he outline that we provide here is supplemented with many comments and questions intended to help you leave no stone unturned in doing a thorough exegesis. These comments and questions are primarily suggestive and not to be followed slavishly. Indeed, some questions overlap and some may seem redundant to you. Some may not be relevant to your purposes or the scope of your particular exegesis needs in any given passage. So be selective. Ignore what does not apply to your passage and task. Emphasize what does.
Pastors and others who will work mainly from the guide for sermon exegesis in chapter 3 should familiarize themselves with the content of this chapter first, since it constitutes the basis for the condensation in chapter 3.
1.1. Text
1.1.1. Confirm the limits of the passage
Try to be sure that the passage you have chosen for exegesis is a genuine, self-contained unit (sometimes called a pericope). Avoid cutting a poem in the middle of a stanza or a narrative in the middle of a paragraph— unless that is the assignment you are working under, or unless you explain clearly to your reader why you have chosen to exegete a section of a full passage. Your primary ally is common sense. Does your passage have a recognizable beginning and end? Does it have some sort of cohesive, meaningful content that you can observe? Check your decision against both the Hebrew text and modern translations. Do not trust the OT chapter and verse divisions, which originated in medieval times. They are not original and are often completely misleading.
Note: You may find it confusing to begin with the textual analysis of your passage if your knowledge of Hebrew is not yet adequate. In that case, first prepare a rough, even wooden translation of the passage from the Hebrew. Do not delay yourself needlessly at this point. Use a trustworthy modern translation as your guide, or an interlinear if you wish (see 4.2.2 [chapter 4, section 2, subsection 2]). Once you have a working idea of what the Hebrew words mean, you can resume the textual analysis with profit.
1.1.2. Compare the versions
From as many as you can read of the Greek, Syriac, Aramaic, Latin, and Qumran versions of the passage, isolate any words or phrases that do not seem to correspond to the Hebrew text you are working on. Since all of these ancient language versions have English translations (see 4.2.2), you can actually work from them profitably even if you do not know one or more of these languages.
Refer to the critical apparatus in the BHS (and perhaps the apparatuses in the older BH if you have access to it and/or whatever part of the the newer BHQ [Quinta] has been published as of the time you are doing your exegesis), even though none of them is complete and any comment in an apparatus can be difficult to decipher because it is typically written in abbreviated Latin (!). Fortunately, the deciphering guides mentioned in 4.1.5 are very helpful. Examine the differences (called variants). Try to decide, as best you can, whether any of the variants is possibly more appropriate to the passage (i.e., possibly more original) than the corresponding words in the Hebrew text. To do this, you must translate the variant back into Hebrew (normally via English) and then judge whether it fits the context better. Often you can see exactly how a variant came to result from a corruption (an ancient copying mistake that became preserved in the subsequent copies) in the Hebrew text. Make these decisions as best you can, referring to critical commentaries and other aids (see 4.1) for their guidance. Sometimes, especially in a poetic section, a corruption will simply be insoluble: the wording may not make much sense in the Hebrew as it stands, but you cannot figure out a convincing alternative. In such cases, leave the received text alone. Your task is to reconstruct as far as possible the text as originally inspired by God, not to rewrite it.
1.1.3. Reconstruct and annotate the text
Make your best guess at the original Hebrew text. Normally you should print out the reconstructed original text in full. If your reconstruction omits any words or letters from the received text, mark the omissions by square brackets: [ ]. If you insert or replace any words or letters, place the new part inside angle brackets: < >. Mark each such spot with a raised letter (letters are better than numbers for these sorts of notes, since they cannot be confused with verse numbers) and in the footnotes keyed to those letters, explain clearly and simply your reasons for the changes. It is advisable also to footnote any words you did not change but which someone else might think ought to be changed. Provide an explanation of all your significant decisions for or against changes in the text, not just those that result in actual changes.
Normally, this reconstructed text should constitute the beginning of your exegesis paper/project, following immediately upon the table of contents (if any), preface (if any), and introduction. Fortunately, textual problems are rarely so frequent or major as to affect the sense of a passage. So a proposed textual revision (i.e., revision of the MT) that materially affects the sense of the passage will probably require a major discussion at this point in the paper/project.
