Analyzing how biblical accounts are organized is both an art and a science. For example, take the story of Jacob meeting his brother Esau again after being apart for many years. J.P. Fokkelman approaches this story from a literary viewpoint to detect portions of this story in which the narrator adopts a chiastic method of arranging his material. This type of literary structure is also called a mirror-image, circular, or concentric organization in which similar or antithetical passages or phrases are intentionally placed in a parallel arrangement to one another. The first such organization he mentions is found in Genesis 32:
Figure 1: The Structure of Genesis 32:22-31
A. Jacob passes over Jabbok at night (32:22-24a)
B. Jacob wrestles with a man (32:24b-25)
C. The man blesses Jacob (32:26-29)
1. Jacob: “Bless me” (32:26)
2. Jacob is renamed Israel (32:27-28)
1'. Jacob is blessed (32:29)
B'. Jacob: “I have seen God face to face” (32:30)
A'. Jacob passes over Penuel at daybreak (32:31)
As evidence that this arrangement, which points to verses 27-28 at the exact center as the point of emphasis, is the intended one, Fokkelman presents the following:
A-A': Each contains the key word translated “pass over;” night and day are in opposition to one another; and “the combination AA' both separates Jacob from and joins him with his family.” Looking at the evidence here, I would have to take issue with his last point since Jacob's family is not even mentioned in A'.
B-B': Fokkelman's placing these two elements together is not exactly compelling, but indicative. He states that together they describe the wrestling match proper and that the identity of the mysterious “man” of B is revealed in B'. But since Fokkelman earlier placed such an emphasis on an identical Hebrew key word being present in both A and A', one could just as easily point out that the same Hebrew word translated as “hip” or “thigh” twice in Section B also appears in verses 31 and 32, neither of which is in B'. Or we could bring up the fact that “prevail” in Section B also occurs in C2 (at v. 28).
I am not arguing that Fokkelman is totally off-base in his proposal; in fact, I personally agree with most of it. I merely want to point out that from a strictly scientific point of view, one cannot “prove” that Figure 1 is the correct and intended organization of this passage. One can only try out a number of different structures and then settle on the one which appears to best fit the data.
Section C: Since Fokkelman feels this sub-section is the most important one in the passage, he logically identifies verses 27-28 as the center of the center. His explanation of the action in these two verses is not exactly the one that I or many much more competent commentators than myself have come up with: “The night functions not only as a cover for the opponent but also as a symbol for Jacob's dark side, with which the hero must come to terms.” However, that is the prerogative of a critic who is more artistically minded.
But before leaving Section C, we need to ask whether the internal structure for it proposed in Figure 1 is indeed correct. He pictures it as a simple 1-2-1' arrangement. One rather minor objection to this arrangement is that since references to the time of day or night appear in the first and last sections (A and A'), it would be expected that the third such reference in v. 26 (“day is breaking”) would appear in the exact center of Figure 1, which it isn't.
But a more substantial problem is in regard to the way Fokkelman appears to gloss over much of the other material in Section C with its similar questions and answers (or non-answers). Not to contradict Fokkelman, but to make his proposal even plainer to see, here is how the structure of Genesis 32:26-29 can be slightly recast:
Figure 2: The Wrestling Match
1. Jacob asks for blessing (32:26)
2. Man: “What is your name?”
3. Answer: “Jacob”
4. “You will be called Israel”
2'. Jacob: “What is your name?”
3'. No answer
1'. Jacob is blessed (32:29)
Note that exactly the same center point is highlighted in each case. The only difference is that Figure 2 is a much more accurate diagramming of the whole text. I have found that some literary critics shy away from such simple, and still symmetrical variations on the basic chiastic arrangement. And there are even others who feel that all chiasms must have one central unit rather than, for example, ABCC'B'A'. There is even one prominent Bible scholar who seems to insist that only 7-member chiasms count (i.e., ABCDC'B'A'). And most analysts tend to not even recognize the somewhat rarer, but still present, parallel cyclic arrangements such as ABCA'B'C'. All of these approaches put the Bible into a straight-jacket of their own making and do not let the text itself tell us how it is arranged.
