Using Mirror-Reading to Cut Through the Fog of Source Criticism
/
If you don’t already know, I’ve been working on a mirror-reading series of the Book of Amos. One of the reasons it has been taking so long is that I’ve had to do my own source criticism. Normally, I rely on the work of Tzemah Yoreh over at biblecriticism.com, but in the case of Amos, his sources clashed with my mirror-reading and so, what was supposed to be a mirror-reading of the first 2 of his Amos sources, has turned into my own source criticism (and redaction criticism) and mirror-reading of the entire book. This was a challenge since I had never really done nor had the desire to do source criticism before. Furthermore, I don’t suggest learning source-criticism with Amos, as it has more redactions than I cared to deal with.
Although I found many books by people who had done source criticism, I couldn’t really find one that was a “how to” guide (if you know of one, drop a line in the comments), so I began the journey of developing my own source-criticism methodology and thought I would share what I’ve learned so far.
The Emulation Problem
I tried using some of the common ways of teasing out sources: Unique word usage is one way with “Yahweh” in the Yahwist and “Elohim” in the Elohist being the classic example. I also tried looking at style/tone/attitude as well as thematic differences. However, the problem with all of those is that they can be emulated by later redactors, and said redactors would have been motivated to do such emulation as it would have given their redactions more authenticity.
Even literary structures such as parallelisms and chiasmus can be emulated and built upon by later redactors. Tzemah Yoreh shows how the Yahwist preserved the Elohist chiastic structure and had built upon it with his own.
A Beacon Of Light...and its reflection
The bedrock of my source criticism has become mirror-reading (surprise!). If you don’t know already, mirror-reading reconstructs the situations that the original authors were responding to. This is beneficial because it’s not something that later redactors would have been interested in emulating since they would have been responding to their own situations.
Polemic Sources
The downside to mirror-reading is that the Biblical authors may have been responding to more than one situation or there may have been multiple aspects to the situation. Mirror-reading by itself can’t typically determine if the author was responding to multiple situations. But that’s okay, because, for the purposes of understanding the meaning of the text, it’s not necessary. And the meaning of the text is my primary focus. I’ve taken to calling these multiple situations as “polemic sources”.
Together with historical markers, I can cluster multiple polemic sources into broader historical categories. Below, you can see my polemic sources of Amos (as of now) grouped into their historical categories.
However, it’s important to understand that just because the Bible says that it took place during a historical marker, doesn’t mean that it actually did, this could be part of the authorial propaganda and mirror-reading is good at identifying such propaganda. For example, Amos claims to take place during King Uzziah’s reign but there are some mirror-reading indications that it actually took place during the reign of Uzziah’s father (Amaziah).
Narrative flow is another good way to identify sources, or, in the case of mirror-reading, situational flow (or propaganda flow). No matter how hard redactors might try to avoid it, narrative flow starts getting lost with more redactions. Too many cooks in the kitchen makes for choppy text...and Amos is choppy AF.
The evolution of language can also be beneficial for identifying sources. As time progresses, certain words go out of favor and others into favor. An example of this is Persian loan words in the post-exilic era. Redactions could emulate earlier language but it would inhibit the communication of redactors with their contemporary audience, so I think it to be unlikely. I’m no expert in Hebrew, so I have to rely on scholars for this type of thing and Amos doesn’t seem to have a lot happening in regards to this either. I will say though, that Amos does have a number of hapax legomena and difficult words to translate. These seem to be clustered in the earliest sources, so I suspect they are an issue because they had fallen out of favor before the bulk of the Hebrew Bible was written.
Obviously, you want to cross-vector as many of the above criteria as possible to support your source criticism.
Tip Offs
There were a number of clues that can tip one off that a text has more than one source.
Name Attribution
Phrases like “Thus saith Yahweh” appear to be rhetorical fluff, but they may serve another purpose. I’ve noticed at the beginning or end of a redaction, the redactor will add this phrase (or one similar). It’s like, they feel obligated to put in such a phrase to validate their redaction. Whatever the reason, it makes a great sign post for spotting redactions.
Repeating Conjunctions
Conjunctions are a normal part of language, but when they’re strung together into a super long daisy chain, it begins to seem unnatural and turns into that scene from “Dude Where’s My Car”.
This is because it was a method used by redactors to “tack on” new material to existing text and seeing multiple conjunctions in quick succession means there is a good chance that there are redactions about.
Messy, Lopsided or Bloated structures
I’ve noticed this mostly with chiastic structures. I talked earlier about how structures can be emulated, but the more redactions and insertions into the structure, the more warped it becomes. If you can find the redactions, you will often find a clean and beautiful chiasmus, once they are stripped away.
Ambiguity in Translation / Passages With Strained Meaning
In this scenario, a redactor is taking a text and is trying to spin it. He has to use the same words, because his audience is already familiar with the original text, so he has to try to create a new context around it and that was easier said than done sometimes. Those new contexts would then create ambiguity in translation or passages with strained meaning. In other words, translators are able to translate it but there is something odd about the text because it’s not the normal usage of the phrase or word.
In Amos, the use of Egypt and Ashdod in one place and Zion in another, seem a bit odd. This is because a redactor had taken earlier text and applied it to Northern Israel. Another example is masculine nouns with feminine verbs, or vise versa. There are a couple of places in Amos that do this and it appears again to be because a redactor was trying to spin an earlier text.
Source Inception
Occasionally I’ve noticed the use of a source within a redaction. It was a strategy to use early sources like songs and sayings that were unattributed and could be used to validate a redaction. An example in Amos takes place after the fall of Northern Israel and there was an influx of Northern refugees. Those refugees needed to be assimilated into the Yahwistic cult, which meant quelling some of the animosity between the north and south. A redactor uses a saying that was used as a mockery or celebration and turns it into a lamentation.
R = Redactor
S = Earlier Saying
Amos 5:1
R- Hear this word, Israel, this lament I take up concerning you:
S- “Fallen is Virgin Israel,
S- never to rise again,
S- deserted in her own land,
S- with no one to lift her up.”
There are also a number of Northern hymn fragments in Amos that a redactor makes Yahweh the center of.
Chronology of Sources and Redactions
How does one know which sources and redactions were added in what order and when? Again, historical markers are useful here, but many of the redactions in Amos build upon previous texts and thus require them as a prerequisite, thus giving one some idea of the chronology.
I hope you enjoyed my thoughts on source criticism and I look forward to sharing the details of my source criticism of Amos with you…someday.
