HI
Reading and Hearing the Gospel Stories
Literary-Critical Methods of Gospel Research
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
1. Narrative Criticism: The Gospels as Story
2. Other Methods and Approaches
Rhetorical Criticism
Performance Criticism
Canon Criticism
Structuralism
Poststructuralism and Deconstruction
Reader-Response Criticism
Feminist Criticism
Ethnic, Liberationist, and Postcolonial Approaches
3. The Approach of This Text
OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:
• Distinguish literary criticism from historical criticism in overall purpose and goals
• Describe the goals, methods, and main categories of narrative criticism, as well as its strengths and potential weaknesses
• Summarize the general approach of a variety of other literary methods
When my kids were growing up, we tended to buy a lot of children’s videos. This is because my kids loved to watch the same movie over and over again. As they watched the latest release, I would find myself passing through the room, catching a bit of the story here, a snippet there. After many trips, I would gradually figure out the contours of the plot until I had a pretty good idea what the movie is about. When my wife and I watch a movie, we do it very differently. We get out the popcorn and watch from beginning to end, engrossed in the story from the opening scene through the twists and turns of the plot to the climactic ending. I read novels the same way, consuming them into the wee hours of the night until I reach the end.
The historical-critical methods examined in chapter 2 (form, source, and redaction criticism) have been criticized for treating the Gospels as bits and pieces rather than as unified narratives. Narratives are stories, and stories are meant to be read and experienced from beginning to end. By dissecting the Gospels into oral traditions and hypothetical sources, the student can miss the forest for the trees—the powerful effect the story was meant to have on the reader.
While New Testament scholarship continues to benefit from historical-critical methods, gospel studies have decidedly turned from the historical process by which the Gospels arose, to their present unity as literary works. These approaches, though diverse, may be categorized as literary criticism. I will focus primarily on narrative criticism, a method that will be used throughout much of this text. But I will also briefly survey a variety of other methods: rhetorical criticism, performance criticism, canon criticism, structuralism, poststructuralism, reader-response criticism, feminist criticism, and various ethnic, postcolonial, and liberationist approaches. My goal with regard to these is not to provide a thorough survey or critique, but to introduce students to the reality that the Gospels can be read in a variety of ways and through diverse lenses.
Literary criticism refers to methods of studying the Gospels as unified literary works, rather than dissecting them into hypothetical sources and oral traditions.
Narrative Criticism: The Gospels as Story
Narrative criticism arose as a correction to the tendency of form and redaction critics to focus on the composition of the text at the expense of its narrative unity. While redaction criticism also focuses on the final form of the gospel, its concern is with the history of the text, examining how the Evangelists edited their sources to pursue certain theological goals. Narrative criticism is interested not in this editorial process but in the literary nature of the text itself, how it functions to produce the desired effect on the reader.
Narrative critics have taken categories from modern literary criticism, especially those related to the novel, and applied them to the biblical text. The call for a more literary approach was made by scholars like William Beardslee, Hans Frei, and Norman R. Peterson.1 Groundbreaking narrative-critical works on the Gospels were produced by David Rhoads and Donald Michie (Mark), R. Alan Culpepper (John), Jack Dean Kingsbury (Matthew), and Robert Tannehill (Luke-Acts).2
The Storyteller
Narrative critics distinguish between the real author, the implied author, and the narrator. The real author is the historical person who wrote the gospel. Though we can assume this person existed, the reader has no direct access to them. We may therefore speak of an implied author, the literary version of the author as discerned in the text. Though I cannot ask the writer of Mark’s gospel questions about the meaning of his text, I form an impression of the author’s beliefs and worldview by following his narrative strategy. The distinction between real and implied authors is important because the Gospels, like most other biblical narratives, are, strictly speaking, anonymous documents. Although we do not know for certain the identity of the real author, we can speak with some authority of that person’s beliefs and purpose in writing.
A third category, the narrator, refers to the voice we hear telling the story. The narrator is not the real author or the implied author but a literary device that the implied author uses to tell the story. Different narratives have different kinds of narrators. The narrator may be outside the story, using the third person (“he,” “she,” “they”), or may be a character in the story, speaking in the first person (“I,” “we”). In Mark Twain’s classic Huckleberry Finn, Huck narrates the story in the first person, using the accent, grammar, and slang of a backwoods boy. With the exception of a few first-person passages in Acts (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16), the New Testament narratives always have third-person narrators. Narrators who are story characters are usually limited in their knowledge and experience. Huckleberry Finn does not know people’s thoughts or what they are doing when he is not present. Third-person narrators, on the other hand, may be omniscient and omnipresent, describing thoughts and events that no finite person could know. The gospel writers reveal a measure of omniscience and omnipresence. The narrator of Mark, for example, describes what the scribes are thinking (2:6–7) and recounts secret meetings behind closed doors (14:10–11).
Narrators can also be reliable or unreliable. The narrator in Edgar Allan Poe’s short story “A Tell-Tale Heart” is insane and commits murder. This does not mean the real author (or the implied author) is insane or murderous, but only that he has used this literary device to tell his macabre story. The gospel narrators are always reliable. Readers are expected to accept what they say as true and reliable.
Narrative World and Evaluative Point of View
Closely related to the perspective of the narrator and implied author are the narrative world and the evaluative point of view of the narrative. The narrative world is the universe created by the implied author within which the story takes place. Created does not mean that the setting has no counterpart in the real world. The Gospels are set in first-century Palestine—a real place and time. It means that in telling the story, the implied author “sets the stage” on which the characters interact and the plot develops. The narrative world of the Gospels is a storied portrait of first-century Palestine, a landscape painted by the implied author to provide the setting for the plot. Of course, the narrative world of the Gospels is not just first-century Palestine but also a supernatural universe inhabited by God, angels, Satan, and demons. Whether or not the reader believes in God, it is impossible to comprehend the story without entering—at least for the sake of the story—this narrative world.
FIGURE 3.1—The Narrative World of the Text
Evaluative point of view refers to the values, beliefs, and worldview that the reader is expected to adopt in order to judge the events and characters of the narrative. The narrator assumes that certain actions and attitudes are right and good, and that others are wrong and bad. The gospel narrators always affirm the evaluative point of view of God, who is righteous and just and loving. By contrast, Satan and his demons are deceitful, evil, and destructive. Characters in the story are viewed as good if they follow God’s way and evil if they reject him and follow Satan. For readers to comprehend the plot and track its narrative strategy, they must adopt the implied author’s evaluative point of view.
The Story Receiver
Just as narrative critics distinguish between the real author, implied author, and narrator, so they distinguish between real readers, implied readers, and narratees. A real reader is any actual reader of the text, whether ancient or modern. The implied reader represents an imaginary person who responds appropriately to the narrative strategy. While an actual reader may respond to a text in a variety of ways, depending on his or her background and circumstances (with misunderstanding, indifference, etc.), the implied reader’s response is predictable and dependent on the narrative strategy. When Judas betrays Jesus, the implied reader responds with dismay at this act of treachery. Yet in his classic missionary account Peace Child, Don Richardson describes a tribe in Papua New Guinea that considered deceit to be a virtue and so viewed Judas as the hero. In this case, real readers (or hearers) did not adopt the evaluative point of view of the narrative and so responded inappropriately to the narrator’s strategy. The imaginary implied reader, by contrast, always responds appropriately so that the intention of the narrative is fulfilled.