The second chiasm that Fokkelman identifies in Genesis 32-33 is another simple one:
Figure 3: The Organization of Genesis 33:9-11
1. “I have enough” (33:9)
2. “If I have found grace in your sight” (33:10a)
3. “Receive my present” (33:10b)
4. “Truly I see your face” (33:10c)
5. “as I have seen the face of God” (33:10d)
4'. “You were pleased with me” (33:10e)
3'. “Take my present” (33:11a)
2'. “God has dealt graciously with me” (33:11b)
1'. “I have enough” (33:11c)
The lesson Fokkelman draws from this arrangement is that “the vision of God and the actual sight of the exemplary fellow human being (the brother) flow into each other as halves of a metonymy [i.e., substitution of an attribute of one thing for another thing].” That may very well be true, but that doesn't really justify the proposal of Figure 3, as even a cursory glance will reveal. Thus, 4 and 5 appear as if they belong together as one unit, or at least as parallel thoughts. Also, it is curious why Fokkelman didn't recognize that units 2 and 4' seem express the same thing. And thirdly, a look at the original Hebrew text of these verses shows that “grace” in unit 2 and “graciously” in 2' come from different Hebrew roots and are not necessarily tip-offs of the parallel nature of these two units.
Again, I feel that Fokkelman unnecessarily limited himself to a simple chiastic structure without recognizing that the inspired authors of the Bible were much more creative in how they presented their material. Thus, consider what I feel is a closer recapturing of the intended symmetrical arrangement of these three verses. But keep in mind that despite the differences in figures 3 and 4, both identify roughly the same center key passages. This is a demonstration of what I have noticed elsewhere in the Bible – the literary arrangements are robust enough for different people to disagree on details but still come to the same conclusion in regard to the most important point.
Figure 4: Modified Organization of Genesis 33:9-11
1. Esau: “I have enough” (33:9a)
2. “keep it for yourself” (33:9b)
3. “If I find favor with you” (33:10a)
4. “accept my present” (33:10b)
5. “Seeing your face is like the face of God” (33:10c)
3'. “You have received me with favor” (33:10d)
4'. “Accept my present” (33:11a)
1'. Jacob: “God has given me enough” (33:11b)
2'. Esau took it (33:11c)
Notice that Fokkelman has begun with two smaller units within the whole of Genesis 32-33. But as a final test of the reasonableness of his two proposals, we must next move outward to see whether he has even accurately determined the limits of those two passages. To do that, we must first make the best bet as to the actual limits of the larger context. This is fairly easy in this particular case since the subject matter alone tells us that the overall theme of these two chapters is the reuniting of the two estranged brothers, Jacob and Esau. But that subject does not cover the whole of these two chapters, only 32:1-33:17. Here is how I have diagrammed this passage:
Figure 5: Organization of Genesis 32:1-33:17
A. Location is named (32:1-2)
B. Esau is coming (32:3-6)
C. Jacob schemes (32:7-8)
D. Prayer to God (32:9-12)
E. Presents prepared (32:13-21)
F. Jacob with his family (32:22-23)
G. Wrestling with the angel (32:24-32)
F'. “Who are these people?” (33:1-7)
E'. “What are these presents?” (33:8)
D'. Prayer is answered (33:9-11)
C'. Jacob schemes (33:12-15)
B'. Esau leaves (33:16)
A'. Location is named (33:17)
From the above we can note the following in relation to Fokkelman's two specific passages (underlined):
The larger importance of the wrestling incident with in this overall context is highlighted.
Contra Fokkelman's contention, that same passage is continued in Figure 5 on into verse 32 instead of stopping with the previous verse since (a) otherwise it is an “orphan” verse; (b) it deals directly with the consequences of the confrontation; and (c) it is another origin story so that there are now four such passages: one each in A and A' and two in the center section E.
The limits of Fokkelman's Genesis 33:9-11 chiasm are confirmed as well as showing that the favorable reception by Esau was an answer to Jacob's earlier prayer in 32:9-12 (compare D and D').
And if I had time to be even more complete, we could go even further afield to make sure the limits set in Figure 5 above fit it with the overall Jacob Cycle, and demonstrates how that larger narrative fits in to the scheme of Genesis as a whole.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments