from history to narrative hermeneutics [p 000-192]

8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]

1/205


2/205


3/205


4/205


5/205


6/205


7/205


8/205


9/205


10/205


11/205


12/205


13/205


14/205


15/205


16/205


17/205


18/205


19/205


20/205


21/205


22/205


23/205


24/205


25/205


26/205


27/205


28/205


29/205


30/205


31/205


32/205


33/205


34/205


35/205


36/205


37/205


38/205


39/205


40/205


41/205


42/205


43/205


44/205


45/205


46/205


47/205


48/205


49/205


50/205


51/205


52/205


53/205


54/205


55/205


56/205


57/205


58/205


59/205


60/205


61/205


62/205


63/205


64/205


65/205


66/205


67/205


68/205


69/205


70/205


71/205


72/205


73/205


74/205


75/205


76/205


77/205


78/205


79/205


80/205


81/205


82/205


83/205


84/205


85/205


86/205


87/205


88/205


89/205


90/205


91/205


92/205


93/205


94/205


95/205


96/205


97/205


98/205


99/205


100/205


101/205


102/205


103/205


104/205


105/205


106/205


107/205


108/205


109/205


110/205


111/205


112/205


113/205


114/205


115/205


116/205


117/205


118/205


119/205


120/205


121/205


122/205


123/205


124/205


125/205


126/205


127/205


128/205


129/205


130/205


131/205


132/205

122 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE

the way the Old Testament is read, Childs (1985:13) adopts it as a canonical

process which is built in a dimension of flexibility which encourages

constantly fresh ways of actualizing the material. Recently, however, theidea that human historical awareness (in order to differentiate it from

history) is best substantiated through literature (Waswo, 1988:545). The idea

of theBible as Literature is thus becoming the main point of convergence in

contemporary historical literary hermeneutics of the Old Testament. In the

centre of this whole debate about the Bible as literature one can detect an

underlying literary principle, namely that history is tangible through

literature, that is to say, history becomes intelligible by means of literature.The view of the Bible as literaturehas incited a diversity of academic

claims and a renewed interest in the field of historical critical hermeneutics

in Old Testament studies, but the main focus remains on attempts that

integrate the literary with the socio-historical interpretation. For instance,

Robert Carroll (1993:77), in his criticism of the use of an exclusively

historical critical hermeneutics in Old Testament theology, argues that the

Hebrew Bible is neither pure literature nor pure history. The Old Testamentreflects Hebrew writings that underwent ideological abuses, which resist an

essential historical critical or literary interpretation. In other words, if one

takes the Bible as pure literature, one may ask whether the Hebrew Bible as

literature is, in any sense other than the trivial sense of literature as

something written? In this respect Carroll is instructive:

The Latin term litteraturasimply means writing,and in that sense anything from apostcard or a graffito on a lavatory wall to a major piece of poetry, drama or novel is

literature[the] historical or literal reading of this literature will be of no

use[since] all the receptor groups that we know about insisted on transforming the

text into symbolic worlds which served their own purposes (1993:77).

The disparity between the present historical awarenessand the concept

of theBible as literaturecreates a critical hermeneutic dilemma: history is

obviously, in the popular sense, what really happened; still, the literature

and the languages we speak, determine how we know the world (Waswo,

1988:54145). In this sense historical critical hermeneutics in Old Testament

studies is experiencing a critical time of uncertainty, especially vis--vis the

present hermeneutic state in which many of the results of Old Testament

scholarship are not as certain as they once seemed to be (Rogerson,

1988:149). This reflects the constant tension between an inherent historical


133/205

THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 123

critical awareness of biblical scholars and an elusive idea of the Bible as

literature thus creating further theoretical problems.

A Hermeneutic Dilemma

An exclusively historical critical hermeneutics, as well as an isolated literary

or literal interpretation of the Old Testament, has created a quasi-

insurmountable hermeneutic dilemma that eludes the modern concept of

problem-solving rationale: Which hermeneutic approach can do justice to

both the generality and the peculiarity of Old Testament texts? How does

literature relate to history? Can a historical critical approach accommodate

the totality of all modal aspects of the Old Testament? The following section

reflects an attempt to discuss some of the theoretical problems behind this

hermeneutic dilemma.

Interpretative Controversies. The following passage is part of Joshuas

speech to the Israelites assembled at Shechem, regarding Gods divine acts in

the history of Israel, including the acts of deliverance out of Egyptian

bondage (Exodus 1:115:21):

The God of Israel says, long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of

Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshipped other gods. But I took

your father Abraham from the land beyond the River and led him throughout

CanaanI assigned the hill country of Seir to Esau, but Jacob and his sons went

down to Egyptso I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did

not build. Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulnessBut if serving the

Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will

servefor me and my household, we will serve the Lord (Jos 24:215, NIV).

Seen from a historical critical point of view, in accordance with the

common Ancient Near Eastern practice of making covenants, especially in

the light of the compositional structure of Iron Age treaties, the author of the

book here recites the historical antecedents of the God of Israel as acovenantal prologue, preceding the description of covenantal commitments.

6

Joshua reminds the Israelites that the God of Israel is the One who separated

Abraham from the world of pagan gods (Jos 24:3), delivered Israel from the

bondage of Egypt (Exo 1:115:21; Jos 24:5), guided them safely through the


134/205


135/205


136/205


137/205


138/205


139/205


140/205


If history is made by literature a literary painting, then as far as

biblical hermeneutics is concerned, literature itselfbecomes a means of

historical hermeneutics, especially when ones historical awareness is related

to the totality of Daseinin terms of the Word-Revelationin its final form of

canonical texts.

Thus, one may conclude at this point that there is no direct access to

historyexcept by means of literature.

Beyond the Empirical-Positivistic Approach. To go beyond the empirical-

positivistic approach or beyond form criticism in the development of

historical critical hermeneutics, challenged some biblical scholars to adopt a

new literary-structural approach, a synchronic interpretation of texts that,

according to Waswo (1988:561), means literature as cause of history.

Now, does it mean that a critical historical approach has lost its

application value? Nobles (1993:136) assessment of Moberlys synchronic

approach to the exegetical study of Exodus 3234, for instance, points outthat a successful synchronic study may undermine the diachronic study of

that text in two distinct ways: (1) first, it removes the evidenceby which a

diachronic study would proceed through explaining the requisite textual

features synchronically instead; and (2) secondly, it removes the motivation10

for an attempt to reconstruct the texts prehistory.

It is important to notice that the literary synchronic approach to biblical

texts contains an underlying assumption that the Bible is a literary painting,a history painted with literary devices and perspectives. The danger of all this

is that a literature as cause of history may turn into a literature without

history.

What the present writing proposes is a divine literature as cause of

historical awareness. This implies a radical new paradigm shift in Old

Testament hermeneutics, whereby the historical narrative has its ultimate

reference in the divine revelation.

