Biblical
Interpretation of Stylistics
All
three Hasels, Gerhard, Michael and Frank, did not elaborate on this aspect of
Biblical Interpretation. One can find about two/three extensive paragraphs in
Gerhard Hasel’s book Understanding the Living Word of God (1980). For example, Chiasm
on page 169; parallelism on pages 42-43. That is it. This is no criticism because
hardly a scholar in Adventism focused on these aspects and their relationship
to biblical understanding and Adventist theology. Chiasm scholars are those who
mention the word in their books, articles, lectures and other presentations. In
this domain there are true chiasms and self-created eye of the beholder chiasm
and even not chiasms at all. There are scholars who try to see chiasms within
the arrangement of the whole book or between two books like Daniel and
Revelation. Some opt for theological chiasm within the whole Bible, within
periods of history throughout 6000 years of history. They look impressive and
cute but are not built-in mechanisms in the Bible as the subject is unfold
here. That is why this topic is important, because non-semitici (non-semitic
linguists) superimposed upon the biblical text niceties that are not coming
from the text itself but transforms interpretation into an allegorical science.
The Kabbalists in the Middle-Ages did that. The Jewish interpreters would count
letters, find the middle and then branch off in divisions to create all kinds
of theology based on these. A spiritualization of the form of the text. Some Adventists
are doing it too. I do not want to diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in the
formation of the form of the text. When that was important He as the Editor
allowed it or helped it established.
Why
is this important? Two reasons: our theology of the Holy Spirit that He is God,
is based upon a synonymous parallelism technique used by Peter and described by
dr. Luke in Acts 5. Secondly, our misunderstanding of Jesus’ use of parallelism
in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 led to a debate by Desmond Ford since 1972
graduating from Manchester under F. F. Bruce and since the publication of his Daniel
Commentary. Ford and even current Adventists all thought that Jesus was using
synonymous parallelism so that the words: When you shall see the Roman soldiers
at the gates of Jerusalem…. Is synonymous to When you shall see the Abomination
of desolation stands where it should not. Well, what if Jesus was not using in
this parallelism a synonymous kind but another one? Scholars have found at
least three major kinds, synonymous, antithetical and synthetical. They also
found that the parallelism can be arranged into a chiastic format or a
step-format. When something appears synonymous, but in meaning is not, you can
count on it that it is step-format parallelism. In Jesus’ expounding of Daniel
9 in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13, the attempt was not synonymous
parallelism in meaning although in form, but in step-format, namely answering
two questions that the disciples were asking in verses 1 to 3 to these
chapters: when shall the stone be removed and secondly, when shall the end of
end be? In a step-format parallelism Jesus answered both questions: Daniel 9:26
provides the answer for the timing of Luke 21 and his Roman soldiers at the
gate of Jerusalem in 70-73 A.D. and Daniel 9:27 provides the answer for the
timing of the abomination of desolation by Justinian in 538 stretching for 1260
years to the time of the end concept in Daniel, Revelation and with Jesus since
1798. This truth was somehow hidden to the eyes of the disciples by Christ,
says Ellen White, and instead they may have understood that it is just a
synonymous parallelism with synonymous meanings, not a synonymous parallelism
with different meanings connected to two different verses and time-zones within
Daniel 9.
