The fifth chapter of Bruce Waltke’s Old Testament Theology is the third and final part of “The Method of Biblical Theology” and is concerned with “Poetics and Intertextuality.” This chapter flows nicely from the previous chapter which was focused on “Narrative Theology.”
Dr. Waltke defines poetics as “the study of literary devices an author uses to construct his composition” (113). He then quotes Adele Berlin, who wrote, “We don’t know what a text means until we know how it means” (Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 15). To study the poetics of a text is, therefore, to read the text closely and attempt to understand the sometimes nuanced and subtle way the author is conveying his message. Later in the chapter Waltke brings up Michael Fishbane’s observation that within the Jacob cycle there is a structure through the multiple use of the pun between berakha (blessing) and bekorha (birthright) as well as Alter’s observation of the repetition of qol (voice) in 1 Samuel 15 “as the chief means of thematic exposition” (116). These would be good examples of close readings that note the poetics of a text.
The distinction between author and redactor is then brought up by Dr. Waltke. He explains: “Source critics, whose approach is diachronic, assume a bungling redactor whose work is so imperfect that we can still see the “seems” in the text. A literary critic, whose approach is synchronic, sees an author in full command of his material, using each word and device to his or her desire” (114). At first I thought that I was going to part ways with Waltke in his description, as I had in mind the clear seems, to name one example, between the first and second creation narrative. Although these seems can be noticed, I do not deny that the redactor was in full command of both the sources she or he had access to as well as the final text that she or he was composing.
And this is exactly what Dr. Waltke goes onto explain, much to my excitement. Waltke notes that “literary critics do not deny that there are sources, but they do deny that the author was not in full control of his sources” (115). Dr. Waltke then goes on to explain this by way of the example of the first two creation narratives (what a great example of answering the questions that you know will be in your readers minds!). His explanation is worth quoting in full:
Genesis 1 and 2 may indeed reflect different sources at the preliterary level. The change of divine names from “God” in the first account (Gen. 1:1-2:3) to “I AM God” [Waltke's rendering of the Tetragrammaton] in the second (Gen. 2:4-4:26) is a textbook example of showing different sources. The change of names, however, is not a product of a redactor who is sloppy or one who felt bound by tradition not to tamper with the text. Instead, he allowed the discontinuity to remain, because in chapter 1, elohim refers to God’s transcendence, while in chapters 2 and 3 YHWH (”He is”) speaks to God’s immanence. The different names of God express different aspects of his divine attributes (116).
Those who attended the doubt.night centering around Biblical contradictions will note that this was my exact explanation of the difference between the first two creation narratives.
Dr. Waltke then concludes the section on poetics with a list of 19 different poetic techniques the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures use: Leitwort, motif, sequence of action, refrain, contrast, comparison, logic: causation and substantiation, climax/intensification, patterns of structure, Janus, gap and blank, anachrony, generalization and particularization, scenic depiction, preparation/foreshadow, inclusio, summarization, interrogation, and intercalation. He provides a helpful definition and examples of these types of poetic techniques.
The section major section is on intertextuality, which Waltke defines as “the phenomenon whereby one passage of Scripture refers to another” (125). There are two major types of intertextuality: nontransformative, where the authors “merely use earlier [authors] to fortify or explain their message and/or to embellish their rhetoric, they do not advance or deepen theology” (126), and transformative, where “later writers interpret earlier writings to meet new historical situations and so advance our understanding” (126). He then notes some examples of this transformative intertextuality, such as Isaiah’s use of Gen 1, especially the image of tohu wabohu (”formless and empty”). The rest of the chapter further explains the kinds of intertextuality: citation, key words and motifs, allusion, salvation history, prophecy, an extended, helpful section on typology, and conceptualization (which will be further developed in the next chapter).
26 January 2008 at 12.12 pm
I like the idea of Doubt Night. Professor Enns in Inspiration and Incarnation serves us well by addressing the issues that cause student’s doubt. I used to be bothered by the tension between the apparently contradictiory directions in Exodus 12:8-9, (not to bshl it in water) and Deuteronomy 16:5-7 (to bshl it).
We need not assume, however, that bashal (Piel) means “to boil” in Deuteronomy. According to BDB (p. 143) and K & B The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Vol. 1 (Brill, 1991) 165 bshl (Piel) may mean boil or cook, to which KB add “fry.” If we allow bshl (Pi) its general sense as a superordinate “to cook” then the medium of cooking colors that broad sense to its hyponyms “boil,” “bake” (2 Sam. 13:8) or “roast”. Exodus 12:9 says “do not bashal in water” (which excludes ‘to boil’) but 1 Chron. 35:13 says “to bashal it in fire” [which demands the sense “to roast”). So I think it possible to render bshl (Pi) “to cook” in Deuteronomy. I’m not dogmatic because of the semantic range of bshl and why Deuteronomy uses bshl unqualified, but I think it reasonable to render it “to cook,” not “to boil,” in Deuteronomy.