a synchronic analysis of exodus 31: 12-17

A Synchronic Analysis of Exodus 31: 12-17

The text I plan to analyse in this essay is that of Exodus 31: 12-17. In this passage one can clearly see God addressing Israel, using Moses as an intermediatory. The passage discusses the observance of the Sabbath as a holy day for the Israelites.

I have chosen this particular text for three reasons; the first being that I wanted to look at a passage that was not especially well known in order to approach it without any preconceptions or prior exegesis of the text, which I feel may have hindered my investigation had I chosen a more familiar passage from Exodus. The second reason I have chosen this particular passage to study is that I have a personal interest in looking at the covenantal laws set out in the early books of the Old Testament, and their relevance to the cultures and traditions of Ancient Israel, both prior to, and after their impartation, be that divinely or otherwise. The third reason is that I am interesting in comparing a synchronic analysis of a text to a diachronic analysis to establish the advantages and disadvantages for each.

To place this passage in context, the Israelites have already been given the command to ‘keep the Sabbath holy’ previous to this particular passage, and from looking at the text, the Israelites seem to think that because they are building the tabernacle, i.e. working for God, this rule does not apply in their current situation. However the text tells us that God has a different perspective.
The method I plan to use in order to carry out this analysis of the chosen text is a structuralist approach and I intend to follow this with an assessment of the success achieved in the application of synchronic methods of analysis to the narrative of Exodus.

The first thing to note is the difference between a diachronic and a synchronic approach to a passage. A diachronic approach is one that seeks to take the text back to its original form(s) whereas a synchronic approach considers the text in its final form, and as a whole instead of seeking to break it down into its components.A structuralist approach to the text is one which will ‘investigate the arrangement of the constituent parts [of a text] rather than enquire how they originated and how they developed.’ Obviously as a part of this, a structuralist approach to a text will consider the relationship established between the author, the reader, and the text as well as the relationship of the constituent parts of the text itself.

When examining this particular passage, the first thing to note is that the content of this passage is a communication from the author to the reader. The verbal discourse taking place in this passage at first glance seems to be straightforward message to the Israelites from God, communicated via Moses, about the importance of keeping the Sabbath holy. Whilst this can be seen to be a self contained passage, it is actually important to note that it is actually considered to be taken in connection with the paragraph immediately preceding it which can be seen by the construction of the first sentence of the pericope – ‘And the Lord said to Moses’. The Word biblical Commentary actually takes this idea further and signifies this passage as being ‘intended as a conclusion to the whole series of instructions concerning the media of worship’ which has preceded this particular pericope.

When considering the structure of this, or any biblical passage, Shimon Bar-Efrat suggests that there are four levels of structure; the verbal level; the level of narrative technique; the level of the narrative world; and the level of the conceptual content. This is how I will approach this text in order to give a structured analysis of this pericope.
The first level to consider then is the verbal level. This, according to Bar-Erfat, is based upon words and phrases. Features such as repetition, stylistic features feature in this level of analysis.
When examining this pericope, Cassuto notes that repetition occurs for several words throughout the passage, these being the verb ‘keep’, expressions of ‘holiness’, and the term ‘to work’, each appear three times throughout the short pericope thus emphasising their importance in the passage. It is also interesting to note the number of words derived from the Hebrew stem sabhath- [abstain from work; desist] is seven . The use of repetition in this particular instance can be justified as this is the main content of the pericope, however, is it just an interesting coincidence that there are seven days in the week? An interesting stylistic feature of this pericope is the inclusion of a Genesis-like passage justifying the importance of observing the Sabbath. The structure of verse 17 is such that it seems to have been included as an attempt to indicate authority and supremacy. The final observation which I wish be included in this section is the use of the Sabbath as a symbol of the physical manifestation of the ‘perpetual covenant’ between Israel and God on the part of the Israelites, and it’s purpose as the way in which the ‘outside world’ will recognise the special relationship between God and Israel.

The second ‘level’ of structure to examine is the level of narrative technique; defined as being ‘based on variations in narrative method’ . Verse 12 is a direct address from the narrator to the reader explaining the next action which [verse 13] is direct speech from God to Moses. This direct address continues from verse 13 through to verse 17. In this long address the message intended to be communicated by ‘God’ – to keep the Sabbath holy- is presented, justified in terms of why it is in the interests of the Israelites to keep this law; ‘that you may know that I the Lord, sanctify you (verse 13).’ The message is then presented again, this time followed with the consequences of failure to comply with this; ‘everyone that profanes it shall be put to death (verse 14).’ This is then followed by a justification as to why it should be obeyed in verses 15 and 16 ( the Sabbath is holy to the Lord and a sign of the covenant between the Israelites and God) followed by a further justification from the use of the creation tradition in verse 17.

