T
HE CURRENT INTEREST IN LITERARY CRITICISM IN BIBLICAL STUDIES WAS SPAWNED INlarge part by the failure of form and redaction criticism to interpret the text. The tendency to break the text into isolated units is widely perceived as counterpro- ductive, and so scholars turned to the much more literarily aware field of narrative criticism to breach the gap (see the excellent summary in Petersen 1978:9-23). Narrative studies recognize that meaning is found in a text as a whole rather than in isolated segments, and so narrative criticism has become “the new kid on the block.” Yet like all fads it has its dangers, such as the tendency to ignore or even reject the historical element in the text and a philosophical stress on the reader as the agent in producing meaning (see appendices one and two), Therefore narrative criticism as developed below should never be done by itself but should be combined with source and redaction criticism, which will act as a corrective to its ahistorical tendencies and to the excesses of its stress on the text as a final product rather than as a developing unit (see further the conclusion to this chapter). Nevertheless, it is an invaluable aid in the task of interpreting a text and is one of the more positive “schools” of criticism to have appeared in recent years.
The major premise of narrative criticism is that biblical narrative is “art” or “poetry,”
thus centering upon the literary artistry of the author. While many would not deny the presence of a historical nucleus, the tendency is to treat the biblical stories as “fiction”
(with Sternberg being a notable exception). It is certainly true that there is little difference (at the genre level) between historical narrative and fiction, since both utilize the same methods to tell the story: plot, characters, dialogue, dramatic tension. In fact there is nothing inherently antihistorical in taking a “fictive” approach to biblical narrative.’
Rather, such a perspective simply wants to recognize the presence of the “story” genre in biblical history.
As many have noted,2 the biblical narratives contain both history and theology, and I would add that these are brought together via a “story” format. The historical basis for the stories is crucial, but the representation of that story in the text is the actual object of interpretation. Adele Berlin somewhat overstates the case when she says, “Abraham in Genesis is not a real person any more than a painting of an apple is a real fruit. This is not a judgment on the existence of a historical Abraham any more than it is a statement
_ 1 5 4 The Hsrmensullcrl Splrrl
about the existence of apples. It is just that we should not confuse a historical individual with his narrative representation.“3 Yet there is a great deal of truth in this, for we are studying a text and not re-creating an event. Berlin is not judging the existence of the historical Abraham but is concentrating upon the biblical texts about Abraham. While I believe that background is critical in biblical study, it must be controlled by the text and not vice versa (see chap. five above). Our task is to decipher the meaning of the historical-theological text in biblical narrative, not to reconstruct the original event.
The Methodology of Narrative Criticism
The basic method by which we are to study biblical narratives is simple: we are asked to READ them! Most of us have grown up with the Gospels or Old Testament history as isolated stories. We have seldom sat down and simply read them through to catch the drama and power of the stories as they fit together to form a holistic panorama. Literary critics have developed techniques that will aid us greatly to perform a “close reading” of the text and to note such features as plot and character tension, point of view, dialogue, narrative time and settings, all of which will enable the reader to detect the flow of the text and therefore to see the hand of God as he has inspired the biblical author to develop his story. Evangelical hermeneutics has somehow stressed the author’s intention for every book of the Bible except the narrative portions. We forget that each Gospel is developed differently and must be studied by itself as a single whole in order to understand its inspired message.
Since Kriegefl the common metaphors for these dimensions of the text have been those of pictures, windows and mirrors. The literary aspects guide the reader to the text as a picture or portrait of the narrative world presented in the story. The historical nature of the Bible leads one to treat the story as a window to the event behind the text. Finally, since the Bible is supremely relevant for today, the text is a mirror in which meaning is
“locked up” so that readers see only themselves as part of the believing community for whom the text was intended.5 The thesis here is that all three elements are part of a biblically valid interpretation; to neglect any factor is to do an injustice to the text.
The interpretation of narrative has two aspects: poetics, which studies the artistic dimension or the way the text is constructed by the author; and meaning, which re-creates the message that the author is communicating.6 The “how” (poetics) leads to the “what”
(meaning). Sternberg calls narrative “a functional structure, a means to a communicative end, a transaction between the narrator and the audience on whom he wishes to produce a certain effect by way of certain strategies” (1985: 1). To diagram these “strategies” let me develop those of Seymour Chapman (1978:6) and Alan Culpepper (1983:6)-see figure 6. I.
The purpose of this schematic is to demonstrate how an author communicates a mes- sage to a reader. Each of the categories below will explain an element within this diagram.
1. Implied Author and Narrator. No reader sees the real author in a text. Rather, as Juhl points out, we know the author only to the extent that he reveals himself in the text (1978). This perspective helps us to overcome the tendency to psychologize the text in
Narrative
Fig. 6.1. Aspects of Narrative Criticism.
order to discover the author in a manner similar to that of Schleiermacher and Dilthey.
The author is not present but has created a persona of himself in the text (the implied author), and we study the text, not the author. There we see those concerns, values and theological perspectives which the original author has chosen to highlight in this partic- ular text. Furthermore, this will keep us from reading one text into another, even if from the same author, such as Deuteronomy into Exodus. Nevertheless, the presence of the author is critical in order to tie us to the historicality of the story, to keep central the original intended meaning of the text.
In some stories it is necessary to separate the implied author from the narrator; for instance, when there is a specific narrator in the story. However, this is rare in the Bible (an exception may be the “we” sections in Acts) and so I combine the two here. The narrator is the invisible speaker in the text, audible especially in the editorial sections.
The narrator tells us the story and at times interprets its significance. For instance, in Acts the narrator continually tells us of the success of the gospel through the Spirit’s work in the church, in spite of the many problems and opposition the people of God encoun- tered (see 2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24). It is also the narrator who intones the marvelous poetic prologue to John’s Gospel (1: 1-18).
The biblical narrator has many important characteristics, but most importantly we must agree with Sternberg that he is often indistinguishable from God who inspires him.
“The very choice to devise an omniscient narrator serves the purpose of staging and glorifying an omniscient God’7 (see further below on “point of view”).
The value of the stress on implied author and narrator is that it forces the reader to look at the seams and editorial asides of the text as important indicators of its mean- ing.* For instance, the decision of most commentators following Tenney (1960:350-64) that John 3:16-21 is an editorial comment rather than the words of Jesus provides an important clue to the narrative function of that critical text. It becomes John’s com- mentary on the significance of the difficult dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in verses l-15.
156 The Hermeneullcal Spiral
2. Point of View, Ideology and Narrative World. The point of view is the perspective taken by various characters or aspects in the narrative. Most frequently it is connected to the narrator, who interacts with the action within the story in various ways and so produces the effect that the story is to have on the reader. In other words the point of view points to the force or significance of the story. Every author has a certain message that she wishes to get across to the reader, and this is true also of biblical narrative. This point of view guides the reader to the significance of the story and determines the actual
“shape” that the author gives to the narrative. In fact, as Berlin points out, a story usually has multiple perspectives as the biblical narrator like a movie camera zeros in on one aspect then another in the developing plot, thereby guiding the reader in several meaning directions at the same time (1983:43-55). Scholars have identified five areas where point of view operates.9
a. The psychological dimension studies how the narrator provides “inside” information as to the thoughts and feelings of the characters. In this respect biblical narrative is
“omniscient”; it gives the reader knowledge no one could possibly know.‘0 The Gospels are the most obvious examples. Luke describes the inner thoughts and feelings of char- acters like Simeon and Anna as they recognize the Messiah in the baby Jesus (2:29, 38) and relates Felix’s desire for a bribe from Paul (Acts 24:26). John tells us Jesus’intentions (1:43) as well as the extent of his knowledge (2:23; 4: 1). However, when the point of view is that of the characters within the story, the perspective is finite and often wrong. One of the clues to the Samson story is the carnal, mistaken perspective of Samson (Judg 13- 16) contrasted to the omniscient comments of the narrator. As a result the reader expe- riences in a poignant way the tensions within the story.
b. The evaluative, or ideological, point of view denotes the concepts of right and wrong that prevail in the narrative. The actors in the drama are often at odds with one another and with the narrator as to the judgment of their deeds. In both Matthew and Mark the measuring rod of valid reasoning is “thinking the things of God” vs. “thinking the things of men.” This is the criterion for true discipleship (see Petersen 1978:107-8; Rhoads and Michie 1982:44; Kingsbury 1986:33). John has three levels, depending upon the faith- response of the individual to Jesus. The ideological mentality of the leaders of Israel leads them to reject Jesus; the point of view of the crowds often draws them to Jesus but more because of his signs than due to true faith (2:23-25; compare 6:60-66); and the faith of the disciples leads them to follow Jesus in spite of the price (6:67-71). The reader must choose between these three perspectives.
c. The spatialperspective of biblical narrators is “omnipresent”; that is, they have the ability to move from place to place freely and to relate the story from various vantage points. In the walking-on-the-water miracle the narrator is with the disciples in the boat and with Jesus on the water simultaneously (Mk 6:48; note “he was intending to pass them by”). The result is an ability to lead the reader more deeply into the story than would otherwise be possible. In the story of finding a wife for Isaac (Gen 24) the reader is moved from the place of ignorance (Canaan) to the place of testing (Abraham’s former home), where a startling act of hospitality leads the servant to Rebekah. The reader is expectant throughout the narrative as the geographical movement of the story unfolds.
