Prophecy and Theater

The paradigms used to examine the Hebrew prophetic literature are changing. This paper contributes to that change by developing a paradigm drawn from Drama Theory and applying that paradigm to the vision reports found in the book of Amos. The outcome is a form critical study that yields beneficial results in understanding both the design and flow of the visions as well as their integration with the surrounding oracles and narration of Amos 5-9. The application of Drama Theory raises questions concerning the structure and rhetorical design of the current Amos text and provides analytic tools that can be applied to additional prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible. Introduction [1] It is not unusual for commentators on the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible to recognize the dramatic associations found in their material. A recent introduction to Zephaniah by Paul House includes that very acknowledgment in the title of the work. Brian Peckham says of the prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Hosea: “Together their compositions reveal the range, repertory, and traditional characterizations of an educated, inspired, and theatrical milieu” (134). While the “theatrical milieu” is recognized by some, it has been seriously analyzed by few. Perhaps the most extensive investigation recently published is that by David Stacy and, although very helpful in suggesting analytical tools, is restricted to a treatment of forty-eight passages narrating prophetic actions (1990, 1995). In some significant ways, the present essay is a continuation of Stacy’s work, applying some of his analysis to passages that he could not investigate and positing certain refinements of the analytical tools that Stacy suggests. This essay will apply drama theory to the vision reports found in the book of Amos in an effort to refine the function and effect of the vision report within the prophetic audience. [2] Whenever an analysis like this is undertaken, the danger is always present that the analytical tool will be viewed as an end in itself and the elucidation of the text will be subsumed under the presentation of the tool. This danger is particularly present here, since dramatic analysis necessarily deals with the relationship between an act or speech and the meaning of that act or speech, and we can never be certain that we have got it right when applying that analysis to a culture so separated from us as is that of the world of the prophets (Overholt 1982). Nevertheless, if the enquiry yields a fresh insight or a new set of questions that give a clearer 1 George Fohrer provided a summary description of symbolic prophetic action and speech (356). See also Bernard Lang who compares some prophetic activities to “street theater” (1983:81ff; 1986:297-316). The utilization of new tools and new questions in the examination of the Hebrew prophets is evidenced by a number of recent articles and monographs including: Ferdinand Deist, Robert Gordon, Hans Barstad, J. Ward, and Ehud Ben-Zvi. A recent dissertation by Joyce Louise Wood applies dramatic theory to a discussion of the redaction of the Amos prophecy. 2 Stacy recognizes the need to investigate passages beyond the scope of his study and mentions specifically those that we treat here (1990: 64).