How
May We Understand Isaiah 38:10-20:
A
Methodology for the Dissertation
by Tomomichi Chiyozaki
B.S., Saitama University, 1982
M.Div., Kobe Lutheran Seminary, 1992
Th.M., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995
A Complemental Paper
for the Comprehensive Exam
Submitted to the Faculty
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
May,
1999
Copyright © 2000 Tomomichi Chiyozaki
Understanding ancient texts is not an easy task, and the Bible is no exception. There is the problem of historical distance.(1) Moreover, students of the Bible face a diversity of interpretive methods. We have to consider how we should read the text, as well as why we are to choose the method.(2)
We also have to consider hermeneutical problems. Traditionally, hermeneutics(3) concerns the connection between exegesis (what the text meant) and interpretation (what the text means today).(4) However, our understanding of "what the text meant" is often influenced by our own preunderstanding of the text. Accordingly, we cannot hold the clear distinction between exegesis and interpretation.(5) Even when we use textual criticism, we might judge textual evidence based on philological standard that is unconsciously shaped by a literary convention of today.
We also have the problem of the nature of the text. Our text, Isaiah 38:10-20, is a psalm included in the prose, chapter 38, which is itself a part of larger historical prose, Isaiah 36-39. Should we read this psalm as poetry, or as a part of narrative? Or is it a prophetic word? Considering that many books of the Bible contain different genres, this is not a problem only for our text.(6)
The purpose of this paper is to formulate a method suitable to understand our text. We will examine the problems of several methods, such as historical criticism and literary approaches. We will also reflect on some hermeneutical concerns.
Problems
of Modern Methods
Because of the today's diversity of the interpretive methods, it is convenient to start with a synchronic survey as Longman does.(7) He categorizes methods according to three foci of interpretation: author, text, and reader. Some methods may not fit any of these; for example, deconstruction may be outside this schema.(8) It is not our purpose to justify the categorization, however; the distinction is only for convenience.
Author-centered Approaches
Longman includes both historical-critical method and traditional evangelical approach, or historical-grammatical approach, in the category of author-orientation.(9) Both locate the meaning of a text in the author (and its historical-social context), while they would disagree about the identity of the author.(10)
The necessity of historical research cannot be denied, for the biblical texts themselves have historical dimensions; nevertheless, the traditional historico-critical methods have some weaknesses. First, the historical critics "do not complete the whole hermeneutical process."(11) In other words, they focus on "what the text meant" but do not advance to "what it means." Their incompleteness can be observed also in that they analyze the text but do not synthesize to explain the final form of the text and its meaning. Thus, they often fragment the text.(12)
Secondly, in spite of their preoccupation with historical inquiry, historical critics underestimate the problem of historical distance. It is doubtful that we can get enough information to reconstruct the author's context in order to know his or her intention. Without sufficient data about the author, we cannot assure whether the reconstruction, and thus the meaning of the text, is correct.
Thirdly, historical critics' concentration on historical inquiry also makes them ignore or underestimate the aesthetic dimension of the literary text.(13) It is not only the matter of artistry; in historical-critical study, historical particularities of the text tend to be undermined by historical conditionedness.(14) Authors can write against the social context surrounding them, as well as being conditioned by it. Thus, ancient Israelites were influenced by Canaanite culture but still able to insist on monotheism.
Lastly, their claim of scientific objectivity is questioned. After Gadamer, we need to recognize the two-sidedness of historical conditionedness, as Thiselton correctly says; "the modern interpreter, no less than the text, stands in a given historical context and tradition."(15) Of course, there is no innocent reading; each has his or her own preunderstanding. The real danger is not to realize the fact of subjectivity in interpretation. Osborne affirms that "a purely 'objective' approach that re-creates the original situation without recourse to the modern preunderstanding is exceedingly difficult, indeed impossible."(16)
Again, these weaknesses do not necessarily mean that the historical study is not relevant for biblical interpretation. The limited nature of diachronic methods, however, and dissatisfaction of the many scholars with their results, opened the way to synchronic studies of the Bible.
Text Oriented Approaches
The shift from the historical dimension to the literary has produced many gains, but it also has some weaknesses. These weaknesses can be seen in the methods of biblical interpretation related to so-called New Criticism, but more clearly in structuralism.
First, they tend to underestimate the historical dimension of the text. As a reaction against the preoccupation with the diachronic inquiry of the traditional historical-critical studies, they focus only on the linguistic features of a text and ignore its historical dimension. Consequently, they refuse the authorial intention as a constraint on their reading.
Second, they seldom recognize the role of the readers in interpretation. Their appeal to "scientific method" leads them into not seeing their preunderstanding. Together with their denial of authorial intention as a constraint of the textual meaning, their insistence on the autonomy of the text tends to result in dominance of the reader in the understanding of the text.
Third, their theories are constructed on the inadequate model of language and literature. Saussure's distinction between langue and parole with the priority of the former over the latter is extended in literature; some extreme form of structuralism would provoke that any literary work "is a conglomeration of previous works. Since, by necessity, only established literary conventions can be used, the meaning of the work is found in the convention rather than the intention of the author."(17) That every parole, or literary work, is constrained by langue, or literary conventions, does not necessarily mean that "the meaning of a text resides in the conventional code."(18) The binarism of structuralism is also artificial.(19)
While the closed reading advocated by the New Criticism and its branches in biblical study is fruitful for the understanding of literary texts, the weaknesses show that text-oriented theories cannot be sufficient methods by themselves. Thus, "the two [historical-critical and literary-critical] are complementary and interdependent."(20)
Reader-centered Approaches
After encountering Gadamer and reader-response criticism, we cannot ignore the importance of the role of the reader in interpretation, especially that of the function of preunderstanding, or, in Gadamer's word, the reader's horizon. Though a reader-response aspect is inevitable, we also have to be aware of the weakness of the reader-centered approaches.
First and foremost, the subjectivity of the approaches is called into question. Not only most radical reader-response theories, such as ideological readings, but even the notion of "fusion of horizons" in Gadamer as well as Thiselton needs to be criticized. Their use of the past horizon of the text and the tradition as controls against subjectivism results in relativism, because there is no criteria distinguish true from false reading. Moreover, they are less critical about the role of the reader and tradition.(21)
The radical reader-response criticism goes so far that "subjectivity in interpretation is no longer something to be avoided but is to be welcomed and encouraged"(22); it is the reader who creates the meaning rather than the text or the author. In deconstruction, moreover, the reader cannot determine the meaning of the text, but only plays with the words of the text. On the other hand, a conservative reader-response criticism accepts some role of the text in understanding. Vanhoozer rightly points out, however, that "real readers inevitably do more than follow the text's guidelines . . . ."(23) With the absence of the author, the reader has authority.
The reader-oriented theories reveal the important role of a reader in the understanding the text. We need to admit their contribution to our study in terms of opening the way to fundamental problems in hermeneutics, and also to accept that we ourselves have a reader-response tendency. Nevertheless, their readings are not acceptable, at least to those who take the Bible as canon; for those, the authority belongs to the Author and the Text, not the readers.
In sum, these problems in three groups do not necessarily mean that all of them are to be denied; rather, each of them is inadequate by and in itself and must be used with some reservation. It is understandable, then, that we may wish to use multiple methods in order to cover such limitation of each method. Moreover, we should reflect with the some hermeneutical concerns emerging in the observation above.
Hermeneutical
Concerns
Recent studies in hermeneutics pose many problems.(24) We will limit our discussion to the problems of objectivity, preunderstanding, and possibility of understanding.
The Problem of Objectivity
Many critics, especially those in historical-critical schools and structuralism, have thought of their methods as scientific or objective in order to justify their readings. Recent hermeneutics throws this objectivity into question. Being historically conditioned,(25) the reader cannot avoid bringing their preunderstanding into the reading.
Then, should we abandon objectivity and choose subjective understanding together with reader-response critics? Or, should we seek new method that can be match with today's standard of objectivity?
Vanhoozer correctly observes that the problem has arose from the sets of Cartesian dualism: between subject and object, body and mind, and thought and language. What Derrida undoes is the Cartesian picture of the solitary sovereign subject.(26) A postmodernist uses the same dichotomies, however, in shifting from purely objective understanding to purely subjective reading. We need to be cautious of two extremes: on the one hand, insisting the objectivity of one's own method without realizing subjectivity; and, on the other, resorting within one's own subjective reading without making effort to understand, and to be understood by, the others.(27)
The Problem of Preunderstanding
If purely objective reading is impossible, then do we need to worry about our preunderstanding that discredits the assertion of objectivity in every reading?