1.1.4. Present poetry in versified form
In most cases you can expect the BHS (or BH3 or BHQ) to identify poetry properly and to arrange the lines of poetry according to the editor’s sense of parallelism and rhythm (meter). The process of arrangement and the arrangement itself are both referred to as stichometry.
The parallelism between the words and phrases is the main criterion for deciding the stichometry. A secondary criterion is the meter (see 4.6.4). If you decide on a different stichometry for your passage from the one indicated by the BH editor (their stichometries can be quite subjective and are not always right), be sure to give your reasoning in a footnote. The modern English translations usually arrange poetry stichometrically. Consult them as well, because their sense of how the parallelism works can be both instructive and time-saving, providing a good check on the BH editor’s approach.
1.2.1. Prepare a tentative translation of your reconstructed text
Start fresh, from the beginning. Look up in a lexicon such as Holladay’s (see 4.4.1) all words whose range of meaning you are not absolutely certain of. For the more significant words, try at least to skim the more lengthy lexicon articles in major lexicons such as Koehler-Baumgartner or Brown-Driver-Briggs (see 4.4.1). For any words that appear to be central or pivotal for the meaning of your passage, it is advisable either at this point or in connection with your analysis of the lexical content (exegesis step 1.4.3) to consult the detailed word studies (concept studies) in the aids referred to in 4.4.3. Remember that most words do not have a single meaning, but rather a range of meaning(s), and that there is a difference between a word and a concept (at step 1.4.3 we explain this further). A single Hebrew word rarely corresponds precisely to a single English word but may range in meaning through all or parts of several different English words. Translation therefore almost always involves selection.
1.2.2. Check the correspondence of text and translation
Read your Hebrew text over and over. Know it as a friend. If possible, memorize parts of it. Read your translation over and over (out loud). Do the Hebrew and your English seem the same in your mind? Have you used a rare or complicated English word to translate a common or simple Hebrew word? If so, does the resulting precision of meaning outweigh in value the disruptive effect on the reader or hearer? Have you considered the possibility of using several English words to convey the meaning of one Hebrew word? Or vice versa? Does your passage contain words or phrases that originally were genuinely ambiguous? If so, try to reproduce rather than mask the ambiguity in your English translation. A good translation is one that creates the same general impression for the hearer as the original would, without distorting the particular content conveyed.
1.2.3. Revise the translation as you continue
As you continue to exegete your passage, especially as you examine carefully the grammatical and lexical data, you will almost certainly learn enough to make improvements in your tentative translation. This is because the word(s) you choose for a given spot in the passage need(s) to fit the overall context well. The more you know about the whole passage, the better you will have a proper “feel” for selecting the right word, phrase, or expression in each part. The part should fit the whole. Also, as you make decisions about the literary and theological contexts ofyour passage, you will likewise be developing better judgment about the translation. Try to evaluate the use of a word, phrase, or expression both in its broad contexts (the book, the OT, the Bible as a whole) and its immediate contexts (your passage, the chapter, the surrounding chapters). The difference can be significant. For example, although you might have assumed that the Hebrew word בית means “house” in your passage, a wider look at its uses throughout the OT shows that in an expression like בית דויד it can mean “family,” “dynasty,” or “lineage.” Which suits your passage better? Which makes your passage clearer to the reader? By asking these sorts of questions, you help to guarantee that you will not overlook potentially useful translation options.
1.2.4. Provide a finished translation
After your research is complete and you have benefited from the secondary literature as well as all the other steps of the exegesis process and are ready to write the final draft, place the finished translation immediately following the text. Use annotations (footnotes—again, for these note call characters, letters are less likely to cause confusion with verse numbers than digits are) to explain choices of wording that might be surprising or simply not obvious to your reader. You are not obliged, however, to explain any word that was also chosen by several modern versions unless it seems to you that their choice, even if unanimous, is questionable in some way. Use the footnotes to tell the reader other possible translations of a word or phrase that you consider to have merit. Do this especially wherever you find it difficult to choose between two or more options.
