DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF PROPHETIC ORACLESAuthor(s): JoAnna M.

Hoyt
Source: Hebrew Studies , Vol. 60 (2019), pp. 153-174
Published by: National Association of Professors of Hebrew (NAPH)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26833111

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26833111?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Association of Professors of Hebrew (NAPH) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Hebrew Studies

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hebrew Studies 60 (2019): 153–174

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF PROPHETIC ORACLES:

WOE, INDICTMENT, AND HOPE

JoAnna M. Hoyt
Dallas International University

Abstract: Discourse analysis of the emic structures of Biblical Hebrew is

an underdeveloped area of Hebrew linguistics. This lack of a linguistic
examination has resulted in Hebrew scholars relying upon form criticism,
which, though helpful, is lacking in objectivity and precision. This paper
offers a discourse analysis of three prophetic oracle types: woe, indict-
ment, and hope. Through a modified approach to Longacre’s etic discourse
structures, this paper examines the oracles’ emic structures within Amos
and Micah. Not only does this analysis provide a more objective process
and more precise criteria for identifying genres than form criticism, but it
also reveals otherwise overlooked discourse features such as skewing and
peak marking elements, which are all necessary to more fully understand
the intended purpose and function of the oracles.

1. INTRODUCTION

Identification and analysis of prophetic oracles traditionally occur

within the field of form criticism; however, such analysis includes a
reliance upon subjective criteria (e.g., thematic analysis) which can lead
to contradictory conclusions.1 A move toward a discourse analysis of the
emic structure of genres provides a more objective foundation. Such
analysis reveals precise criteria and otherwise unobserved details such as
skewing and peak marking elements. This paper provides such an analysis
for woe, indictment, and hope oracles as they appear in Amos and Micah.2
The resulting analysis affirms some conclusions of form criticism, chal-
lenges others, and reveals complex discourse features untouched by form
critical analysis.
Amos and Micah were chosen as the corpus for this analysis for several
reasons. First, while the date of the original written oracles cannot be

1. For example, Westermann identifies Amos 5 a woe oracle, while Paul identifies portions of
Amos 5 as a collection of short prophetic oracles and only a few of those as lament. (C. Westermann,
Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991], pp. 190–192;
S. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos [ed. F. M. Cross; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], pp.
158–159.)
2. A simplified approach to the discourse structures presented in this paper is applied in J. M.
Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, and Micah (ed. H. House and W. Barrick; Evangelical Exegetical Commentary;
Bellingham: Lexham, 2018).

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

proven, both prophets are traditionally dated to within a hundred years of

each other, which limits the prospect of diachronic changes between the
oracles in the two books. Further, both Amos and Micah are from the
southern kingdom, which limits potential regional differences. Addi-
tionally, the books consist mainly of three oracle types, with only a short
break for narrative and vision reports in Amos 7:1–8:3 and 9:1–10. Also,
the oracle divisions are well-defined and agreed upon by many scholars
who use form critical criteria.3 While this study has a limited corpus, it
provides a foundational analysis that future research can expound upon in
order to encompass further data from the remaining prophetic books.

2. FORM CRITICISM

Through the work of scholars such as Gunkel, Mowinckel, Alt, and

Westermann, form criticism has created the language and categories
necessary to discuss biblical genres. Yet, while form criticism has ad-
vanced the study of genres, it also has limitations; most notable is its sub-
jective criteria employed for classifying genres based on perceived
content and theme, not structural form.4 Muilenburg’s 1969 presidential
address to the Society of Biblical Literature, entitled “Form Criticism and
Beyond” affirms that form criticism is beneficial, but that it has limits.
“Form criticism by its very nature is bound to generalize because it is con-
cerned with what is common to all the representatives of a genre, and
therefore applies an external measure to the individual pericopes. It does
not focus sufficient attention…upon the particularity of the formulation.”5
In this seminal address, Muilenburg advocates for upholding the
benefits of form criticism while also moving toward the literary analysis
benefits of rhetorical criticism. He concludes by stating: “Persistent and
painstaking attention to the modes of Hebrew literary composition will
reveal that the pericopes exhibit linguistic patterns, word formations or-
dered or arranged in particular ways, verbal sequences which move in
fixed structures from beginning to end.”6 His call to move toward the in-
corporation of rhetorical criticism’s analysis of literary features also hints

3. Major areas of disagreement are discussed below.

4. “A basic weakness…is that the classification of the material frequently reflects not form,
but content. The objectivity claimed by the discipline, consequently, is not evident.” W. L. Lane, “Form
Criticism,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 814.
5. J. Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old
Testament Literary Criticism (ed. P. R. House; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), p. 54.
6. J. Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” pp. 68–69.

154

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

at the need for a further move toward discourse linguistics in his

acknowledgment of linguistic patterns and verbal sequences which are not
addressed in form criticism.
It is time to continue the trajectory begun by Muilenburg and incorpo-
rate the field of discourse linguistics into the analysis of Hebrew genres.
The need for this movement is affirmed by other scholars who have noted
that the inclusion of discourse analysis in the identification of genre forms
would benefit the field.7 It is time to incorporate the current tools of dis-
course linguistics into the analysis of biblical genres in order to provide a
new layer of study and a more precise evaluation of the linguistic features
of Hebrew genre structures.
Moving beyond form criticism toward the use of discourse analysis
does not require forgoing the preceding work of form criticism, but it does
require a careful balancing of accepting the categories and criteria while
also questioning those very things. The form critical categories and crite-
ria are approached cautiously and only upheld if discourse analysis affirms
their presence. The discourse structure of each oracle in the corpus was
analyzed and then compared to the form critical categories. The results of
this analysis uphold these three oracle types as distinct types with distinct
forms, and the results also affirm and clarify some of form criticism’s
criteria while also providing new criteria.

3. METHOD

Discourse analysis in the Hebrew Bible received its first major entry
into the world through Robert Longacre’s 1989 Joseph book, which has
since been updated to a second edition.8 As one of many advancements in
his work, Longacre presents layouts of verbal rank for the three primary
etic discourse types: narrative, predictive, and hortatory; as well as a dis-
cussion of the features of expository, procedural, and instructional dis-
course. He was motivated to present these etic structures, in part, to
explain the functions of the verbal system as originating from their dis-
course function in contrast to the traditional approaches of semantic tense

7. Compare C. M. Toffelmire, “Form Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets

(ed. M. J. Boda and G. J. McConville; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), p. 270; M. A. Sweeney,
“Form Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (ed. T. Longman III
and P. Enns; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), p. 233.
8. R. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic
Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (2nd ed.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003).