Narrative 157
d. Closely connected is the temporalperspective, which can consider the action from within the story (from a present point of view) or from the future. John especially is well known for narrating from a postresurrection viewpoint. While Luke carefully saves the concept of Jesus’ “glory” for the resurrection narrative, John stresses the fact that Jesus’
glory was observable all along to the eye of faith (1:14; 2:l I; compare 151). Similarly, at the call of Jeremiah (1:4-19) the voice of God reaches into past (v. 5) and future (vv.
7-10) in prophesying Jeremiah’s significance for the divine plan. On the other hand, the book of Nehemiah is written in a first-person style and shows a finite knowledge of events and the future. When the news comes of Jerusalem’s desolation Nehemiah weeps (1:2- 4). Thus the reader is made a part of the story and feels the drama in a different way than when a more divine perspective is taken.
e. The phraseological point of view relates to the dialogue or speeches in a narrative.
Here again we see the omnicompetence of the author. The reader is able to listen in to dialogue one would never hear in the normal world, for instance, the personal conver- sation between Haman and his wife and friends (Esther 5:12-14) or the private dialogue between Festus and Agrippa regarding Paul’s innocence (Acts 26:31-32). In such cases these interactions become the high points of the narrative, and the reader is given valuable inside information that leads to the dramatic and theological lessons. As Kingsbury points out, the use of Old Testament formula quotations in the speeches of Matthew links both the narrator and Jesus with God’s point of view and adds authority to the Gospel as a whole (1986:34).
These elements of point of view form the perspective of the “narrative world” of a book. As I said above, the historical books of the Bible present a realistic world. Walhout notes an important distinction between fictional and historical texts:
The assertive stance of the historian embraces an interpretation and evaluation of certain data as well as a narrative or descriptive account of the data. . . . The historian claims-asserts-that the projected world (the story) of the text together with the authorial point of view counts as a story and an interpretation of events as they actually occurred.ii
Nevertheless, the portrayal is restricted to the limited horizons of the text itself. Thus the author is able to communicate to the reader. As Keegan states, “At the end of the narration the implied reader will have a reasonably clear picture of this well defined, circumscribed, narrative world” (1985:102). The writer is not limited to the constraints of the real world but can provide vistas of perspective that the normal person cannot know. Thus the reader is given a sense of the presence of God behind the story and this divine authority permeates the whole.
3. Narrative and Story Time. This refers to the order of the events within the story and the way they are related to one another. Narrative time is distinct from chronology because it has to do with literary arrangement rather than with historical sequence. The concept is very important when studying ancient history because sequential order was not as important as dramatic portrayal to chroniclers then. This can be demonstrated best by comparing the four Gospels. The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) give the impres-
_ 158 The Hsrmensutiol Spiral
sion that Jesus engaged in a one-year ministry, while John details a two-year ministry.
The reason is that John tells of three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 1155) while the Synoptic Gospels mention only the Passover at the crucifixion. Clearly no attempt was made to be chronological, and the Evangelists were more concerned to relate the significance of Jesus’ life and ministry (who he was as well as his impact upon the disciples, the crowds and the religious leaders) than merely to give details regarding his life. Even in Matthew, Mark and Luke the sequence of events is startlingly different (as a perusal of any Gospel harmony will prove).
Sternberg speaks of “temporal discontinuity” or suspense as a means of heightening reader involvement in the drama (1985:265-70). The author will cause a “gap”in the story by shifting events and will create suspense by providing incomplete knowledge of the future. This occurs in the binding-of-Isaac story, since the reader feels that Isaac will be spared but is kept in suspense until the last minute. However, as Sternberg points out, the Bible tends to curtail suspense due to the divine control of the world order: since God is supreme there cannot be undue stress on uncertainty. The narrator controls the drama or temporal displacement by foreshadowing or shaping the narrative future through analogy (applying the lessons of the past, such as the increasing number of younger brothers elevated over their elders, from Jacob to Joseph to Moses to David), paradigm cases (establishing a divine law of logic, as in the cycle from sin to judgment to repentance to reinstatement in Judges, see 2:l l-19), or dramatic forecast (as in the prophetic period).
The space given to narrative events will vary depending on the writer’s purposes.
Genesis l-l 1 is a kaleidoscopic dash through a bewildering sequence of events, linked together largely by the narrative or theological purposes of the text. The patriarchal narratives of the rest of Genesis, however, slow down considerably and take us on a lengthy stroll through a series of interconnected details. Similarly, the Gospels have at times been called a passion story with an extended introduction due to the dispropor- tionate length of the passion events compared to the other scenes in Jesus’ ministry.
Culpepper says that for John “the scenes can be fitted into about two months of the two- and-a-half-year period covered by the narrative” (1983:72). This will be helpful when studying the selective process of the author in developing his plot and emphases. For the evangelists the question was not what to include but what to omit (see Jn 21:25).
4. Plot. Seymour Chatman speaks of plot, characters and setting as comprising the story itself (1978:19-27; see also Kingsbury 1986:2-3). The plot encompasses the united se- quence of events that follow a cause-effect order; these build to a climax and involve the reader in the narrative world of the story. The basic element of plot is conflict, and every biblical narrative centers upon such-God vs. Satan, good vs. evil, discipleship vs. re- bellion. Plot can function at either the macro (the whole book) or micro (a single section) level. For instance, at the micro level John 9 contains an amazing drama contrasting the man born blind (who begins blind but progresses toward spiritual as well as physical sight) with the Pharisees (who claim spiritual insight but end up blind).‘* These conflicts often are amazingly complex, since they can be external as well as internal in the nar- rative. This is the key to the Samson story. Supposedly his is an external battle with the
~“~.~-___,-.__ -- . ..----..-“~.-- -”
Narralivs 159
Philistines, but in reality it is an internal conflict between his calling to be a judge and the self-centeredness and sensuality he increasingly exemplifies, This leads to a conflict with God and ultimately to his downfall.
At the macro level the Gospels each have a different plot, even though they are relating essentially the same story. For instance, both Matthew and Mark center upon Jesus’
encounter with the secular authorities, the crowds and the disciples. Yet they do so in quite different ways. Mark stresses the so-called Messianic Secret, showing how Jesus’
messianic nature was rejected by and hidden from the leaders, misunderstood by the crowds and disciples, and acknowledged by the demons. Matthew recognizes this but heightens the contrast by showing a growing understanding on the part of the disciples (compare Mt 14:33 with Mk 6:52). Also, Mark empliasizes discipleship failure while Matthew notes the difference that the presence of Jesus made as the disciples were enabled to overcome their ignorance and failures. The narrative world inhabited by both is the same-the in-breaking of the kingdom or reign of God into history. However, the plot and thereby the detailed emphases of each differ considerably. Luke has even greater divergence of plot, as a comparison of the sayings of Jesus common to Matthew and Luke (commonly called “Q”) will show. The same or similar sayings appear in radically dif- ferent contexts and lead to a unique set of theological thrusts, such as God’s grace extended to outcasts and a major accent on social concern in Luke.
The reader must study carefully the plot and miniplots within narrative books in order to determine the developing themes and characterizations of the author. This is the best indicator of the basic message(s) of a literary work. The interplay of opponents and the interaction between major and minor characters are the clearest possible guidelines to the meaning of a passage. The unity and lines of causality within the dramatic sequence of the story first draw the reader into the narrative world and then help the reader to relive its point and understand its purpose. In this way theology may be better served by narrative material than by didactic. We not only learn the truth but see it enacted in living relationships.
5. Characterization. The success of a story depends in large part upon its success in developing interesting, real people with whom the readers can identify. Culpepper notes Aristotle’s dictum that characters should have four qualities: they should be morally good, suitable, lifelike and consistent. 1) In many ancient works characters remain undeve- loped with few of these qualities. However, biblical narrative is replete with realistic figures seen in all their human frailty. Literary scholars have long noted the amazing transparency of biblical portraits. Samson’s carnality, David’s lust, Solomon’s political and religious compromise or Elijah’s cowardice in running from Jezebel are all presented with remarkable forthrightness. As a result they are all the more appealing and applicable to the reader. There was no attempt to hide the human frailty of biblical heroes. When Abraham tried to talk his wife into posing as his sister and would have allowed her to become part of Pharaoh’s harem, Genesis (12: 14-29) recorded the incident intact. Yet the important point is not that discreditable facts are recorded of biblical characters but that this characterization is carried out with a depth and subtlety that makes them very