Gilles Deleuze’s film theory will be specifically explored so as to describe how the reversal pattern could have generated a certain impression in the audience’s perception. Using a Deleuzian cognitive semiotic view, we will see hitherto unexplored but significant implications of the reversal pattern that are likely to change our perspective on Chronicles in a totally different way. The subsequent three chapters (6-8) will concentrate on the practical and theological effects of the reversal pattern which may have happened to the Chronicler’s intended audience in the understanding of the narrative. Chapter Six, ‘Justifiable Image: Josiah’s Death’, will investigate how this recognition of the Chronicler’s macro-level patterns may have practically guided the audience’s understanding of the narrative. The effects of such as the retributive pattern and the reversal pattern have to do with the interpretation of an individual instance in the royal annals. The death episode of Josiah in 2 Chr 35:20–25 will be examined as a specific example. Indeed, the interpretation of Josiah’s death in Chronicles has puzzled many biblical readers. In this regard, it will be described how the Chronicler’s audience, being guided by the macro-repetitions as grammatical clues, could have been guided to a particular interpretation of the episode itself. Moreover, we will see that the audience’s concern may have been more on the Chronicler’s intention in choosing such a reversal pattern in his narrative than on the specifics of the narrative itself. Chapter Seven, ‘Wisdom Images: Seeking God in Tension’, seeks to understand how the Chronicler’s reversal pattern may have affected the audience to infer a variety of theological proposals in relation to the distinct purpose of Chronicles. To be specific, the theme of ‘seeking the Lord’, which is ostensibly repeated throughout the narrative and thereby commonly accepted as a major theme of Chronicles, is probed in the context of the interrelated effect of the reversal pattern. It will be inferred that the destabilizing effects of repetition
integrate the pragmatic approach of cognitive film theory with the semantic approach of film semiotics so as to establish a communication model. There is, of course, no such perfect semantical picture or close circuit model of communication between the sender and the receiver. Communication is not always intended or successful. However, as it is also true that successful communication often takes place, a theoretical framework of communication needs to be explained. Thus, this view of cognitive film semioticians is worthy of being explored more deeply. This may offer a theoretically significant basis to our discussion of the Chronicler’s intent conveyed by effective means of his macro-repetitions. Communication Model The social Space of Communication Semio-pragmatist Roger Odin offers an attention-grabbing explanation for a communication model. According to him, the sender and the receiver can adopt the same way of producing meaning and affects “by the social space in which films are seen, a space consisting of ‘institutions’ and ‘modes’.” It is true that there is no reason for an “actant director and actant viewer to adopt the same role [the same way of producing meaning affects]” and “no real communication between the author and the spectator” happens. However, ‘the social space of communication’ may be generated in the restraints of ‘institutions’, ‘modes’ and ‘operations’. Institution
whether or not it is fiction. Certain events where listeners of US radio broadcasts were shocked into a panic when the narrator announced an extra-terrestrial invasion are good examples of this. In the documentarizing reading, the spectator posits a real enunciator. He/she may think of the cameraman or the filmmaker as the embodiment of the real enunciator. Unlike a fictional film, a documentary film “signifies its concrete and contingent location in the profilmic world.” The cameraman can be always existent in a special position and the context of the events filmed, inducing the spectator to infer the real enunciator. “She can attest to the existence of the events filmed, textual figures act as an index of her presence, her status as witness.” This modifies the receiver as the actual spectator, who is conscious that this film has been given to him/her. Note again that this documentary mode is not about realization, but about reading. Principle of Relevance Here another question follows; namely, what is the underlying principle that makes it possible for the filmmaker and the spectator to choose the same interpretation in the interactive motion of ‘institutions’, ‘modes’ and ‘operations’? Sperber and Wilson’s cognitive ‘principle of relevance’ responds to the question. According to them, the cognition of human beings works so as to maximize the relevance of any utterance, and both the enunciator and the addressee are familiar with this principle. As the enunciator has informative and communicative intention, he/she will use this principle in his utterance.