The third ‘level’ in a structuralist approach to the text is that of ‘the level of the narrative world’. This deals with the idea of character and plot . As this is a verbal discourse there is no easily defined plot, but there are several character interactions occurring within the text. The first is the interaction of the narrator with the reader. This is implicitly continuous throughout the entire pericope however, is explicit only in the first verse where a direct address takes place between the two. The second interaction is that of God with Moses. This is secondary however, and probably relates directly to the third interaction taking place in the pericope- that of ‘God’ with the Israelites (and by proxy the reader of the text). The use of Moses (or any other important figurehead in the bible as an intermediatory to the Israelites is a common convention used by the author to give authority to a text, so the inclusion of Moses as the messenger may be purely with the intent to cause the reader to heed what is being said in the passage.

The final ‘level’ to be considered is that of ‘the conceptual content’. This level examines the themes and ideas contained within the text being examined. Obviously the main theme of this passage is that of keeping the Sabbath holy, however, other themes and ideas included in the passage are those of covenant between God and Israel and also the idea of Israel’s identity as a nation ‘set apart by God’.

Taking everything that has been established by this analysis of this passage it is clear to see that a synchronic analysis of the text can yield a surprising amount of information about the text studied, indeed more than I, personally, was expecting to, however on its own it can only initiate a response from a critic that has no context of the intention of the author or the circumstances in which the text was written which can hinder a readers understanding of the text. A purely synchronic analysis, I feel, could also induce a reader to try to invent reasons for their findings when analysing a text in such a way that the findings do not necessarily make sense without a context and framework for them to be fit into. Ideally I feel that a combination of both synchronic and diachronic analyses will yield the most comprehensive exegesis of a biblical text, examining both the origins and sources of the text, the ideologies of the author, as well as the relationship of the text as a whole and within itself, and the interaction of the text as a whole with both the author’s intended audience and today’s critic. By combining both forms of analysis it will also allow the critic to place the findings of a more literary method of analysis back into the framework in which it was written allowing for a more in-depth understanding of how the text was intended to be read by the author in the context of the social and cultural traditions and events of the time and will prevent the reader from being caught up in very minor things.

A Diachronic Analyses of Exodus 31: 12-17 - feel free to comment!!!!


The text I plan to analyse in this essay is that of Exodus 31: 12-17. In this passage one can clearly see God addressing Israel, using Moses as an intermediatory. The passage discusses the observance of the Sabbath as a holy day for the Israelites.
I have chosen this particular text for two reasons; the first being that I wanted to look at a passage that was not especially well known in order to approach it without any preconceptions or prior exegesis of the text, which I feel may have hindered my investigation had I chosen a more familiar passage from Exodus. The second reason I have chosen this particular passage to study is that I have a personal interest in looking at the covenantal laws set out in the early books of the Old Testament, and their relevance to the cultures and traditions of Ancient Israel, both prior to, and after their impartation, be that divinely or otherwise.

To place this passage in context, the Israelites have already been given the command to ‘keep the Sabbath holy’ previous to this particular passage, and from looking at the text, the Israelites seem to think that because they are building the tabernacle, i.e. working for God, this rule does not apply in their current situation. However the text tells us that God has a different perspective.
The way in which I plan to analyse this text is not to concentrate on only one form of diachronic analysis, but to use a combination of source, form, and redaction criticism to help me to attempt to better understand the text. This will be followed by an evaluation as to whether approaching a text in a purely diachronic method is helpful to the scholar.

When examining this passage, the first thing to note is that the content of this passage also appears in other places in the book of Exodus; namely, Ex 20.8; 23.12; 35.2. This suggests that the authors of the book of Exodus as it appears in present-day form considered this to be an important thing to be considered by the Israelite people.
The genre of this passage could be defined as 'legal discourse', as it discusses a law- the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy (Ex 20:8-12) and the consequences of failure to adhere to that, as well as logical reason for the existence and justification of such a law. The passage as a whole can also be described as verbal discourse, as in it, the authors set out a commandment from God, communicated verbally to and through Moses, to the people of Israel.