155

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

and aspect theories.9 And while his explanation of the verbal system has
not become a prevailing view, his etic structures are invaluable in the field
of Hebrew discourse analysis.
This paper’s approach to prophetic oracles is indebted to Longacre’s
etic structures and employs a modified version of them as the foundation
for analyzing etic and emic structures. In contradiction to Longacre, the
methodology of this paper does not view etic discourse structures as de-
scribing the function of the verbs themselves but that semantic analysis
explains the verbal functions, which in turn provides the reason why the
verbs function as they do within the discourse structures. For this reason,
Longacre’s etic structures are placed secondary to a semantic approach to
the verbal system, specifically an aspect-prominent approach.10 This
reevaluation of Longacre’s structures from a semantic approach affirms
much of his analysis, though it also requires some modifications. The
modifications take into account the function of lexical aspect (stative
versus fientive) and other verbal functions, such as habitual yiqtol verbs.
The following list details some of this paper’s proposed modifications to
Longacre’s etic discourse structures which are foundational to the fol-
lowing discussion of the oracle structures:

(1) the addition of stative qatal, fientive yiqtol (habitual or present

time), and wayyiqtol continuing past time in the background band
of narrative discourse,
(2) the clarification that weqatal of ‫ היה‬occurs in the setting band of
predictive discourse when not temporally successive or in the
mainline of an apodosis,
(3) the inclusion of weqatal in the mainline band of hortatory
discourse,
(4) clarification that the qatal in the setting band of hortatory discourse
is not always past time,
(5) the addition of fientive yiqtol in the setting band of hortatory
discourse, and
(6) the inclusion of stative qatal and fientive yiqtol in the mainline of
expository discourse.11

9. R. Longacre, Joseph, p. 57.

10. This paper adopts the semantic approach in J. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb:
The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012).
11. A foundation for these modifications can be found in J. M. Hoyt, “Grammatical Features
in the Direct Speech of Kings: Time Frame, Modality, and Discourse” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological
Seminary, 2012), pp. 212–232.

156

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

Through this modified approach to Longacre’s etic structures, this

paper analyzes the emic structures of woe, indictment, and hope oracles
within Amos and Micah. Each oracle’s emic structure is composed of one
or more sections. A section is a unit of the oracle which has a distinct etic
structure and purpose.12 Each section is identified through four criteria:
verbal types, etic type, prominent introductory elements, and its purpose
within the oracle. Shifts between etic structures within an oracle identify
a break between sections. Each section’s verbal structure is compared to
Longacre’s modified etic structures for identification. Background clauses
are not included in the analysis in order to focus on the structures which
carry the primary message of the oracle. Embedded quotes are also ex-
cluded since they have their own etic structure. Rhetorical questions may
be used in any section and often break from the otherwise expected etic
structure.
Once the sections are determined, each section type is examined to de-
termine if there are any common introductory elements which, together
with the shift in etic structure, signal a shift between sections. The sections
are named according to the purpose of the section within the message of
the oracle. Each oracle’s structural analysis only includes features that
occur in two or more oracles in order to limit the possibility that non-
native elements to the structure, such as those used for skewing, will be
inadvertently included and thus distort the results of the analysis. An ex-
planation and a chart layout of each oracle’s structure is provided.
The sections are presented in the order which they most often occur
within Amos and Micah. However, the order of the sections varies among
the oracles, and sections can repeat throughout the oracle, and some sec-
tions do not appear in every oracle. Both woe and indictment oracles have
multiple section types while hope oracles only have one. The discussion
of each oracle structure is followed by an analysis of two oracles of that
type in order to show how the structure works and how variations from
that structure affect the oracle. The structures of the remaining oracles are
briefly explained in a footnote in each respective discussion.
This analysis briefly interacts with Longacre and Bowling’s 2015
work, Understanding Biblical Hebrew Verb Forms.13 Their expansion on

12. While a section may correspond to a stanza in an oracle, sections are not equivalent to
poetic stanzas. Some sections may consist of only one line or verse, or they may encompass multiple
stanzas.
13. R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew Verb Forms: Distribution
and Function Across Genres (Dallas: SIL International, 2015).

157

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

Longacre’s previous work revisits the primary etic structures and dis-
cusses some emic structures with the purpose of explaining the verbal sys-
tem. Their work covers a wide variety of genre types, including woe
(qinah) and indictment (riyb) oracles. While there are good observations
and analyses in their book, this paper does not use it as a foundation, in
part because they do not distinguish between stative and fientive functions
and because they persist in using discourse structures to explain the func-
tions of the verbal system.14 Furthermore, their analysis does not dis-
tinguish between sections within the emic structures which leads to some
imprecise conclusions. This paper only briefly interacts with some of their
analyses in order to demonstrate the differences between their process and
conclusions, and those of this paper.

4. WOE ORACLES

An initial cry of woe (‫ הֹוי‬or ‫)א ְל ַלי‬

ַ traditionally identifies a woe oracle.
While this lexical identifier is helpful, it is not an infallible guide since
cries of woe, as well as lament language, occur in other contexts as well.15
Discussions of woe oracles tend to focus on the criteria of lament in
general and not on specific criteria unique to woe oracles. This is most
noticeable when woe oracles are referred to as qinah, a reference to the
3+2 meter often found in various forms of lament.16 Westermann, how-
ever, classifies woe oracles as a subtype of judgment oracles, and he has
not only noted the introductory cry of woe but also two sections: an accu-
sation of woe which follows the lament lexeme and an announcement of
judgment.17 While Westermann has noted some features of woe oracles,
this paper provides clarification, precise criteria, and additions to his
criteria.
A discourse analysis of the woe oracles in Amos and Micah reveals a
distinct three section structure. The first, the lament section, contains the
initial cry of woe and describes the lamentable state of the people and their
sinful actions. It follows the basic pattern of expository discourse (qotel,
stative qatal, habitual yiqtol and weqatal, and verbless clauses) with one

14. R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew, pp. 2–3.

15. For an example, see the discussion on Micah 1 below.
16. Compare R. Soulen and R. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (4th ed.; Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2011), p. 172; R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew,
pp. 413–477.
17. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, pp. 190–194.

158

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

exception. In two of the three woe oracles, this section contains a

wayyiqtol which follows qotel verbs and overtly marks temporal succes-
sion.18 Second, woe oracles may contain a section of appeal founded upon
hortatory discourse (imperatives and jussives) which encourages the
audience to change their actions before judgment comes and to respond to
the sin in their midst. Lastly, woe oracles often have a judgment section
founded upon predictive discourse (yiqtol and weqatal verbs) and may in-
clude a ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬plus a qotel to indicate the imminent aspect of the judgment.
A logical connector (e.g., ‫ל ֵּכן‬,ָ ‫ל־כן‬
ֵּ ‫)ע‬
ַ or a statement of divine affirmation
(e.g., ‫ )כֹּה ָא ַמר יהוה‬often introduce a judgment section. There are four woe
oracles in Amos and Micah: Amos 5:18–27; 6; Micah 2:1–11; and 7:1–6.
The structures of the first and last are discussed below. 19 The following
chart summarizes their structure.

18. These two wayyiqtol verbs appear in Amos 6:3 and Micah 7:3. While neither Longacre nor
the modifications to Longacre have noted the role of wayyiqtol in expository discourse, this function of
the wayyiqtol following qotel verbs has been noted elsewhere (J. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew
Verb, pp. 299–300). Since this is a rare function of the wayyiqtol more research is needed into this
conjugation’s function within discourse structures.
19. The structure of Amos 5:18–27 is lament (v. 18a), judgment (vv. 18b–20), lament (vv. 21–
22), appeal (vv. 23–24), and judgment (vv. 25–27). The judgment section in verses 18b–20 has
rhetorical questions with verbless clauses in verses 18 and 20. The lament of verses 21–22 varies from
the lament sections in the other woe oracles because it describes God’s reaction to Israel’s sin. Verses
25–26 are notoriously difficult to translate which also makes it difficult to identify their function within
the oracle’s discourse structure. Here, verse 25 is taken as a statement of Israel’s past sin which serves
as a background statement for the following judgment. Verse 26 either functions as a second
background statement for the judgment in verse 27, or as a judgment statement itself.
Micah 2:1–11’s structure is lament (vv. 1–2), judgment (vv. 3–7), lament (vv. 8–9), appeal (v. 10),
and lament (v. 11). The first two qatal verbs in verse 4 are dependent on the preceding weqatal and
anterior to a future event, and the third qatal is within an embedded quote. The jussive in verse 6 is part
of an embedded quote.

159

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

Table 1: Woe oracle structure

Section Introductory Verbal Types Etic Type
Name Element
Lament A word of woe qotel Expository
stative qatal
habitual yiqtol
habitual weqatal
verbless clauses
wayyiqtol
Appeal imperatives Hortatory
jussives
Judgment Logical connector ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬+ qotel Predictive
or divine yiqtol
affirmation weqatal

Woe oracles tend to be the least disputed oracle type since their initial
word of woe and lament language is easily recognizable. Yet, this standard
criterion for woe oracles is lacking in precision. Relatedly, Longacre and
Bowling cast a wide net and study all forms of qinah (lament) discourse
together which leads to their conclusion that lament discourse, as a whole,
is “loose.”20 And in line with many scholars, they identify Micah 1:8–16
as a lament; yet, despite its lament language, its emic structure does not
fit the structure found in woe oracles but that of indictment oracles. For
this reason, this passage is analyzed under the indictment section below.

4.1. Micah 7:1–6

The woe oracle in Micah 7:1–6 is a simple and short oracle, containing
only two of the three sections. Verses 1–4 follow the typical structure of
a lament section. It begins with a cry of woe, ‫א ְל ַלי‬,
ַ followed by verbless
clauses, stative qatal, qotel, habitual yiqtol, and one wayyiqtol.21 The
oracle concludes with an appeal section in verses 5–6. The negated jus-
sives and the imperative in verse 5 appeal for the people to take action as

20. R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew, p. 413.

21. There are also two qatal verbs (vv. 2, 4) which function as background information. The
one in verse 2 refers to a past event that has ongoing consequences for the audience, and the one in
verse 4 refers to an event that is future to the audience but anterior to the preceding future event
mentioned prior.

160

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

a result of the implied coming judgment of the lament. And verse 6 pro-
vides the backgrounded reason for the hortatory elements of verse 5.

4.2. Amos 6

Amos 6 begins with a cry of woe, ‫הֹוי‬, in verse 1 followed by qotel

verbs and a habitual weqatal of the lament section which describe the sin-
ners. An appeal section follows in verse 2 with imperatives. The oracle
then returns to a lament section in verses 3–6 with an expository etic struc-
ture.22 Next, the oracle turns to a judgment section in verses 7–14, intro-
duced with ‫ ָל ֵּכן‬and a shift to weqatal verbs and a few yiqtol verbs. The
judgment section includes rhetorical questions (v. 12) and an embedded
quote (v. 13). Longacre notes that rhetorical questions can “announce the
theme of a discourse [unit].”23 Here, the use of rhetorical questions to re-
turn the audience’s attention to their sin while in the midst of a discussion
of judgment reinforces the theme of this oracle, brings a heightened
awareness of sin, and invites the audience to evaluate their sin in light of
the judgment. It effectively reinforces the underlying reason for the woe
oracle and the declaration of judgment—their sin.

5. INDICTMENT ORACLES

Indictment oracles are known by a variety of names including covenant

lawsuits, disputation, accusation, and riyb oracles. Form critical discus-
sions of these oracles are often imprecise, relying on the lexeme ‫ ִריב‬or
thematic elements which are inconsistently explained and applied.24 The
reliance on ‫ ִריב‬is confusing since oracles with and without this lexeme
share the same emic structure and the word occurs in non-indictment con-
texts.25 Reliance on thematic and lexical elements to identify indictment

22. This division of sections follows the Septuagint’s reading of verse 3 which does not read
the verse as an interrogative. With the MT reading of an interrogative, this verse is a rhetorical question
and could be classified as part of the preceding appeal section if its purpose is viewed as aiding the
appeal, or in the lament section if its purpose is to describe their actions which have brought about the
lament.
23. R. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse (2nd ed.; New York: Plenum, 1996), p. 254.
24. Riyb oracles are variously defined, but the features that are often agreed upon include: “(a)
summons to the offending party, (b) recitation of beneficent acts bestowed in former times on the
offender, (c) accusations against the offender, and (d) call to witnesses of the covenant both in heaven
and on earth” (R. Soulen and R. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, p. 185).
25. For example, the indictment oracle in Micah 6 has the lexeme ‫ ִריב‬while the one in Micah
3 does not. And the word ‫ ִריב‬appears in a hope oracle in Micah 7:7–20. For examples of oracles