The matter of preunderstanding is related to another problem in understanding the Bible and the ancient texts alike: historical distance. On the one hand, the text has been written in ancient culture, which we hardly reconstruct to know the meaning of the text correctly; on the other, our understanding is limited by our own preunderstanding, which is shaped within today's culture. How we can understand the subject matter of the text written by ancient author?
Gadamar's notion of "fusion of two horizons" might be an answer. If it is the only solution, however, "it follows that a text does not have a single correct interpretation, for each reader brings a different horizon to the text."(28) What Gadamar shows us is a picture, in which actual understanding of ancient text occurs; our understanding takes place inevitably somewhere between the two horizons. What actually happens, however, is not necessarily the aim of understanding. Rather, this fusion creates a new horizon, which is still distant from the horizon of the text, and we must go further. If we see the text from this new horizon, we may have a new understanding, another fusion of horizons.
Another possible solution is to hear the voices of the others: different horizons. We may realize different ways of viewing the text that cannot be achieved by ourselves. Other horizons can function as a help to find our preunderstanding. Here, we can see another advantage to use multiple methods. Of course, it is not to say that every voice has equal weight for the understanding of a text. We need to listen critically to others, and, at the same time, to ourselves. Vanhoozer rightly says even the deconstruction has worth to listen.(29)
It is also important to tune to the voice of the scripture: intertextuality. Cottrell describes, in his definition of seven standards of text, intertextuality. Each text in the Bible relates to the some other parts in some sense; no text stands by and in itself. The quotation of the Old Testament in the New is an example of inter-testamental intertextuality. We can find other examples of inner-testamental one.(30) Of course, it should not be free association by the reader's creative imagination; we need some clues linguistically recognizable. If we correctly adopt the intertextuality, it can give us some sort of preunderstanding shaped by the Scripture itself. We will return to this matter later.
In order to control our preunderstanding, a hermeneutical circle is not vicious one but helpful. We cannot help but pose questions to the text by our own presuppositions, and need to construct hypothetical conclusions. But these hypotheses can be checked against the text (that is, recognizable linguistic features of the text). And this circle will continue, as Osborne calls it a "hermeneutical spiral,"(31) toward the understanding of the text.
The Possibility of Understanding
The question is: "can we understand a text?" If those problems mentioned above are difficult to solve, how are we to expect to be able to understand the Bible. Can we understand the text completely, or not?
Vanhoozer rightly points out that "Derrida mistakenly tries to derive ontological conclusions from an epistemological problem."(32) In other words, that we cannot know the meaning of a text "absolutely" does not necessarily mean that there is no meaning in the text or that we cannot know anything of the meaning of the text. This is the false dichotomy of "all or nothing." Instead of two alternatives, he offers "a third option by which we can break out of the debilitating dichotomy of 'all or nothing,' namely, some" (italic his).(33) How much we should and can understand a text, then? If the understanding is the matter of effectiveness, the problem of interpretation becomes that of degree and standard.
The answer to this question of degree can be dynamic. In our daily verbal communications, we may not completely understand what the others say, but we can still grasp the main point of the message, or we can ask them when we need to know more detailed information. This means that our communicative understanding is, fundamentally, always partial and provisional. This does not imply that our communication always fails or that it is never effective; rather, until the conversation ends, communication is at work and understanding advances. In the case of understanding ancient texts, of course, we cannot ask the authors when we need more information. Nevertheless, we can continue the query of the understanding by means of reading the text repeatedly. What we need to keep in mind is that our understanding is always partial and provisional.(34)
We should have similar reservation on the distinction between exegesis and interpretation, or "what it meant" and "what it means." Theoretically it is not incorrect to say that only after we understand "what it meant" can we proceed to "what it means." We cannot understand the text without preunderstanding, however; in other words, our understanding about the text in terms of "what it meant," has been shaped by our preliminary interpretation in terms of "what it means," which unconsciously effects on our study of the text. This preunderstanding may be prejudice about the ancient world or, especially in the case of the Bible, our theological presupposition about the text, which is shaped by theological tradition we belong. If we have to understand "what it meant" completely in order to proceed to the next step ("what it means"), we are never able to start the second inquiry. Therefore, we may engage the interpretation even if the exegesis might be incomplete. We need to know, however, that our understanding is always provisional so that we should be ready to be corrected.
