Parable of the vineyard: It's structural form analyzed (intermediate level)


by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungbook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

3 January 2010


There is a need to distinguish between literary criticism and literary analysis. Literary criticism operates with the suspicion and skepticism of the hermeneutics of suspicion whereas literary analysis operates with the axioms of faith confirmation of the hermeneutics of affirmation. A Seventh Day Adventist scholar cannot do literary criticism, only literary analysis. The difference is sometimes very mild with only this difference, that what is seen as polarizing, separating forces by the one observer (critic) is seen as creative and stages (emotional, maturity, geronti influences) in the life of the same individual, by the Seventh Day Adventist scholar. A Seventh Day Adventist who is engaged in Higher Criticism of any of its sub-branches, is not a Seventh Day Adventist scholar. The data of that science and its sub-sciences has to be rewritten by a Seventh Day Adventist scholar and only a revisional data presentation is possible, one that aligns with the Word of God and its claims. Source criticism [by revisioning] becomes Source Analysis, Redaction Criticism becomes Redaction Analysis, Genre Criticism becomes Genre Analysis, Literary Criticism becomes Literary Analysis, Form Criticism becomes Form Analysis. Structural Criticism becomes Structural Analysis. And that is the way we will approach it here. Did Moses use sources to write Genesis? Yes he did and he mentioned them. But, it was Moses who wrote Genesis and not the mosaic of strands of editors allocated by modern Higher Criticism.  

Research has indicated that in the attempt to ascertain the possibilities were given:

1. An uncle's song.

2. A satirical polemic against Palestinian fertility cults.

3. The prophet's song concurring his own vineyard.

4. The prophet's song expressing sympathy for his friend Yahweh.

5. A drinking song.

6. A bride's love song.

7. A groom's love song.

8. A song of the friend of the bridegroom.

9. A lawsuit or accusation.

10. A fable.

11. An allegory.

12. A parable.

13. A parabolic song of a disappointed husbandman.(1)

14. The prophetic voice of the Feast of Tabernacles who attempts to convince the hearer of his guilt(2).

15. A prophetic judgement oracle in parable form and with standard motifs(3).

Prof. dr. Gerhard Hasel presented a lecture in 1984 on this poem at the Calvinistic Dutch Reform Seminary at Stellenbosch University in the Old Testament class of prof. dr. Hannes Olivier. Hasel already studied the poem very well and published his findings in 1980. The night before I took him to this appointment, he had access to my notes on the poem. During the lecture, he listed the above options as given.


1. The Methodology of Structural Analysis

In seeking to analyse the structural form of this pericope, scholars can be divided into three main groups according to their criteria:


1.1 Analyzing by Content

Most commentaries, and according to W. Prinsloo, also A. Graffy, used "content" as a final measure to ascertain the form of the pericope. I met prof. dr. Prinsloo in Pretoria at the Seminary of the University of Pretoria during the same years as Hasel's visit.


1.2 Analyzing by Comparison to the Ancient Near Eastern Matrix

Here the attempt was to look at similar genres in and outside Biblical literature and then compare it with the Bible. The analyzing of that content provided a framework for the analysis of the structure of the pericope under discussion.

Although Samuel Sandmel ahve been suspected of reactionary tendencies, yet his valid warning against "parallelomania"(4) and Benno Landsberger's strictures on the "conceptual autonomy"(5) of each of the principal Ancient Near Eastern cultures, is valid here.


1.3 Analyzing by Form

This is the attempts of people like W. Richter to use "form as the starting point".(6) Not content, nor other cultures should be the starting point to designate genre.

Looking at this approach seems to ask the text in the first instance to provide information. Yet, it is not without problems, which will be discussed below.


1.4 The Problem

All three approaches have a tendency to artificially stand "cold" to other criteria. All three attempt to work with an either-or principle.

W. Prinsloo is right when he says(7) that it should be noted that there appears to be no uniform criterion for determining literary genres.


1.5 The Solution

Scholars attempt to cling to either the content, or the goal of the author or the situation of the author, is robbing the text of valid hermeneutics.

A multiplex-approach will suffice. An inseparable interrelationship exists here that makes one dependent upon the other.

Content cannot be understood without an understanding of the goal of the author and without the form there would be no content and the goal of the author cannot be seen.

Let us depict it in a diagram:

(Diagram will be provided at the end of the article). Notice the interrelatedness of all criteria suggested by us.


W. Prinsloo removes the formal analysis from the goal, content and situation criteria.(8) It is suggested here that all four are equally important.


Bibliography

1. J. T. Willis, "The Genre of Isaiah 5:1-7," JBL 96 (1977): 337-362.

2. A. Graffy, "The literary genre of Isaiah 5, 1-7" Biblica 60 (1979): 400-409.

3. W. S. Prinsloo, "Isaiah 5:1-7: A synchronic approach" OTWSA 22 (1979) and OTWSA 23 (1990) Studies in Isaiah, edited by Wouter C. van Wyk (NHW Press, Pretoria): 183-197, especially 191-192. Prof. dr. Wouter van Wyk and I had a good relationship for a number of interactions that we had together both in South Africa (University of Pretoria) and also when he was digging with prof. dr. David Usshiskin and prof. dr. William Dever took our Gezer volunteers to their site for a visit in Israel.

4. S. Sandmel, "Parallelomania" JBL 81 (1962): 1-13.

5. Benno Landsberg, "The conceptual autonomy of the Babylonian world" Monographs on the Ancient Near East 1 (1976): 57-71.

6. W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft (Gottingen: 1971), 125-152. A. Graffy claims to use this method as well. W. Prinsloo set forth that A. Graffy also analyze by content (see W. Prinsloo, op. cit. 183-184).

7. W. Prinsloo, op. cit. p. 184.

8. Ibid., p. 184 where he states "Possibly the crux of the problem is precisely that scholars have devoted too much time to establishing the genre and not enough to the text itself. This criticism is not invalid. Yet, his next sentence imply that only a total abstinence from the other elements can provide the solution: "A synchronic approach implies a formal analysis of Is 5:1-7 so as to determine its structure. This structure provides an objective framework for studying all aspects of the text". As expected, Prinsloo could not keep to his clinical sterilized method. On page 189 he states on the connotation of ydyd "These terms are used to convey the intimate relationship between the singer and his friend and in the overall context of the pericope they clearly have no erotic connotation". It is correct about the erotic absence but the context is not just a singer and his friend.


literary analysis methodology.jpgstructural analysis of the parable of the vineyard.jpg