161

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

oracles is unreliable and can lead to misidentification, as the analysis of

Micah 1 below illustrates. Thematic analysis and lexemes label the last
portion of Micah 1 as a lament, but the emic structure suggests an indict-
ment designation. In this passage, elements of skewing prove to be the
Achilles heel to the thematic analysis of form criticism.
Westermann has identified three elements found in his broad “judg-
ment oracle” category, in which he includes indictment oracles as a sub-
type. Those three elements are introduction, reason/accusation, and
announcement of judgment.26 The discourse analysis below affirms the
existence of these three sections, provides linguistic criteria for the
sections, and adds three additional sections as well.
The discourse structure of indictment oracles consists of six possible
sections. First, the indictment section calls either the accused or witnesses
to hear the indictment. This indictment section, in all but one oracle, be-
gins with an imperative of ‫ ׁשמע‬and may include other imperatives or jus-
sives. Second, half of the oracles have a narrative discourse section (qatal
and wayyiqtol) which describes how God kept his covenantal faithfulness
in the past. This section provides further fuel for the indictment as God’s
faithfulness highlights the people’s unfaithfulness.27 Next, each indict-
ment oracle contains at least one judgment section which follows the same
pattern as the judgment section in woe oracles. The oracles, also, often
contain an accusation section which can take one of two patterns: present
or past sins. An expository structure (stative qatal, qotel, fientive yiqtol,
and verbless clauses) focuses on present sins, while a narrative structure
(fientive qatal and wayyiqtol verbs) focuses on past sins. The next section
type, call to faithfulness, uses hortatory discourse to call the audience to
return to covenant faithfulness. The last section, a theophany, appears in
only half the oracles and uses an expository structure to describe God
coming in judgment. There are eight indictment oracles within Amos and
Micah: Amos 1–2; 3; 4; 5:1–17; 8:4–14; Micah 1; 3; and 6. The oracle in
Amos 3 and the disputed oracle in Micah 1 are discussed below.28

identified as riyb without the lexeme see: R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew,
pp. 479–543.
26. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, pp. 169–177.
27. This section in Amos 4:6–11 includes past habitual yiqtol and weqatal verbs as well.
However, since those verbs are not standard features in narrative etic structures and they only occur in
one oracle, they are not included in the structural analysis. Further studies are needed into their function
within this section of indictment oracles.
28. The structure of Amos 1–2 is explained in footnote 31 below. The structures of the
remaining oracles follow.

162

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

Table 2: Indictment oracle structure

Section Name Introductory Verbal Types Etic Type
Element
Indictment ‫ ׁשמע‬imperative imperatives Hortatory
jussives
Past qatal Narrative
Faithfulness wayyiqtol
Judgment Logical connector, or ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬+ qotel Predictive
divine affirmation yiqtol
weqatal
Accusation of Present sins: Expository
sins stative qatal
qotel
fientive yiqtol
verbless
Past sins: Narrative
fientive qatal
wayyiqtol

Amos 4: indictment (v. 1a–b), accusation of sin (v. 1c–e), judgment (vv. 2–3), call to faithfulness
using rhetorical sarcasm (vv. 4–5), past faithfulness (vv. 6–11), judgment (v. 12), and theophany (v.
13). The imperative in verse 12 heightens the impact of the judgment by briefly skewing the judgment
structure with a hortatory element.
Amos 5:1–17: indictment (v. 1), accusation of sin (v. 2), judgment (v. 3), call to faithfulness (vv.
4–6a), judgment (v. 6b–c), accusation of sins (v. 7), theophany (vv. 8–9), accusation of sins (v. 10),
judgment (vv. 11–12), call to faithfulness (vv. 13–15), and judgment (vv. 16–17). Verse 2 is difficult to
classify with the current data. Its verbal structure (fientive qatal, yiqtol, and qotel) does not fit a clear
etic pattern. As for the purpose, the verse appears to describe Israel’s current situation, but it also has
an overtone of judgment. It is tentatively classified here as an accusation of sin section due to the present
time function of the last two verbs and the verse’s potential purpose within the oracle. The qatal verbs
in verse 11 function as backgrounded information about their sin which provide the reason for the
judgment described in the surrounding lines.
Amos 8:4–14: indictment (v. 4), accusation of sin (vv. 5–6), and judgment (vv. 7–14). Verses 5–6
are an embedded quote which turns the people’s own words as accusation against them. Thus, while it
fulfills the purpose of the accusation of sin section, as an embedded quote, it does not follow the etic
structure.
Micah 3: indictment (v. 1a), accusation of sins (vv. 1b–3), judgment (v. 4), accusation of sin (v. 5),
judgment (vv. 6–7), prophetic aside (v. 8), indictment (v. 9a), accusation of sins (vv. 9b–11), and
judgment (v. 12). The prophetic aside in verse 8 contrasts the speaking prophet with the false prophets
mentioned just prior. While there is, also, a prophetic aside in Mic 1:8, it has a different etic structure
and purpose. Due to the differences in these two passages, they are not identified, here, as a potential
section of the indictment oracle structure.
Micah 6: indictment (vv. 1–2), past faithfulness (vv. 3–5), mitigated call to faithfulness with
rhetorical questions (vv. 6–9), accusation of sins with rhetorical questions (vv. 10–12), and judgment
(vv. 13–16). The two imperatives in the past faithfulness section are skewed elements that function
rhetorically. The call to faithfulness section has yiqtol verbs which mitigate the expected hortatory
elements, and the wayyiqtol in verse 16 (judgment section) functions as temporal succession.

163

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

Call to imperatives Hortatory

Faithfulness jussives

Theophany ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬+ qotel Expository

qotel
weqatal
yiqtol

Longacre and Bowling describe indictment (riyb) structures as having

a past-time qatal backbone and can include unmarked wayyiqtol verbs,
habitual yiqtol, and rarely verbless clauses.29 While all of these can occur
in indictment oracles, their analysis lacks clarity on how the features func-
tion differently within an oracle’s emic structure. For example, their
analysis overstates the role of past-time qatal which is dominant only
when there is a lengthy accusation section of past sins or a section on
God’s past faithfulness.30 Additionally, their approach to emic structures,
which does not include an analysis of how underlying shifts in etic struc-
tures affect the emic structure, allows for the mislabeling of Micah 1 as
qinah instead of an indictment oracle. Moreover, they label Amos 1:6–8
as predictive discourse and 2:6–16 as a riyb (indictment) oracle even
though both follow a very similar structure and are both parts of a larger
indictment oracle.31

29. R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew, p. 479.

30. Compare R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew, pp. 479, 543–
544.
31. Amos 1:6–8 and 2:6–16 are both a part of a larger oracle which includes all of chapters 1–
2. And though this oracle contains variations from the indictment structure seen elsewhere in Amos and
Micah, this oracle is best described as an indictment oracle. The oracle does not begin with an
indictment section or even a ‫ׁשמע‬, but with a theophany section (1:2). Eight stanzas follow the theophany
section, the first seven of which follow a strict pattern. Each of the seven begin with a mitigated
indictment section where verbless clauses and a negated yiqtol mitigate the expected hortatory elements
(vv. 1:3a–c, 1:6a–c, 1:9a–c, 1:11a–c, 1:13a–c, 2:1a–c, and 2:4a–c). Next, each has an accusation of
present sins section which relies mainly on infinitive constructs (vv. 1:3d, 1:6d, 9d–e, 1:11d–f, 1:13d–
e, 2:1d, 2:4d–g). These seven stanzas each conclude with a judgment section without a logical
connector, but with a distinct shift to weqatal verbs (vv. 1:4–5, 1:7–8, 1:10, 1:12, 1:14–15, 2:2–3, 2:5).
The eighth stanza follows a more robust pattern: mitigated indictment as above (2:6a–c), an accusation
of sins section following the pattern in the previous seven stanzas (2:6d–e), an accusation of present
sins relying on yiqtol verbs (2:7–8), a past faithfulness section following a narrative etic structure (2:9–
12), a statement of the effects of their sin upon God following the theophany structure (2:13), and,
finally, a judgment section without a logical connector (2:14–16).
Concerning Longacre and Bowling’s identification of these passages, while they label Amos 1:6–
8 as predictive discourse, they allow that Amos 1:6b–c could be an embedded riyb oracle. And while
they label Amos 2:6–16 as a riyb oracle, they also elsewhere label a portion of the passage (2:13–16)

164

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

5.1. Amos 3

The indictment oracle in Amos 3 contains three distinct stanzas (vv. 1–

8, 9–12, 13–15).32 Each begins with an indictment section introduced with
‫ ׁשמע‬and concludes with a brief judgment section; the first two stanzas
each have an additional section. The first stanza (vv. 1–8) begins with an
imperative of ‫ ׁשמע‬which calls the people of Israel to hear the indictment
(v. 1). Before the judgment section of this stanza, there is a brief line de-
scribing God’s past faithfulness (v. 2a). The particle ‫ל־כן‬ ֵּ ‫ ַע‬introduces the
judgment section (vv. 2b–8) and is followed by yiqtol verbs. This section
includes rhetorical questions which use fientive qatal verbs for hypo-
thetical situations. As noted prior, rhetorical questions can mark the theme
of the oracle. In this oracle, the rhetorical questions, in place of simple
predictive statements, announce the theme of judgment and the reason for
the judgment.
The second stanza (vv. 9–12) begins with the imperative of ‫ ׁשמע‬fol-
lowed by additional imperatives which call for other nations to witness
the accusation (v. 9). Prior to the judgment section, this stanza has a brief
statement on the people’s present sins (v. 10). The judgment section be-
gins with ‫ ָל ֵּכן‬and a statement of divine affirmation then weqatal and yiqtol
verbs (vv. 11–12). The last stanza (vv. 13–15) begins with the imperative
of ‫ ׁשמע‬and a second imperative of an indictment section against the
Israelites (v. 13). It concludes with a string of weqatal verbs in a judgment
section introduced with ‫( ִכי ְביֹום‬vv. 14–15).

5.2. Micah 1

As mentioned earlier, the latter half of Micah 1 (vv. 8–16) is often

identified as a lament by scholars, which is largely due to the heavy use
of lament lexemes throughout.33 However, the underlying discourse struc-
ture of verses 8–16 does not fit the woe emic structure seen elsewhere in

as predictive discourse (R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew, pp. 247–250,
506–509).
32. One might identify these three stanzas as three distinct oracles; however, the pattern of the
addressees from Israel (v. 1), to their enemies (v. 9), and a return to Israel (v. 13) suggest a connected
chiastic structure.
33. Scholars often refer to verses 8–16 as lament and avoid the term “woe oracle”; perhaps
because there is no initial word of woe. Some of the scholars who identify these verses as lament include
H. Wolff, A Continental Commentary: Micah (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), p. 45; J. L.
Mays, Micah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), p. 50; D. Hillers, Micah: A
Commentary of the Book of the Prophet Micah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 22–23; K. Barker,

165

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

Amos and Micah. Since it does not fit the expected structure or have the
typical introductory element for woe, the analysis needs to begin with the
prior verses in order to determine whether there is a break in oracles at
verse 8 and to determine how to classify these verses.
Verse 2 begins an indictment section of an indictment oracle with an
initial imperative of ‫ ׁשמע‬and additional volitional verbs. The next two
verses (vv. 3–4) are a theophany section (‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬+ qotel, weqatal, and yiqtol).
Then an accusation section of present sins follows with verbless rhetorical
questions (v. 5). Verses 6–7 use the weqatal and yiqtol verbs of a judgment
section, though without a logical connector.
The verses commonly labeled as a lament (vv. 8–16) follow the pre-
ceding indictment oracle. Verse 8 begins with a prepositional phrase (‫ַעל־‬
‫ )זֹּאת‬which serves as a logical connector and ties this verse to the pre-
ceding.34 This introductory logical connector not only refutes an oracle
division, but it also suggests that what follows could be a judgment
section.
The verbal structure of verses 8–16 presents conflicting data which
makes analyzing its discourse structure difficult. Verse 8 follows a horta-
tory structure (cohortatives) and verse 9 has two ‫ ִכי‬clauses which provide
background information for verse 8. Imperatives and negated jussives
dominate verses 10–13. A judgment section follows in verses 14–15 (‫ל ֵּכן‬,ָ
yiqtol verbs). And the last verse, verse 16, returns to a hortatory structure
with imperatives.35 These hortatory elements do not fit the hortatory ap-
peal section of a woe oracle because the verses do not urge the audience
to change their actions before judgment comes. Nor do they fit either hor-
tatory section of indictment oracles (indictment or call to faithfulness).
Rather, the cohortatives in verse 8 describe the prophet’s response to the
judgment; and the jussives and imperatives of verses 10–13, and 16 in-
struct the people on what to do as they go through judgment.
While these verses do not fit a pattern seen elsewhere in Amos or
Micah, there are several clues as to their identity and purpose. The logical
connector in verse 8 ties the latter half of the chapter to the first half. This

Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), p. 53; R. Longacre and
A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew, pp. 474–476.
34. While some scholars have noted that ‫ ַעל־זאֹּת‬may be anaphoric or cataphoric (cf. H. Wolff,
A Continental Commentary, p. 47), the placement of the phrase at the head of the sentence elsewhere is
anaphoric (cf. Ps 32:6; Jer 4:8, 28; 31:26).
35. There are, also, several qatal verbs in verses 8–16; however, most are in dependent clauses
marked with a ‫כי‬.ִ The one in verse 10 (‫)ה ְת ַפ ָל ְׁש ִתי‬
ִ should likely be emended to an imperative, and the
one in verse 11 (‫ ָ)י ְָֽצ ָאה‬functions as a backgrounded (results/consequence) clause.

166

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

strongly suggests that these verses are a continuation of the indictment

oracle begun in verses 2–7. The same logical connector also hints at a
judgment section identification. An examination of the purpose and func-
tion of the verses within the larger context affirms this. Verses 8–9 de-
scribes the prophet’s response to the sin and coming judgment, and verses
10–16 instruct the people how to respond as they face judgment. The hor-
tatory etic structure in a section that is otherwise identified as a judgment
section suggests there is skewing between the etic structure (hortatory)
and the emic structure (judgment section within an indictment oracle).
This disharmony between the section’s etic and emic structures, when
also combined with the lament lexemes, reveals a complex skewing which
counters the expectations and moves from the expected yiqtol and weqatal
of the judgment section to volitional verbs and lament language, thus
heightening the vividness of the section.36 The difference between having
a traditional judgment section versus judgment skewed with hortatory
elements and lament lexemes is the difference between being a distant
observer versus being placed in the middle of the judgment and its effects
even before it begins.
Labeling these verses as lament overlooks the complex features of the
discourse structure. It breaks these verses from the foundational first half
of the oracle (vv. 2–7) which provide the anchor for these verses, and it
overlooks the complexity of the intentional skewing between the expected
(yiqtol and weqatal of judgment) and the actual (volitional verbs and
lament lexemes). While discourse analysis often affirms the form critical
label, in this instance it does not.37 Rather, this analysis contradicts tradi-
tional labeling and reveals a deeper layer to the oracle, where the prophet
skewed the underlying indictment structure to create a masterpiece of
literature that goes even beyond the creative word plays within the passage
that scholars often note.38
Due to the length and complicated pattern of the sections in this oracle,
the layout is provided in chart form below.

36. For a discussion on skewing see R. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, pp. 13–15.
37. The same is true of Amos 5:1–17. The discourse analysis approach of this paper labels
Amos 5 as an indictment oracle, yet form critical scholars often identify it as lament (cf. C. Westermann,
Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, pp. 190–192.)
38. For a discussion of the wordplays see H. Wolff, A Continental Commentary, pp. 49, 65;
D. Hillers, Micah, p. 24; J. L. Mays, Micah, pp. 51–52.

167

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

Table 3: Discourse structure of Micah 1

Verse Section Type Verbal Types Etic Type
2 Indictment imperatives, jussive Hortatory
3–4 Theophany ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬+ qotel Expository
weqatal, yiqtol
5 Accusation of present verbless rhetorical Expository
sins questions
6–7 Judgment weqatal, yiqtol Predictive
8–9 Skewed judgment with cohortatives Hortatory
lament lexemes
10–13 Skewed judgment with imperatives Hortatory
lament lexemes negated jussives
14–15 Judgment ‫ ָל ֵּכן‬+ yiqtol Predictive
16 Skewed judgment with imperatives Hortatory
lament lexemes

6. HOPE ORACLES

Hope oracles are often referred to as salvation oracles and are tradi-
tionally identified based on theme alone, not structural or lexical fea-
tures.39 While form critical scholars note at least one distinct feature, such
as a distinct lexeme, for woe and indictment oracles, the lack of such an
identification for hope oracles is due to their simple structure. A discourse
analysis of hope oracles affirms a simple structure which consists of only
one section type. A grammaticalized weqatal discourse marker ‫( וְ ָהיָ ה‬e.g.,
Mic 4:1) or an attention-getting structure such as fronted pronouns (e.g.,
Mic 7:7) introduces a hope oracle. Since hope oracles focus on future
hope, they follow a predictive structure (yiqtol and weqatal verbs) that
also incorporates cohortatives of intent. There are four hope oracles in the
selected corpus: Amos 9:11–15; Mic 2:12–13; 4–5; 7:7–20. The following
analysis presents a discussion of the simple hope oracle in Mic 7:7–20 and
the complex hope oracle in Micah 4–5.40

39. Compare R. Soulen and R. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, p. 162; C. M.

Toffelmire, “Form Criticism,” p. 162; C. Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old
Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991).
40. The structure of Amos 9:11–15 follows the one section pattern. The ‫ ַבּיֹום ַההּוא‬serves as
the introductory attention-getting device followed by weqatal and yiqtol verbs. There is a ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬plus qotel
structure in verse 13 which does not appear in another hope oracle within Amos or Micah but may
appear outside of this corpus.

168

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

Table 4: Hope oracle structural

Section Name Introductory Verbal Types Etic Type
Element
Hope ‫ וְ ָהיָה‬or an attention- weqatal Predictive
getting device yiqtol
cohortative

Longacre and Bowling include hope oracles within their analysis of

predictive discourse in general and not as a distinct genre.41 Since hope
oracles follow closely to a standard predictive discourse structure,
Longacre and Bowling’s analysis accurately identifies much of the under-
lying structure. Yet, they did not identify the distinct introductory element.
By focusing on the general etic structure, they not only missed the distinc-
tive purpose and structure of hope oracles, but they also labeled predictive
elements of other emic structures as predictive texts, missing their wider
emic structure.42

6.1. Micah 7:7–20

The hope oracle of Micah 7 begins with a fronted pronoun followed by

a fientive yiqtol (v. 7).43 Fientive yiqtol and weqatal verbs, as well as a
cohortative of intent, dominate these verses. Two verses vary from this
pattern with mixed hortatory elements (vv. 8, 14).44 The negated jussive
in verse 8 addresses the speaker’s enemies, and the imperative and jussive

The structure and identification of Mic 2:12–13 as a hope oracle is complicated. The paranomastic
structures at the beginning of verse 12 serves as the introductory attention-getting element. The verbal
pattern of verse 12 fits the pattern presented for hope oracles (yiqtol verbs). The pattern of verse 13 is
more complicated. The translation adopted in this paper reads the qatal verbs as future perfects and the
wayyiqtol as temporally successive. A different translation of this passage could lead to a different
oracle identification.
41. R. Longacre and A. Bowling, Understanding Biblical Hebrew, pp. 227–255.
42. See previous discussion on their labeling of Amos 1:6–8 and 2:6–16 in footnote 31.
43. The shift between this oracle and the preceding woe oracle (Mic 7:1–6) is identified
through the change in etic structure and the attention-getting device of the fronted pronoun. It is possible
that these two parts of chapter 7 are intended to be read as one oracle with an intentional shift of oracle
types. Future research into the discourse analysis of oracle structures will be able to provide further
insight into the relationship between verses 1–6 and verses 7–20.
44. The hope oracle in Micah 4–5 also has mixed hortatory elements. However, this analysis
does not identify a distinct hortatory section in hope oracles because the hortatory elements in these two
oracles function differently. In Micah 7 they warn the enemies not to gloat and petition God, whereas
in Micah 4–5, they are spoken to Israel in order to guide Israel through judgment and into hope. Further
analysis of hope oracles may reveal that these hortatory elements should be added to the hope oracle
structural analysis.

169

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

in verse 14 encourage God to accomplish the promised future hope. These

mixed hortatory elements provide a heightened description of the hope. It
is the hope which allows the prophet to tell the enemies that they should
not gloat (v. 8), and it is the hope which allows the prophet to call upon
God to fulfill the hope (v. 14). Each hortatory element heightens the reality
of the hope. Lastly, verse 18 varies from the underlying predictive
structure and switches to an expository etic structure with verbless clauses
and a negated stative qatal which provides a brief glimpse into the reason
for the hope. No other hope oracle in Amos or Micah has an expository
section which describes the one responsible for the hope. It is possible that
further analysis of hope oracles will reveal this as a distinct section. It is
also possible, though, that this serves as background information for the
hope and not as a distinct shift in sections.

6.2. Micah 4–5

Scholars commonly identify Mic 4:1–5:8 as a hope (salvation) oracle

and 5:9–14 as a judgment oracle. Additionally, many scholars identify a
chiasm in the hope oracle; however, they often disagree over the specifics
of the chiasm. There are nearly as many proposed chiastic structures in
this passage as there are scholars who have written on this passage.45 A
primary reliance upon the thematic structure, with little to no attention
given to the underlying discourse structure, creates this disagreement over
the chiastic structure. A discourse analysis of the underlying structure af-
firms the presence of multiple stanzas and a chiasm and also brings more
objectivity to the identification which cuts through the various thematic
proposals. This analysis also reveals hortatory elements at the peak of the
chiasm and forces one to reconsider 5:9–14 as a connected stanza that
skews the emic structure of a hope oracle with the purpose of judgment.
These two chapters contain eight stanzas. The discourse marker ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬,
functioning without an argument, introduces two of the stanzas (4:1;
5:9).46 This verb also appears in 5:4 but has both a subject and a
complement, indicating that it is functioning at the clause level and not as

45. Compare, J. L. Mays, Micah, pp. 6–7; J. Limburg, Hosea–Micah (Atlanta: John Knox,
1988), p. 161; B. Renaud, Structure et Attaches littéraires de Michée 4–5 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1964), p.
11; J. Willis, “The Structure of Micah 3–5 and the Function of Micah 5:9–14 in the Book,” ZAW 81.2
(1969): 191–214.
46. For a discussion of the discourse function of ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬, see J. Cook, Time and the Biblical
Hebrew Verb, p. 310.

170

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

a discourse marker. Two other uses occur in 5:6 and 5:7 in near-identical
situations, both with a subject and a complement. A potentially key dif-
ference is the distinctly different placement of the rebia within the two
verses. In 5:6 the rebia separates the complement in the second line from
the verb and subject of the first line (‫)וְ ָהיָ ָ֣ה׀ ְׁש ֵּא ִ ָ֣רית יַ ֲע ֹ֗קֹּב ְב ֶ ֶ֙ק ֶר ֶ֙ב ַע ִ ָ֣מים ַר ִִּ֔בים‬,
while in 5:7 the rebia occurs after the complement on the first line ( ‫וְ ָהיָ ֩ה‬
‫ּגֹוים‬
ִֹ֗ ‫)ׁש ֵּא ִ ֶ֙רית יַ ֲע ֹ֜קֹּב ַב‬.
ְ This difference in the disjunctive accent raises the pos-
sibility that the tradition the Masoretes preserved maintains a distinction
in the function of ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬, where the ‫ וְ ָהיָה‬of 5:6 functions as though it has no
complement, in opposition to 5:7. Relatedly, the identical second lines of
each verse (‫)בק ֶר ֶ֙ב ַע ִ ָ֣מים ַר ִִּ֔בים‬
ֶ֙ ֶ function differently. In 5:7, the second line is
parallel with the complement ‫ ַבּגֹויִם‬on the first line, while there is no such
parallel complement in 5:6. Since the rebia of 5:6 excludes the com-
plement while the rebia of 5:7 includes it, and since the second lines func-
tion differently in relation to the first line, it is proposed that the ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬of
5:6 marks a new stanza while the one in 5:7 does not.
Structural variations identify the remaining stanza breaks. Most of the
cola, outside of the peak stanzas discussed below, begin with a standard
weqatal or a negated yiqtol as is common in hope oracles. Breaks from
this structure signal potential stanza breaks. Clauses which fulfill the syn-
tax of the previous line(s) or show strong parallelism with it, and de-
pendent clauses do not indicate potential stanza breaks. Such an analysis
identifies five additional stanza breaks: 4:8 (‫)וְ ַא ָתה‬, 4:9 (‫)ע ָתה‬, ַ 4:11 (‫)וְ ַע ָתה‬,
47
4:14 (‫)ע ָתה‬, ַ and 5:1 (‫)וְ ַא ָתה‬. One might propose that 4:6 also indicates a
break (with a fronted prepositional phrase); however, this phrase ( ‫ַבּיֹום‬
‫)ההּוא‬ ַ does not indicate a break but continues what was prior and connects
it to what follows.48 Additionally, one might propose that verse 14 should
be included in the previous stanza (4:11–13), however, the structural ele-
ments do not support that division.49 These breaks divide the oracle into
eight stanzas. And, interestingly, the first seven form a lexical chiasm.

47. There is an additional ‫ ַע ָתה‬in 4:10, however, it is preceded by the ‫ ִכי‬particle and is
dependent on the preceding line and does not indicate a new stanza.
48. Examples of this phrase continuing what was prior include Isa 19:16–24; Ezek 24:27; Hag
2:23. This phrase twice appears at the first verse of a chapter (Isa 26:1; 27:1), yet these chapter divisions
are misleading as both are strongly connected to the preceding.
49. Using the subjective theme elements commonly used in form criticism leads to conflicting
divisions in this section, as evidenced in these verses. If one relies on theme alone, 4:14 (C') may be
included with the preceding stanza (D, vv. 11–13) because both have elements of siege/conquest
language. However, one could just as well argue that verse 14 (C') mirrors verses 9–10 (C) because
both talk about a king, and the sandwiched stanza (D, vv. 11–13) focuses on Yahweh’s plans. This type
of analysis, then, is unhelpful.