This
misunderstanding was that of Desmond Ford and F. F. Bruce et al. and all
Reformers, Luther, Calvin, etc. and Reformed Theologians, Bavinck, Berkhof,
Berkhouwer, by Adventist scholars and a long list can be provided, by Sabbath
School Quarterlies on this topic. All made the same mistake: Jesus meant to say
that the Roman army in 70 A.D. is the abomination of desolation that Daniel 9
is talking about. Why, because that is how Luke understood it in Luke 21 and it
is using the same words as in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. That is how Ford reasoned
in the middle of his commentary on Daniel and this provided him with the
apotelesmatic principle: if the abomination of desolation can be the Roman army
in 70 A.D. and 538 A.D. with Justinian, then it can also be applicable to the
previous times. If one form has two applications, then Little Horn as form can
have two or three or multiple time applications: Little Horn is Antiochus
Epiphanes, Little Horn is Romans in 70 A.D. Luke 21 and Little Horn is
Justinian in 538 A.D. Catholics agrees with this principle and made it in the
Jesuit book on the Antichrist published in the 1970’s multiple antichrists so
that any system, idea, person, kind, power, country that is against the Vatican
church is considered a Little Horn or Antichrist. But there Desmond Ford had
his ratio dicidendi cut out for his apotelesmatic principle and
he could convince all with just running always in his arguments to the analogy
of Jesus in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13. Heresy roamed and bloomed full
fletched and ran across the World creating a havoc between 1974 and 1980 when
Ford appeared before the 300+ scholars about his views and he was exposed on
many aspects. But, nearly all those scholars attending missed the error
thinking all have in the understanding of Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 regarding
the one prophecy two applications theory. So the church, depending which
country it is, rejects Ford’s ideas but cling still to the ratio dicidendi
mentioned above. Recent scholars talked about the exegesis of Daniel 11:36-45
in the same way. When one points out that they are ignoring the literal aspects
in these verses, like Egypt who is symbolically interpreted by them, or Ammon,
Moab and Edom which they have nothing to say about, or Ethiopia and Libya of
verse 43 which they are silent about, then what do they do? They insist that
because by analogy Jesus connected the Romans and 538 for the Abomination of
Desolation, therefore one should also connect the symbolic understanding of
Daniel 11 ignoring the literal geographical references by Daniel, as a “come
again situation”. Ford lost his ministerial credentials for this ratio
dicidenci but they passed the modern test. It is quite ironical. Louis Were
who invented this symbolical application with the help of Raymond Cottrell who
was to reject the Investigative Judgment in Heaven theology in the
mid-seventies did an enormous dis-service to the church.
There
are certain ratio dicidendi cases that harms Adventist theology and
makes scholars speaks out of two tongues: Daniel 11:36-45 understood as
symbolically; using the Ford principle of synonymous parallelism as synonymous
meaning in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 mentioned above, and thirdly, the
nature of Christ and clinging or not so of original sin in Adventist theology. On
the last matter even H. Larondelle said in the footnote of his dissertation on
Perfection that he endorses the idea of Luther of simul iustus et peccator, meaning:
at the same time a saint as well as a sinner. It sounds so right especially if
one reads Romans 7 quickly. Emphasis quickly. Adventists should listen to the
sermons of Denis Priebe on this matter and the book by Jean Zurcher, Touched
with our Feelings.
What
is stylistics?
Stylistics
of literature theories is the study of the application and use of words,
expressions, phrases, sentence constructions and rhythm in a presentation or
writing in such a way that you as the audience are somehow touched by it. Some
wants to see it as some form of an art and piece of elevated literature, but in
reality it is more than that, it is actually an attempt to communicate on a
fuller level. It wants to add to understanding more than just a simple straight
sentence. These elements that are utilized in order to achieve this special
task of communication, are called tools or instruments. These tools are related
to the way sound, form and content are used and are interrelated. Wrongly in
the past, scholars thought that a literary piece can only be prose or poetry.
These instruments for elevated or emphasized communication are also used in
prophesy. This is one reason why some grammars in Hebrew are very limited: they
threw prose into a tank, analyzed it and then constructed a grammar for the
interpretation of the Bible. In such a lopsided case, their analysis of
prophetic perfect does not exist because prose does not work with prophetic
perfects. A grammar that is composed from sources of the genres poetry and
prose has the same deficit. One cannot superimpose the grammatical elements of
prose and poetry over the genre of prophecy and in the area of TENSE boast of
having a full understanding. Any grammar of Hebrew, should be constructed from
all three genres: prose, poetry and prophesy giving each one their own domain
yet interacting each other so that prophecy can be found in prose and poetry
and poetry in prose and prophecy and prose in prophecy and poetry. Therefore
Walther Eichrodt in his volumes on Theology of the Old Testament is not
correct in his analysis of eschatology, namely that it is a “later invention
due to Zoroastrianism”. Thus, Persian Period 539 BCE and beyond dating.
