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.