To go beyond the empirical-positivistic approach in historical critical

hermeneutics without such an ultimate reference, may jeopardize our

historical awareness of the text (i.e., the totality of mans temporal

experience in relation to the Word-Revelation), and jump into an elusive

world of literary imagination.


141/205


Summary

The new literary criticism, with its focus on the literary semiotics in Old

Testament hermeneutics, is not an isolated development apart from the

preceding historical quest in biblical hermeneutics.

Its hermeneutical principles gradually consolidated within the wider

spectrum of historical interests, and especially in response to theoretical

problems created by historical critical methods.

Thus, one should not isolate the new literary criticism as a purely literary

activity. In this sense, an element of continuitycan be observedas far as thebasic epistemological assumptions of historical criticism are concerned. In

other words, if that much sought objective meaning eludes the

methodological limits ofLiterarkritik, Formenkritik,or Traditionskritik, then

it might be that we could find in language the most coherent means to render

the past history intelligible in terms of objectivity.

This seemingly new insight is not actually all new in its sensus literalis.

As far as the ultimate goal (objective meaning) and the basic assumptions(human reason as a starting point) are concerned, historical criticism and the

new literary criticism (literary-structuralism) share a common prime

paradigm at the primary level in the dynamics of paradigm shifts (see

diagram 1).

That is to say, since the advent of Cartesian reason and Comtian

positivismthat entailed the major prime paradigm shiftat the primary level,

one may argue that there followed no radical new paradigm shifts, at least up

to literary structuralism. What seems to be new in our critical inquiry of

biblical texts (an element of discontinuityin the horizontal dimension of the

historical quest) is in actuality a mere development of different methods or

means (from Traditionskritik to literary structuralism) that reflect secondary

paradigm shifts which in turn are reactive responses to theoretical

problems created by the preceding methodologies.

Moreover, what one may observe between the prime paradigm shift

(primary level) and methodological shifts (expression level), is clearly an

eclipse of theCartesianparadigm shift underlying thepretended shiftof new

literary criticism. Thus a series of antithetical problems unfolds in our

biblical hermeneutics, such as the tension between the theoretical

propositions of history and story, critica profana and critica sacra,

descriptive and normative, objective-subjective, sedimentation-innovation,

historical-literary meaning, and immanence-transcendence (see diagram 9).


142/205


Expression Level: Structural adjustments to inherent theoretical problems

Creation of antithetical theoretical problems and respective attempts to

solve the problem.

Philosophical Level: Secondary Paradigm Shift

Belief in the universality of methodologies.

THE ECLIPSE OF THE PARADIGM SHIFT

Primary Level: The Prime Paradigm Shift

(1) Rejection of the Word-Revelation.(2) (2) Human reason as the central reference point.

Horizontal Discontinuity

Diagram 9 (Continuity and Discontinuity)

In the light of this theoretical discussion, a proposal for a preliminary

solution runs as follows: As far as biblical hermeneutics is concerned, there

is a need for a more inclusivistic definition of what comes to be a historical

awareness in our biblical exegesis. That is, historical awareness is notnecessarily an equivalent term for history, in the modern sense, but it is a

reflection of biblicalDasein, i.e., the integral coherence of all modal aspects

of temporal experience. Therefore, to be aware of the historicaldimension of

the Old Testament means to experience the totality of all modal aspects of

temporal experience and beyond, which in its final synthesis is the Word-

Revelationin its final form of canonical texts, the ultimate supra-theoretical

reference for Dasein. Again, because this Word-Revelationis expressed in a

Historical Criticism Redaction Literary Structural Criticism

VerticalContinuit


143/205


written human languagein that sense, our historical awareness may then

be substantiated within the concept of the Bible as literature,and this may

then be termed a divine narrative.

The New Literary Structural Approach

Redaction Criticism

Redaction Criticism occupies an important role in the process of transition

and appropriation of the new literary criticism in Old Testament studies from

the preceding traditional historical critical approach. This transition may be

explained in part as a phenomenon that took place in response to theoretical

problems created by an exclusivistic historical critical approach, as well as a

shift of reading strategy, from a diachronic (literary tradition-historical

criticism) to a more synchronic reading (new literary criticism) of the final

texts. However, the question is: how does redaction criticism link to the

new literary-structural approach in the historical interpretation of the Old

Testament?

Redactor or Author? According to Soulen (1981:165) redaction criticismis

a method of Biblical criticism which seeks to lay bare the theological

perspectives of a Biblical writer by analysing the editorial (redactional) and

compositional techniques and interpretations employed by him in shaping

and framing the written and/or oral traditions at hand. In other words, whileform criticism isolates a passage from the context of the final form of the text,

examining the historical development as well as a possible prehistory of a

given passage, redaction criticism is concerned chiefly with the history of

compilation or composition of the text in itsfinal form. This reflects an overt

alternative endeavour, in the course of the quest for a proper historical

meaning, in the light of the antithetical problems created by historical critical

methods, thus pursuing a final meaning in a final text, despite the fact thatthe text still seems to be literarily incoherent. The shift of the interpreters

focus from the original sourceand the oraltradition to the redactionof the

final text did not, however, eliminate the historical awareness pertinent in

biblical hermeneutics. The concern for an objective historical meaning is still

the central issue in redaction criticism, though the premise for the debate has

shifted from small individual sources to larger final texts. Unlike new literary


144/205


criticism, redaction criticism still seeks a historical meaning behind the final

text. Thus, according to Koch (1982:viii) the assertion of the literary critic

only become more than a subjective judgment founded on personal taste

when they are linked with investigations into the language of the text, the

history of its transmission, and semantics.

What the redaction really might be, is however still an issue without a

general consensus. In between the extreme idea of the author as one who

organically shapes the material and the redactor as one who works

mechanically, Knierim (1985:150) describes the complexity of the issue in

the following way:

Redaction is defined by the opposition oral-written (Koch, Barth and Steck) or

small and composed literary units (Richter). Fohrer et al. are an exception. They

distinguish between composition for layers before the final literary edition and

redaction for their final composition. Here, redaction is denied by the opposition

earlier-later compositions within the written tradition. Thus, we are currently

confronted with three different methodological definitions of redaction.

Apart from this diverse definition of redaction, what is clear is its

concern for the final text. At a practical level, if one has to place the

redaction criticism for instance somewhere between the purely historical

critical reading and the close reading of the Exodus narrative (1:115:21), it

may move towards the close reading. Of course, redaction criticism means

more than just a close reading, but it lays the foundation for a fusion of

horizons between historical criticism and new literary criticism. Some

aspects of redaction criticism can also be identified in new literary criticism.

For example, both present a primary preoccupation with the final literary text.

However, redaction criticism differs by engaging in either (1) a historical

quest for the compilation of primary layers or blocks of literary traditions

written by original authors, or (2) a history of composition (from oral to

written and expansion) and compilation (i.e., author-redactor and expansion-

redactor), or (3) investigating redactors as those who composed the original

literary layers and/or combiners of original sources (e.g., RJEDP).