1.3.1. Analyze the significant grammatical issues
A correct understanding of the grammar is essential to a proper interpretation of the passage. Are any grammatical points in doubt? Could any sentences, clauses, or phrases be read differently if the grammar were construed differently? Are you sure you have given proper weight to the nuances of meaning inherent in the specific verb conjugations and not merely the verbal roots? Slight variations in syntax can convey significant variations in meaning. Are the syntactical formations in your passage clearly understood? Does your translation need revision or annotation accordingly? Are there genuine ambiguities that make a definite interpretation of some part of the passage impossible? If so, what at least are the possible options? Is the grammar anomalous (not what would be expected) at any point? If so, can you offer any explanation for the anomaly? Pay attention also to ellipsis, asyndeton, prostaxis, parataxis, anacoluthon, and other special grammatical features that relate to interpretation. (For definitions, see Soulen’s Handbook—mentioned in the introduction.)
1.3.2. Analyze the orthography and morphology for date or other affinities
All major texts of the Hebrew Bible contain an orthography (spelling style) characteristic of the Persian period (postexilic), since the texts selected for official status by the rabbis of the first century AD were apparently copies from the Persian period. At many important points, however, traces of older orthographies are discernible (in 4.3.2, see Freedman, Forbes, and Andersen, Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography). Does the passage have any of these older spellings or traces of special ancient morphological features? Morphology refers to meaning-affecting parts of words, such as suffixes and prefixes. (For examples, see David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry [Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972].) If so, they may help to indicate the date or even the geographical origin of your passage; their presence elsewhere may help you to classify your passage in comparison to others. At least an intermediate-level knowledge of Hebrew is required for this task.
1.4.1. Explain all words and concepts that are not obvious
Bear in mind that there is a difference between a word and a concept. A given concept may be expressed by many different words or wordings. An excellent reminder of this is Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. He tells the parable to demonstrate what it means to love neighbor as self, yet the parable does not contain the word “love” or the word “neighbor” or the word “self”—even though it teaches powerfully the concept of loving neighbor as self. It therefore is important to realize that your purpose in analyzing the lexical data is to understand the individual concepts of your passage, whether these concepts are conveyed by single words, groups of words, or by the way all the words are put together into a coherent pericope.
Work in descending order of size from whole sentences or even groups of sentences (if applicable) through clauses (if applicable) through phrases (such as idioms) to words and parts of words. Using the various helps available (see 4.4), try to define for your reader any concepts, words, or wordings
that might not be clear or whose force would not be noticed without attention being called to them. Some of these explanations may be quite brief, others fairly detailed. Proper nouns almost always deserve some attention. So do idioms, since by definition an idiom is a wording that cannot be translated literally, meaning word for word. When citing words from the passage, use either the Hebrew letters or an underlined transliteration of them.
1.4.2. Concentrate on the most important concepts, words, and wordings
Working in descending order of size, isolate whatever you consider especially significant or pivotal for the interpretation of the passage. Assemble a list of perhaps six to twelve such important concepts, words, or wordings. Try to rank them in order from most crucial to least crucial. Focus on these, telling your reader why they are important to the interpretation. The meaning of a passage is built up from the meaning of its concepts, and the more clearly they are explained, the more clearly the passage is likely to be understood.
1.4.3. Do “word studies" (really, concept studies) of the most crucial words or wordings
Using the procedure outlined in 4.4.3, try to analyze the most crucial— therefore not a large number—of the key words or wordings in the passage. Present a summary of your procedures and findings to the reader. (Much of the statistical or procedural information may be relegated to footnotes.) Do not neglect the specific theological meaning(s) of words or wordings in considering the various ranges of meaning. In addition, be sure that you do not merely analyze individual words but also words in combination—including combinations sometimes separated from one another by intervening words—because combinations of words convey concepts as well. Be as inductive as possible, checking your conclusions against, rather than deriving them from, the theological dictionaries.
1.4.4. Identify any special semantic features
The semantics (the relation between content and meaning) of the passage is often affected by such features as irony, anaphora, epiphora, paronomasia, metonymy, hendiadys, formulas, loanwords, purposeful archaizing, and etymological oddities. Look for these, and bring them to the attention of your reader. Where possible, show how they affect interpretation.
1.5.1. Identify the general literary type (genre)
First, locate the passage within the broad, general categories of literary types contained in the OT. Decide whether your passage is a prose type, a saying, a “song,” or a combination (such basic categories are defined in any of the general guides to form analysis listed in 4.5.1).
