FOCUS AND STRUCTURE IN THE ABRAHAM NARRATIVES

Trinity Journal, Spring 2006 by Wheaton, Byron

Studies in structure have contributed a great deal to our understanding of the meaning of texts. John Breck writes, "[Many contemporary scholars] have rightly sensed the intimate connection that exists between rhetorical form and thematic content, between the structure of a literary unit and its theological meaning."1 The literary insights of Alter, Fishbane, Fokkelmann,2 and others have exemplified the use and demonstrated the significance of form for meaning. Many of these insights have come through the analysis of the literature found in Genesis. While there seems to be a voluminous amount of material already written on the structure and style of the book of Genesis, this study ventures to propose a new nuance in its composition.

In light of the recognized contribution that structure has to meaning, it would be useful to examine the story of Abraham for its structure as one way of probing for the meaning.

I. THE SHAPING OF STORIES

Victor Wilson has described some of the characteristic ways the ancient world shaped its oral and literary traditions.3 He reiterates what earlier scholars maintained, that cultures do have characteristic ways of expressing themselves.4 For the ancient Hebrews, that entailed stating things in an episodic and repetitive fashion.5 Moreover, since the ancients were part of an oral world, they were conscious of what was pleasing to the ear and what could easily be remembered.6 In reflecting the way they thought and in achieving effective communication, the ancient world shaped both its oral and literary works on the basis of two main principles: "These are symmetry and repetition, each depending upon the other like the weave of a fabric."7 Wilson elaborates on these two principles by pointing out that symmetry "is the expression of two things, the notion of center, and the principle of balance"8 while repetition provides order and affirms stability.9 These notions were part of the worldview of ancient peoples and found expression in the forms they used to relate their oral and written traditions.

Repetition, as one of these two components, has been observed at the level of the sentence, at the level of a single episode or discourse, and at the level of a collection of episodes. Miscall terms these repetitive patterns "parallels" which, he says,

relate to the repetition that is characteristic of Old Testament narrative, repetition that ranges from the "same story" being told two or more times, to similar stories being told, to material that repeats a speech, a description or such, or that shares some pattern, themes, characters, vocabulary and phraseology, etc.10

In addition to formal parallels, there are also thematic links that tie a story or story cycle together.

These parallels or repetitions function in different ways. They can affect meaning by bringing to the reader's mind previous events linking the present scene to what has gone before. That previous story Sien helps to provide necessary context for understanding the current account. The repetition may serve as emphasis to highlight the central point of the story or the story cycle, and it may serve as a formal device to frame a main point. In addition, repetition may serve to provide cohesiveness to the account. Parallels at the discourse level can similarly structure an episode or even a whole series of episodes.

When repetitive patterns are used at the discourse level to structure the account or accounts, the formats they use may vary. Wilson identifies a number of different patterns that are found in the OT.11 These include: 1) a "series episodes" structuring (A B C D A' B' C D') which consist of a series of independent episodes that are put together to create a narrative flow; 2) a "yoked episodes" format (AA'; B-B'; C-C1; D-D') which is paired episodes whose mutual correspondence enhances each story; 3) a simple "chiasm" (A B C D C' B' A') where each part of a story is paired with another part that turns about a center; 4) or an "episodic chiasm" (A B C D D' C' B' A') where each episode has its echo, again folded about a center. Parallelisms may be thematically antithetical or complementary.12

Parallels at the sentence level are fairly easy to recognize. But parallels at a discourse level require a greater degree of sensitivity to the material of the discourse. Groves has pointed this out and has endeavored to provide a rigorous methodology for identifying legitimate parallels.13 While his focus is the chiasm or inverted parallel, the methodology he develops for identifying parallels is also applicable to paralleling units in ways other than "mirror" images. He proposes the following approach:

1) Divide the narratives being treated into legitimately marked episodes by paying attention to both dramatic markers (scene change, geographical change, time change, thematic change, or subject change) and to discourse markers such as circumstantial clauses or particles that indicate story breaks.

2) Find the text indicated theme or idea that stands out for each episode, observing how it functions in the overall story.