The category of implied reader can be broken down further into two subcategories: the first-time (or naive) implied reader and the informed implied reader. The first-time reader does not know the story in advance, while the informed reader does. For example, a first-time reader would respond with shock to Jesus’ announcement that the Messiah is going to suffer and die (Mark 8:31). The informed reader, on the other hand, is well aware of it and is dismayed at the disciples’ failure to grasp Jesus’ teaching.
The third category of story receiver is the narratee. Just as the narrator is the voice telling the story, so the narratee is the hearer of the story. Like the narrator, the narratee is a literary device used by the implied author to accomplish his or her purpose. While the narrator’s voice is a constant feature of the gospel narratives, only rarely is attention drawn to the narratee, as when the narrator in Luke addresses Theophilus (1:1–4) or when Mark’s narrator pauses in the midst of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse to comment, “Let the reader understand” (13:14).3 In general, students need not be concerned with distinguishing the nuanced differences between implied readers and narratees.
Plot: The Progress of the Narrative
All stories have three fundamental components: plot, setting, and characters. Plot refers to the progress of the narrative, the sequence of events that move the story from introduction to conflict to climax to conclusion. Events (also called incidents or scene parts) refer to any actions or sayings by a character. The narrator in Mark describes an event with the words “Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God” (1:14). A group of related events make up a scene (also called an episode). When Jesus walks beside the sea of Galilee and calls two pairs of brothers who are fishermen, and they drop their nets and follow him (1:16–20), this sequence of events makes up a scene. A group of related scenes constitutes an act. Though this is not a category often used by New Testament critics, the series of authoritative acts and controversy stories in Mark 1:14–3:6 could be identified together as an act.
FIGURE 3.2—Components of a Narrative
Two fundamental features of plot are causation and conflict. Causation concerns the relationship of one scene to another. A plot progresses as one event leads to another, moving toward a climax and resolution. Sometimes causes are implied; other times they are explicitly stated. Jesus’ growing popularity in Mark is causally linked to the reports of his healing powers (1:45). The narrator in John makes the raising of Lazarus the decisive turning point that leads to Jesus’ crucifixion (11:45–57).
Conflict is common to all narrative. Characters face opposition of some kind, which they must work through to resolution. Conflict comes early in Mark’s gospel as Jesus is tested by Satan in the wilderness (1:12). The narrator signals by this that the story is not a merely human struggle but a spiritual conflict of cosmic proportions, with Jesus representing the evaluative point of view of God. This is confirmed as Jesus immediately comes in conflict with a demon-possessed man in the synagogue at Capernaum (1:21–25). These spiritual encounters set the stage for his conflicts with the religious leaders (2:1–3:34). By juxtaposing these episodes, the narrator portrays the religious leaders as allies of Satan in opposition to God.
While this basic conflict is common to all four gospels, it develops in different ways and to different degrees. Matthew paints an extremely negative portrait of the religious leaders as evil and unredeemable opponents of Jesus. Luke provides a more mixed view. Jesus socializes with Pharisees (7:36; 11:37; 14:1) and is even warned by them of Herod’s schemes (13:31). This sets the stage for Acts, where the religious leaders are given a second chance to respond (3:17–19), and where the Pharisees show some affinity with the Christian movement (5:33–39; 15:5; 23:7–9). Other conflicts also differ among the Gospels. Mark provides the most negative picture of the disciples. They fail to understand Jesus’ words or comprehend his mission, creating an air of tension and conflict. The (naive) implied reader is left wondering whether they will stand or fall. In Luke the disciples fare much better. Although at times they are slow to understand and succeed, their role as future leaders in the church seems assured.
Just as conflict is treated somewhat differently in each of the four gospels, so the climax and resolution work out differently. While all four gospels climax and resolve in crucifixion and resurrection, a close examination reveals a more complex picture. For Luke the resolution is not only the resurrection but also Jesus’ ascension to heaven, an event not narrated in the other gospels. Even this is not the final resolution, for Luke provides a second volume in which the gospel goes forth from Jerusalem to Rome, and from its Jewish roots to the Gentile world. The resolution is tied not only to the events of Jesus’ life but also to the worldwide outreach of the church. In Matthew the resolution is not only the resurrection but also the Great Commission, promising Jesus’ continued presence and power for the disciples (28:18–20). Mark has a much bleaker and more mysterious ending. His narrator reports no resurrection appearances, and we have only the announcement that Jesus is risen. The gospel ends with the fear and bewilderment of the women at the tomb. I will discuss the possible reasons for this ending later. For now it is sufficient to say that while the four gospels tell the same basic story, their narrative presentations—plot, characters, and settings—are sometimes very different.
Another important feature of plot relates to time and sequence. Narrative critics speak of story time, or plotted time, which concerns the manner in which time is represented in the narrative world of the text in terms of order, speed, and duration. Story time may move quickly, as when the narrator summarizes Jesus’ activity. Matthew 9:35 says, “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.” Here a single sentence in the narrative summarizes weeks or even months of story time. Story time may stop, as the narrator provides an explanation or makes an aside comment (Mark 7:3–4). It may jump forward days, months, or years (twenty years between Luke 2:51 and 3:1), or back to a previous time. Mark 6:14–29 is a flashback referring to Herod’s execution of John the Baptist. The speed with which story time is narrated may indicate an author’s emphasis. In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus often teaches in long discourses in which the narration runs at approximately the same speed as story time (e.g., Matt. 5–7). This slowing emphasizes Jesus’ role in Matthew as a great Moses-like teacher. In all four gospels, story time slows considerably during the last week of Jesus’ life and particularly through the passion narrative. This reveals the importance of Jesus’ death for the Evangelists.
Characters
Closely related to the plot are its characters, whose actions and interactions carry the narrative forward. Characters can either be individuals—like Peter, Nicodemus, and Judas—or groups, like the disciples, the Pharisees, or the crowds. Groups function as characters when they share similar traits and act together in the narrative. When the crowd cries for Jesus’ death, “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:13), they are functioning as a single character.
Characterization is the manner in which characters are portrayed for the reader. Characters are understood from their traits, qualities attributed to them in the narrative. These traits may emerge in two ways, through “telling” or “showing.” Telling is when the narrator explicitly ascribes a trait to the character. Jesus’ father Joseph is identified as a “righteous man” (Matt. 1:19 NRSV), and Zechariah and Elizabeth are “righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and decrees blamelessly” (Luke 1:6). Showing is when a character’s traits emerge indirectly through their words and actions, their interaction with other characters, or their assessment by others. John the Baptist’s righteous character is revealed in Matthew through his preaching and baptizing ministry (3:1–17), Jesus’ testimony to his greatness (11:7–19), and the events surrounding his martyrdom (14:1–12).
Literary critics distinguish various types of characters. Round characters are complex and often unpredictable, with multiple traits. Flat characters are simple, one-dimensional, and predictable. Peter is a classic round character, with his contradictory traits of impetuous zeal, extreme loyalty, and wavering faith. The religious leaders are generally flat, predictably self-righteous, envious, and hypocritical.