1.5.2. Identify the specific literary type (form)
Describe more precisely what sort of prose type, saying, or song the passage actually is. For example, if you decide that it is a historical narrative, you must then go on to judge whether it is a report, a popular history, a general autobiography, a dream-vision account, a prophetic autobiography, or some other specific kind of historical narrative. This is important: You must do your best to identify the specific type because that is what allows you to compare it to other such types elsewhere in the Bible (and sometimes in literature outside the Bible) and thus learn what elements in your passage are typical of its literary form and what elements are unique to your passage alone and thus of special value for interpreting your passage as opposed to others.
You must know both the general and the specific literary type of your passage before you are in a position to analyze its form or forms. Only the specific—not the general—types have “forms.” That is, every specific literary type is identifiable because it has certain recognizable features (including both its contents or “ingredients” and the order in which those ingredients occur) that make it a form. For example, each “dream account” in the OT tends to have certain features that it shares with all the other dream accounts. The specific contents of the various dream accounts may be different, but the features are not; each dream account contains roughly the same sorts of things. They are said to have the same form, which we call the “dream account form.”
There is a complication here that you must be aware of: scholars may use different terms to refer to OT forms because no standardized system of terminology exists. Therefore, what one scholar might refer to as a “dream account form,” another might call a “dream report,” another might call a “dream narrative,” another might call a “sleep revelation narrative,” and so on. Moreover, scholars sometimes use Hebrew words in their names for forms, so what one scholar calls a “covenant lawsuit form,” another might call a “rib form” (rib being the Hebrew word for “lawsuit/legal case”), yet another might call a “ריב form” (using the actual Hebrew alphabet to spell rib), and so forth. It would be nice if the terminology were standardized, but that has not yet happened, and it is not likely to happen anytime soon.
1.5.3. Look for subcategories
A main purpose of form analysis is to compare your passage with others of like form and to exploit the knowledge that results from that comparison. It is therefore best to describe a form as specifically as possible without making it entirely unique. For example, if your passage contains a dream account that includes a conversation between an angel and a prophet, you will probably gain more fruitful exegetical data from a comparison of your dream account with others that also contain a prophet-angel dialogue, rather than with all dream accounts found anywhere in the OT. You might even decide that you will tentatively call your form a “prophet-angel dialogue dream account.” As we have already noted, the terminology used by scholars in form analysis is not very standardized, certainly not so standardized as to rule out a cautiously exercised freedom of terminology on your part. However, do not try to subcategorize your form to the extent that it becomes one of a kind. At that point it is meaningless even to speak of a form, and the crucial benefits of comparison are lost. The elements that cannot be compared are the special elements that call for careful attention elsewhere in your exegesis and that distinguish your passage from all others. Their uniqueness does not, however, define the form. The form is defined rather by what is typical or shared with other passages.
1.5.4. Suggest a life setting
Try to link the passage (in the sense of its form or forms) with the real situation of its use. Sometimes the text itself does this for you. Otherwise you must work inferentially and with caution. It may be obvious that a prophet has borrowed the funeral dirge form from the life situation of funerals and reused the form in a prophetic way, such as singing a predictive funeral dirge for Israel, which is to be destroyed by Yahweh. But it is not so obvious where the life setting of a “community lament” psalm is to be located. Knowing the original life setting (often called the Sitz im Leben) usually helps you to understand the passage in a concrete way. But an overemphasis on the life setting can be counterproductive. The fact that a psalm, for example, has the form of a royal accession song should not lead to the conclusion that it has no function or meaning in the OT (or among Christians today) other than as a part of the ancient Jerusalem coronation ritual. Its original setting as a form is one thing; its potential for adaptation and reuse for a whole variety of secondary settings (literary, cultural, theological, etc.) is another. Try, then, to balance a sensitivity to the theoretical origin of the form with its actual use in the context of your passage.
1.5.5. Analyze the completeness of the form
Compare your passage to other passages that have the same form. In the particular instance of your passage, how completely is the given form represented? Are all its usual elements present? If so, is there also anything extraneous to the form that is present? If not, what elements are lacking? Are they lacking because the passage is logically elliptical (it leaves certain obvious elements unexpressed) or because it is purposely modified? Does the ellipsis or modification tell you anything about what the passage is focusing on or what its special emphases are? The differences between your passage and all others of the same essential form are what make your passage unique and give it its special function in the Bible. Try to understand as well as you can that uniqueness and that function.
Does your passage contain more than one form, as many passages do? If so, how are the forms to be separated out? Does the passage contain a mixture of forms or a form within a form (e.g., a riddle within a dream account, or a messenger speech within a woe oracle)? Or is your passage part of a larger form, the full extent of which goes beyond the limits of your passage? If so, what part does your passage and its form(s) play in the greater form?
1.5.6. Be alert to partial and broken forms
Most of the time, all the known elements of a given form will not be present in any specific instance of its use. The more common the form, the more likely it may be that the form is partial, thus containing only some of all the possible elements that might be found in the fullest, most complete exemplar of such a form. For example, when the prophets repeat the word of Yahweh in the rib (covenant lawsuit) form, they sometimes present only one aspect, such as the speech of indictment or the judgment sentence. Presumably their audiences immediately recognized from the partial form that a divine lawsuit was being described, in the same way that we can recognize from just the words “We interrupt this broadcast to bring you ...” the form used today when an important news story is breaking. A partial form functions to suggest the purpose, tone, style, and audience of the full form without the needless detail and bulk necessitated by the full form. A form may also be broken (segmented) by the inclusion of other material within the form so that its constituent parts are rather widely separated from one another. Sometimes the beginning and end of a form are used to sandwich material technically extraneous to the form proper. Such a sandwiching is known as an inclusio. The material sandwiched in such an inclusio is usually related to but not technically part of the form. Try to analyze the effect of any such structure on the interpretation of the passage.
Be careful about historical assessment and atomization. Considerable criticism has been leveled against these two past practices of many form critics. Historical assessment was the practice of calling into question some or all of the accuracy of the historical content in a given form, on the theory that certain kinds of forms preserved more genuine historical data than others. Atomization was the practice of assuming that the most basic forms were found in the smallest units—those of a verse or two in length—and that larger units were secondary. Both of these practices rested on assumptions that are now widely questioned. You should avoid them in your own exegesis.
1.6.1. Outline the passage
Try to construct an outline that genuinely represents the major units of information. In other words, the outline should be a natural, not artificial, outgrowth of the passage. Note how many components are included under each topic (quantitative) and also the intensity or overall significance of the components (qualitative). Let the passage speak for itself. When you see a new topic, subject, issue, concept, or the like, you should construct a new topic for your outline. There are no automatic criteria for outlining. Do not be fooled by suggestions that you can count repetitions or identify “transitional” words (such as לבן, “therefore”) and mechanically derive your passage’s outline. Instead, your outline must be your best judgment as to how the major units of information in the passage group together logically. Some learning theorists suggest that the best outlines will contain from three to five major units, since most people have difficulty comprehending or remembering six or more abstract elements at once, and fewer than three elements hardly constitute an adequately descriptive outline. Nevertheless, your outline must be a reflection of your best judgment about the logical structure of your passage, and the number of elements in the outline must therefore reflect the major units of information, however many they may be.
After outlining the major divisions, work on the more minor divisions, such as sentences, clauses, and phrases. These should be visibly subordinated under the major divisions. The outline should be as detailed as you can make it without seeming forced or artificial. From the outline you can then go on to make observations about the overall structure.
1.6.2. Look for patterns
Any biblical passage whose limits have been properly identified will have a self-consistent logic made up of meaningful thought patterns. Try to identify the patterns, looking especially for such key features as developments, resumptions, unique forms of phrase, central or pivotal words, parallelisms, chiasms, inclusios, and other repetitious or progressive patterns. The keys to patterns are most often repetition and progression. Look for any evidence of repetition of a concept, word, phrase, expression, root, sound, or other identifiable feature and analyze the order of the repetition. Do the same with progressions, analyzing them as well. From this analysis may come helpful insights. Poetry, by its very nature, will often contain more (and more striking) structural patterns than will prose. But any passage, properly defined, has structural patterns that should be analyzed and the results interpreted for your reader. Especially point out the unexpected or unique, since these are part of what makes your passage different from any other and thus contribute to its special character and meaning.
1.6.3. Organize your discussion of structure according to descending units of size
First, discuss the overall outline pattern, the three to five (or more) major units. Then discuss what you feel is important among the subpatterns within the major units, one at a time. Move in order from largest to smallest unit: from passage to paragraphs, to verses, to clauses, to words, to sounds. Where possible, describe whether you feel that a pattern is primary, secondary, or simply minor, and how important it is to the interpretation of the passage.
1.6.4. Evaluate the intentionality of the minor patterns
Given enough time, most people can find all sorts of not very obvious minor patterns in a passage: a preponderance of certain vowel sounds here, the repetition of a verbal root there, the occurrence of a certain word exactly so many words after another word in two different verses, and so forth. The question is, did these minor patterns happen to appear at random (according to what some people call the “law of averages”), or were they constructed intentionally by the ancient inspired speaker or writer? We assume that the major patterns, because they are so obvious, were intentional. We also assume that many minor patterns were intentional, especially when we can see such patterns occurring repeatedly throughout a given OT book or portion thereof or in parallels from other books. But how can we be sure? There is only one criterion: Ask whether it is likely that the ancient speaker/writer composed the pattern for a purpose, and/or whether the ancient hearer/reader could reasonably be expected to have noticed the pattern while listening to or reading the passage. In your judgment, if it is likely that the answer is yes, then evaluate the pattern as an intentional one. If no, then identify the pattern as probably unintentional or the like and be cautious about making exegetical inferences from it.
1.6.5. If the passage is poetic, analyze it accordingly
Using semantic (meaning) parallelism as the guide, arrange the lines of poetry in parallel one to another. Then try to identify the meter of each line. If you can, revocalize the text to reflect the original pronunciation as much as possible, and describe the meter according to syllables per line (the most accurate method). Otherwise, describe the meter according to accents (less precise but still helpful). Note any special metrical features or patterns. Identify any groupings suggested by the metrical count. Although the concepts of stanza and strophe are not native to Hebrew poetry, you may divide a poem into sections or parts if you think such a division actually seems to be inherent in the poem, based on a shift of scene, topic, or style. Rhyme or acrostic patterns are rare but deserve careful attention if present. Watch also for formulas (words or phrases used in more than one place in the OT, in comparable metrical contexts and patterns, to express a given idea). Formulas are “stock phrases” of poetry, especially musical poetry.
Compare the use of a given formula in your passage with its use elsewhere (see also step 1.4, Lexical Data). Watch also for epiphora (repetition of final sounds or words) and other patterns that frequently appear in poetry. Identify any intentional instances of assonance (repetition or juxtaposition of similar sounds), paronomasia (wordplay, including puns), figura etymologica (variation on word roots, often including names), and other such poetic devices. However, do not look for rhyme. Because so many Hebrew words have similar endings (most feminine singulars ending in -a [-ah], most feminine plurals ending in -oth, most masculine plurals ending in -im), rhyme was too easy and would have been considered “cheap.” Other poetic devices were far better tests of a poet’s skill and to an audience indicated quality in poetic expression in a way that rhyme simply could not.
1.7.1. Research the historical background
Try to answer the following questions in your research: What is the setting of the passage? Exactly what events led up to this point? Did major trends or developments in Israel or the rest of the ancient world have any bearing on the passage or any part of its content? Are there any parallel or similar passages in the Bible that seem to be related to the same historical conditions? If so, do they provide any insight into your passage? Under what historical conditions does the passage seem to have been written? Might the passage have been written also under very different historical conditions? If not, why not? Does the passage represent or bring to an end some particular stage in the progress of any events or concepts?
From this point and onward, take note of how the information you have learned about your passage has an effect on its interpretation. Explain how this historical information helps one to understand or appreciate the passage in some way. Be sure to exploit any archaeological data that may exist concerning the passage. In some instances it may not be possible to determine anything specific about the historical background of your passage. For example, this is sometimes the case with poetic passages, such as psalms or proverbs intended to be meaningful at all times and places. If so, explain this to the reader. Describe the implications of the lack of a clear historical context, if any, for your passage.
1.7.2. Research the social setting
Try to answer the following questions: Where in Israel’s life are the content or events of the passage located? What social and civil institutions bear upon the passage? How do they illumine the passage? Is the passage or some portion of it directly relevant only to an ancient Israelite (i.e., culturally “bound”) or is it useful and meaningful today, and to what extent? Over what range of time or what breadth of Israelite (or other) culture would events of the passage (or its concepts) have been possible or likely? Are the events or concepts uniquely Israelite, or could they have occurred or been expressed elsewhere?
1.7.3. Research the historical foreground
What comes next? What does the passage lead to? What ultimately happens to the people, places, things, and concepts of the passage, and how is that significant? Does the passage contain information essential to understanding something else that occurs or is said later? Is the passage at the start of any new developments? Where does the passage fit in the general scope of OT history? Are there any implications that follow from its placement?
1.7.4. Research the geographical setting
Does the passage have a provenience (a geographical setting or “origin”)? In which nation, region, tribal territory, or village do the events or concepts of the passage apply? Is it, for example, a northern or southern passage (i.e., either reflecting a northern or southern origin, or else focusing especially on northern or southern kingdom matters), or an intra-Israel or extra-Israel passage, or is that impossible to discern? Does it have a national or regional perspective? Is it localized in any way? Do issues such as climate, topography, ethnic distribution, regional culture, or economy play a role? Is there anything else about the nature of the geography that illuminates the passage’s content in some way?
1.7.5. Date the passage
If the passage is a historical narrative, seek the date for the events as described. If it is a prophetic oracle (revealed message to a prophet), seek the date when it might have been delivered by the prophet. If it is poetry of some other sort, try to determine when it might have been composed.
Arriving at a precise date is not always possible. Be especially cautious in using secondary literature, since a scholar’s critical methodology largely determines to what extent one will tend to consider portions of the Bible as “authentic” (genuinely representative of the time and events of which they speak) or not “authentic” (actually products of a later historical period) and will date them accordingly.
Ifyou cannot suggest a specific date, at least suggest the date before which the passage could not have occurred or been composed (called the terminus a quo) and the date by which the passage surely must have already taken place or been composed (called the terminus ad quem). The context and content of the passage, including its vocabulary, are your main guides to date.
Dating prophetic passages precisely is often difficult or impossible. In most cases the only way to proceed is to try to link the message of the passage with historical circumstances known from OT historical portions and other ancient Near Eastern historical sources. This is typically what the commentaries do in such cases. Sometimes it is possible to identify a historical circumstance that forms the background for or subject of an oracle. Many times it is not, and the oracle can be dated no more precisely than within the limits of the book as a whole.
Some overlap is bound to exist between the historical context and the literary context. The Old Testament (OT) is a historically oriented revelation, and therefore its literary progressions and orderings will tend to correspond to the actual history of Yahweh’s dealings with his people.
1.8.1. Examine the literary junction
Is your passage part of a story or a literary grouping that has a discernible beginning, middle, and end? Does it fill in, add on, introduce, bring to completion, or counterbalance the book or section of a book of which it is a part? Is it self-contained? Could it be placed elsewhere, or is it essential to its present context? What does it add to the overall picture? What does the overall picture add to it?
1.8.2. Examine the placement
Just how does it fit within the section, book, division, Testament, Bible— in that order? What can you discover about its style, type, purpose, degree of literary integration (degree to which the passage is linked or “woven into” the rest of the book), literary function, and so forth? Is it one of many similar texts in the same book or perhaps in the OT as a whole? In what sense is its nature unique to the surrounding material and/or its position within that material somehow unique?
1.8.3. Analyze the detail
How comprehensive is the passage? If it is historical, how selective has it been? What things does it concentrate on, and what does it leave unsaid? Does it report the events from a special perspective? If so, what does that tell you about the special purpose of the passage? How does its perspective relate to the larger context? If it is poetic, how narrow or broad is its range? Do any details help you decide whether it was written in connection with a specific cultural or historical situation? Do any details give you insight into the author’s intentions?
1.8.4. Analyze the authorship
Is the author of the passage identified or identifiable? If the author can be identified, how certain is the identification? If the passage is anonymous, is it possible to suggest generally the probable human source or milieu out of which God communicated his word? Can the time of its composition be discerned, whether or not the identity of the author can be known for sure? Is it possible that material originally written by someone else has been reused, adapted, or incorporated into a larger structure by a later inspired “writer” or “editor”? Does this tell you anything theologically? Does it help you follow the logic of the passage better? If the author is known either explicitly or implicitly, does this knowledge help you connect the passage, including its motifs, style, vocabulary, and so forth, with other portions of Scripture from the hand of the same author? Is this in any way instructive for the interpretation of the passage? Does the author here reveal any unique features (stylistically, for example), or is the passage typical of the author’s writing elsewhere?