
avoids dialogue.
- The other option, sometimes even presented as a full alternative, is a deliberate
critical involvement with the text, commonly called reader-response criticism. It
exists in a number of varieties that can be summarised by the question: who criticises whom? The very question demonstrates that here one leaves the instrumental part of exegetical methods to enter into the hermeneutic or theological
domain. To a large extent, the methods applied depend on the hermeneutic
position taken. In my view it is important to experiment with a number of these
before taking ones stand. One position taken can be called critical hermeneutics, which evaluates previous, standard ways of reading. The question is asked:
whose interests are represented by the text you are reading? With Ashurbanipals
version that may be easier to decide, but with respect to the Hebrew texts the
question is connected to a second one: is the text being used for ones own
interests? The history of theology has shown how important this type of
questioning can be, for example, for the Christian readers of Dtn. 29 and its
parallels. "This happened to them because they left the covenant". Does one read
that comment to strengthen ones own theological position? Which reader has a
right to quote this? Critical hermeneutics is dissatisfied with the status of the
academic observer. Reading these texts requires that one decide about ones own
role: either disagree with the comments on history and retribution in the text, or
identify with the community addressed by this text. As a modern reader one may
32
decide not to participate, arguing that this is someone elses text. The reader may
decide to take part in a different history, such as the history of the liberation of
minorities. It is equally possible that the reader decides to participate, to identify
with the experiences of the community addressed. Israel experienced the
particular history presented in these texts and has interpreted its own survival
and return to the land as God acting in faithfulness on his part. The reader could
decide to become involved with this text that presents a particular way of life as
a gift and not as an achievement. From that moment on the text begins to have
its effect on the reader. This position could be called theological hermeneutics:
one does not borrow the religious ideas from these texts, but participates in the
addressees history. Since this is a position based on participation, it gives reason
for constant questioning and defence.72 Can scholarly research remain academic
and take such a position claiming that the text evaluates the reader, rather than
the vice versa?
My personal answer to that question is an affirmative, assuming that the
question is formulated only after, not before, much methodological experiment.
At the same time, I realise that whereas formulating that question may still be
part of the area of linguistic and literary methodology, formulating the answer
is a theological decision. This also means, in my view, that the particular order
of analytical methods presented here does not force the exegete using them into
a particular theological position, but probably helps him in defining one.
4. Conclusion.
Some concluding observations and statements can be made.
4.1. Concentration on Data.
In the ongoing tension between data and ideology the scales in our days
clearly tip towards the data. Recent biblical research demonstrates a strong
tendency to concentrate on the data we have (or have found recently):
manuscripts, archeological findings, ancient Near Eastern texts. This tendency
leads to what I would call a stand-alone analysis, an analysis that attempts to
avoid theological and exegetical interests as its point of departure.
Skipping pre-designed theological interests implies for
- historical reconstruction: to build a view of Israels ancient history independent from the literary traditions;
- for the study of ancient Near Eastern texts: to analyse them independently
from Old Testament studies;
- for textual criticism: to analyse Hebrew, Greek and other manuscripts independently from an exclusive interest in the reconstruction of the Massoretic text.
With respect to the Old Testament exegesis it implies an approach of avoiding
72
Cf. M. Kessler, M., op.cit. [ftn. 14], Introduction, p. xii ff.
Eep Talstra
33
filters: to concentrate on procedures, the skills of writing and reading; to avoid

concepts about individual writers (literary criticism), old institutions and offices
(form criticism) and overall theological concepts (traditional biblical theology).
This concentration on data has a clear advantage. It provides a fresh start in
many areas and opens up new domains for research and experimentation (cf.
LOHFINKs73 remarks on the physical constraints of book production, to be kept
in mind when establishing theories about book redactions). At the same time,
however, concentrating on data runs the risk of taking a shortcut in interpretation. One can be observe that a strong interest in literary and stylistic
matters usually passes over linguistics as a descriptive and analytical tool to be
implemented at the very beginning of textual analysis. Similarly, a strong historical interest in concepts and situations passes over hermeneutics as an interpretative tool needed at the end of textual analysis.
4.2. Linguistics and Hermeneutics
Given this situation, my proposal is to discuss exegetical methodology from the
perspective of the reading process, since that offers the possibility of including
both text-oriented and history-oriented approaches in a complementary set of
methods. It implies that:
- Priority should be given to language and the linguistic system as an independent
instrument for unlocking a text. It is a separate field of research which concentrates on linguistic marking and should be applied prior to the study of
literary compositions and artistic designs, not afterwards. The order of applying
the methods is of importance.
- A type of hermeneutics that surpasses the dichotomy of history and ideology
should be defined. When it is clear that texts are not historical reports, this does
not mean that they necessarily have to be seen as someones commercials. A text
can be read as a proposal, a hypothesis about human experience: "This has happened
because they have left the Berit". The choice is with the reader: either search the
text for what is compelling, and run the risk of becoming a moralist, or identify
with one of the texts actors, and run the risk of becoming a fundamentalist, or
participate with the audience in this particular history of liberation, commandments, exile and future. This last option seems to require, more than the others,
a proper order in the application of exegetical methods.
73
Art. cit.

From The Eclipse To The Art Narrative of Biblical Narrative. Reflections On Methods of Biblical Exegesis - Eep Talstra - 1998

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

From The Eclipse To The Art Narrative of Biblical Narrative. Reflections On Methods of Biblical Exegesis - Eep Talstra - 1998

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative.

Reflections on Methods of Biblical Exegesis*

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

ZAW 107 (1995) 349.

R.O. Carrol, Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL), London, 1986.

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

Lohfink, Fcherpoker und Theologie, 207 - 230.

of strategies to bridge the oppositions, e.g., BARR16, BARTON17, NOORT18 and

Art.cit. [ftn. 17], 3.

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

Cf. the article by Wacker [ftn. 15].

questions. Second, exegetes tend to make it into a dispute of instrumental

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft. Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und

W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

trate more on instruments and procedures than on hermeneutical issues, while

2. Proposal for a Procedure

The following matrix results:

< > function

structure < >

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

The well-known opposition synchronic diachronic is not a primary one in

Cf. J. Barr, art. cit. [ftn 16], 1-14.

- RECONSTRUCTION BEFORE DIALOGUE

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

3. Sample texts: Dtn. 29,17-27; I Kgs. 9,1-9; Jer. 22,1-9

Concerning the religious background

Due to an interest in the history of religion or in the history of literature, inquiries

from Assyrian royal inscriptions37.

Concerning biblical interpretation

It is interesting to see how exegetes in their interpretation of each of these texts

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium deel III (POT), Baarn, 1997, 131.

3.2. The order of analytical procedures

Cf. my article on Deuteronomy 9 and 10 [ftn. 35].

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium, (HAT I/6), Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1994.

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

in Ex. 12,26 Num. 32,15 Dtn. 12,12 Jos. 4,6.

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

adding an explanation in rather general terms: the judgment could not be

The second step is an analysis of a text in terms of the opposition between

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

This overview allows for two conclusions.

Following the translation given by Albrektson.

Frankena, art.cit., 134.

Luckenbill, op.cit., 348ff.

R. Frankena, The vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon, OTS 14 (1965) 122-154, esp. 153.

Op.cit., 104, 117.

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

Thiel, W., op.cit., 240; 297ff.

McKane, W., op.cit. [ftn. 44], 520-522.

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

texts of Ashurbanipal, CARROL62, in speaking of Jer. 22, 8-9 states that it is

R.O. Carrol, Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL), London, 1986, 420.

Op. cit., 72.

N. Lohfink, art. cit. [ftn. 58], 79.

there is a certain moral obligation to check the lexical argumentation of older

Art. cit., 117, "Bcherbergreifend".

From the Eclipse to the Art of Biblical Narrative

What readership was addressed and to what purpose? Difficult as these

Dialogue with the present-day reader