Keeping these problems in mind, then, we will advance to the next topic: what can we understand, and how.
Approaching
to the New Method
Recently, some biblical scholars adopt a linguistic method. In this section, we will introduce discourse analysis, the method of linguistic study. We will start consider the nature of language and text.(35) Then, we will focus on what we understand of the text. Thirdly, we will specify our aim of understanding the text. Finally, we will integrate the discourse analysis with the several disciplines discussed.
Language and Text
One's understanding of the text is largely dominated by the model of language he or she chooses.(36) Traditionally, philosophers of language have presupposed the imitation, or referential, model of language, in which each word represents something in the world. On the other hand, some philosophers advocate another model, language as a system, in which no word has a meaning in and by itself but the system determines the meaning.(37) Although both models have some advantage in investigating the nature of language, they cannot be an adequate model of language in use. A more suitable, if not complete, model of language is suggested; language as a medium of human communication related to speech-act theory.
Of course, language has many weaknesses for the purpose of communication. This incompleteness, however, does not mean the human communication is impossible with the language. On the contrary, we commune with each other using language, in most case, effectively, if not ideally. Language can be used as object for philosophical inquiry, but the chief raison d'être of language is means of communication.(38)
A written text is, as a phenomenon of language, a special case of communication, probably in highly complex form. Thus, texts have authors (originators), readers, and context. It is not merely an accumulation of words or sentences. It is legitimate, therefore, to locate the meaning of a text in its wholeness, that is, in Ricoeur's term, as a discourse.
What is the meaning of a text as discourse, then? One of Vanhoozer's achievements in his book, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, is the effective defense of the authorial intention as the meaning of the text. It is the intention of the author, not as psychological reconstruction, but as the communicative act inferred in the text.(39)
Communicative Act and Authorial Intention
Vanhoozer's communicative act is partly based on Austin's speech act theory. In this theory, a speech has three aspects: locution, illocution, and perlocution.(40) They are not three kinds of linguistic action.(41) Rather, one speech can have all of them.(42) For Vanhoozer, the authorial intention is a matter of illocution.(43)
What is the author? To investigate the identity of the historical author is beyond the scope of this paper (and the dissertation, which I will engage, as well). Nevertheless, the matter of authorship is more complicated if one considers the historical development of the text. In the case of Psalms 23, for example, is the author the creator of this song, or the editor who arranged the psalms in the form we have now? How about the canonizer (persons or community who have responsibility for the final shape of the canon). In terms of speech act, the utterance in, say, "Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover" in Isaiah 38:1 can be a speech act of Yahweh to Hezekiah through Isaiah, or that of Isaiah, but may be a part of the speech act of the author of the book. Whose intention does the text indicate?
The distinction between illocution and perlocution is subtle. The distinction is not a matter of kind of action, as Vanhoozer criticizes Habermass, saying, "the distinction between the illocution and the perlocution is not a distinction between communicative and strategic action."(44) It is not the distinction between cause, or action, and result, or effect, for the illocution itself has effect or result(45) while the perlocution has "intent."(46) It is also misleading to limit the illocution to informing a message, as Searle does, for the author can do more than transmitting propositions through the speech.
If the distinction is a matter of action and its consequence, it is hard to make the distinction, in terms of intention, in the case of some complex actions under special circumstances. If two persons have a social relationship, in which one have to do something, not everything, ordered by the other, the latter person, in saying some sentences (locution), makes an order (illocution), bringing the former person to do the thing (perlocution). In this case, is the intention of saying to make an order, or to make the person do it? Such case may be too artificial. In the case of purpose, however, the problem is more serious.
Persuading is often taken up as an example of a perlocutionary act. The English verb has by itself a sense including the successful result.(47) What the author (speaker) is doing in saying is not persuading but reasoning, arguing, or asking (illocutionary acts). Thus, persuading itself is not an illocutionary act and the result, that is, the success or failure of persuasion, is not in the author's control.
