From Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 68 (1995) 3-22.
|
RHETORICAL
STRATEGY a.
The Hebrew Bible rarely depicts the reading of books or documents,
but when it does, it usually portrays public readings of entire
law codes. Whether by Moses, Joshua, Josiah, or Ezra,
law readings to public assemblies play prominent roles in various
biblical books.
[1]
It is not my intention in this essay to discuss
Israel’s tradition of law readings in depth, but rather to explore
its implications for the form of Israel’s extant laws as found
in the Pentateuch.
[2]
The tradition of public law readings points
out the rhetorical function of law in ancient Israel. The accounts of readings depict these texts
as influencing the audience’s thoughts and persuading them to
alter their behavior. b.
It is therefore legitimate to describe ancient Israelite law as
‘rhetorical’ in the narrow definition of the term, that is, as
persuasive speech. One may reasonably expect that texts composed
for such use would display a concern for oral delivery and aural
reception in their structure and contents.
To the extent that the Pentateuch preserves the form of
ancient Israelite law, one may expect it to also display such
concerns. c.
The word ‘rhetoric’ also describes the manner in which texts govern
the reading process through the manipulation of cultural conventions
and expectations which make up literary genre.
[3]
Under this broad definition, every text is
rhetorical in nature and Pentateuchal law is no exception. d.
However, between the narrow and broad definitions lies a middle
ground, in which ‘rhetoric’ describes the features of texts which,
though not themselves intended for oral delivery, are composed
under the influence of conventions and genres shaped by persuasive
speech. In this sense,
rhetoric describes the way oral practices influence conventions
of written genres. Although
the Pentateuch and its various parts (like all texts) are rhetorical
in the broad sense, my contention is more specific: Israel’s tradition
of reading law in public (narrow sense of rhetoric) gave shape
to literary conventions and genres (intermediate sense of rhetoric)
which governed the combination of law and narrative in the Pentateuch.
1.
Rhetoric in Biblical Studies
1.1.
The treatment of law and the narrow sense of rhetoric (meaning persuasive
speech) in the Hebrew Bible has generally concerned form- and
tradition-critical analysis of legal speeches, mostly in narrative
and prophecy.
[4]
Of the law codes, Deuteronomy has received
the most attention for its overt rhetorical formulation as Moses’
speech.
[5]
The Holiness Code of Leviticus has also drawn
attention because of its oral formulas and motive clauses.
[6]
1.2.
One particular phase of study drew on the similarities between Hittite
suzerainty treaties and the Sinai covenant to emphasize the role
of covenant renewal ceremonies.
[7]
Instances of public readings of law were taken
as allusions to such ceremonies.
Recent decades have brought challenges to the historicity
of the covenant renewal ceremonies and the antiquity of the idea
of covenant itself.
[8]
This debate nevertheless shows that historical
introductions to law codes and conclusions consisting of blessings
and curses reflect the rhetorical nature of the compositions.
[9]
Deuteronomy makes this explicit by placing
the whole complex of historical recital, exhortation, law, blessings
and curses into Moses’ farewell speech on the plains of Moab. But any public reading of law needs some sort of rhetorical introduction
and conclusion. In Israel
that was likely to take the form of narrative, in fact of a particular
narrative, because of the consistent association of law with the
revelation at Sinai. Whatever
the influence of suzerainty treaties, then, Mendenhall was right
to claim that ‘what we now call “history” and “law” were bound
into an organic unit.’
[10]
1.3.
Rhetorical study in the broad sense is for the most part indistinguishable
from synchronic literary criticism.
[11]
Such methods have only occasionally been applied
to the Hebrew Bible’s legal texts, either as part of synchronic
readings of the Pentateuch as a whole or through detailed literary
study of particular collections of laws.
[12]
Synchronic studies argue that the laws are
integrated components of the literary structure of the Pentateuch.
1.4.
Form-critical studies have taken seriously the differences between the
genres and rhetorical impact of law and of narrative, and as a
result have treated them separately.
Literary studies have taken seriously the common setting
of laws and narratives in the same texts, and in the process have
tended to blur the differences between them.
Methods of analysis which recognize both the rhetorical
distinctiveness of law and narrative and the rhetorical impact
of their combination have been rare in biblical studies.
2.
The Rhetoric of Story, List
and Divine Sanction
2.1.
Classical rhetorical theory has contributed a great deal to the study
of the literatures of early Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic
and Roman periods. Its
application, however, to the pre-Hellenistic literatures of the
Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East has been far more limited,
probably due to the lack, in D. Patrick and A. Scult’s words,
of a ‘manifestly rhetorical culture from which the Hebrews could
have borrowed the idea of artfully casting their religious texts
as persuasive discourse.’