Another indication that this passage was deemed to be of some importance is the opening verse. Noth, and Cassuto both note the variation in introduction to this legal discourse to others given throughout Exodus in their respective observations on this passage. Noth argues in favour of the difference being due to an intended direct connection with the text immediately preceding this passage, whereas Cassuto argues that this may be because the verb ‘speak’ immediately follows this first sentence. Regardless of the correct outcome it is a feature of this passage which sets it apart from other similar passages, and intentionally or not, the authors have succeeded in causing the reader to pay more close attention to this particular passage.
Verse 13 talks about Israel’s obedience of this commandment as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel, which Noth describes as ‘The peculiar relationship between God and his people'. The Word Biblical Commentary argues that keeping the Sabbath holy is a way of 'recognising that Yahweh is the one who has made them special' and in keeping the Sabbath holy Yahweh is honoured and that specialness is recognised.
Verse 14 is a more concise repetition of the information given in the previous verse and has the additional warning of the punishment for breaking the command. This verse could be seen as an indication of more than one source being used for the text in question, alternatively it could be seen as emphasis by the author upon this commandment. Noth is for the former argument for that verse and is insistent that verses 15-17 include a 'secondary addition, clear from the phrasing of the text and the use of Yahweh in both third and first persons. Verse 16 contains the only translational variation of the passage, with the Septuagint having the word Sabbaths in place of the first Sabbath, and them, in place of the second.

Stepping back to consider the passage as a whole once more, we can see input from two sources, which I would state as being most likely to be J and P, although one cannot claim to have any solid basis for that other than it is unlikely to be E as ‘Elohim’ is not used in this passage. Other than the aforementioned discrepancies in the text however, the redactor has managed to weave the texts together well, giving little indication of patching several sources together.

When considering the structure of the passage, we see that the overarching theme of this pericope is that of Yahweh's relationship with Israel, also with some evidence of divine revelation, which is another theme common throughout many pericopes of Exodus and both these themes involve Moses as the representative of the Israelites.
The passage contains words which stem from the Hebrew sabhath ['abstain from work'; desist] seven times. This is an interesting parallel to draw in this pericope and one has to wonder whether or not this was intentional on the author’s part, or purely coincidental. In the same way, the verb samar['keep'], expressions of holiness and the term 'to work' are all incorporated into the text three times, which is probably indicative of the importance the author places upon the information given within the text here. Verse 17 also has an interesting allusion back to Genesis, and the creation narrative, the purpose of which may have been to justify the command being given to the Israelites, or alternatively, a convenient way of ending the communication to the people of Israel in such a way that would be fitting for God.

The fact that the subject of the text has already appeared several times previously to this pericope causes one to wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such a trivial command. As aforementioned, it could be because of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and a spur to keep it, which in turn makes one consider as to whether or not the Israelites had once again stopped following the laws set by Moses, and were beginning to worship other deities, or to just become lawless in general. In context with the text surrounding this pericope it is quite clear that the Israelites were not obeying this law when it came to building the tabernacle and this causes doubt as to whether the Israelites were obeying this law at all, giving it less importance than the 'bigger' commandments. In context, to go back to something already mentioned, it is said that the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath holy so that they would show their special relationship with Yahweh, which by proxy was quite probably in direct contravention to the surrounding cultures of this time.

In sum, the methods used to evaluate this text have revealed a lot about the both the Israelite’s culture and position at that time, and the ways in which such texts have been put together, which in turn I feel helps the reader to better understand the text, however a purely diachronic analysis can leave the reader feeling bogged down in small sections of the text, and these methods are less useful for considering the text as a whole so I would suggest that diachronic analysis should be used in conjunction with alternative criticisms in order to gain the best possible understanding of the text and the context in which it was written

self assessment 2003-2004

The second year of Biblical Studies, has, for me been interesting. Whilst I have really enjoyed looking at the texts we have studied over the course of the past year in more depth, and also in relation to external factors, (for example in ‘The Bible and Archaeology’ I really enjoyed looking at how artefacts and sites discovered can help our understanding not only of Biblical texts, but also Biblical culture, and these things in relation to other cultures and traditions of that time) it has also been a struggle to engage fully due to illness. There have been several lectures I was very disappointed to have missed, and I honestly feel that my performance over the last year academically has suffered because of it. However I do not want or intend to use it as an excuse for absence or underachievement. One positive thing that has come out of this situation however, is my appreciation of good lecture notes. In particular Tamlin Lizius’ notes for ‘The Bible and the Liberation of the Oppressed (Exodus)’ and ‘The Bible and Archaeology’ were nothing less than spectacular and have been a great help in both catching up on work that I have missed and in gaining background information pertaining to the topics covered.
The first semester of this year was overall my least favourite. I enjoyed the module on ‘The Bible and the Fourfold Gospel’ especially the tutorials, as personally I found that the tutorials, particularly the ones taken by Rafael, were a good opportunity to discuss in depth our own interpretations of the evidence given forwards, as well as the module being a fresh approach to the study of the Gospels both as a whole and individually that I would not have necessarily considered otherwise.
‘The Bible and the Historical Imagination’ was the module which I found most demanding to engage with as I felt that the style of teaching was not especially conducive to learning. I did however particularly enjoy the lecture on ‘Maps and Atlases’ and really connected with the idea of bias within something that is solidly assumed to be completely objective.
‘The Bible and the Arts’ was taught in a well structured manner, and while several of the class felt that this module was a lot more demanding in terms of the work completed for the marks achieved, it was still a worthwhile module to undertake and I would heartily recommend this to anyone wondering about it.
I was not very confident leading into the exams of the first semester’s work. I felt under-prepared and health-wise was feeling quite run down, and as a result was expecting to gain around a mid 2.2 for the semester’s grade. When I received my results however, I was very pleased to discover that I had done better than I expected, which then boosted my confidence going into the second semester, which I was looking forwards to more than I had the first as I felt I had more interest in the topics to be covered.
‘The Bible and the Literary Imagination’ module has given me a valuable insight into Literary studies and their application within Biblical Studies as well as again, challenging my own, admittedly sometimes narrow-minded, approaches to the text, and bringing the ideas of different approaches I would not have otherwise considered into being. At the end of this module however, I am glad that ‘The Bible and the Post-modern’ is not a feature my syllabus for next year as I found the lectures on Post-modernism and Deconstructuralist Theory mind-boggling!
‘The Bible and the Liberation of the Oppressed’ module was somewhat different to what we had been expecting. The news that we would be looking at Liberation Theology was not met with great approval, as there had been no mention of this before beginning it (although with it’s inclusion in the syllabus as a core module it would have made little difference if it had, other than we would have been expecting it). Unfortunately due to illness and various medical appointments I missed more lectures of this module as I would have liked to, but as previously mentioned, the notes for this module have been nothing short of fantastic.
The final module I have studied this year is ‘The Bible and Archaeology’. This module was the most eagerly anticipated module of the entire course for me, as I have wanted to study it since I heard it was possible on the open day for the course at Sheffield. The only criticism that I would make of this module is that there was too much covered in too short a space of time. I would have rather studied less finds and sites, and spent more time on each, however this is only a minor point, and the examination being ‘seen’ means that this makes revision less of a problem than it might have been otherwise. I also liked the idea of splitting up several important finds into the group projects for this module, as it resulted in learning briefly of several things, but having in depth knowledge of one.
As I look towards this semester’s rapidly approaching exams, I am again unconfident. I feel slightly better about the exams themselves after last semester, but I do not want to take for granted the fact that I am possibly too critical of my own ability within the examinations. My worry lies in the essays that I have yet to write. One of the major effects of being ill has been that compared with before I have very little energy and no concentration so writing the essays has been proving very difficult. I do however hope to have them all finished by the end of the semester, even though this means that they will be late.
The highlight of this year was the last lecture of ‘The Bible and Archaeology’ which was a very interesting lecture to start with, all about tombs and burial rituals of Biblical Cultures, but at the end we were shown some artefacts which were found in Jerusalem and date to the time of Jesus, which I found fascinating, and I was then able to hold them myself and really examine them. This was an amazing experience for me.
As I look towards my final year I feel quite bittersweet. I am looking forwards with anticipation to the modules I have chosen to take next year, and writing my dissertation, for which the proposal is currently well underway. I am, however, upset that despite my efforts, my work has not been of the standard I know I can be capable of, although I fully intend to make every effort to do my best with the time I have left, and that this will potentially undermine my satisfaction when I finish next year. I will however give it my most sincere attempt of making the best of what has in some ways been a nightmarish year.