However, the purpose of the saying cannot be unrelated to the structure of the discourse; the sentences must be arranged in order to achieve his argument effective. An opposite example of this case can be found in Jonah 3:4. The prophet relays the information ordered by Yahweh, but with the intention not to persuade the people on Nineveh into repentance.(48) Even though the result is not what he has expected, the contents and form of his message seem to connect to his purpose. This is not to say that we should include the perlocution into the authorial intention, nor to bring back the psychological side of author to the argument.
However, we should not exclude the perlocutionary purpose, which is inferred from the text, as an element of the intention merely because it is perlocutional. On the one hand, the result (especially that which is unexpected by the author) of perlocution, which belongs to the reader's side, should be excluded from author's intention; some elements of perlocution may be related to the authorial intention, if they belong to the author's side, on the other. In any case, it is important to note that it should be attested by the text.
In sum, the intention of an author is the communicative act inferred from the text, which has locutionary, illocutionary, and, in some cases, perlocutionary aspects.
Multiplicity of Meaning
A text is a communicative act, which has three characters: author, text and reader. In the biblical text, authorship, even if it is not a matter of historical identity but a matter of a communication act, is also multi-levels: real authors, editors in some cases, and canonizers.
A communicative act also has three aspects: locution, illocution, and perlocution. A text does not stand by itself; it has context (historical, social) as well as cotext (that is, literary context). Moreover, it is a language phenomenon, and language also has many aspects: mimetic (or referential), system (langue) and actual use (parole), and communication.
Given these multiplicities, it is not surprising that the meaning of a text also has multi-dimensions. It does not mean that a text has different, or infinite, meanings so that one cannot speak of "the meaning." As Vanhoozer demonstrates, a text has a meaning; however, the meaning of the text is not simple, single-aspect sense.(49) As a human being has many elements or aspects, the text as an act of communication between human beings also has multiplicity.
These characteristics of the meaning can be expressed in a different way. A discourse--another expression of a communicative act of a text as a whole--cannot be reduced into, say, a sentence, or a proposition, without sacrificing its dynamism. What Vanhoozer depicts about Ricoeur's notion of inexhausibility of metaphors can be said of discourses: "The one discourse does not simply dissolves into the other." Thus, "texts do not convey meaning in one way only, so that they can simply be reduced to a single . . . level. On the contrary, texts are communicative acts that can be described on several levels."(50)
This multiplicity of a text and its meaning legitimates, I believe, our use of multiple methods to understand the meaning of the text. Each method has some advantage for investigation of one aspect of the text and can describe it in one level. We probably cannot exhaust the whole aspects and dimensions of the textual meaning, but with these methods we can have as many, if not enough, descriptions as we can assert some provisional conclusions about the meaning of the text.
There is no "super" method that can dominate other interpretive methods. How can we control these methods without being disorderly, then?
The first principle I suggest is to have the adequate aim of the inquiry: thick descriptions of the text.(51) In other words, our aim is to explain as many linguistic features in the text as we can. The description should be seen in the relation to communicative actions: what the author is telling (locution and contents) and doing (illocution and perlocution) in the discourse.
The second principle is to listen to other voices. The use of multiple methods causes another problem; practically it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to master all of the methods of today. Therefore, it is crucial to listen to the voices of other disciplines. Of course, listening needs to be selective in the choice of the sources because of some other limitations. What is important here is not the exhaustiveness but the openness to other opinions.(52) The purpose of interaction with other voices is to avoid extreme subjectivism while we acknowledge our own subjectivity.
Finally, we should not quit our inquiry at delineating the descriptions; the goal of the understanding is to seek relevance of the meaning for us. Especially, for these who are in tradition where the Bible is the Canon of the church, any biblical text is to be seen in the context of the Canon as well. This inner-canonical consideration involves readers' theological reflections to the meaning of the text. As a closing of the study, it is quite possible and reasonable to have any theological conclusion, not final but provisional. This is another aim of our inquiry of the text.
Discourse Analysis
Recently, more works in the field of biblical study have been done by using a new discipline: discourse analysis, or text linguistics.(53) This method, however, has not established formally as a discipline yet, as Lowery correctly observes:
The confusion of methodology . . . is due in part to the interdisciplinary nature of the origins of discourse analysis. Researchers from many disciplines tuned to the analysis of text to further their own agendas. . . . many linguistically oriented studies borrow hypotheses, terminology, and methodologies from other disciplines in their search for understanding discourse. This is the source of the lack of a cohesive theory and method for the heterogeneous collection of studies called "discourse analysis."(54)
In the biblical study, this discipline seems to advance in the study of narrative more than the other areas,(55) while some studies can be found in prophetic books.(56) For texts of mixed genres like our text, however, only few works have been done. Therefore, it is practically appropriate to use this discipline with several other methods.
The reason for introducing this method is that the theory of a text as a discourse, which is a communicative act, while theoretically important, does not have any particular procedure for analyzing a text. Discourse analysis, as above, has several currents of studies.(57) I want to suggest adopting one of them, that is, Wiklander's procedure,(58) with some cautions, and another, that is Cotterell's notion of thematic nets.(59)
The main part of Wiklander's analysis has three dimensions that are mutual features of a text. Wiklander offers following definition:
1. The Syntactic Dimension: The formal links holding words and clauses together at the surface level . . . .
2. The Semantic Dimension: The patterns which bind the constituents of the text together by underlying conceptual relations, logical and temporal principles of organisation [sic] . . . .
3. The Pragmatic Dimension: The relations arising in the text as it is related to the situation, purpose, needs and capacities of the users, either as a product of the author's intention, or as a potential bearer of meaning to become materialised [sic] in the mind of a specific audience.(60)
His actual analyses are directed toward the structure of the text, which is not unimportant but secondary for our study. The purpose of using these analyses is to provide linguistic data, including the structure, of the text so that we can propose or examine hypotheses about the communication act based on the data.
The syntactical analysis examines formal features of the text, by which the elements of the text are interconnected syntactically. This investigation can be equipped by the help of literary approaches to the text, such as poetical analysis.(61)
The semantic analysis reveals the thematic "net" of the text(62) and seeks the development of the argument in the text. The theme, which dominates the text, or a part of it, can be detected by examination of recurrences of words or phrases that belong to same semantic domains.(63) The sense of each occurrence of a word is determined mainly by the literary context.(64) Both syntactical and semantic analyses presuppose cohesion and coherence of the text, and, on the other hand, they legitimatize the hypothetical cohesion and coherence.(65)
Pragmatic analysis focuses on actual use of language by the author which makes the communication effective,(66) including such as rhetorical devices and imaginary expressions.
While those dimensions of text (syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic) seem to relate to the three aspects of text (locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary), they are different categories. In actual procedure, we will use the analyses above, together with other methods, in order to examine three aspects of the communicative act in the text.
Procedure
of Our Study
We proceed to the description of the procedure that will be used in our study on Isaiah 38. In each stage of the study, discourse analysis, especially semantic and pragmatic analyses, will be applied to observe the communicative act of each level.
Preliminary Understanding of the Text
We will start with a standard exegesis(67): textual criticism, lexical and grammatical interpretation, and provisional translation of the text. While historical background of the text is an important factor in understanding the textual meaning, it will not be treated so exhaustively but only in limited extend, partly because the reconstruction of the historical background is beyond our aim, and also because the hypothetical data about the historical or cultural background, which themselves are results of interpretation, might be misleading. For many studies have been done in this area, it is profitable to interact with these researches, including those by historical critics, with the purpose of widening the range of the possible sense of the text.
The linguistic study can help us not only in the grammatical and lexical examination but also in the textual criticism. Cotterell and Turner provide a good example of this.(68)
Analysis of the Text Itself
The importance of genre consideration in understanding a text draws more attention.(69) While some argue about the classification of our text, Isa. 38:10-20,(70) in terms of whether it is Thanksgiving or lament,(71) few would object against the assertion that it is poetry,(72) at least in its formal character. Thus, it is quite acceptable to use poetry analysis(73) together with text linguistics.(74)
In order to understand the nature of Hezekiah's psalm, it must be useful to comparison with the other texts that resemble our text. The resemblance can be (1) formal, that is, the placement of poetry within the prose, or (2) thematic, that is, the theme of death and life.(75) While we need to consider the chronological relation of the text in comparison, it is not our purpose to argue about the dates of the texts. On the one hand, it is difficult to prove that one text is older than other, and thus, the latter was "influenced" by the former; on the other hand, it is quite possible to assert that both texts share the common literary conventions, by which both of them can be better understood.
It is profitable to have dialogue with form criticism, for it has made great contributions to the study of the biblical poetry. Our purpose is, of course, not to reconstruct Sitz im Leben of the text isolated from the context, but to understand the text as communicative act within the context. Therefore, we need to turn the next step: the study of the poetry in the context of prose.
The Text within the Immediate Literary Context
In this stage, we will apply the narrative criticism to Isaiah 36-39, especially chapter 38. This is not to say that this portion of the book of Isaiah is so-called narrative. These chapters are different in many points from the biblical texts which are objects of the narrative criticism.(76) At least, however, a part of this literary analysis will be valuable for our study.(77)
As a role of the narrative in the literary communication, Vanhoozer asserts:
On one level, the illocution would be "telling a story." This is indeed an accurate description as far as it goes, but ultimately it needs to be supplemented, for authors can do various things in telling stories. . . . they display worlds [his italic]. . . . a narrative displays an interpreted world. Yet a narrative may nevertheless make an assertion of a higher order; it may assert a worldview. . . . it is preferable to view the generic illocution of narratives as "displaying the world as . . . ." . . . in addition to displaying a world, authors of narrative take up a stance toward it. . . . In other words, the way the story is told communicates the author's perspective on the world of the text. . . . [that is] "point of view" . . . . The literary act of a narrator is indeed "displaying," but it is also accompanied by evaluative illocutionary acts--praising, snubbing,, mocking, questioning. The illocutionary force of narrative includes not only displaying imagined worlds but commending, or condemning, them as well.(78)
If one of the illocutionary acts of a narrative text is to display the world view of the author, this is one of the contributions that narrative analysis can offer for the understanding of the communicative act.(79)
The aim of the stage is, however, not the analysis of the narrative, but the investigation of the role, or function, of Hezekiah's psalm within the historical prose. In other words, what we want to know is how the psalm helps in displaying the author's point of view.
Another possible way to explore the communicative role of the psalm is to analyze the semantic dimension of the prose as well as the psalm. The contribution of the terms for networking of themes is not even between the prose and the psalm, however, for the sense of individual word is to be determined by the context. Nevertheless, the psalm can produce a situation different from that of the prose, which may give a wider range of the possible sense of the word than the latter can do. The psalm has potentialities, with which the thematic development can greatly advance. While James W. Watts correctly delineates of the characterization in narrative, "It seems then that the psalm was used to provide a depth of characterization of which conventional Hebrew narrative was not capable,"(80) what the psalm can provide is not only the characterization but also the thematic development.
The Text in the Book of Isaiah
Recently, many scholars have become aware of the role of Isaiah 36-39 in the composition of the book as a whole.(81) The fourth stage of our study can contribute the argument from a different angle, I believe.
If a narrative can bear "point of view," whether theological or ideological, then biblical narratives, including historical prose in prophetic books, can convey theological messages. Thus, historical prose can form a part of the theological assertion of the prophetic, that is theological, book as a whole.
We need not be exhaustive; it is acceptable to be selective, if it is in reasonable degree. It may be supposed that our investigation is limited to the several themes, including those of death and life, which would be found in previous stages. Using semantic analysis, we can detect the thematic development throughout the book. If the contribution of the psalm within the development can be found, it is one of the functions of the psalm. To see the function as the communicative force (illocutionary and perlocutionary), we need to assume the unity of the book.(82)
In order to examine the passages in a prophetic book that is not apparent prose, we can use rhetorical criticism as a literary approach for aid.(83) It is also fruitful to hear the voices, especially, those of the redaction criticism, for it can observe the composition of the whole book, but only diachronically.(84)
The Text as a Part of the Canon
In this stage, we will use intertextuality of the text. This intertextuality is different from that of, for example, Ricoeur, whom Vanhoozer accuses that "Some critics have used intertextuality as an excuse for textual 'freeplay'."(85) Rather, the intertextuality we want to adopt here is a characteristic of a communicative text as one of the seven standards of textuality.(86) It is also related to what M. Fishbane calls "inner-biblical" exegesis. Thiselton asserts:
There are instances in which, Fishbane's own terminology, a later biblical (Old Testament) writer takes up an earlier biblical text in order to "re-use," "re-contextualize," "extend," "reformulate," "reinterpret" or "transform" it. Thus the pre-existing text as "deposit of tradition" (traditium) is pressed into the service of the actively ongoing tradition (traditio).(87)
Similar example is the quotation of the Old Testament in the New, in which the two "meanings" are not contradicting, rather, as W. C. Kaiser concludes, the two texts "yield the same basic meaning in both Testaments."(88)
In order not to become "freeplay" or anachronism, we need to be cautious in using the intertextuality. In our study, we restrict the association of two texts only to the case in which the linguistic connection of the texts is relatively strong; for example, it would be the case that there are several clues--for example, recurrences of words or phrases--which seem to connect two texts, and this relation can be assured by another way.
Because of the nature of the object, that is, the whole Canon, not only the Hebrew Bible but also the New Testament, the study is hardly exhaustive. We need to limit the examination to a few themes. It may be subjective in a sense, for the research will be inevitably influenced by the theological presupposition of the researcher. Therefore, it is required to interact with the other theological traditions or disciplines in order to avoid extreme subjectivity.
Conclusive Assessment
As we have seen, it is not unacceptable but responsible for the reader to proceed from the stage of understanding "what the text meant" to that of interpreting "what it means" in terms of the significance of the text for the Church today. Therefore, we will make some assessments about the significance of our text. First, an assessment can be of the manner, by which our text enhances the message of the book of Isaiah in terms of its function. Secondly, it may be about the contribution of our text to the ongoing argument on the theme of death/life in the Bible.
These, and the other assessments, if possible, are not final conclusions of the topics but the provisional, hypothetical ones. However, it is the present writer who has the responsibility to respond to the critique or question about the assessments.
Ackroyd, Peter R. "Isaiah 36-39: Structure and Function." In Von Kanan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J. P. M. van der Ploeg, O. P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979 (ed. W. C. Delsman, et al., AOAT 211, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 3-21.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, 1985.
Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992.
Bodine, Walter R., ed. Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers. The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies (ed. E. L. Greenstein). Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
. "Introduction: Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers." In Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (ed. W. R. Bodine, The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies [ed. E. L. Greenstein], Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 1-18.
Chhetri, Chitra B. "The Servant Motif in Isaiah 41, 42, and 43: A Text-Linguistic Study." Ph.D. diss., Trinity International University, 1997.
Cotterell, Peter. "Linguistics, Meaning, Semantic, and Discourse Analysis." In NIDOTTE (ed. W. A. VanGemeren, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), vol. 1, 134-60.
Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.; InterVarsity Press, 1989.
de Beaugrande, R., and W. Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman, 1981.
Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. Rev. ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
Jeanrond, W. G. Text and Interpretation As Categories of Theological Thinking. New York: Crossroad, 1988.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Use of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.
Kugel, J. The Idea of Biblical Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
Longman, Tremper, III. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
Lowery, Kirk E. "The Theoretical Foundations of Hebrew Discourse Grammar." In Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (ed. W. R. Bodine, The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies [ed. E. L. Greenstein], Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 103-30.
. "A Classified Discourse Analysis Bibliography." In Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (ed. W. R. Bodine, The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies [ed. E. L. Greenstein], Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1995), 213-53.
McCullough, W. S. "Psalms: Introduction." In IB vol 4, 1-17.
Osborne, Grant R. The hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991.
Pertersen, David L. and Kent H. Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Powell, Mark A. What is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Sandy, D. B., and R. L. Giese, eds. Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Literary Forms. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1995.
Seitz, Christopher R. Zion's Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985.
Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1-39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980.
. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998.
Watts, James W. Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative. JSOTSS 139. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Wiklander, Bertil. Prophecy as Literature: a Text-linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to Isaiah 2-4. Uppsala: CWK Gleerup, 1984.