Bordwell admits that the first three meanings are intentional. They can be developed to be a rationale-agent model linked to the context of producing and receiving films. They can be generated by the spectator’s grammatical competence so as to stay in the social space of communication. However, the fourth meaning breaks this down. Symptomatic meaning merely results from the audience’s preferred reading. As previously discussed, narrative film theory of cognitive film semioticians proposes a communication model between the filmmaker (the enunciator) and the spectator (the addressee). Film can generate a deictic meaning related to the context of production or reception. This does neither mean that such a meaning is generated in every film, nor that this always occurs without any possibility of other meanings. The fact is that such a communication may occur as a specific consequence of the interactive motion of institution, modes and operations, based on the principle of relevance. What is important to note is that, though a film may not convey an actual historical reality, in a specific modification the spectator may choose a documentarizing reading to find a message that is assumed to be given to him/her. The filmmaker modifies a film to be read as such in the intended spectator’s context and grammar competence. In other words, the spectator is able to understand the filmmaker’s deictic intention from a contextual and grammatical modification. This does not mean that such a social space of communication is always successful, or that a documentary reading is about realization. However, once a social space of communication or a documentarizing reading in which the same way of producing meaning is adopted and the meaning is received by the spectator particularly given to him/her occurs, its principle and process can be described as such.
or not in the coherence of the pattern. Moreover, in such a cognitive process, the audience was possibly able to infer the Chronicler’s specific intention in such exceptions. Some exceptions could be merely aesthetic, and others more purposeful. The purpose was relevant to the audience’s context, so that they could perceive and accept it. In this sense, we may discuss different cases of exceptions. Firstly, there are some cases which lack a description of a king’s reign (Jehoahaz) or of the retribution they suffered (Athaliah, Joash, Josiah), or their burial (David, Athaliah, Amon, Zedekiah). However, for those cases, it was not likely to be too difficult for the audience to fill those gaps in the underlying view of retributive pattern. They were presumably able to infer the missing information in the structure in the grammar of retributive pattern. It is also possible that other textual traits, such as the mood of the narration and the narrator’s last comment on each king’s reign, functioned as grammatically guiding clues to producing such inferences. Secondly, there is case of the depiction of Rehoboam (2 Chr 10–12). One may think that the depiction of Rehoboam begins from 2 Chr 10, where Rehoboam’s failure to answer wisely leads to the division of the kingdom (10:1–19). In this sense, Rehoboam’s reign appears to begin in a negative way, which is inconsistent with the strength of his kingdom (12:1a) and his burial (12:16). However, it seems proper to distinguish the secession of northern kingdom Israel (2 Chr 10:1–11:4; 1 Kgs 12:1–24) from the actual reign of Rehoboam. 2 Chronicles 10–12 1 Kings 12:1–24; 14:21–31 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. (2 Chr 10:1 ESV) Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. (1 Kgs 12:1 ESV)
If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (2 Chr 7:14 ESV, In this promise, the motif of humbling oneself appears as a key to repentance and rehabilitation. Also, that verb seems to correspond and be juxtaposed by the verb “hear” If we regard the conjunction before ‘pray’ as ‘Explicative meaning “that is”, “pray”, “seek my face” and “turn from their wicked ways” could be regarded as clarifying the implications of “humble themselves”. God’s response in the second sentence can be understood in the same way. The implications of “hear” are clarified by following phrases such as “forgive their sin” and “heal their land”. Thus, the corresponding/juxtaposed structure between God and his people with the motifs of “humbling” and “hear” is presented as follows: If my people who are called by my name humble themselves that is, pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven that is, will forgive their sin and heal their land His people humble themselves and God hears Thus, it is not surprising to see that the motif of humbling occurs repeatedly in the depiction of a king’s repentance. Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, “The Lord is righteous.” When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves the word
freedom = the new/creation = difference; the actual = the present = necessity = the same = repetition. It is worth noting that the large end-face of the inverted cone is infinitely growing larger up to the memory of the whole universe beyond the limitation of our psychological memory. In other words, the thought of time may lead us to the questions of our belief or faith in the universe. This open-ended system of time or universe is what Deleuze means by ‘the Whole’. Therefore, the Whole, in which all images are linked together, “escapes the determination of any fixed set.” It is always open and becoming. “As more things enter it, or as it comes into contact with other systems, then there are an infinite number of possible outcomes.” Duration [durée] is another crucial concept in understanding the concept of the open and expanding Whole that Deleuze claims. Duration is “time considered in the process of transforming” and “a temporality of indivisible becoming that we each experience, uniquely, as it passes,” or “human experience of change as derived from the concept of the originary form of time.” What Deleuze calls the Whole can be experienced as this changing state, “such that movement expresses ‘the change in duration or in the Whole’.” Kovacs summarizes, “Bergson’s sense of the Whole has the following four major attributes: it is a system of reference for all change; it is a mental category; it is open-ended; it is ceaselessly becoming.” Time-image Deleuze pays attention to non-mainstream cinema, having begun in the 1940s after WWII, which explores direct-images of time. Deleuze asserts the emergence of this new
Josiah’s death into a sentence, such as in 2 Kings 23:29, lest it draw too much attention. However, the Chronicler did choose to depict in detail. Much attention has been paid to Josiah’s death, and the Chronicler’s retributive pattern could effectively induce his audience to infer that such a death was a consequent punishment to Josiah’s specific unfaithfulness. Thus, what is important is to first ask how persuasively and clearly the Chronicler has demonstrated a retributive causality in his depiction. A strong inference is made that Josiah disobeyed the word of God conveyed through the mouth of Neco, and was consequently punished. However, as previously mentioned, the audience may have been reluctant to accept such an explanation. This is because such behavior does not fit Josiah’s earlier or traditional image as one of the most pious kings in Israel. The pious king was unlikely to choose such foolish behaviour of disobedience. So, for this inference, two premises need to be established: firstly, Neco’s word must have been the word of God. Second, Josiah must have known the divine authority in Neco’s word. Indeed, the Chronicler effectively resolves these premises. The former is resolved through the narrator’s commentary, and the latter through a parallel plot. In other words, the Chronicler’s audience may have brought out his/her hypothesis and inference through the help of those rhetorical devices. A Narrator’s Commentary on the Reliability of Neco’s Words It may seem that the audience had no way of recognizing the reliability of Neco’s words claiming the divine authority of his act. The Egyptian king’s claim is more likely to be a human threat rather than a divine command. Some may point to some divine speeches delivered by gentile kings in Chronicles, such as those from Hiram the king of Tyre (2 Chr
Granting that seeking the Lord is the most striking theme in Chronicles, it is necessary for us to inquire closely into the implications of the theme in the narrative. It is highly likely that the Chronicler repeated the key terms as an interpretive literary device leading the audience to a particular theological point. In fact, seeking the Lord/God is not a new theme introduced by the Chronicler. Rather, the Chronicler may have selected the idea from Deuteronomy (Deu 4:29). But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deu 4:29 ESV) In Deuteronomy, this concept occurs in the promise of restoration from the exile (Deut 4:25–31). So, the Chronicler may have employed this concept to remind his post-exilic audience of that promise. In other words, his audience may have felt invited to seek the Lord in order to be restored (cf. Lev 26:33–45 and 1 Kgs 8:46–50), though we should not hasten to conclude that the Chronicler was merely repeating a Deuteronomic idea. Heart to Seek the Lord In elucidating the theme of seeking the Lord in Chronicles, one more Hebrew term needs to be examined: (or ‘heart’). This is one of the most frequently occurring words in the Hebrew Bible, appearing 858 times (601 times for and 257 times for ‘Heart’ in the Hebrew Bible does not simply mean feelings, affections or the sensibility of human beings. Rather, it can be primarily defined as one’s inner self. By the orientation of heart, therefore, one will be judged. Claude Tresmontant observes, Heart is the centre in which are taken the fundamental decisions; in particular, the choices between knowledge and ignorance, light and darkness, understanding and what the prophets call stupidity, foolishness. In the “heart” the strife unfolds that will