One of the implications of these diverse definitions of redaction

criticism is that the redactional meaningalso eludes the idea of objective


145/205


146/205


author with a respective literary source. Therefore, the main focus now shifts

from the historybehind the textto the literaturebefore the final text.

The Future of Redaction Criticism. From the insights gained in the current

discussion of redaction criticism, one may wonder what would be the real

future use of redaction criticism. For example, if a final redactor is not a

simple compiler, but a literary composer, then the diachronic excavation of

the stratified literary sources for a proper meaning of the final form of the

biblical texts become quite a secondary issue. In this case, though there is an

obvious demand for a more comprehensive and consensual definition ofredaction criticism, or of a redactor, one may question what the real value of

historical criticism would be if the Old Testament text, that we have today, is

most probably a final composition by a final literally talented redactor?

Of course, a distinction between author and redactor requires a further

elaboration and refinement (e.g., should we call Ezra an author or a

redactor?). However, as far as this distinction is quite intangible, the literary

and the diachronic interpretation of sources (the documentary hypothesis)accordingly lose their primary significance in biblical hermeneutics, along

with the idea of an objective historical meaning in terms of empirical-

positivistic assumptions. Though redaction criticism emphasizes a shift of

interest from the historicity of the text to the history of redaction, from the

sourceto thefinal textof the redactor, the controversial idea that truth resides

in the historical intentions of an original author, or of a final redactor, here

reaches its limits in redaction criticism, defying any further solutions. That is

to say, a search for anultimate reference of meaning (from source, from oral,

and eventually to final redactor) has come to a climax in the development of

critical hermeneutics in Old Testament studies. One may, however, still

postulate an elusive virtual line between the author and the redactor, which

coerces the interpreter into seeking a new alternative reference in historical

critical hermeneutics, which may be found in the new literary-structural

approach to history, i.e., a synchronic approach to the final form of the text.

This may appear to be a contradictory idea since historical criticism works

witha diachronic orientation. However, as far as the development of biblical

hermeneutics is concerned, this diachronic trajectory seems to cross the

synchronic trajectory at its point of intersection: the Word Revelation in its

final form of canonical texts, what the present author has termed a divine

narrative.


147/205


As has already been observed earlier, such a secondary level shift of

methodological expression, in terms of the Kuhnian scientific revolution,

unfolds when enough anomalies occur to cause the existing methods to be

questioned and abandoned. Undeniably, what causes that shift are the

interpreters own religious-socio-economic-political convictions that place an

ultimate trust in the autonomy of a non-theoretical reason. Again, at that

primary level, by rejecting the Word-Revelationin its final form of canonical

texts as the ultimate central reference point, Wellhausen had to rely on his

literary sources while Gunkel trusted in his oral traditions, Von Rad and Nothtook their historical creeds and Fohrer his knowledge of Canaanite religions

as criterion, until the final redaction and the literary texts began presenting

themselves as thefinal reference in the pursuit of a proper historical meaning.

Owing to investigations that indicate the antiquity of the Jewish

scientific study of the Pentateuch, Cassuto (1967) rejects the mere

conjecture of the documentary hypothesis with its different literary strata.

Accordingly, a scientific exposition of any literary work should aim atelucidating and evaluating the work itself; the main interest is accordingly in

the work of the last editor, the final R. Not only this, in fact, in his A

Commentary on Exodus, Cassuto (1967:2) proposes different sources:

The sources of the Book of Exodus are not in my view those recognized by the

current hypothesis, namely, P (Priestly Code), E (Elohist), J (Jahwist) and their

different strata. One of the principal sources possibly the principal source was,

if I am not mistaken, an ancient heroic poem, an epos dating back to earliest times,

that told at length the story of the Egyptian bondage, of the liberation and of the

wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness.

Cassuto thus looks at the final form of the Exodus text and proceeds with

the interpretation as if he is complying with a close reading. Accordingly, theepic of the bondage and liberation (Exo 1:117:16; cf. Cassuto, 1967:7ff)

is an ancient heroic poem with a historical core, whereby the God of history

brings the Israelites out of suffering to the Promised Land for God

remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob (Exo

2:24).


148/205


149/205


150/205


151/205


152/205


153/205


Pleasure of the Text, Barthes (1975:23), for instance, makes the idea of a

structural autonomy explicit in the following way:

The text itself is atopic, if not in its consumption at least in its production. It is not

a jargon, a fiction; in it the system is overcome, undone (this overcoming, this

defection, is signification). From this atopia the text catches and communicates to its

reader a strange condition: at once excluded and at peace. There can be tranquil

moments in the war of languages, and these moments are texts.

In other words, the meaning is not in the content of the text, for the textitself is atopic. The meaning is thus constrained by an atopic condition, by

a hidden structure. The word, the sentence, and the whole text lose their

semantic autonomy within the wider context of Structuralism. This is ipso

facto a shift from the study of conscious linguistic phenomena to the study

of their unconscious infrastructure[and] it does not treat terms as

independent entities, taking instead as its basis of analysis the relations

between terms (Lvi-Strauss, 1963:33).Within the methodological development of biblical hermeneutics we can

thus observe not only a pattern of constant change at the referential level, i.e.,

methods (e.g., source, form, tradition, structural), but also a permanence of

the initial empirical-positivistic agenda: the search for an objective and

neutral meaning. If source criticism sought its ultimate reference in

Wellhausens empirical-positivistic assumptions, one may encounter in

Structuralism a meaning that is finally atopical, unconscious, objectivestructural, etc.

In the definition of Patte (1980:60ff) Structuralism functions on the

premises of the following two basic principles, viz. (1) man is not an active

producer of meaning but significations are imposed upon man; and (2) the

linguistic expression must conform to the structure of language in order to be

intelligible. Patte, as one of the pioneers of biblical structural exegesis, has

refined and expanded the original framework of Greimas linguistic

structure,18

in order to apply these two principles to biblical exegesis.

According to Patte (1976:10ff), structural principles applied in biblical

hermeneutics may be grounded upon the following three conventions:

1. First of all, Patte argues that there is a need for an accurate nomenclature.For instance, biblical exegesis is neither hermeneutic nor historical

interpretation. Exegesis aims at understanding the text in itself, while


154/205


hermeneutics, whether historical or not, attempts to elucidate what the

text means for the modern interpreter and the people of his culture.

Structuralism is only concerned with the former.

2. Structural exegesis is synchronic exegesis.In other words, Structuralismis not interested in traditional semantics, as the structural analyst studies

language without concern for what the author meant. Studying language

as a system of signs, the Structuralist brackets out the question of the

significations of the speech (in de Saussures terminology langue and

parolerespectively).

3. The literary structure is in general formulated by the following threestructural constraints: (a) structures of enunciation (the constraint

imposed upon the discourse by the author and the situation that he

wishes to address); (b) the constraints of cultural structures; and (c) the

constraints of other structures (the constraints, which impose themselves

on any author or speaker).