[13]
2.2.
At this point, another definition of ‘rhetoric’ confuses the issue, namely,
rhetoric as the theory of persuasive speech. There is no evidence of the existence of traditions
of rhetorical theory prior to their development in Athens in the
fifth and fourth century BCE.
That observation, however, says nothing about the practice
of rhetoric, either narrowly defined as persuasive speech or broadly
defined as the literary forms of persuasion, in the cultures and
texts of the ancient Near East. In fact, the extant literatures of pre-Hellenistic
Near Eastern cultures shows pervasive signs of the practice of
oral and written persuasion, such as the admonitions of wise sages,
the propaganda of kings, and the warnings and threats of priests
and prophets.
[14]
In so far then as rhetorical theory speaks
of general and universal characteristics of oral and literary
persuasion, it applies to ancient Near Eastern texts as much as
any others.
2.3.
Does rhetorical theory provide insight into the general issue of how narrative
and law interact for purposes of persuasion? As it happens, classical and modern rhetorical
theory has been quite concerned with the combination and relative
merits of narrative and non-narrative modes of persuasion.
2.4.
Theories of List and Story
2.4.1.
Theorists of rhetoric have argued since classical times over the use of
narrative as a persuasive strategy, with story usually being subordinated
to more analytical modes of argumentation.
J. O’Banion blamed Aristotle for the de-emphasis on narration
in Western thought in general and in rhetorical theory in particular:
2.4.2.
Since to him the essence of an argument was ‘to state a case and to prove
it,’ Aristotle accordingly considered narratio and all ‘introductory’
matters to be ‘superfluous’ or for ‘weak’ audiences (Rhetoric
3.13-14). . . . Such concerns were unfortunate tasks
preliminary to proceeding with what, at least to him, really mattered**the
reasons and the evidence.
[15]
2.4.3.
The importance of narrative
was reestablished by the Roman orators, Cicero and Quintilian,
who argued that the narrative of events was essential to establishing
one’s case.
[16]
O’Banion supposed that narration required more
discussion by the Romans because, in the increasingly literate
culture, story telling capacity could no longer be taken for granted.
[17]
2.4.4.
The Romans . . . developed ‘the method of mythos’ as
a counterpoint to ‘the method of logos.’
They made explicit the dialectic that was, in Greek rhetoric,
used but not explicitly recognized.
To be more precise, Cicero developed the method of mythos
giving new significance to narratio, and Quintilian recognized
that the arts of mythos and logos constitute a dialectic.
[18]
2.4.5.
O’Banion demonstrated,
however, that the influence of Aristotle persisted in Western
culture, with the result that the narrative methods of argumentation
were disassociated from the analytical methods of reason and proof,
and usually isolated within the separate discipline of literary
theory.
[19]
2.4.6.
Drawing heavily on the works of Kenneth Burke, O’Banion argued that logic
is but one manifestation of the list, which ‘underlies
all modes of systematic expression.’
[20]
2.4.7.
Rendered as tallies, recordings of the movements of the stars, word lists,
dictionaries, or codified laws, the list is a powerful tool for
arranging and disseminating isolated pieces of information. It also comes to arrange and, to a considerable
degree, dictate the nature of the lives of those who are affected
by lists.
[21]
2.4.8.
But the list is not self-explanatory.
It requires justification and explanation from narrative. ‘With the additional perspective of narration,
one is able to comprehend not only any items listed but also possible
reasons for and implications of a list’s very existence.’
[22]
Persuasion depends on the combination of list
and story.
2.4.9.
O’Banion’s argument was prescriptive in nature, wishing to correct the
disjunction in Western culture between oral thought, as exemplified
by narrative, and literate thought, exemplified by lists.
[23]
From the perspective of the study of ancient
literature, it seems doubtful that narratives are intrinsically
any more ‘oral’ in origin than are lists.
[24]
The validity, however, of O’Banion’s prescriptive
agenda is irrelevant to the understanding of the rhetorical function
of biblical law, and its evaluation can safely be left to others.
For present purposes, certain descriptive
aspects of O’Banion’s rhetorical theory are most applicable.
2.4.10.
O’Banion, following Cicero and Quintilian, defends the necessity of narrative
in part because story is already juxtaposed with list in many
speeches and texts. This
juxtaposition is characteristic not only of the legal speeches
with which the Romans were most concerned, but also of other kinds
of persuasive texts from ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean
cultures. Thus the rhetorical
theory espoused by O’Banion and his Roman predecessors describes
and explains a prominent feature of ancient literary traditions.
It also explains why the juxtaposition of law and narrative,
list and story has been met with consternation by Western interpreters
trained by Aristotelian rhetoric to separate one from the other,
a tendency amply attested in modern Pentateuchal studies, among
other disciplines.
2.5.
Story and List in Ancient
Literature
2.5.1.
Well-known examples of the combination of story and list are found in
Hittite treaties of the late second millennium BCE. Historical prologues emphasizing the ‘benevolence’ of the overlord
towards the vassal usually precede the lists of stipulations to
which the vassal is bound.
[25]
The history-stipulation sequence of the treaties
functions rhetorically to remind vassals of the past situation
(whether military, legal, or personal) and persuade them to remain
loyal to their overlord by fulfilling the treaty’s stipulations. The obviously one-sided accounts of the overlord’s
benevolence implicitly promise continued favor if the vassal upholds
the treaty stipulations, but punishment if not, and thereby intend
to motivate the former actions and dissuade the latter.
[26]
2.5.2.
The rhetoric of story and list shapes other ancient texts in which the
persuasive intent is less obvious than in the treaties. Narrative frameworks encase early second millennium
BCE law codes from Mesopotamia, such as those of Lipit Ishtar
and Hammurabi, and emphasize the king’s accomplishments, justice,
and religiously sanctioned authority.
[27]
S.M. Paul noted: ‘The prologue and epilogue
of [the laws of Hammurabi] may be understood as one grand auto-panegyric
to bring the attention of that deity to bear upon the deeds and
accomplishments of the king.’
[28]
He concluded that such religious self-characterization
was the primary purpose for the law-codes themselves.
2.5.3.
The Karatepe inscription of Azitawadda of the Phoenician city of Adana
(early first millennium BCE), rehearses at length the king’s accomplishments,
which include defense of the borders, suppression of outlaws,
the building of ‘this’ city, and the establishment in it of a
Baal cult, and then describes a brief cult calender: ‘A sacrific(ial
order) was established for all the molten images: for the yearly
sacrifice an ox, at the [time of pl]owing a sheep, and at the
time of harvesting a sheep.’
[29]
The rhetorical force of the inscription resembles
that of the Hittite treaties: the king’s actions on behalf of
the citizens obliges them to fulfill the sacrificial requirements
of the inscription, though the military threat implicit in the
treaties is not obvious here.
[30]
2.5.4.
Another example, a fifth or fourth century BCE Greek dedicatory inscription
found in Sardis in Asia Minor, demonstrates the influence of cultic
instructions grounded in the story of a cult’s establishment. The text records the erection of a statue of
Zeus by Droaphernes, Persian hyparch in Lydia, and his command
prohibiting this temple’s priests from participating in the ‘mysteries’
of other local deities. The
inscription’s purpose, however, was not to commemorate the cult’s
founding but rather to record the stipulation’s fulfillment by
one Dorates.
[31]
Though this text only alludes to the story
of the cult’s establishment rather than narrating it, it shows
the persuasive effects on Dorates of an antecedent rhetoric of
list and story.
2.5.5.
My point is not to argue for a necessary connection between story and
list in these or any other ancient genres.
Treaties may lack historical prologues,
[32]
later Akkadian law codes do not use narrative
frames,
[33]
building inscriptions usually lack any stipulations
or instructions,
[34]
and inscriptions of cultic instructions may
merely allude to the conditions of their establishment.
[35]
Rather, the above examples illustrate the persuasive
force of story and list when used in combination and therefore
point to the rhetorical purpose behind that combination when it
does occur.
2.5.6.
This emphasis on rhetorical strategy distinguishes my thesis from attempts
to establish the genre of the Pentateuch or its component parts
on the basis of similar literary patterns in other ancient Near
Eastern texts (such as Hittite treaties).
[36]
The combination of story and list appears too
widely and too unpredictably to be regarded as a distinguishing
feature of a particular genre.
[37]
It should rather be regarded as a strategy
of persuasion employed by many cultures in a variety of literary
genres for the purpose of convincing readers and hearers of the
document’s, or its writer’s, authority.
2.5.7.
Persuasion depends, according to O’Banion and his Roman predecessors,
on the correlation of the desired result with the narrative of
its origins, of the proof with the statement of the case, of the
list with the story. The story alone may inspire, but to no explicit
end. The list alone specifies
the desired actions or beliefs, but may not inspire them. It is the combination of both together which
maximizes the persuasive effect of a speech or text. The texts reviewed above suggest that this practical insight shaped
the composition of at least some persuasive rhetoric long before
the classical theorists analyzed its nature.
