Textlinguistics and prophecy in the book of the Twelve

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2003 by Clendenen, E Ray

I. INTRODUCTION

For several years I have been studying the biblical prophets with the aid of a textlinguistic model developed by Robert Longacre. I have argued in several articles for the usefulness of such a model and have suggested ways in which it may be applied.1 Here after a brief summary of that model and how it relates to the prophetic books I will suggest how it might be used to uncover and describe the essential message of all twelve of the so-called Minor Prophets. My concern is not primarily with the the book of the Twelve as a whole but with the individual books and by implication the other books of OT prophecy. The thesis is that by considering the nature of prophecy as essentially defined by 2 Kgs 17:13, the study of the prophetic books should employ a textlinguistic model that identifies the basic prophetic discourse type to be hortatory. I believe this model offers a relatively reliable means to capture the essential message(s) of a prophetic book and the contribution played by the various parts of that book in communicating that message.

II. THE NATURE OF THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

1. The prophetic genre.

a. Importance of genre. Tremper Longman has suggested that "genre may well be the literary concept most important to the interpretive task."2 Bo-Krister Ljungberg wrote, "Genre is constitutive of meaning: it conditions reader expectations and thus allows for understanding."3 You cannot accurately interpret what you cannot identify. Most would agree that prophecy is a distinct literary genre, which provides the literary context within which prophetic texts must be interpreted.4

b. Distinguishing marks of the prophetic genre. There are several marks of the prophetic genre, such as the presentation of the message as received directly from God, an elevated rhetorical style, and an inventory of certain literary forms or sub-genres such as lawsuit and woe. But the most important mark derives from the nature of a prophet of God. Yahweh had declared through Moses in Deut 18:18, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him."5 According to 2 Kgs 17:13, God had raised up many prophets: "Still, the LORD warned Israel and judah through every prophet and every seer, saying, 'Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments and statutes according to all the law that I commanded your fathers and that I sent to you through My servants the prophets.'"

Considerable discussion is taking place in the literature over what a prophet is. David Baker recently wrote, "Rather than simply looking at a biblical reading of what prophets were, as found, for example, in Deuteronomy 18 or 2 Kgs 17:13, recent study has been informed by sociological readings of the text." Whereas "biblically, the prophets saw their authority deriving from a call by God, being his messengers, . . . this newer, sociological approach highlights the importance of the recipients of the message in recognizing the messenger as a prophet, grounding his or her identity upon that recognition." As Baker observes, however, "If prophets are defined by society's recognition of them and their function as noticeably affecting the life and behavior of that society, one would question whether prophets actually existed in ancient Israel."6 According to Neh 9:26, the early generations of Israel "were disobedient and rebelled against You. They flung Your law behind their backs, killed Your prophets who warned them to return to You, and committed terrible blasphemies" (cf. also 9:29-30).7 My conviction is that texts like 2 Kgs 17:13 are paradigmatic, and the function of the prophets should be understood as something like covenant mediators or "enforcers."8

If this is the nature of a prophet, then the prophetic books should be understood as calling for behavioral changes on the part of the disobedient covenant people. In textlinguistic terms, this describes hortatory discourse.

2. Discourse type and biblical prophecy.

a. Discourse types. My understanding of the nature and function of discourse types is based on Longacre's system of discourse types, which has been applied to ancient and modern languages around the world.9 The basic difference between genre and discourse type is that genre is specific to a particular culture and language, whereas discourse type is a linguistic universal. In simple terms, a discourse may be categorized on the basis of focus and framework, that is, whether it is about people or ideas, and whether it is structured chronologically or logically. The additional parameter of temporal orientation yields the following basic discourse types: narrative, predictive, procedural, hortatory, and expository.10 These discourse types are identified by surface structure, which is concerned primarily with the appearance and function of certain clause types and verb forms. Furthermore, each of these discourse types typically corresponds to a particular kind of notional or semantic structure, which is mapped onto the surface structure. For example, elements such as setting and climax are distinctively mapped onto the surface structure of narrative, so that they can be identified. As important as genre identification is for interpretation because interpretive strategies vary with genre, discourse type is even more important, because the function of verb forms and clause types varies with discourse type.