In sum, the literary structural approach to biblical interpretation is

mainly concerned with the language structures of the text, because it

presupposes that the intentions of the original author are constrained by a

particular Sitz im Leben (cultural structure) and by a universal linguistic

structure or literary convention (deep structure). The text, in its final form, is

therefore a mirror representation of these constraints.

Consequently, the main aim of a structural analyst is to uncoverthis original structure or system of constraints, which in principle must

be immutable, independent, and inherent within the confines of the

literary text, regulating the whole linguistic expression. This is a search

for universal conventions behind different linguistic connotations. Using

the same analytical categories of Greimas, the initial impetus for

structuralist studies In Old Testament hermeneutics came from

the pioneering studies of Barthes & Bovon (1974:32ff) about the storyof Jacob and the angel in Gen 32:2232. The story of Jacob at the Jabbok

is interpreted in the context of sequential structures, i.e., Barthes

interprets this story as an artificial folktale whose plot subverted the

normal sequential structures of folktales. In the structure of folktale

proper, using Greimas terminology, the originator (God) usually steps in to

help the hero(Jacob) in his struggle with the opponent(the angel). However,

in Gen 32:2232, there is a subversion of normal sequential structures. The


155/205


156/205


157/205


for instance, aid the reader in his/her competence to understand the text by

understanding the system or the structure, which functions as constraints that

produce a specific literary content or meaning. The criteria for the

legitimization of such a text immanent structure, which at an ultimate level

may substitute the historical dimension of the Old Testament with the

literary dimension,are, however, still far from being objective.

At that primary level, the quest for a universal linguistic structure

follows the precepts of the empirical-positivistic structureof the nineteenth-

century historical criticism. The only difference is at that secondary level:

while the one seeks the truth in the context of positivistic history, the other

pursues the same goal from outside of the historical references, i.e., within

the confines of a universal literary structural constraint. This may eventually

even downplay not only the historical aspects of biblical authors, but also the

acts of that impinge on the history of mankind, by imposing the

interpreters own contemporary literary structure upon the biblical texts.19

One could then conclude that in its sensus literalis literary Structuralism

represents a major methodological shiftwithin the secondary levelof biblical

hermeneutics, but a continuity within the primary level, as it still shares a

common belief in the autonomy of human reason and the universality of

structure.

Structuralism and History in Old Testament Studies. Since the time of

Notch's argument for the implementation of the amphictyony theory20

in thehistorical critical reconstruction of ancient Israel, scholarly discussions

regarding the historical formative structures of Israel continue to be lively,

breaking them up into various disciplines such as sociological, ethnological,

structural-historical, and even ecological studies.21

Now, one that is

especially relevant to the present discussion, is the structural-historical

analysis in Old Testament studies.

The main concern of historical structuralists 22 is to uncover the

foundational structures (e.g., atopic, unconscious, etc.) that determine or

constrain the content of historiographical texts, i.e., the structure and its

consequences for historical interpretation. A basic question of historical

criticism, namely what did really happen? may shift into a structural

question: what determinesthe what did really happen?


158/205


For instance, Malamat (1968:163ff) and Leach (1970:10ff) analysed

biblical genealogies from this point of view. While Malamat viewed the

Genesis genealogies not as a description with historical purposes, e.g.,

who actually begot who? but with a specific social aim, Leach has also

analysed the Table of Nations of Genesis 10 in the context of an Israelite

anthropological understanding of the place of Israel in a wider world. This

means that the Old Testament genealogies have a social function and they

must therefore be understood from a specific social aim or structure that

cannot be confined to a historical critical framework. According to historical-

structuralists, other historical critical problems of the Old Testament, such as

the divergent opinions about the origin of the tribes of Yahweh, are also

better explained if an interpreter works from a historical-structural

perspective. For example, Wifall (1983:197209) argues that the tribes of

Yahweh arose as a defensive reaction to the changing political situation

within Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, a structural-historical

explanation that mixes Gottwalds sociological approach and Noths

historical critical interpretation, viewing the books of Joshua and Judges as a

reflection of the setting for Israels origins within Canaan during the Iron age.

This is an amphictyony coated with a historical-structural explanation.

Apparently, the precepts of the historical-structural approach to historical

critical hermeneutics in Old Testament studies may provide a broader

historical context to the understanding of the biblical material. However, an

academic historical hermeneutical consensus is hard to find. This is the casebecause historiographical methodology is at least in part considerably more

sophisticated and complex today than it was once, say in Wellhausens time.

The idea that history is neither a correspondent mirror image of the things,

nor a product of a pure socio-anthropological-cultural structure of the time, is

widely pervasive in contemporary biblical scholarship. Moreover, the

historical-structural approach is not only contiguous with nineteenth century

historical criticism, at its primary level, but also a product of the complexshift of hermeneutical interests.

Ricoeur (1973:203) argues that the applicability of historical-structural

analysis to the Bible does not solve the problems raised by historical

criticism. Structuralists and semioticians are both more interested in the

development of the theory than with its practical applications. In this sense,

Jacobson (1974:146ff) is right to point out that what the present state of the

structural approach reflects, is more a shift of interest from sources,


159/205


composition, and kerygma to reading, text, and signification than a progress

of scientific historical criticism.

History and the World of the Interpreter

Meir Sternbergs (1985) attempt to reconcile a diachronicunderstanding of

biblical poetics23with a synchronic reading, may unfold possibilities for a

methodological synthesis. If the text is a historical product, a diachronic

knowledge would be necessary for an accurate synchronic reading. On the

other hand, a diachronic reconstruction can be accessed only through the

texts final form, i.e., literature qualifies history.

This revival of interest in the literary qualities of the Old Testament texts

and the persistence of the historical critical approach have entailed

Sternbergs endeavour to bridge the gap between the diachronic and the

synchronic reading:the term is history as literature.

However, though such a proposal is undoubtedly ideal, this in practicereflects only an elusive theoretical attempt for a fusion of two different

horizons: the world of the original author and of the final text.

Now, since the Old Testament texts are obviously both history and

literature, though the term diachronic stands in opposition to the term

synchronic in its theoretical sense, the concept of history as literature may

not be wrong as far as one is aware of the fact that the concept does not

portray a fusion but a shift. In other words, a shift from reading the textaccording to the agenda and priorities of the ancient historian to reading it

according to the agenda and priorities of the literary critic (Moberly,

1991:21). That is to say, there is no fusion as Sternberg suggests, but a

dichotomy two different agendas. Moreover, the autonomy of history

cannot be totally dissolved into the general concept of literature. Literature

may become the only means for history; nevertheless, it cannot substitute

history itself. Therefore, a more correct expression should be history and its

relationshipwith literature rather than history asliterature.

This nuance becomes more complicated when the role of the interpreter

or of the reader comes to the fore, when it becomes the literary history from

the readers point of view.