Characters can also be static or dynamic. Dynamic characters develop and change in the course of the narrative, while static characters remain the same. The disciples in Mark do not experience significant change, though they do have their ups and downs. In Luke-Acts, on the other hand, we see the disciples moving from immaturity to leadership in the church.
Jesus does not fit easily into these categories. He is certainly round rather than flat, a multifaceted and complex figure. Yet he is also in some sense static and predictable, for he always represents God’s evaluative point of view. The implied reader never has a doubt that Jesus will act according to God’s will.
This example raises the issue of the relationship between characterization and evaluative point of view. Characters are either good or bad, right or wrong, depending on their relationship to the story’s evaluative point of view. Jesus is the main character and protagonist because he reflects perfectly the evaluative point of view of God. The chief antagonists—Satan, demons, and the religious leaders—oppose Jesus and so run counter to God’s purpose and plan.
Setting
Setting refers to all facets of the narrative world in which characters act and events occur. There are three kinds of setting: local, temporal, and sociocultural.
Local setting refers to any spatial orientation, whether geography (mountains, lakes, etc.), political-cultural locales (Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem), or any other object or place (a room, a boat, a bed). The Synoptic Gospels locate Jesus’ early ministry in Galilee, and especially in the towns and villages around the Sea of Galilee. Jesus’ movement from Galilee to Jerusalem leads to the climax of the narrative. In John, by contrast, Jesus moves back and forth between Galilee and Judea, attending several Jewish festivals in Jerusalem.
The settings of a narrative can include place, time, or social circumstances.
Settings often carry symbolic as well as historical significance. Mountains are places of revelation, especially in Matthew’s gospel, in which Jesus is presented as a kind of new Moses giving God’s law on the mountain (5:1). The desert is a place of testing and revelation. Just as Israel was tested for forty years in the wilderness, so Jesus spends forty days in the desert tempted by Satan (Mark 1:13, par.). Jerusalem plays an important symbolic role in Luke’s gospel. It is the place where God’s salvation is accomplished and from where the message of salvation goes forth in Acts. But it also represents Israel’s stubborn rejection of God’s purpose and their coming judgment.
Temporal settings also appear throughout the Gospels. Many of these are general (“one day Jesus was teaching,” Luke 5:17); others are more specific. Jesus’ transfiguration occurs “after six days” (Mark 9:2); he dies “at three in the afternoon” (Mark 15:34; Gk., “at the ninth hour”) and rises “on the first day of the week” (Luke 24:1). Temporal indicators may be chronological, related to sequence, or may be descriptive, related to type or kind of time. After a late night of ministry, Jesus is said to have risen “very early in the morning, while it was still dark,” to pray (Mark 1:35). The point is the priority of prayer in Jesus’ life. When Jesus says, “Pray that your flight will not take place in winter” (Matt. 24:20), he is referring not to the time of year per se but to the harsh conditions of the season. Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath provokes outrage from the religious leaders because of the Old Testament law against Sabbath work. Jesus redefines the Sabbath as a day created for the benefit, not the burden, of people (Mark 2:27). Temporal settings, like physical ones, can carry symbolic significance. As noted above, the forty days of Jesus’ testing in the wilderness are analogous to Israel’s forty years of wandering. In John, Jesus’ teaching during various Jewish festivals often carries symbolic links to those festivals. Jesus identifies himself as the “light of the world” and offers “living water” to the thirsty while teaching at the Feast of Tabernacles, a festival marked by water-pouring and lamp-lighting ceremonies (7:2, 37–39; 8:12).
Sunrise over the Sea of Galilee
Todd Bolen/BiblePlaces.com
Early morning at Mount Sinai
iStock.com/George Muresan (cluj-Romania)
The Judean Wilderness
© 2018 by Zondervan
Settings like mountains, lakes, and deserts have theological as well as physical significance in the Gospels. The mountain is a place of revelation for Matthew, as it was for Moses and the nation of Israel. The desert is a place of testing and danger.
Sociocultural setting refers to the world of human relationships in which the narrative occurs. These settings may be political, social, cultural, or economic. The gospel narratives take place during the Roman occupation of Palestine in the first century AD. Jesus’ statement “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17, par.) makes little sense without an awareness of Roman hegemony and the Jewish revolutionary movements that arose from it. Jesus’ parable of the tenant farmers (Mark 12:1–12, par.) comes to life when we recognize, first, that it is an adaptation of Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard (Isa. 5:1–7) and, second, that it has as its backdrop the economic realities of poor peasant farmers and wealthy absentee landlords in the Galilean countryside. Jesus’ call to invite the crippled, the lame, and the blind to one’s banquets (Luke 14:13–14) is perceived very differently today than in the first century, when meals were important rituals of social status.
Jerusalem and the temple are important settings in Luke’s Gospel. A view of Jerusalem from the east, from the model of first-century Jerusalem at the Israel Museum.
© 2018 by Zondervan
To understand the narrative world of the Gospels, the reader must enter into their historical and cultural contexts. This aspect of setting is so important that the next three chapters will be devoted to the historical, religious, and social backgrounds of the Gospels.
Rhetoric: Narrative Patterns and Literary Devices
Rhetoric refers to the way in which a story is told to achieve the desired response from the reader. The gospel narratives utilize a variety of narrative patterns and rhetorical devices. The recognition of these literary forms is not new to narrative criticism. Scholars have always recognized that the Gospels utilize many literary techniques. The following represent a small sampling.
Repetition is one of the simplest ways of stressing a theme. Repetition may be of words, phrases, or any number of narrative patterns. Matthew’s narrator repeatedly says, “This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying . . .,” to emphasize that the Jesus story is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. Mark is fond of series of threes. Three boat scenes illustrate the disciples’ lack of faith (4:35–41; 6:45–54; 8:14–21); three times Jesus predicts his death (8:31–38; 9:30–37; 10:32–45); three times Peter denies him (14:68, 70, 71). Repetition indicates an author’s concerns and emphases.
Chiasm refers to inverse parallelism, a concentric pattern in which a series repeats itself in reverse order. While this may be a simple pattern of four (ABB´A´), it can also be more complex, with six or more items (ABCDC´B´A´). The item or items in the middle (here D) is often the point of emphasis. The narrative builds to this point and then descends from it. The prologue of John’s gospel is often treated as a chiasm (see fig. 10.4). While scholars sometimes go overboard in finding a chiasm under every biblical rock and tree (we could call this “chiasmania”), it is a fairly common literary device in ancient literature and an effective means of structuring a discourse.
Inclusio is a “bookend” structure in which the narrator identifies the boundaries of a section by placing a similar statement or episode at the beginning and end. A good example of inclusio is the two statements of Jesus’ growth in “wisdom” (Luke 2:40, 52) on either side of the story of the boy Jesus’ extraordinary wisdom (Luke 2:41–51). The two bookends provide an explanatory summary of the middle episode.
Intercalation, or “sandwiching,” is similar to inclusio, except that one episode is inserted (intercalated) into the middle of another, interrupting the narrative. The two episodes are generally related to a common theme. This is one of Mark’s favorite literary devices, occurring numerous times throughout his gospel. One of the most important examples is the author’s sandwiching of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple between the cursing of a fig tree and its discovery as withered (11:12–25). (See fig. 7.2.) The intercalation suggests that the withering, like the temple clearing, represents God’s judgment against Israel.
Symbolism is a general term for one thing standing for something else. As we have seen, settings of various kinds can carry symbolic significance (mountains, deserts, Jerusalem). Teaching methods like metaphors and similes are symbolic, making their points through comparison. Similes are explicit comparisons using words like “like” or “as” (the crowds are “like sheep without a shepherd,” Matt. 9:36). Metaphors directly equate two things (“You are the light of the world,” Matt. 5:14). Though more forceful, they have essentially the same function of comparison. A similitude is an extended simile. Jesus compares the kingdom of God to leaven, which works its way through the entire dough (Matt. 13:33). A parable is a short story with symbolic significance.
While in symbolism, the literal or apparent meaning points to a deeper meaning, in irony the apparent meaning is contrary to the real meaning. Situational irony is when events themselves are ironic. In a sense, the whole gospel story is situational irony, for salvation is accomplished through the apparent defeat of the Messiah. John’s gospel is full of situational irony, as characters inadvertently make statements or raise questions that are ironically true. Nathanael doubts if anything good can come from Nazareth (1:46), and the Samaritan woman asks if Jesus is greater than their father Jacob (4:12). In the episode of the man born blind, the Pharisees ask sarcastically, “What? Are we blind too?” (9:40). The episode implies that spiritually speaking, they are! Verbal irony is when a character intentionally uses irony. Jesus “congratulates” the religious leaders for setting aside the commandments of God in favor of their own traditions (Mark 7:9). He accuses the religious leaders of knowing how to interpret the changing weather, yet not recognizing the signs of the times (Matt. 16:2–3). In the parable of the rich fool, Jesus points to the irony of a man who has stored up great wealth for retirement but will die and lose it that very night (Luke 12:16–20).
Irony is a powerful rhetorical device because it creates a sense of community between the author and the readers. By recognizing the irony, readers become “insiders” to meaning that the story’s characters miss. Symbolism plays a similar role. Readers who “get” the symbols identify with the author and the narrative’s evaluative point of view.
Assessment of Narrative Criticism
Narrative criticism is a useful tool that provides important correctives to the problems associated with historical-critical methods. Here are some of its strengths:
1. Narrative criticism reads the text according to its literary form, as narrative or story. The gospel writers intentionally chose narrative as their medium, utilizing plot, characters, and settings to pass on the significance of Jesus. A method is needed that takes this genre seriously. Many students, after wading through the technical and subjective analyses of historical criticism, find narrative analysis refreshingly clear and relevant. This is partly because story is common to all human experience. We intuitively recognize the elements of narrative because we hear stories all our lives and live them out every day.
2. Narrative criticism respects the unity and integrity of the text, focusing on its present form rather than on the oral traditions or hypothetical sources that stand behind it. Protestant hermeneutics has traditionally considered the canonical text to be the authoritative Word of God. It is the biblical authors, not their sources, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3. By respecting the integrity of the text, narrative criticism allows a more objective analysis. The subjectivity of reconstructing sources and determining editorial purposes is reduced when the object of study is the text as it stands. While there are always some uncertainties concerning narrative purpose and strategy, these are considerably lessened because of the more transparent nature of the story.
4. Narrative criticism allows the determination of meaning without certainty concerning the life situation of the authors and their communities. The narrative strategy and theological themes of the second gospel, for example, are discernible whether or not the author was John Mark, the companion of Paul and Peter, and whether or not he wrote while living in Rome in the late 60s.
5. Narrative critics identify artistic and literary features of the Gospels, which have received insufficient attention in the past. Narrative analysis has confirmed that the Evangelists were indeed authors and literary artists, not just compilers of traditions. Gospel studies have been enriched through an expanded vocabulary related to plot, character, and setting.
Narrative criticism is a valuable tool because it studies the Gospels according to their primary literary category: narrative or story.
What are the weaknesses of narrative criticism? Most weaknesses are not fundamental to the method but relate to tendencies among some narrative critics:
1. Narrative critics sometimes assume the nonhistoricity of the text, treating “story” as synonymous with “ fiction.” This assumption is not necessary, however, for historical narrative means “history told as story,” using narrative to depict real events that occurred in space and time. Historical narrative must here be distinguished from historical novel, in which the historical setting is real but the main characters are fictitious.
2. Narrative critics sometimes ignore or avoid historical and cultural background. Since authors create narrative worlds, it is sometimes suggested that historical and cultural background are of little significance. Stories have lives of their own. But this wrongly assumes that narrative worlds have no relationship to the real world. While some stories may be told with little historical context (for example, I could tell a story about a boy and his dog without identifying the place, period of time, or cultural context), in historical narrative (and historical novel) the setting is a key part of the narrative world. The more readers know about this background, the better they will understand the story. Just as our understanding of Charles Dickens’s historical novel A Tale of Two Cities is enriched if we know the history of eighteenth-century France, so our understanding of the gospel narratives is deepened by learning their historical, cultural, and social backgrounds.
3. Narrative critics sometimes impose modern literary categories on ancient literature. Since narrative criticism borrows categories from contemporary literary theory, there is a danger of artificially imposing modern literary categories onto very different ancient forms. This is less of a danger than it may first appear, for all stories have certain common features, such as plot, characters, and settings. Yet the caution is a good one, and narrative critics should look first to first-century, rather than twenty-first-century, literary models when analyzing the Gospels. As noted in chapter 1, recent research on ancient biography has enriched our understanding of the gospel genre.4
4. Narrative critics sometimes reject historical-critical approaches. Narrative critics often treat the Gospels as independent works, rejecting any comparison between them. Yet while source and redaction analyses go beyond the scope of narrative criticism, they are not incompatible with it, and the methods can be used together. The likelihood that the gospel writers used each other as sources means we can gain insights through their comparison.
Other Methods and Approaches
Narrative criticism is not the only method of gospel analysis that moves away from the historical-critical method. In the last half century, a wide variety of approaches and methodologies have been brought to bear on the Bible in general and on the Gospels in particular. Some of these methods draw from ancient categories (rhetorical criticism) or the nature of ancient oral culture (performance criticism). Others focus on how the text functions in terms of its underlying nature (structuralism) or its role as the church’s Scripture (canon criticism). Still others focus on what the reader brings to the text (reader-response criticism) or on the diverse perspectives through which Scripture can be read (African, Asian, Latino/a, etc.), or seek to take into account Scripture’s legacy as a means of liberation or as a tool of oppression (feminist; postcolonial; deconstruction).
The purpose of this section is not to provide a comprehensive survey or critique of these methods. It is instead to provide very brief introductions to make students aware of the diverse range of methods beyond the scope of this text.
Rhetorical Criticism
Rhetoric refers to the skillful use of language to produce a desired effect in an audience. It is an ancient art that became the foundation of the educational system of the Greco-Roman world. The Greek philosopher Aristotle and the Roman orator Cicero both wrote major works on rhetoric.5 Aristotle distinguished three types of rhetoric. Judicial rhetoric was meant to accuse or defend, as a lawyer would do in a court of law. Deliberative rhetoric was used to persuade or dissuade, as a politician trying to convince an audience at a political rally. Epideictic rhetoric was used to praise or blame another’s actions, as a friend might eulogize another at a memorial service. Aristotle also categorized three kinds of appeal: logos (logic; sound reasoning of the mind), pathos (stirring the emotions of the heart), and ethos (character; appealing to what is morally right or noble). Cicero identified three purposes of rhetoric: to instruct, delight, and persuade.
Rhetorical criticism uses these and other categories to analyze the means of persuasion and rhetorical strategy of authors. Key pioneers in biblical rhetorical criticism have been James Muilenburg (Old Testament), and Amos Wilder and George A. Kennedy (New Testament).6 Rhetorical criticism has proven especially useful in analyzing epistolary literature like the letters of Paul, and discourses found in narrative, like the speeches in Acts and the sermons of Jesus.
Rhetorical criticism is similar in some ways to narrative criticism in that both analyze the strategies used to produce a desired effect on the reader. One strength of rhetorical criticism is that it uses ancient categories to analyze ancient literature. While neither Paul nor the gospel writers are likely to have had formal training in Greco-Roman rhetoric, they would have been familiar with the patterns of speech and methods of argumentation used by the philosophers and teachers of their day.
While helpful for analyzing letters and individual speeches, rhetorical criticism is less effective when studying the gospel narratives as wholes. This is because the conclusions of rhetorical criticism are more dependent on the specific life situation (the Sitz im Leben) of the author and readers. While these settings are quite clear for a letter like 1 Corinthians (Paul was in Ephesus on his third missionary journey writing to the church in Corinth), they are less certain for our Gospels. We can make a good guess that Matthew is writing to a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles in Antioch, or that Mark is writing to persecuted believers in Rome, but it is precarious to base our narrative analysis on these hypotheses. It seems better to draw conclusions first and foremost from what we can see directly—the literary features of the text—than from a hypothetical reconstruction of the gospel writer’s setting in life.
Performance Criticism
Performance criticism is a recent methodology that some claim represents a paradigm shift in gospel studies.7 The method starts with the widely held assumption that first-century Mediterranean culture was primarily oral. By some estimates, up to 95 percent of the population was illiterate, and written manuscripts were expensive and rare. Even among the wealthy class, reading and writing was considered menial work and so relegated to educated servants. It follows that most people saw or heard texts performed rather than reading them personally or in private. If this is the case, the Gospels should not be viewed primarily as literature, but as “scripts” or memory aids for oral performances. They ought to be studied not as polished literary works, but as remnants of a particular performance.
In oral cultures, the dissemination of information took place through social interaction, either informal conversation or formal performances. The primary repository of cultural tradition was not papyrus or parchment, but rather memory. And communal memory was considered to have even higher authority than written texts.8
Performance criticism is often interdisciplinary, bringing together research in literacy, oral culture, social identity, collective memory, classical rhetoric, speech arts, etc. There is also a tendency to seek to replicate the performance model by memorizing and performing the Gospels.9
Since performance criticism is a newer methodology, it is uncertain whether it will catch on or make a significant impact on gospel studies. Whether or not the Gospels originated as records of oral performances, they are certainly literature now and their study as literature has proven fruitful. This suggests the authors had a conscious eye on these literary features. Attempts to identify the vestiges of oral and auditory features may prove elusive and the conclusions reached too subjective to achieve a scholarly consensus.
There is also something of a countermovement to performance criticism in the study of “communal reading” in the Greco-Roman world.10 Brian Wright, for example, challenges popular notions related to illiteracy and the rarity of books, claiming that writing materials and book culture were far more pervasive than sometimes claimed, and that through communal or public reading events, written texts were engaged widely across a variety of social classes.11 When read publicly, these texts became the textual property of the community so that it is not quite right to refer to an illiterate public. Evidence for such public reading comes from New Testament passages like 1 Timothy 4:13 and Revelation 1:3, and early Christian writings like 2 Clement 19:1 and Shepherd of Hermes 8:3.
Canon Criticism
The canon refers to the collection of books considered by the church to be authoritative Scripture. For Protestants, the canon is made up of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. Roman Catholics include the books of the Apocrypha. Canon criticism refers to a variety of methods that focus on the relationship of the books of the Bible to one another and the role they play in the life of the church. The goal of canon criticism is to study the biblical text as the church’s Scripture, not merely as historical writings. Key pioneers of canon criticism were Brevard Childs and James A. Sanders.12 While canon critics of the Gospels do not reject historical-critical methods, they are more interested in the Gospels as literary wholes. Yet they go beyond narrative and rhetorical criticism to the broader question of how these texts were collected, preserved, and interpreted in faith communities. Some canon critics focus on the history of interpretation, others on the interplay of textual meaning between the Testaments and in the later church, still others on the hermeneutics of canon, that is, how it functions as authoritative Scripture.
While redaction critics might analyze the process by which Matthew edited Mark, and narrative critics the narrative strategy of the implied author, a canon critic is more interested in how the Gospels have been read and interpreted in church settings. Though each gospel arose under unique circumstances, the church has traditionally viewed them as an inspired collection. This canonical approach is evident in the writings of a church father like Irenaeus, who insisted on the divine necessity of four gospels and compared them to the four winds, the four points of the compass, the four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ), and the four living creatures of Revelation 4:7 and Ezekiel 1:10 (man, lion, ox, eagle).13
For canon critics, it is not enough to seek a book’s historical origin or the author’s intention. While historical critics often deny Paul’s authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus), the church has historically viewed them as part of the Pauline corpus, and so inspired Scripture. From a canon-critical perspective, historical authorship is secondary to canonical status, which confirms that the Pastorals are inspired Scripture and authoritative for the church’s faith and practice. One explicit goal of canon critics is to take the Bible out of the ivory towers of critical scholarship and give it back to the church, for whom it was written.
Canon criticism can be seen as a positive contribution in that it focuses on the unity of the Gospels and their role as inspired Scripture. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the writing also guided the church’s collection, preservation, and interpretation of the Gospels. At the same time, there is potential danger in shifting too much of the locus of meaning from authors and texts to reading communities.
Structuralism
Structuralism is not just a literary method but a variety of philosophical approaches that have their roots in the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure, the anthropological studies of Claude Lévi-Strauss, and the structural analysis of Russian folklore by Vladimir Propp.14 The application of structuralism to biblical studies was particularly championed by Daniel Patte and his colleagues at Vanderbilt University.15
Structuralists claim that literature, like language, functions in conventional patterns. Just as there are rules of grammar that govern the way we speak, so there is a “grammar” of literature that determines the way stories operate. While each story may have a different plot, setting, and characters, below this surface structure is a “deep structure” that follows certain stereotypical patterns. Certain plot movements, character types, and kinds of action are common to all stories. By identifying and categorizing these structures, stories can be objectively analyzed.
Structuralism is fundamentally formalist and text-centered. It is the underlying form or pattern—the deep structure—that determines the meaning of the story. Because an author may not even be conscious of this structure, meaning resides not in the author’s intention but in the text itself.
While structuralism holds some promise of a more objective analysis of a narrative, it has not made deep inroads into gospel studies and is not widely practiced today. This is probably because its technical vocabulary and complex methods are difficult to master and seldom seem to provide greater insights than a more straightforward or narrative-focused reading of the text.
Poststructuralism and Deconstruction
The following methodologies may all be called poststructuralist, for they represent reactions of one sort or another against the claims of objective analysis found in structuralism and historical-critical methods. They all move the locus of meaning from the author or the text to the reader.
Initially developed in the works of Jacques Derrida, deconstruction began as a reaction against structuralism, claiming that the key to language is not structure but lack of structure and meaning.16 Like structuralism, deconstruction is not just a literary theory but a whole philosophical system that can be applied to history, literature, and the arts.
Deconstruction begins with the premise that language is inherently unstable and imprecise. Because words can mean many different things, all communication, and hence all meaning, is constantly shifting and relative. Any piece of literature can be “deconstructed” to reveal its ambiguity and hence its meaninglessness. Because there are as many meanings as readers for any text, meaning is imposed on texts rather than inherent in them. When used by those in power, language is not a means of communication but a vehicle of oppression, a weapon that defines, limits, and controls rather than sets free. The goal of deconstruction is to free readers from the oppression of language and consequently from other types of oppression.
On the positive side, deconstructionists have correctly pointed out that all communication has a measure of imprecision and ambiguity and that language can be and often is used as a tool of control, manipulation, and oppression. This should encourage humility and caution in all biblical interpretation.
Yet while any sentence can be deconstructed to show its ambiguities, it is also true that incomplete knowledge does not mean zero knowledge. Something can be true without being 100 percent verifiable. Indeed, little on this side of eternity is 100 percent certain. The apostle Paul confirmed that while we live in this body, our knowledge is incomplete, a dim reflection of eternity (1 Cor. 13:12). Yet this partial knowledge can still be meaningful and true. Even deconstructionists must admit that language has some ability to communicate, for they insist that what they are saying about their theory is true, and therefore meaningful.
Deconstruction has value as a check against the excessive optimism of modernity concerning the ability to achieve objective knowledge. Yet as a methodology it does not provide much insight beyond the ideological approaches discussed below. It is not the case that texts are simply blank slates on which readers impose whatever meaning they choose. The gospel writers had a story to tell—perspectives and intentions that can be discerned with a high degree of accuracy by analyzing their narratives in the context of first-century Judaism and the Greco-Roman world. Once we humbly acknowledge that our own perspective is contextual, perspectival, and necessarily limited, we can get down to the hard task of hearing the message the Evangelists sought to communicate to their readers.
Reader-Response Criticism
Reader-response criticism represents a variety of approaches that find meaning not in the author’s intention or in the text alone but in the response of readers. Within this broad category there are many variations. For some reader-response critics, there is no privileged meaning of the text, for every reader forms his or her own meaning. No one reading is better than any other. Readers use the text to pursue their own interests and agendas. Others reject this level of subjectivity and claim that there are legitimate and illegitimate readings but that these are determined not by the author’s intention but by “reading communities.”17 A community’s worldview, background, and context determine the correct meaning of the text. Still others consider meaning to reside neither in readers nor in texts but in some kind of dynamic interchange between the two. Readers produce meaning, but they do so within certain boundaries or limits established by the text.18 Another direction reader-centered approaches have gone is to study the way various readers respond to the text. This approach, sometimes called audience criticism or reception criticism, is usually more text centered and historically focused than the others.
Reader-response criticism correctly recognizes that meaning is never perceived apart from a reader, and that readers always bring their worldviews, interests, and biases to the text. Nobody reads without presuppositions. Recognizing how much the reader’s community determines his or her approach to the text is also important. Readers from the industrialized West would do well to recognize that their reading is not the only one and that they can learn much through the eyes of others, particularly those whose cultures are closer to the first-century Mediterranean world in which the Gospels arose.
At the same time, identifying meaning primarily or exclusively with readers can open a Pandora’s box of subjectivity and lose sight of the Gospels as communicative literature. Though meaning is never perceived apart from a receiver, all true communication begins with a sender, whose intention or speech act provides the foundation for meaning. A methodology that takes into account the important role of readers in the interpretive process also needs to respect the nature of the text as a communicative event and the author as the instigator of this speech act.
The methods that follow may all be viewed as in some sense subcategories of reader-response criticism, for they seek to view the text from a particular vantage point, whether from the perspective of women, particular ethnicities, the two-thirds world, or the politically or economically oppressed. These methods bring to the table the important insight that all readers view the text from a particular vantage point. The natural human tendency is to treat one’s own perspective as normative and objective, and that of others as skewed. These diverse methodologies remind us that (1) everyone views texts through a particular social and cultural lens; (2) all of us have biases that can blind us to important features of the text and its context; and (3) listening to diverse viewpoints can enrich our understanding, especially when such viewpoints come from contexts that are closer to the cultural world of the Gospels. For example, certain cultural values that are not particularly prominent in the West—such as honor and shame, patronage, and hospitality—have much greater importance in other cultures around the world. Seeking to view the text through the eyes of others can enrich our understanding.
Feminist Criticism
Feminist biblical interpretation examines the biblical text from the perspective of and the experience of women, especially with reference to the history of gender inequality and the subordination and exploitation of women. The movement achieved prominence in biblical studies in the second half of the twentieth century, particularly through the work of prominent feminist biblical scholars like Phyllis Bird, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and Phyllis Trible. Feminist approaches may utilize a variety of methods, including historical-critical and literary methods (redaction, narrative, rhetorical, reader-response, liberationist, etc.).
Some feminist studies seek to expose the negative portrayal of women resulting from a patriarchal culture and worldview. Others highlight exemplary models of women as leaders, teachers, prophets, and apostles. In the Gospels, feminist scholars often analyze the narrative role played by such prominent women as Mary the mother of Jesus, Elizabeth, Anna, Mary Magdalene, the Samaritan woman at the well, Mary of Bethany, and the women who supported Jesus’ ministry. How are women portrayed, either in the text itself or in its interpretation throughout history? For example, is the dance of Herod’s daughter, which her mother Herodias uses to coerce Herod into executing John the Baptist, an innocent child’s game or an erotic display?19 Is Herodias a stereotype of women of power and position? Are the five marriages of the Samaritan woman in John 4 an indication of immorality or evidence that she was a victim of exploitation (perhaps because she has been unable to bear children)?
Because of the patriarchal cultures in which the Bible arose, feminist interpreters often experience a degree of ambivalence. Sometimes they interpret and critique the biblical text as a tool used to promote the subjugation and oppression of women. Other times they seek to show its potential as liberating from sexism and subversive to male oppression. The introduction to A Feminist Companion to Luke illustrates this paradox well, pointing out that while some studies affirm that Luke’s narrative “celebrates women’s discipleship, self-determination, and leadership,” others claim “the Gospel of Luke threatens any attempt made by women . . . to find a voice in either society or church.”20 Like all biblical scholars, feminist scholars face the challenge of discerning God’s voice in the complex (patriarchal) culture of the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman world.
Ethnic, Liberationist, and Postcolonial Approaches
Globalization has led to the recognition that much of what is considered to be objective or neutral biblical interpretation is in fact a Western and Eurocentric perspective. Studies of the Bible in general and the Gospels in particular arising from diverse social, cultural, and ethnic contexts have proven fruitful for a better understanding of the biblical text and its context.21 Latino/a,22 African23 (and African American24), and Asian25 approaches have emphasized themes often neglected in traditional biblical studies, such as economic and social injustice, spiritual warfare, racial inequality, poverty, power, and oppression. The biblical themes of justice, emancipation (the exodus, year of jubilee, etc.), and return from exile have been particularly prominent in these studies.
As an academic discipline, postcolonialism analyzes and critiques the impact and legacy of the dominance by the Western world powers over the majority world. Postcolonial studies arose during the decline and aftermath of colonial hegemony in the twentieth century. Researchers focus on the dynamics of power, oppression, and racism, and the long-term impact of cultural suppression and economic exploitation. Postcolonial studies often seek to expose and refute the paternalistic narrative that the historical subjugation of people groups represented not exploitation, but the extension of civilization for their good. Western values, beliefs, and practices are often critically scrutinized.
The integration of postcolonial studies and biblical criticism examines how colonialism has influenced Christian experience and biblical interpretation among subject peoples, especially with reference to the effects of military, economic, and social dominance, assertions of cultural superiority, and racial and ethnic prejudice. Postcolonial interpretation may compare the role and influence of biblical world empires—the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans—with that of Western colonial powers. The Gospels, for example, are often viewed as subversive documents promoting the values of the kingdom of God in direct or indirect opposition to the power of imperial Rome.26
The Approach of This Text
Our approach to the four gospels will be an eclectic one, taking into account their historical, social, literary, and theological features. First, we will assume that the Gospels are historical documents, written to Christian communities in a first-century Mediterranean context. Historical, social, and cultural backgrounds are therefore essential to understanding the text.
The present text seeks to take into account the historical, social, literary, and theological nature of the Gospels.
Second, we assume that these works have a composition history. It is beyond dispute that the authors used sources, and that to a greater or lesser extent, we can discern these sources. While Markan priority is favored, most of our conclusions will be based on general gospel comparison rather than a specific source theory.
Third, gospel comparisons (horizontal reading) will be done in the service of a narrative and theological analysis of the text (vertical reading). Though the gospel writers used sources, each has a story to tell, and that story should be read as a literary and theological unity. Primary attention will be given to how the writers narrated their plots, portrayed their characters, developed their theological themes, and employed rhetorical devices.
Finally, from this narrative and theological analysis, we will seek to answer questions concerning the historical context of the authors and original audiences. While we assume the Gospels were written by historical authors to real audiences, our access to these specific contexts is limited and our conclusions are necessarily tentative. In our study of them, we will move from what is most certain to what is least. From a literary analysis, we can draw likely conclusions concerning the author’s evaluative point of view and theological perspective. Tentative suggestions can then be made concerning authorship, audience, date, and life situation. Not only is this the most objective approach to the Gospels, but since inspiration by the Holy Spirit has traditionally been associated with the Gospels in their canonical form, it also represents a reverent and devotional approach.
Because the gospel narrators are always presumed to be reliable (by the implied author), and because we are assuming a real author behind the implied one, we will not always adhere to strict distinctions between real authors, implied authors, and narrators. Furthermore, when we use the designations “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke,” and “John,” we mean the implied author (the author as perceived in the narrative) behind whom lies a real author.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
1. Literary criticism refers to various methods of studying the Gospels as unified wholes, rather than from the perspective of sources and composition history.
2. Narrative criticism examines the Gospels as story, analyzing features such as plot, character, and setting.
a. The evaluative point of view is the worldview, beliefs, and values that the implied reader is expected to adopt. The Gospels affirm the evaluative point of view of God, and of his agent Jesus Christ.
b. The plot of a narrative is the progress of the story. It is made up of events, scenes, and acts, which move forward through causation and conflict to climax and resolution.
c. Story time refers to the passage of time in the world of the text. Story time can be narrated slowly or quickly. It can stop, move forward, or move backward (flashback).
d. Characters can be individuals or groups. Characterization refers to the manner in which their traits are revealed in the story, either by telling or by showing. Characters can be round (complex) or flat (one dimensional); they can also be static (unchanging) or dynamic (progressing).
e. Setting is all the features of the narrative world of the text. These settings can be local, temporal, or sociocultural.
f. Rhetoric refers to the narrative patterns and literary devices used by the author to achieve a response. Some of the more common rhetorical features in the Gospels are repetition, chiasm, inclusio, and intercalation. Metaphors, similes, similitudes, and parables carry symbolic significance. Irony is also used with great effect throughout the Gospels.
g. The primary strength of narrative criticism is that it analyzes the Gospels according to their basic genre: narrative. The main weakness is that narrative critics sometimes ignore the historical nature of these texts: their composition history (sources and redaction), their historical life setting, and the historicity of the events portrayed.
3. Other literary methods have been applied to the Gospels. Some of these are briefly surveyed:
a. Rhetorical criticism uses categories developed in the ancient world to evaluate the rhetorical methods used to produce a desired effect on readers.
b. Performance criticism treats the Gospels as scripts or records of recitations or oral performances of the gospel story.
c. Canon criticism seeks to read the Bible with reference to its role as inspired Scripture within the life of the church.
d. Structuralism seeks to identify conventional patterns—a “deep structure”—that lie behind the surface structure of the gospel narratives. Structuralists seek an objective analysis of the text through the identification of universal and stereotypical features of plot, character, and setting.
e. Deconstruction rejects any inherent meaning in the text, considering all language to be a means of power and oppression.
f. Reader-response criticism is poststructuralist in that it claims the meaning of the text is to be found not in its formal structure but in the response of its readers. Reader-focused approaches are diverse, from those who claim texts have no inherent meaning and that the reader alone creates the meaning, to those who accept an original authorial meaning but seek to discern how certain readers would hear the text.
g. Feminist approaches seek to read the text from the perspective of women, especially with reference to their historical oppression in the context of a patriarchal worldview.
h. Postcolonial and ethnic-specific approaches seek to read the text from the perspective of the particular ethnic or cultural group, especially those who are less empowered and/or oppressed by a dominant power.
4. The perspective of this text is eclectic, utilizing narrative and redaction criticism, with a constant eye on the historical, social, literary, and theological nature of the Gospels.
KEY TERMS
canon criticism narrative criticism real readers, implied readers, narratees
causation narrative world
characters, characterization: round, flat, dynamic, static performance criticism rhetoric: repetition, chiasm, inclusio, intercalation, symbolism, irony
plot: events, scenes, acts plotted time
conflict
deconstruction postcolonial approaches rhetorical criticism
evaluative point of view reader-response criticism settings: local, temporal, sociocultural
feminist criticism real author, implied author, narrator
Gentile story time
literary criticism structuralism
DISCUSSION AND STUDY QUESTIONS
1. What is the difference between historical and literary criticism, as defined in the text?
2. What is the goal of narrative criticism?
3. What is the difference between a real author, an implied author, and a narrator?
4. What does evaluative point of view mean? What is the evaluative point of view of the Gospels?
5. Describe the main features of plot, characterization, and setting.
6. Summarize the main focus or goals of these literary methods: rhetorical criticism, performance criticism, canon criticism, structuralism, deconstruction, reader-response criticism, feminist criticism, postcolonial criticism, African, Asian, Latino/a approaches.
Digging Deeper
General Works on Literary Criticism
Anderson, Janice C., and Stephen D. Moore. Mark and Method. New Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.
Beardslee, William. Literary Criticism of the New Testament. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974.
Green, Joel B., ed. Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
———, ed. Methods for Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Moore, Stephen D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.
Peterson, Norman R. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.
Wilder, Amos N. The Bible and the Literary Critic. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Narrative Criticism
Bennema, Cornelis. A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.
Brown, J. “Narrative Criticism.” In DJG2, 619–24.
Culpepper, R. Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
———, ed. Gospel Interpretation: Narrative-Critical and Social-Scientific Approaches. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997.
Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. “Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?” In Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, 2nd ed., edited by J. C. Anderson and S. D. Moore, 29–57. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.
Powell, Mark Allen. What Is Narrative Criticism? GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Resseguie, James L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Rhoads, David M., Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.
Tannehill, Robert. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–90.
Rhetorical Criticism
Black, C. Clifton, The Rhetoric of the Gospel: Theological Artistry in the Gospels and Acts. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO.: Chalice, 2013.
Classen, Carl Joachim. Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament. Boston: Brill Academic, 2002.
Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984.
Mack, Burton. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Edited by Dan O. Via. GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Porter, Stanley E., and Dennis L. Stamps, eds. Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible. JSNTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002.
Performance Criticism
Hearon, Holly E., Philip Ruge-Jones, and Thomas E. Boomershine. The Bible in Ancient and Modern Media: Story and Performance. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009.
Iverson, Kelly R., ed. From Text to Performance: Narrative and Performance Criticisms in Dialogue and Debate. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014.
Perry, Peter S. Insights from Performance Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
Canon Criticism
Childs, Brevard. The New Testament as Canon. London: SCM, 1984; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Wall, Robert W., and Eugene E. Lemcio. The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. JSNTSup 76. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Structuralism
Collins, Raymond. “Structural Analysis.” In Introduction to the New Testament. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
Patte, Daniel. Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990.
———. What Is Structural Exegesis? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
Deconstruction
Adam, K. M. What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? Edited by Dan O. Via. GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. New York: Methuen, 1982.
Riggs, John W. Postmodern Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Reader-Response Criticism
Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Fowler, Robert M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001.
———. “Reader-Response Criticism.” In Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, 2nd ed., edited by J. C. Anderson and S. D. Moore, 59–93. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1978.
McKnight, Edgar V. Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988.
Resseguie, J. “Reader-Response Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels.” JAAR 52 (1984): 307–24.
Tompkins, Jane P. Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.
Feminist Approaches
Brenner, Athalya, and Carole Fontaine, eds. A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Boston: Beacon, 1995.
Schottroff, Luise, Silvia Schroer, and Marie-Theres Wacker. Feminist Interpretation: The Bible in Women’s Perspective. Translated by Martin Rumscheidt and Barbara Rumscheidt. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
Schroer, Silvia, and Sophia Bietenhard, eds. Feminist Interpretation of the Bible and the Hermeneutics of Liberation. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003.
Seim, Turid Karsen. “Feminist Criticism.” In Methods for Luke, edited by J. B. Green, 42–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Tolbert, Mary Ann, ed. The Bible and Feminist Hermeneutics. Semeia 28. Atlanta: Scholars, 1983.
Postcolonial Approaches
Moore, Stephen D., and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Segovia, Fernando F., and R. S. Sugirtharajah, eds. A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings. London: T&T Clark, 2009.
Sugirtharajah, R. S. Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. New York: Orbis, 2016.
African, Asian, Latino/a Approaches
Adeyemo, Tokunboh, gen. ed. Africa Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary Written by 70 African Scholars. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Bailey, Randall C. Yet with a Steady Beat: Contemporary U.S. Afrocentric Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta: SBL, 2003.
Chan, Simon. Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.
González, Justo L. “A Latino Perspective.” In J. B. Green, ed., Methods for Luke, 113–43, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Martey, Emmanuel. African Theology: Inculturation and Liberation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009.
Parratt, John. Reinventing Christianity: African Theology Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
———, ed. An Introduction to Third World Theologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Tejera, A. González. “Latino/Latina Criticism.” In DJG2, 501–5.
Wintle, Brian C., gen. ed.; Havilah Dharamraj, J. B. Jeyaraj, Paul Swarup, et al., eds. South Asia Bible Commentary. Rajasthan, India; Cumbria, UK; and Grand Rapids Zondervan, 2015.
Notes
1. William Beardslee, Literary Criticism of the New Testament, GBS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); Norman R. Peterson, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics, GBS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).
2. David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982; rev. ed., 1999); R. Alan Culpepper, The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Robert Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–90).
3. Some commentators, by contrast, consider this to be a statement of Jesus rather than the narrator, especially in Matthew’s version (Matt. 24:15), referring to the reader of the Daniel passage just quoted.
4. See fig. 1.4; Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987).
5. Aristotle, The “Art” of Rhetoric (mid-fourth century BC); Cicero, Partitions of Oratory (c. 87 BC).
6. James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88:1–18; Amos Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964); George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984).
7. David Rhoads and Joanna Dewey, “Performance Criticism: A Paradigm Shift in New Testament Studies,” in From Text to Performance, ed. Kelly R. Iverson (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014).
8. See the quote by the church father Papias cited in chapter 2 (p. 74) attributing greater authority to oral tradition than to books (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4).
9. See, e.g., the live performance of the Gospel of Mark (DVD) by Philip Ruge-Jones, The Beginning of the Good News (Select Learning, 2009).
10. Larry W. Hurtado, “Oral Fixation and New Testament Studies? ‘Orality’, ‘Performance’ and Reading Texts in Early Chrstianity,” NTS 60 (2014): 321–40.
11. Brian J. Wright, Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017).
12. Brevard Childs, The New Testament as Canon (London: SCM, 1984; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); James A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). See also Robert W. Wall and Eugene E. Lemcio, The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism, JSNTSup 76 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
13. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.8–9.
14. F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974); Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (Garden City, NY: Basic Books, 1963); Vladimir Propp, Morphology of the Folktale, trans. L. Scott, 2nd ed. (Austin: University of Texas, 1968; Russian ed., 1928).
15. Daniel Patte, What Is Structural Exegesis? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); Daniel Patte, Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990).
16. J. Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); A Derrida Reader: Behind the Blinds, ed. Peggy Kamuf (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991).
17. See Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980).
18. See, e.g., Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).
19. See Janice Capel Anderson, “Feminist Criticism: The Dancing Daughter,” in Mark and Method, ed. J. C. Anderson and S. D. Moore, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 111–43.
20. Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaf, eds. A Feminist Companion to Luke (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 1. Cited by Turid Karsen Seim, “Feminist Criticism,” in J. B. Green, ed., Methods for Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 42–43.
21. See R. S. Sugirtharajah, Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2016).
22. See Justo L. González, “A Latino Perspective,” in J. B. Green, ed., Methods for Luke, 113–43; A. González Tejera, “Latino/Latina Criticism,” in DJG2, 501–5.
23. Emmanuel Martey, African Theology: Inculturation and Liberation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009).
24. 24. H. Carey, “African-American Criticism,” in DJG, 6–11; Randall C. Bailey, Yet with a Steady Beat: Contemporary U.S. Afrocentric Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta: SBL, 2003).
25. Simon Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014).
26. See, e.g., Fernando F. Segovia and R. S. Sugirtharajah, eds., A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 69–193.