2.6.
The Rhetoric of Divine
Sanction
2.6.1.
In the above examples of persuasive texts, there is another common element
besides list and story: divine enforcement is invoked through
blessings and curses. Ancient
texts frequently invoke divine powers to strengthen their persuasive
appeal, a rhetorical device of which the classical theorists disapproved.
2.6.2.
Treaties typically conclude by both invoking deities as witnesses and
by pronouncing blessings on those who keep the treaty’s stipulations
and curses on those who do not.
The blessings and curses are relatively brief in the Hittite
documents, but the curses become longer and more elaborate in
the Assyrian treaties of the eighth to seventh centuries BCE.
[38]
2.6.3.
Many other kinds of texts appeal to deities to enforce their wishes.
Hammurabi’s laws conclude with a long string of blessings
and curses.
[39]
Ancient Near Eastern commemorative inscriptions
regularly curse those who might in the future disturb the architectural
or inscriptional achievements of their writer.
[40]
So Azitawadda concluded the Karatepe inscription
with a typical juxtaposition of promise and threat.
[41]
Greek dedicatory inscriptions also employ this
device. The Xanthos inscription,
which records the establishment in Asia Minor under Persian authority
of a temple cult and its laws in the fourth century BCE, concludes
with eight lines of curses (out of a total of twenty-seven lines
in the inscription).
[42]
Greek laws, inscribed in the vicinity of temples
to emphasize the deity’s authorization of the law, threaten divine
enforcement with curses.
[43]
Foundation ceremonies and their written memorials
usually incorporated blessings and curses as a structural element.
[44]
2.6.4.
In the dialectic of story and list, blessings and curses may look like
another form of list. Their
rhetorical force, however, differs considerably from that produced
by lists of laws, stipulations, or instructions.
The latter address beliefs and behavior, whereas appeals
to divine authorizations and threats aim at motivation.
2.6.5.
The persuasive intent behind such texts is undisguised in the blessings
and curses. J. de Romilly
has surveyed classical theorists’ misgivings about the rhetorical
use of such ‘sacred magic.’
[45]
From Isocrates and Aristotle in the fourth
century on, theorists emphasized rationality as the key to saving
rhetoric from being only a technique for manipulating emotions.
[46]
For them curses and incantations, like narrative,
threatens to overwhelm an audience’s capacity to reason by arousing
irrational and supernatural concerns.
[47]
The rhetorical power of divine sanctions is
thus evident in the writings of classical theorists, not from
their use of them, but from the their antipathy towards them.
2.6.6.
So a full description of the above texts’ rhetorical force should emphasize
three interdependent elements: story, list, and divine sanction.
3.
Pentateuchal Rhetoric
3.1.1.
The Pentateuch presents laws in three separate collections. This triple depiction of law is evident in
a literary survey and has been reemphasized by historical research
into the differences and relations between them.
Each of these presentations exhibits the characteristic
features of ancient persuasive rhetoric surveyed above.
3.2.
Sinai Covenant
3.2.1.
The rhetoric of persuasion structures Exodus’ presentation of the Sinai
covenant. Narrative introductions
and conclusions emphasize speeches specifying Yahweh’s past benevolence
towards Israel (19.4-6) and the people’s repeated agreement to
the covenant’s obligations (19.8; 24.7), while a narrative interlude
points out that Moses’ role as mediator and hence his authority
as law-giver comes at the people’s request (20.18-20).
These stories serve to (1) establish Yahweh’s legitimacy
on the basis of past and present events, (2) ground Israel’s legal
obligations on communal self-committal, and (3) explain and authorize
Moses’ role as mediator on the basis of the people’s request.
Stories thus legitimate the origins and the application
to Israel of the lists of laws.
3.2.2.
The laws specify the nature of Israel’s obligations. The structures of both the Decalogue and the
Book of the Covenant suggest that the thrust of these obligations
is dual: religion and ethics (though the categories overlap in
many instances). The Decalogue begins with religious requirements
(Exod. 20.3-11), then turns to ethical obligations (vv. 12-17).
Prohibitions of images and rules for altars similarly begin
the Book of the Covenant (20.23-26), but ritual calenders also
conclude its stipulations (23.10-17, followed by three ritual
laws in vv. 18-19). In
between come casuistic laws governing civil and criminal behavior,
with only an occasional ritual stipulation mixed in (22.20,28-31). The lists thus specify the implications of the story: the people
of Israel have obligated themselves to an exclusive relationship
with Yahweh and to ethical dealings with each other and with strangers.
3.2.3.
The concluding divine sanctions motivate the people’s compliance with
the covenant stipulations. Exod.
23.20-33 makes obedience to the messenger of Yahweh a condition
of Israel’s success in conquering and settling the land of Canaan. Occasional threats (vv. 21, 33) do not disrupt
the overall theme of promise in this exhortation. The fact that the object of obedience is Yahweh’s
messenger, rather than the law as in Leviticus and Deuteronomy
(see below), has occasioned theories of diachronic development
in this text.
[48]
As the text stands, however, these promises
contingent on obedience to Yahweh refer to the previous and subsequent
stories of deliverance, summed up in the figure of Yahweh’s messenger
(cf. Exod. 14.19), and thus ground the promise of future success
in the experience of past deliverance.
Since the stories of past deliverance are used to legitimate
the law (19.4-6), the effect is the same as if the promise was
conditioned directly on obedience to the law: obedience to Yahweh’s
messenger and obedience to Yahweh’s law (related through the mediator,
Moses) are implicitly equated.
[49]
When read together, the divine sanctions join
the stories and lists of laws in a rhetoric of persuasion to motivate
assent and compliance.
3.2.4.
Exodus 19-24 thus falls generally into the pattern observed in some other
ancient texts of persuasion: stories introduce lists which conclude
with divine sanctions. The
major difference is that in Exodus, story surrounds the lists
and sanctions rather than just introducing them.
Third-person narration encompasses the other genres which
are cast as direct speech. This difference shows once again that the combination
of story, list, and divine sanction is not characteristic of any
one genre or literary convention, but is rather a rhetorical strategy
adapted to various ancient genres and literatures.
Here, Israel’s writers adapted this strategy to the conventions
of Hebrew literature, which uses direct speech to incorporate
inset genres within a narrative frame.
[50]
3.3.
Levitical Law
3.3.1.
The rhetorical context of the priestly legislation is more difficult to
describe because the unit’s literary boundaries are less obvious. Its usual delineation as Exod. 25 - Num. 9
makes sense on the grounds of style and content, but ignores the
fact that this material shares the same temporal and physical
setting as the preceding chapters.
[51]
P’s Sinai material in its present form seems
to have been shaped with the content of the entire Pentateuch
in mind, with the result that its rhetorical force depends more
heavily on the wider context than is the case with either the
earlier Exodus legislation or with Deuteronomy.
3.3.2.
The dominant organizing principle in the priestly legislation is list,
not story. Three kinds
of lists follow each other in succession: instructions for building
the Tabernacle (Exod. 25-31), continued and partially repeated
by the list-like narrative of the fulfillment of these instructions
(chs. 35-40); laws and regulations, which themselves divide into
three literary blocks consisting of sacrificial regulations (Lev.
1-7), purity rules (Lev. 11-16), and laws of the holy community
(Lev. 17-27); and census lists and rules for religious personnel
(Num. 1-9). The lists
describe the ideal cult and ideal community; that is, they describe
Israel as it should be. The
whole complex of lists bifurcates into those pertaining to the
cult, whose physical description (Exod. 25-31, 35-40) precedes
the rules for its operation (Lev. 1-7), and those pertaining to
the whole community, whose rules for operation (Lev. 11-27) precede
its physical description (Num. 1-7).
[52]
The lists’ rhetorical force derives from a
constant focus on the ideal, that is, from the persuasive power
of a vision of cult and people structured for communion with God. Among the lists, the laws of Leviticus distinguish themselves by
their normative force: whereas the Tabernacle instructions and
the census lists describe past achievements only, the laws and
ritual instructions bind readers to the task of maintaining the
ideal cult and community which were first created at Sinai.
The laws thus hold out to readers the goal of achieving
or maintaining the ideal in their own day. According to the lists of Leviticus, a well-ordered
temple service and holy community remain the necessary and sufficient
conditions for God’s presence in the midst of Israel.
3.3.3.
Amid the lists’ dominant rhetoric of ideals, interposed narratives warn
of dangers which threaten the divine-human communion. The story of the golden calf (Exod. 32-34), placed between the Tabernacle’s
building instructions and the account of their fulfillment, narrates
the subversion of Israel’s cult into idolatry even before its
institutions have been constructed.
The incident threatens the existence of the people as a
whole (Exod. 32.9-14) and the less dire outcome nevertheless emphasizes
the close connection between ritual observances and Israel’s endurance
as a people (in the ‘ritual decalogue,’ 34.10-27).