The historical critical interpretation of the Old Testament has been

neither a pure archaeological excavation of the past nor a non-partisan

uncovering of literary or socio-historical structures of the text. It involves the

interpreters or readers own world, separated from that of the author and the


160/205


text. Inevitably, the results of any historical interpretation are profoundly

affected not only by the world of the text but of the interpreter as well.

Such a case may be seen in recent feminist and psychologicalhermeneutics or a liberation theology approach to biblical texts. For instance,

Fewell & Gunn (1991:193211) have demonstrated that Sternbergs literary-

structural reading of Gen 34 The Rape of Dinah, does not dwell in the

ideological nature of the biblical narrative but, in actuality, in the

interpreters own ideological reading. That is to say, Sternbergs reading of

the Dinah story is in its significant respects a reflex of values that many

would characterize as androcentric. For example, where Sternbergs readers

see admirable man-centred principles they may see culpable neglect of

responsibility in the murder of Hivits by Simeon and Levi, and while

Sternbergs readers see Dinah as a helpless girl to be rescued, they may see a

young woman who could have made her own choices. Thus, Fewell & Gunn

suggest a reading strategy that complies with the self-consciously

ideological readings of biblical narrative, an interpretation that exposes a

somewhat feminist ideology. The ideological realm of an interpreters own

epistemological presuppositions, which arise from a particular religious-

socio-economic-cultural context, impinges on the world of historical critical

and literary structural hermeneutics. A pure synchronic reading, or an ideal of

fusion (diachronic-synchronic), is not only complicated by the obvious

diachronic nature of textual history, but also by the pervasive ideologies of

the interpreter as well.

As an illustration to see how the world of the interpreter may impinge on

historical critical hermeneutics, one may present Kloppers (1992:188ff)

historical critical interpretation of the story of Naaman. The story of 2 Kings

5:127 is about the healing of Naaman, an Aramean military commander,

whose leprosy is cured after his humbly washing himself seven times in the

Jordan river (2 Kg 5:10) following the instructions given to him by a servant

of the prophet Elisha. At the very sensitive moment when Naamans diseaseis completely and miraculously healed, the narrator of 2 Kings 5 brings about

the story of a spiritual transformation (2 Kg 5:1519a) that follows the

physical transformation, which prompts Naaman to a climactic confession:


161/205


162/205


163/205


164/205


165/205


Diagram 10 (Referential Crisis)

horizontal dimension a discontinuity(reactive paradigm shifts), while at

its vertical dimension there is a continuity of the basic nineteenth century

epistemological paradigm (theprime paradigm shift: belief in the autonomy

of reason and the universality of methodologies). This creates antithetical

problems. In addition, parallel to this phenomenon, recent investigations by

an increasing number of biblical scholars as well as other interdisciplinary

academics regarding the role of readers,29

take on a further referential crisis,

as is reflected in contemporary contextual theologies, such as feminist

hermeneutics, liberation theology,Minjung Shinhak,30as well as black South

African and Hispanic theologies: these tendencies lead to a reader-centred

hermeneutics.

One of the achievements of a reader-centred hermeneutics is the

Expression Level: Structural adjustments to inherent theoretical problems

Creation of antithetical theoretical problems and respective attempts to

solve the problem.

Secondary Paradigm Shift

Belief in the universality of methodologies.

REFERENTIAL CRISIS

The Prime Paradigm Shift

(3) Rejection of the Word-Revelation.(4) (2) Human reason as the central reference point.

Horizontal Discontinuity

Historical Criticism DeconstructionismLiterary Structuralism

VerticalContinuit


166/205


appreciation of what once was devalued in the traditional historical critical

circle, the readers world. The quest for truth is not confined only to the

world of the original author or immanent in the text, but performed within

the social, cultural, religious, and ecclesiastical world of the present exegete.

Added to this, interdisciplinary subjects like anthropology, sociology, and

psychology, are contributing to a better understanding and contextualization

of the text as well as challenging the traditional epistemology in the matter of

critical historical concepts. Thus, an exclusive claim of any single critical

methodology in biblical hermeneutics, on the basis of a traditional empirical-

positivistic epistemology, seems apparently to have met its heuristical end.

However, where is the place for historical revelation in current biblical

hermeneutics? Can biblical scholars still talk about the transcendent God,

who has intervened in the history of Israel as rendered by a plain reading of

the Old Testament? Is the historical God of Israel a god of literary structural

constraint or of a particular socio-political context? Are we not over-reacting

to historical criticism and jumping to the other extreme? New literary

criticism may perhaps not be a final solution to hermeneutic dilemmas but a

mere escape. The Old Testament does indeed deal with both history and

literature, but the treatment of texts either as secular historical books or as

pure literature, does not seem to account for the totality of the intrinsic divine

dimensions that it makes explicit. The need for a hermeneutical flexibility,

balance, sharp spiritual insight, and above all, a more serious self-criticism

and re-evaluation of the present state of biblical hermeneutics, is

undoubtedly very challenging.

One may now finally attempt to draw the following conclusions from the

present discussion of historical critical hermeneutics in Old Testament

studies: (1) In the context of the current variety of diverse methodologies and

interdisciplinary approaches to biblical interpretation, any exclusivistic

approach or hegemony of a single critical methodology, on the basis of

traditional empirical-positivistic epistemology, seems to be untenable andimproper to the practice of historical critical hermeneutics in Old Testament

studies. Of course, this in no way invalidates the role of a coherent theory

choice or of competition. As far as Old Testament studies are concerned, the

choice for an ultimate hermeneutical paradigm (e.g., Word-Revelation as the


167/205


168/205


169/205

159

Notes

1. The main aim of Heideggers work,Being and Time, is the re-awakening of the question:what is meant by Being? Heideggers starting-point is not the perceptible things, but

what he terms: human Dasein, i.e., being in time. Two ontological distinctions are

characteristic of Dasein: (1) Dasein is essentially always my own, i.e., it cannot be

ontologically grasped as the case or the example of a genus of natural beings; and (2) the

characteristics ofDaseinare not qualities, but possible ways of Being, Being there, in

time. This nuance is deeply grounded in the philosophical tradition from the earliest

Greek thinkers to Kant and Hegel and beyond that to Kierkegaard, Husserl, Dilthey,

Scheler and Jaspers. For a detailed discussion, see Heidegger (1949) and Bonsor

(1989:316328).2. The world of the Old Testament projects a totality of reality beyond all human modality.

In this sense, it is aMystery.

3. This is not to say that the historical critical approach concentrates exclusively on thegeneral sense of the historic modal aspect, but it means that historical criticism countersthe multidimensional and holistic frame of reference as proposed by Spykmans (1985:9)

integralist approach and Dooyeweerds (1960:14) integral coherence of all their modal

aspects.

4. The universality of sociological models cannot account for the cultural peculiarities ofthe past. The continuity or structural aspect of general sociological conventions must

be weighed against the discontinuity and particularity. There is a need to rethink and

reevaluate the validity of mathematical models in the social sciences (cf. Saaty, 1981:14).