The LORD searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever. (1 Chr 28:9b) This means that God knows the orientation of one’s heart, and that seeking the Lord represents the essential and demanded orientation of one’s heart. In summary, a close connection between seeking the Lord/God and heart is salient in Chronicles, and demonstrates that ‘seeking the Lord’ is the essential and demanded orientation of one’s heart, one’s inner self. Seeking God in the Unresolved Tension The Retributive Implication of Seeking God/the Lord What is the peculiar implication of seeking the Lord the Chronicler wanted to convey? It might be initially proposed that to seek the Lord is to live in the observance of the laws. Substantial instances in Chronicles illustrate the importance of law observance as a specific act of seeking the Lord (e.g. 1 Chr 16:40; 22:2–13; 2 Chr 6:16: 12:1; 14:3–4; 15:3; 17:3–4; 17:9; 23:18; 25:4; 30:16; 31:3; 31:4; 31:21; 33:8; 34:14; 35:26; cf. Ezr 7:10). For instance, You may keep the law of the LORD your God. Then you will prosper if you are careful to observe the statutes and the rules that the LORD commanded Moses for Israel… (1 Chr 22:12–13 ESV) … commanded Judah to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, and to keep the law and the commandment. (2 Chr 14:3–4 ESV) …but sought the God of his father and walked in his commandments… (2 Chr 17:3–4 ESV)
other words, the role of Chronicles might be assumed to fill in the missing information in its preceding historical books from Genesis to Kings. Thus, Chronicles would be understood to share a non-divergent theology with the Deuteronomistic tradition, serving it by including some materials left out. It has even been questioned whether Chronicles is authoritative enough to justify its inclusion in the canon: “I have always been astonished that they have been included in the Bible by men who shut out from the canon the books of Wisdom, Tobit, and the others styled apocryphal” (Baruch Spinoza, Theologico-Political Treatise II, 10.5). In the Hebrew canon, however, Chronicles has a rather different profile. Firstly, in most ancient Hebrew manuscripts, the book is placed at the end of the Hebrew Bible as the final book of Ketuvim [“Writings”], and the close of the Tanakh [the entire Hebrew Bible]. Although some manuscripts place Chronicles at the beginning of Ketuvim, followed by the grouping Psalms/Proverbs/Job (in various orders), the canonical position of Chronicles as Ketuvim is obvious. The canonical position of Chronicles might support the hypothesis that it has a somewhat distinct theological viewpoint from the other historical writings which are grouped as the Former Prophets or Nevi’im. It is commonly acknowledged that the Ketuvim books were shaped after the Exile and canonized before the second century BCE. However, this does not mean that Ketuvim was merely a collection put together by later authors. There were competing scriptures and competing systems of classification in the Babylonian and Persian period until the three-part division of books was eventually settled in the final form of the Hebrew canon. In other words, the final three divisions of the Hebrew canon are not the mere product of historical accidents, but ‘works of art’. This implies that certain theological intents can be argued as accounting for the arrangement of the Hebrew canon. Thus, the canonical position of Chronicles could mean that its theological viewpoint might best be understood in relation to
Brueggemann and Murphy, discussing the concept of counter-testimony, point out that this has to do with Israel’s experience of temple destruction and exile. In other words, the counter-testimony could be regarded as a theological response to the audience’s exilic and post-exilic experiences. If this is the case, it seems plausible to speculate that the Chronicler’s view of wisdom was also a response to the theological and ontological questions of the audience in their exilic and post-exilic context. The Chronicler’s use of the reversal pattern might then be regarded as a rhetorical device that testifies to the need for theological and ontological reorientation. Responding to that need, the Chronicler may have intended to convey a syntagmatic connotation which would lead his audience from the conventional view of the Deuteronomistic tradition to a new way of looking at the world, a new way to produce meanings and to live. Thanks to Cognitive film semiotics’ view of the effects of this research has argued how to appreciate the destabilizing effects of the reversal pattern and by so doing to infer the Chronicler’s distinct (wisdom-)view in the comprehensive reading of 1-2 Chronicles. This study differs from previous research in a number of respects. Firstly, this study has put forward an explanation of the reversal pattern in Chronicles. Although the Chronicler’s reversal images have drawn much attention, there has been no deep examination on the effects of the reversal pattern in a comprehensive reading of Chronicles. The reversal pattern as the Chronicler’s innovation in the convention of retributive pattern should be understood not as a mere extension of the retributive pattern, but in relation to the Chronicler’s theologically distinct intention from the Deuteronomistic History.