Grammar
of Hebrew problems
Most
scholars and pastors using grammars in a prescriptive manner instead of
descriptive. That is what Transformational Linguistics want to teach us, and
that is thanks to Noam Chomsky 1957 they said. But actually it is both. It is a
case by case situation. Sometimes they can be prescriptive and sometimes they
are only descriptive. Apparently before 1957 the grammars were used
prescriptively. Now see the problem. If the construction of the grammar is
based only on a corpus of prose genre, then narrative styles in day to day life
will be the norm to judge the whole Bible. What about prophecies? Oh, they are
just referring to some things in their near future. This is how they then deal
with Perfect and Imperfect forms in their Hebrew grammars. One can see it in the
grammars of Ewald 1831; S. Driver 1881; Gesenius and Kautzsch 1907 (considered
a classic); Cohen 1924; Hollenberg-Budde 1957. All prose and poetry source
designed Hebrew grammars. Using them prescriptively or normatively can create a
large chaos especially if one interprets the prophetic genre. This is why
eschatology were silenced starting with the Hebrew Grammars in the Victorian
age. Since prose was the way in which they designed the grammars, the
grammatical observations of P. Kustár 1972 on time
relationships in Tempus as just narrator time really, and Bo-Johnson with the
same view in 1979 as well as Rabin in 1970, their analysis of Tempus, Aspect
and Action within the frame of Prose or with Bo-Johnson extended to include
prose and poetry in his work on the Nun-Paragogicum and the Imperfectum, one
can say that unless the prophetic genre is given its adequate role in Grammar
Research and Design, the grammar cannot be used prescriptively on every genre.
It may be right for prose, it may be right for poetry but with prophecy there
will be many hick-ups. The philosophical base of whether grammars are dealing
with stative verbs or active verbs makes a great difference as well. Which came
first: state or action? One must admit that what came first in Creation was the
action and that by God. State was the result of God’s action. That settles it
for philosophical base of whether a grammar is designed with verbal concepts as
a state to action order or the opposite namely verbal actions to state order.
The chicken or the egg question, which came first: noun or verb? Those who are
familiar with Classical Greek grammars and Latin will know what I am talking
about. See
for example the strange definitions in the grammatical discussions of Rundgren
1959, 1961, 1963 and 1966, Viewing the verb as action and the perspective of
action used to analyze he would say that a perfect verb is ingressive,
momentary, punctual, once occurrence, “semelfaktive” and definite. Notice the
Tense as Time is not mentioned at all. The word “past” is not used. The closest
he comes to it is to say it is “complete”. The imperfect as action for Rundgren
is iterative and durative and thus incomplete. Tense discussion is totally
absent from their grammatical analysis and that includes Bo-Johnson 1979. For
Bo-Johnson tense is not the present of the narrator nor the state ended or incomplete
but simply to state the action (Perfect) or painting it in its progress
(Bo-Johnson 1979: 17 where he cited Brockelman with acceptance, K. Aartum as
well and also A. Meyer 1972). This
absent Tense-View of the Hebrew Grammar R&D with scholars can only be
highly criticized as not fully explaining the verb-system in other genres not
utilized for their purpose, the prophetic genre. Only when Tempus, Aspect and
Action will be viewed as simultaneous, concurrent but with different quantities
of function and importance in the different genre, will the verbal view do
justice to all genres of the Bible. For
example: Prose will
utilize much aspect, much action but less tempus focuses. Poetry will
utilize also much aspect, much action but also less tempus focuses. Prophecy will utilize
less aspect/equal aspect, less action or equal action than the other genres,
much Tempus/ equal Tempus than the other genres. How
important is it for the Biblical reader? Due to these differences and lopsided
approaches to the analysis of the original Hebrew, these problems show up in
the lexical and syntactical expressions of translations of the Bible. What
is the difference between Prose, Poetry and Prophetic literature? Maybe
we have to admit that it is an impressionistic observation. Anyone who tries to
explain these differences seems to just echo a mere gut-feeling. There is no
biblical text that will tell you what these differences are. You cannot run to
Judaism and ask them to analyze with their rabbinical fathers what it is. You
cannot let the Victorian Age Semitic Grammar R&D scholars prescribe to you
what it is. You can hardly allow modern grammars to do so because many before
1957 designed from prose and or poetry their grammars and is called classical approach
scholars or after 1957 denying the correctness of the classical views of