5. The term multidimensional is intended to denote an explanation of the multiplex natureof biblical hermeneutics within a framework of communication theory with its tripartite

dimension: sender (author), medium (text), and receiver (reader) (cf. Jonker, 1990a).

Here, the present writer uses the term multidimensional to express a totality of

dimensions beyond the human theoretical dimension, i.e., the Word-Revelation.

6. Cf. the study of ANE covenantal forms by Mendenhall (1992:1179ff).7. For A Response to Michael Ruse see Busse (1994:5565). Ruses arguments are based

on evolutionary presuppositions, which assume the non-justified primitiveness of ancient

man.

8. The author had an opportunity to attend Carrolls closing speech at the 1993 OTWSAcongress at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, where he was arguing that


170/205

160 NOTES

Jeremiah should be seen as no more or less than a literary figure that may be compared to

the creation of Mickey Mouse in 1954.

9. The concept of a divine narrative approach will be discussed in detail in chapter four. Bydivine narrative approach is meant a scholarly investigation of the narrative aspects of the

biblical texts in the light of its inherent revelational nature.

10. Evidence of a prehistory, such as the Documentary Hypothesis, was developed as asolution to a perceived problem. However, if this problem turns out to be a misperception,

in terms of a synchronic analysis, then the proposed solution becomes superfluous. In

addition, intrinsic motivations for a diachronic reconstruction, such as repetitions, may

become removed if the repetitions, for example, are means of conveying a specific

literary purpose (Noble, 1993:134142).

11. Eissfeldt may represent this category (cf. 1965: 239).12. Knierim (1980:150) may represent this category.13. De Wette had already noticed the uniform language usage in Deuteronomy to 2 Kings in

1817, and had ascribed it to a deuteronomic process. The work of Kuenen and thecommentaries of Kittel and Burney do not argue against the sources being separate

entitities, but concentrate on their stratification. Noth considers the Deuteronomistic

History to be a cohesive work of one writer, while Cross argues for a double

Deuteronomistic redaction of the books of Kings. For a detailed discussion see section

2.3.2 and Bosman (1988:616).

14. The term Old Storiesdoes not necessarily equate or reduce the Old Testament to literaryfictions, but simply emphasizes the unique literary aspect, apart from its theological

nature, and the various literary genres, of which the Old Testament is composed of, such

as historical narratives, parables, poems, etc. In addition, the term Old Stories, for the

purpose of discussion, has the advantage of overcoming the limits of contemporary

conventional terms such as critical history or ANE myth, in the modern sense, to

categorize the unique composite literary form of the Old Testament. Hans Frei may be

correct when he argues that the meaning of the biblical narratives are unlike

histories...not the historical reference outside the story, (and) unlike myths, the

meaning...is what the stories actually say rather than what they supposedly symbolize

(Vanhoozer, 1990:160).

15. It is interesting that Ryken outlines this status quo in the first list of obstaclesdiscouraging a Literary Approach to the Bible. He attempts to unfreeze the evangelical

phobia provenance of status quo of traditional historico-literal criticism (Ryken,

1990:3ff).


171/205

NOTES 161

16. The author does not make a disciplinary distinction between linguistics (grammar) andstructuralism (literary), since they are related to each other in varying degrees of

independence and interdependence. Thus, a literary approach does not preclude a

grammatical approach, though the opposite may not be true.

17. This is a technical term commonly used by new literary critics. However, it needs anexplanation as far as the connotation is concerned. Obviously literature cannot be the

cause of history. History involves a real event in time and space. Thus, literature as the

cause of history should be understood as literature as the means of historiography.

18. See the actantial modelin On Meaning(Greimas, 1987).19. Whose constraints should be normative (the literary ones or those of the author) still

remains equivocal. This, again, is a circular argumentation that creates antithetical

problems.

20. Noths amphictyony represents a typical reconstruction of the origin of ancient Israel inthe light of positivistic historical criticism. However, the theory that Israelite history,

during the period of the Judges, was a social religious amphictyony similar to political

confederations in Greece is very dubious on account of amore recent study on the origin

of Israel. For details, see Rahtjen (1965:100104), James (1976:165174), Wifall

(1982:810), and chapter two of the present book regarding M. Noth.

21. Cf. Weippert (1991) for contemporary trends.22. At this point the reader may be doubtful regarding the term historical structuralism.

However, the idea that a historical approach excludes a structural approach, has no

foundations. Structuralism is a broad multidisciplinary principle.

23. Sternberg does not come to the Bible for specifically religious reasons. Still, as a Jew, hecomes with a Jewish cultural perspective. This is reflected in his terminological use. Old

Testament and New Testament are specifically Christian terms for the Bible. Sternberg

uses the term Bible to refer to Tanakh or the Old Testament.

24. That is to say, more than one god is acknowledged, but only one is worshipped.25. Note that Klopper (1992:188) interchanges the term religious tolerance with religious

pluralism throughout his writings.

26. The author is not here putting Reception Aesthetics in the category of historical criticism,but showing how reception may influence historiography.

27. It is not the intention of the present writing to carry out a detailed study of deconstructivecriticism. For an in-depth discussion of the principles of deconstructive criticism see

Leitch (1983).

28. The use of the term postmodernism is ambiguous and difficult to generalize. I consider


172/205


173/205


174/205


175/205


176/205


If Waswo and Noble succeeded in demonstrating that literature is

[the] cause of history, this might be only within a theoretical dimension.

For instance, can we really reconcile a plain reading of the Exodus narrative

(1:1-15:21), which approximates a synchronic reading, with the historical

critical reading of the same text? In addition, if Slawinski is right, what

must we then do with other reader-response readings of the same text, like

that from Cassutos (1967) ancient Jewish epic, Childs (1991) canonical,

Gutirrezs (1974) existential and Mosalas (1986) materialist hermeneutical

perspectives?

Again, historical criticism has its origin in the critical evaluation of

incongruent texts (the literary problem), but finds itself problematic in the

light of a synchronic reading of texts (a literary solution). Now, this

literary solution not only complements the preceding theoretical problems,

but also creates a further problem regarding the role of the reader.

Therefore, what one may observe thus far, is that present hermeneutic

scholarship is mainly occupied with descriptive activities rather than

prescriptive ones. This repeatedly shows that, apart from an inclusive view

of the Word-Revelation as the central reference point, any exclusive

absolutization of a single theoretical thought creates a further theoretical

antithesis. In other words, as far as one relies on the autonomy of human

reason as an ultimate reference, or man becomes the centre, each new

methodology complements in a logical way some of the theoretical problems

created by preceding methods, but cannot account for the totality of allmodal aspects of temporal experience in the light of the biblical world, thus

unfolding a further theoretical antithesis. At this point Slawinskis

(1988:539) conclusion may be ironic, but painfully descriptive of the present

situation: Will he [the interpreter] succeed in his interpretation? The

question would be untimely!.

As part of an overall effort to reconcile the impasse between the

empirical-positivist and literary-structuralist approaches, narrativists such asPaul Ricoeur (1984) and Kemp (1985) have taken a stance to mediate

history and literature by means of a methodological integration. How is a

mediation possible? First, the narrativists endorse some of the foundational

elements of the empirical-positivists: the reliability of facts. Contrary to pure

literary-structural proponents, narrativists recognize the reality of what

really happened, though the idea is not clearly defined in the present state of


177/205

THE NARATIVIST APPROACH 167

narrativist scholarship. However, unlike historicists, the narrativists do not

discover or reenact the meaning of facts, but construct coherence amongthem by assigning to them a function in a narrative about the time and place

of their occurrence (Deist, 1993:391). This coherence about facts, within

a narrative form, may assist in a possible interaction between history and

literature, however elusive the concept may be. That is, narrative

presupposes a literature with a historical core, which makes sense within a

theoretical dimension. However, over again, at a practical level, the whole

question may end in Wie?

The Hermeneutical Arc

In order to answer the above question the idea of coherence about

facts is being dealt with under the concept of the hermeneutical arc. This

will be discussed in the following sections.

Paul Ricoeur and the hermeneutical arc. Ricoeur plays an important

role in the theoretical construction of a narrative interpretation of history.

His extensive studies on the problems of aporias of the time hold a crucial

implication for our understanding of the nature of history as narrative. In

Life in Quest of Narrative (1991:20-33), where he summarizes his three-

volume masterpiece Time and Narrative (1984), he writes that time in its

pre-narrative form is outlandish, i.e., foreign to mans intelligibility.

Hence, time requires a symbolic medium, which to Ricoeur is narrative.

After stressing that living is an act of experiencing time, he proceeds to

argue that living has an intimate relationship to narrating, which is an act of

employment, that is to say, an act of configurational synthesis, or ordering of

heterogeneous human actions and multiple events within a frame of time.

Reality, in its final analysis, is an experience of time, and this

experience of time becomes conceivable only through a narrative medium.That is to say, Ricoeur sees the task of philosophy as the understanding of

the self, an existential reality in time, by human actions or works. One of

these works is language given in symbols, which are configured in a

narrative3. According to this, then, narrative is our life story that reveals

universal aspects of human conditions within the concept of time. It is

narrative that makes our existence intelligible. We recognize ourselves in

the stories we tell about ourselves. It makes little difference whether these


178/205


stories are true or false. Hence, one may say that fiction as well as

verifiable history provides us with an identity (Kemp, 1985: 214).Borrowing Ricoeurs notion of time, which may configure time into a

past-present-future narrative, narrativists define history as a coherent

written emplotment of the past. In other words, history is a narrative that

reflects an interpretative act, mediated by a set of agreements and

presuppositions that are related to the concept of time and space4

Apart from history, the concept of temporal experience (Dasein) is an

aporia, i.e., not intelligible in the absence of a narrative construct. However,

history is not necessarily an equivalent term for, nor a replica of modern

historiography. This is a reductive analogy that cannot explain the totality

of human historical awareness. Much more than that, it is a Dasein, i.e., a

reflection of the totality of all modal aspects of temporal experience. To be

aware of the historical dimension of the Old Testament means to be aware of

all modal aspects of temporal experience, which in its final synthesis is the

Word-Revelation, that ultimate reference for the reality of Dasein. Now,

because this Word-Revelation is expressed in written human language, we

may - in that sense - now consider Old Testament history as narrative.

. The role

of symbols are thus crucial, as symbols create the emplotment or systematic

ordering of the multiple human actions or events in the form of writingwithin the frame of time and space. This means that the historian does not

precisely reconstruct the facts, but rather constructs a coherence about the

facts in the context of a configurational narrative within the frame of time

and space.

Historiography is not a mere retelling, a statistical reporting, or data

transferring by means of universal methodologies in the modern scientific

sense of the term. Rather, it requires a narrative coherence and the ordering

of events in sequence roughly chronological and spatial, which then

altogether constitute an employment. Consequently, one uses the word

history not merely to refer to an act of collecting data or reflecting general

patterns, but to an act of writing, i.e., historiography within time and space.

It follows that the term employment, in writing history, becomes

particularly important because it not only makes possible the construction of

a comprehensive narrative, but it also provides a framework for an

interaction, or link, of the real events of thepast, present, and future, with their


179/205


180/205


181/205


182/205


183/205


pure invention. The idea of an objective diachronic excavation might be

almost untenable in terms of modern theoretical thought. It is rather a

complex of coherent literature about the facts, i.e., a literature or

historiography (a coherent narrative configuration or emplotment) not based

on a modern perspective, but configured by the Ancient Near Eastern world,

by a sacred perception of the universe, by divine inspiration and revelation, -

all of which converge into the Word-Revelation as ultimate central point of

reference.

Ironically, historical criticism developed from a literary problem

(an incongruent text) but now, in the process of its development, it is being

questioned on the basis of a literary solution (a synchronic reading). In

other words, if one had to embark on historical criticism because of a literary

problem, it may mean that in the light of the current discussions about a

literary solution one may now depart from such an approach - historical

criticism. Therefore, what one may observe is a counter relationship

between historical criticism (literary problem) and narrative approach

(literary solution) (see Diagram -12-). This implies that historical criticism

(with its underlying empirical-positivistic literary problems) starts to fade

with the advent of the narrative approach, a product of irrationalism and

literary solutions.

(Diagram -12-)

Narrative Approach to History

Literary SolutionsHistorical Criticism

Literary Problems

Late rationalism:

e.g., empirical-positivism

Irrationalism:

e.g., existentialism

Secondary

PRIMARY LEVEL: THE PRIME PARADIGM SHIFT

(1)-Rejection of the supra-theoretical Word-Revelation.

(2)-Humanism.


184/205


Pioneers of the Biblical NarrativeApproach

It is probable that - among many other narrative scholars - Alter and

Sternberg in particular have laid the critical foundations for the narrative

approach to historical hermeneutics in Old Testament studies. What

follows, is a brief discussion of the impact of their scholarship on current

biblical studies.

Robert Alter. In an attempt to expose the distinctive principles of the

Bibles narrative art, Alter brought to the fore the often-neglected literary

qualities of the biblical text in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981).

A literary analysis of the biblical text disclosed the manifold varieties of

minutely discriminating attention to the artful use of language, to the shifting

play of ideas, conventions, tone, sound, imagery, syntax, narrative viewpoint,

compositional units, and much else; the kind of disciplined attention, in

other words, which through a whole spectrum of critical approaches hasilluminated, for example, the poetry of Dante, the plays of Shakespeare, the

novels of Tolstoy (1981:12-13).