The story of the cult’s inauguration (Lev. 8-10), placed
between sacrificial regulations and the community’s rules of purity,
narrates the fulfillment of the priestly ideal in the Tabernacle
worship. The achievement
is authenticated by divine fire on the altar (9.24), and then
is immediately threatened by priestly malpractice and YHWH’s fiery
retribution (10.1-3). Thus both sets of narratives emphasize that
observant maintenance of the cult preserves the people’s standing
before God, and thereby the community’s social and political viability
also. Threats to this divine-human communion, however, appear
immediately and persistently, and resistance requires the vigilance
of priests and people alike (Exod. 34.11-16; Lev. 10.8-11).
3.3.4.
Divine sanctions play a major structural role at the end of Leviticus,
repeating the idealistic promise of the lists but emphasizing
even more the dangers highlighted by the narratives.
Leviticus 26 specifies the blessings resulting from observance
of the commandments (vv. 3-13), summing them up in the promise
of God’s dwelling with Israel (vv. 11-12).
But the curses resulting from disobedience receive more
space and chronicle the various disasters that can afflict individuals
and nations, up to and including exile (vv. 14-39).
Unlike the story of the golden calf, however, Lev. 26 explicitly
excludes the ultimate threat of nullifying the Israel’s covenant
relationship with Yahweh: repentance will always be met by God’s
mercy, even in exile (vv. 40-45). The blessings and curses that conclude Leviticus
thus encapsulate the rhetoric of ideals and threats emphasized
by the preceding lists and stories respectively, but end by synthesizing
this dialectic into a vision of YHWH’s eternal faithfulness to
the covenant. As a result, the idealism of the priestly legislation
becomes more than a statement of obligations enforced by threats;
it unveils a vision of hope grounded in YHWH’s covenant commitment
to Israel. The priestly writers and editors thus used
the rhetoric of list, story, and divine sanction to persuade their
readers and hearers of both the serious consequences of human
actions and the constancy of divine mercy.
3.4.
Deuteronomy
3.4.1.
The book of Deuteronomy presents the most obvious biblical example of
the rhetorical use of story, list, and divine sanction. Cast for the most part as a speech by Moses
to the Israelites prior to his death, Deuteronomy is not only
explicitly rhetorical (in the narrow definition of the term),
it alone of the Pentateuchal books combines story, list, and divine
sanction in a single voice. The interplay of the various rhetorical elements
is therefore most apparent in this book, as is its evident structural
similarity to other ancient Near Eastern texts which employ the
rhetoric of list, story, and divine sanction.
[53]
3.4.2.
The mix of narrative and exhortation that begins and ends Moses’ speech
repeatedly grounds the people’s present and future obedience in
Israel’s past experience, which illustrates not only YHWH’s acts
of mercy but also God’s punishing judgments.
The recital of past events thus anticipates the list of
possible blessings and curses, so that the latter become a description
of the entire speech: ‘I set before you today a blessing and a
curse’ (11.26; cf. 30.15,19).
As in the past, so in the future, Israel holds the key
to its own fortunes in its observance of the law.
[54]
3.4.3.
The lists of laws specify the obedient life in terms not only of ritual
observances and of civil laws, but also in the regulation of institutions
such as monarchy, temple and prophecy (12.1-13.5; 17.14-20; 18.15-22). Such rules seem less interested in the legal
form of the institutions themselves than in their ability to model
the obedience to the commandments mandated of all the people. So the king’s role is defined largely in terms
of studying the law, and prophets are evaluated by their degree
of support for the law. Thus
the laws themselves aim to persuade readers and hearers to follow
the whole law in general, as well as to teach specific provisions.
3.4.4.
The blessings and curses conclude the speech by drawing the consequences
of obedience and disobedience starkly, but the speech goes even
further by institutionalizing their recital in a future ceremony
at Shechem. Deuteronomy
obliges Israel not only to legal obedience but also to repetition
of the book’s own rhetoric of persuasion through reenactment,
both by individuals (6.20-25; 17.18-20) and by the nation as a
whole (11.29; 27.12; cf. 31.10-13). The choice between blessing and curse extends through time to the
readers and hearers, whom Deuteronomy obliges to observe the covenant
and to transmit the stories, laws, and sanctions to present and
future generations.
3.4.5.
The rhetoric of Deuteronomy employs the elements of story, list, and divine
sanction more obviously than any other part of the Pentateuch
and integrates their effects more thoroughly.
[55]
Past and future mirror each other in the stories
and blessings/curses, emphasizing the stark consequences confronting
the people in every time and place.
The laws specify the nature of obedience and disobedience,
but also are concerned with how obedience must be modeled by religious
and governmental leaders alike.
The result of this unitary rhetoric is a document that
drives home to readers and hearers the validity and urgency of
the deuteronomic program.
3.5.
The Pentateuch
3.5.1.
The blocks of literary material discussed above are large and complex,
and the rhetoric of story, list, and divine sanction cannot do
justice to all of their contents.
All the more complicated is the larger body of literature
in which they are placed. The Pentateuch’s convoluted structure, varieties
of genres, and range of themes forces any attempt at synthetic
description to a high level of abstraction.
Nevertheless, the overall shape of the Pentateuch betrays
the now familiar rhetoric of stories (Genesis through Exodus 19),
lists (Exodus 20 through Numbers), and divine sanctions (Deuteronomy).
3.5.2.
The employment of this rhetorical strategy appears most clearly at the
end of the Pentateuch, in Deuteronomy.
Despite its various materials, that book describes itself
in the stark language of blessing and curse (Deut. 11.26; 30.19)
and depicts its contents as Moses’ hortatory recapitulation of
earlier laws and experiences. Its emphasis in narration, sanctions, and even
in some of the legal lists falls on obedience to the law as a
whole more than on the particulars of the legislation.
Deuteronomy thus lends itself to the persuasive role of
emphasizing the ultimate consequences of urgent choices, in other
words, to the rhetoric of divine sanctions, of blessings and curses.
3.5.3.
The shift from a preponderance of narrative to a preponderance of list
in the middle of Exodus has long been noted by biblical interpreters. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers not only contain
many lists; they also exemplify the rhetoric of list by their
effort to specify the nature of the ideal.
Here universal principles are made manifest by particular
actions, and by requiring the latter, the lists point the people
of Israel towards the former.
[56]
The rhetoric of list usually finds its justification
in story, and the central books of the Pentateuch are no exception.
Besides allusions to preceding narratives in scattered
motive clauses, the lists interact with stories on a more fundamental
level. For example, the
construction of the Tabernacle, related in lists of instructions
and list-like narratives of their fulfillment (Exod. 25-31, 35-41),
depicts a recreation of the world whose degradation the stories
of Genesis have chronicled. The
account concludes in Exod. 39-40 with language evocative of the
first creation story in Gen. 1.
[57]
Specific stipulations, e.g. regarding the sabbath,
the blood prohibition, and Passover, echo themes already emphasized
in narratives. The blessings
promised to the obedient (especially Lev. 26.9-13) evoke earlier
divine promises in the narratives (e.g. Exod. 6, Gen. 9, 17) which
are now attainable to those who observe the law.
[58]
The lists of laws thus provide the solutions
to problems and issues detailed by the narratives, which in turn
demonstrate the necessity of the law.
3.5.4.
Pentateuchal stories, especially those of Genesis, may seem to have the
least connection to the rhetoric of story, list, and divine sanction. The above observations, however, point to themes
in the narratives which find their resolution only in the lists
that follow: themes such as the degradation of creation, the nature
of the divine-human relationship, and the identity of Israel as
Yahweh’s people. Connections between stories and lists appear
most noticeably in the material usually credited to P. Discussion of the levitical legislation above
noted the unusual dialectic of list and story in Exod. 25 through
Num. 9. Within the larger
context of the Pentateuch, however, this material takes its place
as list in a more typical pattern of story, followed by list,
concluding with divine sanctions. The close relationship between P’s narratives
and lists suggests that the priestly writers and editors worked
with the larger context in mind and intentionally structured the
whole to highlight levitical legislation as the central lists
in the Pentateuch’s rhetoric.
3.5.5.
The resulting Pentateuch is a complex document, far removed in size and
scope from the texts published complete through public law readings.
Yet its form shows that the rhetoric of story,
list, and divine sanction still shapes its priestly redaction,
though now it is probably no longer the primary rhetoric of oral
readings but rather the intermediate rhetoric of a literary genre
shaped by oral conventions. The goal, however, remains the same: to persuade
hearers and readers to observe the law by describing its extraordinary
origins in a story stretching back to creation, by specifying
the ideal divine-human relationship which it makes possible, and
by promising great blessings and threatening worse curses contingent
on the audience’s response. The
rhetoric of story, list, and divine sanction unifies the Pentateuch
for the overriding purpose of persuasion.
NOTES:
[1]
Exod. 24.3-7; Deut. 31.9-11; Josh. 8.30-35;
2 Kgs 23.2-3//2 Chr 34.30-31; Neh. 8-9.
[2]
For discussion of biblical depictions of public
law readings, see my ‘Public
Readings and Pentateuchal Law,’ VT 45/4 (1995) 540-57.
[3]
So D. Patrick and A. Scult: ‘In order to lead
to a deeper penetration into the particularity and concreteness
of the text, the “rhetoric” in rhetorical criticism must be
broadened to its fullest range in the classical tradition, namely,
as the means by which a text establishes and manages its
relationship to its audience in order to achieve a particular
effect’ (Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation [JSOTSup,
82; Sheffield: Almond, 1990], p. 12, Patrick and Scult’s emphasis).
[4]
E.g. H.J. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens
im Alten Testament (WMANT, 14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1964).
[5]
Most famous is G. von Rad’s theory of Deuteronomy’s
origin in the preaching of northern Levites (Studies in Deuteronomy,
trans. D. Stalker; SBT 9; London: SCM, 1953). M. Weinfeld argued that the book reflects the
didactic rhetoric of the sages and their wisdom literature (Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomistic School [Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1972], pp. 51-58, 171-178).
[6]
E.g. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy,
pp. 25-36; H. Graf Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich
untersucht (WMANT, 6; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961).
[7]
G.E. Mendenhall, ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite
Tradition,’ in E.F. Campbell, Jr. and D.N. Freedman (eds.),
Biblical Archeologist Review 3 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1970), pp. 25-53.
[8]
For a survey of research, see E.W. Nicholson,
‘Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhausen,’ OTS
24 (1986), pp. 54-69.
[9]
Other rhetorical models besides suzerainty treaties
have been proposed for this combination. C.M. Carmichael pointed out Deuteronomy’s affinities with the Wisdom
genres of ‘instruction’ and the farewell speech, both of which
take the rhetorical form of a father addressing his children. This model has a set structure: ‘reflections on the past lead to
predictions and directions for the future’ (The Laws of Deuteronomy
[Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974], p. 25).
[10]
Mendenhall, ‘Covenant Forms,’ p. 45. His concluding phrase, ‘from the very beginnings
of Israel itself,’ is more debatable because the antiquity of
both narratives and laws is open to question.
[11]
J. Muilenburg advocated the application of rhetorical
criticism to the historical and comparative study of the Hebrew
Bible as a methodological complement to source and form studies
(‘Form Criticism and Beyond,’ JBL 88 (1969), pp. 1-18,
reprinted in P. R. House (ed.), Beyond Form Criticism: Essays
in Old Testament Literary Criticism [Winona Lake, WI: Eisenbrauns,
1992], pp. 49-69). His successors have tended to limit the method to synchronic literary
analysis (for surveys of developments, see M. Kessler, ‘A Methodological
Setting for Rhetorical Criticism,’ in D.J.A. Clines, D.M. Gunn,
A.J. Hauser (eds.), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical
Literature (JSOTSup, 19; Sheffield: JSOT, 1982), pp. 1-19;
T.B. Dozeman, ‘OT Rhetorical Criticism,’ ABD 5:712-715).
The present study addresses rhetoric not because of any
prior methodological commitments but out of recognition of the
intrinsically rhetorical nature of public law readings in ancient
Israel.
[12]
See T.W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: the Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1988); J.H. Sailhamer, The
Pentateuch as Narrative: a Biblical-Theological Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); H.D. Bracker, Das
Gesetz Israels (Hamburg, 1962); J.M. Sprinkle, ‘The Book of the Covenant’: a Literary Approach (JSOTSup, 174; Sheffield:
JSOT, 1994).
[13]
Patrick and Scult, Rhetoric, p. 30.
[14]
For discussions of classical theory as descriptive
of universal rhetorical phenomena, see G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical
Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press, 1984), pp. 10-12; Patrick and Scult, Rhetoric,
pp. 29-32.
[15]
J.D. O’Banion, Reorienting Rhetoric: the Dialectic of List and Story (University
Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), p. 52.
[16]
Reorienting
Rhetoric,
p. 54
[17]
Reorienting
Rhetoric,
p. 59.
[18]
Reorienting
Rhetoric,
p. 96.
[19]
Because biblical criticism compares more closely
to literary theory than to philosophical logic, the valuation
of list over story which O’Banion deplores has been reversed
in Pentateuchal studies: the stories have received more attention
and interest than the lists. This tendency is naturally most obvious when
literary critics discuss the Pentateuch: ‘Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy . . . are by far the least
inspiring and the least interesting books in the whole Bible’
(J.C. Powy, Enjoyment of Literature
[New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1938], p. 16).
[20]
Reorienting
Rhetoric,
p. xiv.
[21]
Reorienting
Rhetoric,
p. 12.
[22]
Reorienting
Rhetoric,
p. 13. |
