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, the idea that human historical awareness (in order to differentiate it from history) is best substantiated through literature (Waswo, 1988:545). The idea of the Bible 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 literature has 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 Testament reflects 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 litteratura simply means writing, and in that sense anything from a postcard 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 awareness and the concept of the Bible as literature creates 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

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 quasiinsurmountable 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 a covenantal 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

130

FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE

If history is made by literature a literary painting, then as far as biblical hermeneutics is concerned, literature itself becomes a means of historical hermeneutics, especially when ones historical awareness is related to the totality of Dasein in terms of the Word-Revelation in its final form of canonical texts. Thus, one may conclude at this point that there is no direct access to history except by means of literature. Beyond the Empirical-Positivistic Approach. To go beyond the empiricalpositivistic 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 out that a successful synchronic study may undermine the diachronic study of that text in two distinct ways: (1) first, it removes the evidence by 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.

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 continuity can be observed as far as the basic epistemological assumptions of historical criticism are concerned. In other words, if that much sought objective meaning eludes the methodological limits of Literarkritik, 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 positivism that entailed the major prime paradigm shift at 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 discontinuity in 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 the Cartesian paradigm shift underlying the pretended shift of 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).

132

FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE

Expression Level: Structural adjustments to inherent theoretical problems

Historical Criticism Redaction Literary Structural Criticism

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.

Vertical Continuity

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 not necessarily an equivalent term for history, in the modern sense, but it is a reflection of biblical Dasein, i.e., the integral coherence of all modal aspects of temporal experience. Therefore, to be aware of the historical dimension 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 WordRevelation in its final form of canonical texts, the ultimate supra-theoretical reference for Dasein. Again, because this Word-Revelation is expressed in a

THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH

133

written human language in 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 criticism is 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, while form 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 its final 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 that the text still seems to be literarily incoherent. The shift of the interpreters focus from the original source and the oral tradition to the redaction of 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

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 expansionredactor), 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 meaning also eludes the idea of objective

136

FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE

author with a respective literary source. Therefore, the main focus now shifts from the history behind the text to the literature before 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 of redaction 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 empiricalpositivistic assumptions. Though redaction criticism emphasizes a shift of interest from the historicity of the text to the history of redaction, from the source to the final text of 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 an ultimate 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 with a 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.

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-Revelation in 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 Noth took their historical creeds and Fohrer his knowledge of Canaanite religions as criterion, until the final redaction and the literary texts began presenting themselves as the final 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 at elucidating 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, the epic 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).

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 text itself 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, objective structural, 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,18in 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

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, Structuralism is 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 parole respectively). 3. The literary structure is in general formulated by the following three structural 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 uncover this 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 story of 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

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 structure of the nineteenthcentury 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 KZ K\ 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 shift within the secondary level of 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 the historical 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 determines the what did really happen?

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 historicalstructuralists, 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 case because 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 complex shift 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,

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 diachronic understanding 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 practice reflects 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 text according 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 relationship with literature rather than history as literature. 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

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 psychological hermeneutics or a liberation theology approach to biblical texts. For instance, Fewell & Gunn (1991:193211) have demonstrated that Sternbergs literarystructural 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 religioussocio-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 disease is 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:

THE LITERARY STRUCTURAL APPROACH

155

Expression Level: Structural adjustments to inherent theoretical problems

Historical Criticism Literary Structuralism Deconstructionism

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.

Vertical Continuity

Horizontal Discontinuity

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 (the prime 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,29take 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

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 empiricalpositivistic 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 and improper 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

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 of Dasein are 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 a Mystery. 3. This is not to say that the historical critical approach concentrates exclusively on the general sense of the historic modal aspect, but it means that historical criticism counters the 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 of the 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, 1981:1 4). 5. The term multidimensional is intended to denote an explanation of the multiplex nature of 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 OTWSA congress at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, where he was arguing that

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. By divine 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 a solution 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 the commentaries 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 Stories does not necessarily equate or reduce the Old Testament to literary fictions, 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 obstacles discouraging 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).

NOTES

161

16. The author does not make a disciplinary distinction between linguistics (grammar) and structuralism (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 an explanation 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 model in 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 in the 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 a more 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, he comes 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 deconstructive criticism. 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

162

NOTES

myself as postmodern, or post-critical, but not in a sense of rupture between the literary and the referential, i.e., PostmodernIsm. Here, the term postmodernism is used to refer to the general principles of deconstructionism. For a detailed discussion of postmodernism, see Oden (1990) After Modernity. 29.
29

For a short survey of current developments of reader-response hermeneutics, see

Lundin (1985: 79113). 30. Minjung Shinhak is a Korean word for Peoples Theology. In theological terms, Minjung refers to those with no political, economic or cultural privileges in society. According to T.W. Moon, Minjung theology proposes a three-fold shift of emphasis in theological interpretation: (1) from supernatural God to Minjung; (2) from the conceptual world to the world of concrete life; and (3) from the Church to the world where the movement of minjung is progressing. This theology is a product of reading a particular social-political liberation movement into the Biblical texts. For a detailed discussion, see Moon (1986:35ff). Barton analyses the development of critical methodologies, using the term literary competence (a term borrowed from Structuralists) as the premise for discussion. This means that critical methods aim to make the reader competent in his or her coherent reading of incoherent biblical texts; in other words, it helps the exegete to better understand biblical material (cf. Barton, 1984: 8-19). 31. Barton analyses the development of critical methodologies, using the term literary competence (a term borrowed from Structuralists) as the premise for discussion. This means that critical methods aim to make the reader competent in his or her coherent reading of incoherent biblical texts; in other words, it helps the exegete to better understand biblical material (cf. Barton, 1984: 8-19).

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 all modal 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 as Paul 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

THE NARATIVIST APPROACH

167

narrativist scholarship. However, unlike historicists, the narrativists do not discover or reenact the meaning of facts, but construct coherence among them 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 threevolume 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

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. 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 writing within 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. 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. 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 the past, present, and future, with their

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.

Narrative Approach Historical Criticism Literary Problems Literary Solutions

to History

Late rationalism: e.g., empirical-positivism Secondary

Irrationalism: e.g., existentialism

PRIMARY LEVEL: THE PRIME PARADIGM SHIFT

(1)-Rejection of the supra-theoretical Word-Revelation. (2)-Humanism.

(Diagram -12-)

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 has illuminated, 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 a historical 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 their own 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

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 the question 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 a difference 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, once again, 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

THE NARATIVIST APPROACH

177

fiction (Alter) or as a discourse that claims to be a record of fact (Sternberg), looks once again like an absolutization of a single modal aspect, thereby creating antithetical problems. Moberlys (1991:21-22) four remarks on Sternberg may at this point of the discussion help one to better understand the main proposal of a narrative approach. These comments include valuable observations: (1) Attempts to uncover Old Testament authors in a specific historical context are largely a waste of time. What one can know is not who he was but how he worked (Sternberg, 1985:64) (2) As far as the biblical writer claims omniscience and divine inspiration, going beyond his own real-life context, he does not invite the question How do you know? (Sternberg, 1985:79). (3) The very choice to devise an omniscient narrator serves the purpose of staging and glorifying an omniscient God (Sternberg, 1985:89). This means, among other things, that there is something absolute about the story the writer tells. Therefore to question it by How do you know?, or But what about a different version?, becomes indeed an act of distancing that subverts the nature of the text. (4) Although the writer knows all, he does not reveal all. Although he tells the truth, he does not reveal the whole truth. Rather, he tells a story, or form of communication (an ambiguous narrative by an omniscient narrator), that is full of gaps, ambiguities and puzzles. The task of the reader is to struggle to grow in understanding as best one could. Actually, Sternbergs narrative is neither history nor literature. Rather, he understands the biblical narrative in the context of a concept that he calls foolproof composition. His explanation is instructive:
By foolproof composition I mean that the Bible is difficult to read,

easy to underread and overread and even misread, but virtually impossible to, so to speak, counterread. Here as elsewhere, of course, ignorance, willfulness, preconception, tendentiousness - all amply manifested throughout history, in the religious and other approaches may perform wonders of distortion (1985:50).

Whether a narrative approach to history may reconcile the gap between history and literature in biblical hermeneutics, is still an unsolved dilemma. If Alter simply ignores the historical dimension of narrative form, it does not mean that he denies it. On the other hand, if Sternberg insists on the value of historical study for an understanding of the text, it does not

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, 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). 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

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. 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 story of 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 an event. A storyteller does not have a thesis to prove with arguments - he has a story to tell (Ryken, 1979:1325). 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

180

FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE

not begin, a central protagonist, and the incarnation of meaning in concrete settings and characters and events. The narrative quality of the Bible is rooted in the character of God, for God is above all the God who acts (1979:1325). If the Bible cannot be reduced to history, then - according to Ryken the Bible should be called a Realistic story. Anyone who simply starts to read the stories of the Bible will sense at once that they are full of facts and details, rooted firmly to the earth and to actual human experiences as we know it. They are full of what is called realism (1979:1325). Ryken argues that the biblical authors are preoccupied with locating their stories in real space-time history. For example, biblical passages such as Gen 12:5-6 renders the historical nature of a narrative. From such passages one can see how the details of history go well beyond describing local colour: And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brothers son, and all their possessions which they...had gotten in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan. When they had come to the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of MorehAt that time the Canaanites were in the land. The passage is more like entries in a history book than an ordinary story, with time, person, and geographical references, which he calls A Realistic story. On the other hand, if the story the Bible tells, is realistic, it also has the characteristics of a type of story that is in many ways the exact opposite - what literary scholars call romance. According to Ryken, romance is an extraordinary story that is full of mystery, the supernatural10, and the heroic. The Bible is a story that combines the two tendencies of narrative that have most appealed to the human race and that we tend to think of as opposites: it is a story that is both factually true and romantically marvelous (1979:1326). Rykens attempt to reconcile history and story may be a valid one as far as one is mainly interested in the meaning of the text, rather than in the what really happened. He neither defends nor denies the main purpose of historical criticism in biblical exegesis, i.e., the concern for what really happened. Although the Bible deals with history, or event, Ryken simply jumps into the final reporting form. From event, to interpretation, and to

186

FROM HISTORY TO NARRATIVE

historical fact. Whether such a proposition is possible in practical terms, is still open to much discussion and further studies. (2) The idea of the hermeneutical arc has an intimate relationship with the idea of history as narrative. History is seen by historians such as Hexter and McCloskey from a larger context of rhetorics of time and space. This implies that history is not a pure description of events or a neutral representation of a correspondent mirror image but an act of writing, i.e., historiography. If history is historiography, it means among other things that history is a writing about facts, which involves a narrative configuration, or emplotment, of pre-configured events. (3) History as narrative may conversely mean that the Bible is Gods Storybook. From Rykens storybook to Collins history-like approach, the central focus is given to the literary character of the Old Testament. However, the biggest potential pitfall of all this is that one may simply create a total dichotomy between history and literature. A possibility for a rupture is much greater than an arc. Though both argue for the complementary role of historical and literary approaches to biblical hermeneutics, the question of what is the difference between the historical and literary meaning? is still unanswered. Finally, (4) the advent of a narrative approach, commonly known as narrativism, reflects an underlying paradigm shift characterized by the transition from empirical-positivistic rationalism to irrationalism. In other words, narrative criticism, which presupposes post-positivistic thoughts of contemporary philosophers such as Heidegger, Gadamer, and Ricoeur, not only complements the theoretical problems created by preceding methodologies at the secondary level, but also reacts against the preceding reactive paradigm shift (late rationalism) at the primary level (see Fig. -13-).

THE NARATIVIST APPROACH

187

The narrative approach may accordingly - in this sense - be seen as a major breakthrough as far as a real paradigm shift is concerned. However, one may on the other hand observe that such a transition intensifies the existing referential crisis, i.e., the Paradigm becomes almost areferentialahistoric, and the question of in relation to what or to whom? loses its central force. Narrative, though it is a more inclusive way of seeing reality, is in principle a human literary imagination, and not a history. It has now become clear that an epistemological evaluation of historical critical hermeneutics in Old Testament studies cannot be processed from a single historical or literary understanding, i.e., from a single modal aspect or theoretical framework. The multidimensional nature of biblical history (the inherent revelation character of the Old Testament), which involves more than historical criticism, literary structural analysis, and narrative configurations, demands the biblical interpreter to approach the biblical material from a broadly-encompassing perspective. This may be possible only if one takes into account not only the possibilities of immanence and the natural realm, but also of transcendence and the socalled supernatural realm, where literature can meet event, the story the history, and God the human being. One may then finally conclude, on the basis of what has been discussed so far, that such an encounter is impossible within the theoretical reference of human reason. To go beyond empirical-positivism is neither to go beyond historical criticism (at the secondary level) nor to go beyond rationalism or irrationalism (at the primary level), but is to go beyond the theoretical world to the supra-theoretical Word-Revelation. That is to say, one must honor the inherent nature of the Old Testament, which in its totality testifies itself to be neither a history nor a literature, but Word-Revelation in