The idea of the biblical text as historicized prose fiction has been

interwoven skillfully with the idea of the Bible as narrative at the core of his

literary analysis. Biblical narrative is accordingly a fictionalized history, a

history that is more intimately related to literary fiction than to traditional

literary critical history (Alter 1981:24-25). He therefore argues that ahistorical critical reading of biblical texts may become misleading in so far

as the text is in actuality historicized prose fiction.

As a part of his reading strategy, he proposes an excavation of

ancient literary conventions rather than historical critical data.

From manifold ancient literary configurations, Alter points out

the monotheistic employment as the constructing context for the

Old Testament narratives (1981:25ff). The ancient Israelites, with theirown peculiar literary techniques, constructed a prose narration, on the

basis of monotheistic construals. Hence, biblical narrative is more a

literary fiction, forged by monotheistic idealism, than history. The Bible as


185/205


186/205


and priorities of the ancient historian to reading it according to the agenda

and priorities of the literary critic (Moberly, 1991:21). What is common

between Alter and Sternberg, is that they both give priority to the literary

qualities, or narrative form of the biblical texts, while differing on thequestion of the relationship of history and literature. Alter thus tends to

focus on the fictional level, while Sternberg holds to the idea of history as a

literature about facts. One may accordingly at this point agree with Pfeiffer

(1948:27) that narratives present all the gradations between pure fiction and

genuine history.

Nevertheless, the ambiguity of key terms (such as history and

fiction) remains a minor affair for Sternberg. This ambiguity concerns adifference between world and word, history denoting what really happened

and fiction meaning the sphere of the imagined or invented. The reason is

simple: history-writing is not a record of fact - of what really happened -

but a discourse that claims to be a record of fact. Nor is fiction-writing a

tissue of free inventions but a discourse that claims freedom of invention.

The antithesis lies not in the presence or absence of truth value but of the

commitment to truth value (1985:25).

The historical nature of biblical narratives is thus a matter of

commitment and not of a record of fact or fiction. The Bible is neither

fiction nor historicized fiction nor fictionalized history, but historiography

pure and uncompromising. If its licenses yet open up possibilities for

literary art, they are built into the fabric of the narrative by a special

dispensation: a logic of writing equally alien to the world-centered

anachronisms of historians and the novel-centered anachronisms of literary

approaches (1985:35).

What is then historical in Sternbergs view of the Bible as narrative?

It is very difficult to say. He seems to force history into literature on the

basis that history uses language. At the same time, he sees history as a

narrative configuration of facts, i.e., he forces literature into history. He

may, perhaps, have intended a real fusion of horizons. However, onceagain, the historical dimension of the Old Testament goes beyond a simple

historical narrative. It speaks of Gods intervention in history, miraculous

acts and events, normative assertions, commitments of faith, and eternal

truths. Narrative alone, even if it claims to blend history and literature, can

hardly account for the totality of all modal aspects of the Old Testament

world, though it may present a more inclusive approach when compared to

historical criticism. Categorizing the Old Testament as a historicized prose


187/205


188/205


mean either that he is concerned with the real historical meaning of

narratives. Of course, a narrative approach is a more inclusive approach,

since it was developed in response to preceding theoretical problems, created

by the exclusivistic approach of historical criticism. It remains, however,

within the confines of theoretical thought, whereby the dichotomy between

history and literature sees no near resolution. If historical criticism had

been predominantly a product of nineteenth century rationalism, then

narrative criticism is unavoidably anchored in twentieth century

irrationalism, whereby history becomes a-history and more...even imaginary.

Gods Storybook

The concept of history as narrative, when applied to biblical

exegesis, may imply, among many other things, that the Bible is a story

rather than a history in terms of modern historical understanding. However,

what does it mean to say the Bible is a story? Does it simply mean that one

has to distinguish between what really happened and what is imagined to

have happened?'Some attempts to answer the above questions may be extracted from

the works of Leland Ryken and John J. Collins.

Leland Ryken. In his many contributions to the literary approach to

biblical exegesis8

What seems to be a fact, in the present state of biblical historical

hermeneutics, is that the Bible cannot be taken as a purely historical book, in

the modern sense, in the light of its obvious multidimensional and composite

nature. It comprises more than pure history. In this sense, a narrative

, Ryken has been emphasizing the importance of the

concept of the Bible as Gods Storybook. He argues that such an idea

does not question whether the events recorded in the Bible actually occurred

or not. It simply shows that, in terms of how the Bible actually presents

history, it resembles the chapters in a novel more than chapters in a history

book. Yet it differs from a novel in being factual rather than fictional

(Ryken, 1990b:134). While the empirical-positivistic approach to history,

typically represented by historical criticism, is mainly concerned with what

really happened, the narrativist approach to history, according to Ryken, is

mainly concerned with how these historical events are presented in

narrative form, not as the accumulation of information like that found in

modern history books (1990b:134).


189/205


approach to biblical historical hermeneutics may mean that it is not a purely

historical approach with the exclusion of all other possibilities, but that it is a

way of seeing the Bible as a whole. This demonstrates that the big pattern

in the Bible is a narrative pattern (1990b:131). Narrative gives the best

possible organizing framework for individual parts of the Bible.

What does it mean to say the Bible is a story? Ryken presents the

following six characteristics of a story which are equally applicable to

biblical texts9

In terms of Rykens literary approach to biblical exegesis, to view the

Bible as Gods storybook is to expose the literary character of the texts and

not to ignore the historical factualities. The Bible should be regarded as a

story because it consists of those very things that we associate with stories.

These include plot conflict, interaction among characters, emphasis on

human choice, a unified and coherent pattern of events that ends where it did

. Accordingly, (1) the soul of a story, as Aristole had once

said, is the plot. The Bible is above all else a series of events configured

around a plot. The Bible is arranged around a central plot, entailing a

conflict between good and evil. (2) Stories consist of interaction among

characters, and here, too, the Bible has the nature of a story, since it is full of

interaction among characters. (3) The Bible, like other stories, deals with

human choices. However, in the Bible, peoples difficulties do not arise out

of the hostility of the external world, rather, external events provide the

occasion for people to choose for or against God. (4) Another feature of

stories is that they consist of events that fit together with unity, coherence,and shapeliness. According to Aristotle, a story has a beginning, a middle,

and an end. In this sense, the Bible also presents such a structure. The

beginning is Gods creation of the world and his placing of Adam and Eve in

the garden; the middle is the universal history of the human race, controlled

by a sovereign God; and its end is literally the end - the end of history, as

portrayed in the book of Revelation. (5) Stories are unified around a

central protagonist, and so is the Bible. The story of the Bible is the storyof Gods acts in history, which biblical scholars have popularized in the

terms salvation history or holy history. Salvation history is the story of

how God entered history to save individuals and, in the Old Testament, a

nation, from physical and spiritual destruction; and finally, (6) stories are full

of the concrete experience of everyday life. The storyteller is never content

with abstract propositions: his impulse is to show, not merely to tell about

from history to narrative hermeneutics [p 000-192]

Documents