grammar and substituting it with the transformational paradigm shift to
cognitive linguistics of Noam Chomsky: basically allowing Hinduism to prescribe
how we should design a grammar. See my article on Academia on the Hindu
Influence on Noam Chomsky and his Transformational Grammar Design. Scholars
want to say that prose is just normal speech. Poetry is cryptic expressions,
comparisons, metaphors used more. It is change of word-order. It is more
focused on sound. It uses meter to attain rhythm. This is not true really. All these
aspects are found in modern communication in newsreading, sermons, blog
writing, prophetic genre and even in prose. It almost seems that Isaiah had no
other way to speak than with this method. You cannot say he designed poetry all
the way through. The song of the vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-12 is well known to be
elevated poetry and Gerhard Hasel also discussed it in this Understanding
the Living Word of God 1980: 161-174. One should not miss the Investigative
Judgement before the Executive Judgment in this Poem. Unique
aspect of Hebrew Expression I
do not want to use the word poetry here because it also appears in prose and in
prophecy. The balancing of the parts of a verse sometimes with an echo in the
second part with similar balancing techniques are common in the Old Testament
text. Scholars want to reserve it for poetry. They are used by every single
African American speaker that I have listened to, whether it is Martin Luther
King, whether it is Charles Bradford or C. F. Brooks, Benjamin Reeves, Earl
Cleveland, the list can go on. It is good rhetorical device applications that
lead to good speakers and good listening by the audience. It is helpful,
educational, driving the nail of the message deeper and deeper by repetition
and small substitutions with the help of a Thesaurus and Synonym Dictionaries.
The writers of the Hebrew Bible were what you would call today excellent
African American preachers. Parallelismus
membrorum
is what scholar call it. This balancing act in the speech or expression of
language. With repetition and rhyme and rhythm and calculated emphasis fully in
control of the content and knowing what the ear of the audience like and what
not. Robinson in 1952:21 said that “Every verse must consist of at least two
members, the second of which must, more or less complete, satisfy the
expectation raised by the first”. This
technique is good human rhetoric. They can be found in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and
other Semitic languages and I already said they are commonly employed by
African American preachers. They are used in news-composing. It is good
communicative style to write like this. Rhythm
plays a large part in Hebrew writing whether it is prose, poetry or prophetic
writings. Again in African American preaching rhythm is a must for both the
audience and the speaker. It is no different in news-composition. Good
communication requires it. Jewish
Scholarship on Poetical Devices in the Old Testament In
his book Live of Moses (I, 5) Philo claimed that the Egyptians taught Moses the
technique of meter, rhythm and harmony. According to Josephus, Moses wrote
Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32 in hexameter. This is strange by Josephus because it
means that one has to utilize the principles of Greek metrum and apply it to
the work of Moses. It is a fallacy. Origin in 240 A.D. agreed with Josephus
that Deuteronomy 32 is written in hexameter but he pointed out that the Hebrew
is different than the Greek. The Rabbis Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, Levi ben Gershom saw
the repetition in the verses but did not expand on the stylistics. In 1574 the
Rabbi Asarya de Rossi (1513-1578) paid attention to poetry styles in Hebrew. He
wrote the book Me’or cenajim that the holy poems did have
weight but not in the number of vowels or reduced vowels but rather in the
verse lines and then accent is placed in the total of thoughts with subject and
predicate connected to it. There are normally two accents in one verse and if
another is added it becomes four. There are also three part verse sections and
when they are put together with another verse section then there are six. He
insisted that the syllables and words must not be counted but it is the
thoughts (the content and meaningful complete words that plays a syntactical
function). This view of De Rossi that the word carries the meter is accepted in
modern times by scholars like Julius Ley and Th. H. Robinson. It is said that
with the publication of Robert Lowth in 1753 of his De Sacra Poesie
Hebraeorum the modern study of stylistics was born. Lowth so-called
discovered the parallelismus membrorum which he divided into three parts. His
discovery does not make it. It is a lost reality that is picked up by Lowth. Lowth
felt that in poetry the most important is meaning rather than sound or form. The
balancing of thoughts is more important than meter. He felt that the original meter
was lost. To
be continued…….