Upload
setan-kober
View
231
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
1/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
2/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
3/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
4/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
5/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
6/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
7/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
8/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
9/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
10/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
11/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
12/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
13/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
14/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
15/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
16/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
17/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
18/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
19/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
20/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
21/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
22/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
23/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
24/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
25/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
26/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
27/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
28/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
29/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
30/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
31/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
32/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
33/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
34/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
35/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
36/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
37/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
38/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
39/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
40/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
41/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
42/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
43/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
44/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
45/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
46/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
47/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
48/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
49/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
50/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
51/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
52/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
53/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
54/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
55/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
56/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
57/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
58/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
59/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
60/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
61/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
62/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
63/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
64/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
65/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
66/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
67/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
68/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
69/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
70/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
71/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
72/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
73/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
74/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
75/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
76/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
77/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
78/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
79/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
80/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
81/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
82/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
83/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
84/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
85/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
86/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
87/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
88/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
89/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
90/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
91/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
92/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
93/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
94/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
95/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
96/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
97/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
98/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
99/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
100/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
101/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
102/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
103/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
104/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
105/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
106/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
107/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
108/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
109/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
110/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
111/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
112/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
113/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
114/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
115/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
116/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
117/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
118/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
119/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
120/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
121/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
122/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
123/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
124/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
125/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
126/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
127/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
128/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
129/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
130/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
131/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
134/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
135/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
136/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
137/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
138/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
139/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
140/205
130 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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.
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
141/205
THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 131
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).
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
142/205
132 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
143/205
THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 133
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
144/205
134 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
145/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
146/205
136 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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.
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
147/205
THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 137
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).
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
148/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
149/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
150/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
151/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
152/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
153/205
THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 143
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
154/205
144 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
155/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
156/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
157/205
THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 147
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?
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
158/205
148 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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,
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
159/205
THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 149
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
160/205
150 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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:
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
161/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
162/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
163/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
164/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
165/205
THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH 155
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
166/205
156 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
167/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
168/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
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).
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
172/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
173/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
174/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
175/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
176/205
166 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
178/205
168 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
179/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
180/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
181/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
182/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
183/205
THE NARATIVIST APPROACH 173
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.
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
184/205
174 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
185/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
186/205
176 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
187/205
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
188/205
178 FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE
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).
8/13/2019 From History to Narrative Hermeneutics [p 000-192]
189/205
THE NARATIVIST APPROACH 179
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