171

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

A: 4:1–7 – ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬

B: 4:8 – ‫וְ ַא ָתה‬
C: 4:9–10 – ‫ַע ָתה‬
D: 4:11–13 – ‫וְ ַע ָתה‬
C': 4:14 – ‫ַע ָתה‬
B': 5:1–5 – ‫וְ ַא ָתה‬
A': 5:6–8 – ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬

Setting aside the contested last stanza (5:9–14), the discourse structure
of the first and last two stanzas (A, B, B', A') follow an underlying predic-
tive discourse pattern (yiqtol and weqatal), not including the embedded
quote in 4:2. This underlying etic structure of prediction along with the
fronted discourse marker ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬on A and A' and the fronted ‫ וְ ַא ָתה‬on B and
B' fit perfectly within the hope oracle structure. There is, though, a slight
variation in the sixth stanza (B': 5:1–5) with a short judgment section (‫ל ֵּכן‬,ָ
yiqtol) in verse 2.50 This feature is not found in the other hope oracles

Even still, one might propose that 4:14 is not a new stanza but a continuation of the preceding
stanza (4:11–13) based on other criteria. The new stanzas 4:9–10 and 4:11–14 would correspond (C and
C’) and would both begin with an ‫ ַע ָתה‬and end with one as well (v. 10 with the ‫ ַע ָתה‬governed by the
‫כי‬,
ִ and v. 14). However, there are problems with this alternate division of the stanzas. First, in this
approach the ‫ ַע ָתה‬at the end of the two sections each function differently in their context. The first (v.
10) indicates the reason they are to obey the preceding imperatives—there is hope of deliverance once
they pass through the judgment. While the second (v. 14) provides a course of action followed by a
description of their enemy’s actions. Second, the ‫ ַע ָתה‬in verse 10 is governed by a ‫ ִכי‬particle which ties
it to the preceding context, whereas the one in verse 14 is not. The ‫י־ע ָתה‬ ַ ‫ ִכ‬of verse 10 more closely
parallels the ‫י־ק ְרנֵּ ְך‬
ַ ‫ ִכ‬clause of verse 13. Both give a reason for the imperatives in the preceding line.
The ‫ ַע ָתה‬in verse 14 introduces a new command (modal yiqtol) which mirrors the imperatives instead
of providing a reason for the imperatives. And, third, the two resulting stanzas (vv. 9–10 and 11–14) do
not show the parallel lexical structures shown between the A and A' (‫)וְ ָהיָ ה‬, and B and B' (‫ )וְ ַא ָתה‬stanzas.
The first parallel C stanza in this alternate division would begin with ‫ ַע ָתה‬while the second (C') would
begin with ‫וְ ַע ָתה‬. This lack of symmetry in the lexical chiasm marks this division as suspect.
Further, the similar structure of verse 14 (C') in relation to the preceding two stanzas (4:9–10 [C],
11–13 [D]) supports the division adopted by this paper. The two preceding stanzas describes the current
situation (vv. 9, 11–12) and then instruct the people on how to respond and provide a reason for the
instruction (vv. 10, 13). Verse 14 is a simplified form of the preceding two stanzas; it provides an
instruction for how the people are to respond and a reason for doing so. The verbal structure of verse
14 begins with a modal imperfect, a variation of the imperatives of the previous two stanzas, and then
uses a qatal (present perfect in English) and fientive yiqtol verbs to describe the current situation.
50. While both hope oracles and judgment sections of oracles use a predictive etic structure,
the return to the typical hope oracle structure in 5:3 is marked by the change from yiqtol verbs in verse
2 to weqatal in verses 3–5, with yiqtol verbs only appearing in dependent clauses as well as the change
in theme and purpose from judgment to hopeful promise.

172

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Discourse Analysis

within Amos and Micah. Its function may be to introduce the theme found
in the peak stanzas.
The three stanzas at the peak of the chiasm all vary from the predictive
etic structure and incorporate mixed hortatory elements. The third stanza
(C: 4:9–10) begins with rhetorical questions which describe their current
situation. Verse 10 follows with volitional verbs which instruct them to
go through judgment in order to reach their hope which the following ‫ִכי‬
and weqatal and yiqtol verbs further explain. The peak stanza (D: 4:11–
13) continues the use of hortatory elements. After an introductory back-
ground statement with a qatal, there is a switch to jussive verbs. Then
verse 12 uses qatal verbs to provide vital setting information—the nations
do not know the promised hope for Israel. This stanza closes in verse 13
with imperatives instructing the people to act on the promised hope, and
the following ‫ ִכי‬and yiqtol and weqatal verbs provide the reason why they
are to act on their hope. The fifth stanza (C': 4:14) continues the hortatory
elements with a modal yiqtol, again instructing them to act on the hope.
This is followed in the last half of the verse with a background qatal and
yiqtol, which provides the reason they are to follow the instruction.
The three stanzas in the middle of the chiasm have a markedly different
structure which is a feature Longacre notes as marking the peak of a dis-
course unit.51 Here, the hortatory structure at the peak affirms the lexically
marked chiasm. Additionally, the hortatory elements reveal tension and
skewing between the purpose of the emic structure (hope) and the etic
structure (hortatory). In a hope oracle, one expects to receive information
about future hope. Instead, here, the hortatory elements involve the au-
dience in the future hope, giving them commands that they must obey in
order to face their judgment and arrive at their future hope. This skewing
requires the audience to change their perspectives and passiveness one
normally expects with hope oracles.
The final stanza (5:9–14) of these two chapters begins with ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬and
continues with a strong weqatal pattern, only using yiqtol verbs in in-
stances of negation. As mentioned earlier, some scholars identify this
section as a judgment oracle because of the thematic elements which are
judgment focused.52 However, the surface structure elements call for this

51. Compare R. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, pp. 38–48.

52. Compare L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (2nd ed.; NICOT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 356; R. L. Smith, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32; Dallas: Word, 1998),
p. 48.

173

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JoAnna M. Hoyt

assumption to be reevaluated. First, while hope oracles and judgment sec-

tions both use weqatal and yiqtol verbs, the absence of the common intro-
ductory logical connector suggests that it may not be a judgment oracle.
Second, the introductory word ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬often marks hope oracles and appears
in the prior chiasm for the opening and closing stanzas. This suggests that
this last stanza, which begins in the same manner and has the same etic
structure, follows an emic hope structure, not a judgment section structure.
While the evidence suggests a hope oracle structure, one cannot escape
the strong thematic elements which indicate a purpose of judgment. The
ambiguity of the etic structure, along with the strong tie to the preceding
hope oracle, fused with the purpose of judgment presents a skewing be-
tween hope and judgment which mirrors the tension of the embedded hor-
tatory elements of the preceding chiasm; in both, there is tension between
judgment and hope.

7. CONCLUSION

This discourse analysis of the prophetic oracles in Amos and Micah

demonstrates the need and purpose for such an approach with all emic
structures of biblical Hebrew. Discourse analysis provides a more objec-
tive and detailed foundation for identifying the overall structure, compo-
nent sections, purpose, and function of genres in the biblical text than form
criticism. Additionally, this analysis provides a framework that allows the
identification of previously unidentified discourse elements such as
skewing and peak marking elements which a form critical analysis over-
looks but which are important to understanding the fullness of the purpose
and function of the text. And while this analysis affirms previous form
critical genre types, the results also indicate that scholars need to recon-
sider some previously agreed upon classifications of passages.

174

This content downloaded from

213.233.49.242 on Mon, 10 May 2021 08:25:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms