He doesn't mention the way in which the two methods can underpin or undermine different theological positions. The historical critical method involves the dismantling of the text and this may easily come to support the dismantling of faith which has arisen from the reader. Equally the literary approach assumes a certain wholeness and genius behind the text and it is easy to see how this can be more comforting to a faithful reader; it can also provide a way of reading in which different theological understandings can unite since it deals with wholeness but leaves aside the question of the origin of this wholeness (whether this is wisdom, genius or literally inspiration).
While all literary forms and techniques are included in this approach his primary focus is on plot, on action, on what happens in Genesis and the way in which this is set out and revealed.
In this commentary reference, comparison and contrast is more likely to be with other words, verses or narratives from within the Bible (inter-textual) and especially within the book of Genesis (intra-textual). It is worth noting that where the intertextual reference is from the New Testament we are in a situation of committment to the essential contintuity between the covenants (at least as perceived by the authors of the New Testament). Christians are also likely to see this text (as all old testament texts) as having a centre that Jews, Muslims and secular scholars do not recognise.
Turner characterizes his reading as that of the 'first-time reader' but is at pains to point out that this does not mean he has only read the book once! Rather this is because of the value he places on plot, and the artful suspense and tension involved in the telling of story. While it is clearly profitable to consider the effect of not knowing what is going to happen next is there not also useful to imagine at least some of the narrative as a repeated telling, perhaps in the context of a celebration or other ritual. This too has its own stylistic elements which may explain the composition techniques of some scripture.
And while it is perhaps necessary to characterise the reader before making sense of the reading, is it not limiting and a bit confusing to characterise the reader in such a weak and limited way? (Simply as one familiar with other Biblical texts but reading/hearing this one for the first time.) Surely the familiarity with other biblical texts necessary for intertextuality to be an effective tool (for author and reader alike) makes it likely that the same reader would in fact know the outcome of the narrative s/he is experiencing.
As well as narrative he considers characterization to be important, noting the great difference in the depth of different charcters, some of whom are flat narraitve agents where as others are ambiguous and complex.
As well as plot, character and intertextuality he also analyses the use of wordplay (in Hebrew) as a technique to suggest comparison and contrast, irony, confirmation and ambiguity.
He also identifies multivalence - occasions when the text 'alerts the reader to the possiblity of more than one interpretation of a passage. Of course modern theologians and readers are increasingly keen to see different levels of interpretation or point of view in scripture, the point of this line of analysis is exposing techniques which suggest that this is something intended by the author(s) of the text, as something implied in the text not simply imposed by the reader.
Other literary techniques present throughtout, according to Turner, are ambiguity, irony and repetition (of words, concepts, motifs or actions)
Summary of literary elements/techniques Turner observes in Genesis:
- Plot
- Character
- Intertexuality (Intratextuality)
- Multivalence
- Wordplay
- Ambiguity
- Irony
- Repetition
In terms of plot he divdes the narrative into primaeval and ancestral history (which begins with the call of Abraham). Ancestral history is further divided into the stories of Abraham, Jacob and Jacob's family.
There are narratives within narratives throughout ('plotted movements which span not just individual stories but whole blocks') but they are all united in their movement from exposition to complication to resolution.
He also highlights a progression of complexity in character and plot that develops throughout the book.
The introduction closes with a justification of his approach and a rallying call:
'Too often in the past Genesis has been treated as an amalgam of disparate
sources ccobbled together by dull redactors. Thankfully, that assessment is
being increasingly callanged in contemporary scholarship. Viewed as a whole, and
allowed to display its integrity as a cohesive composition, the book emerges as
a coherent and well constructed literary work that rewards repeated
investigation.'
While he formally accepts the usefulness of historical critical method he, rightly, points out the perils of it being the dominant mode of biblical study. Clearly it is sensible to make use of both methods in the same way that a prime minister makes use of various sources of advice, and in the same way these sources may not be naturally complimentary. He makes it clear that he is writing from a time and place where literary approaches, at least within academia, are still struggling for parity with historical, critical methods and this informs his concentration on the one approach - our own situation is less concerned with this battle and so allows us the freedom to mix the two approaches, though not without concern that one approach may yet control and seek to exclude the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment