THESIS PROPOSAL James Paulson Faculty Box David Guretzki RD808 Thesis A paper presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MATS Old Testament Briercrest Seminary May 30, 2007
Introduction to the Problem Title: YHWH s Interior Monologues in the Primeval Narrative Research Question: What does the omniscient narrator s reporting of YHWH s interior monologues add to the message of the primeval narrative? Thesis Statement: In the Primeval Narrative, the omniscient narrator s reporting of YHWH s interior monologues is a means of conveying his theological message, developing his characterization of YHWH, and providing a sympathetic response by the reader to YHWH s actions. (Note: The specifics of this listing could need adjusting as the research progresses.) Literary and Narrative criticism is now accepted across the theological spectrum as a valid, profitable, and even primary means of Bible interpretation. I want to study the significance of the omniscient narrator giving the reader access to YHWH s interior monologues, that is, to YHWH s words spoken only to himself. I will study the role of the omniscient narrator and the significance of interior monologue as discussed in narrative and literary criticism. I then intend to apply that learning to the instances of YHWH s interior monologue in the primeval narrative (Genesis 1-11) in an effort to determine the theological significance being conveyed. Instances of interior monologue in the Primeval Narrative: 1:1-31 The first creation account (e.g. And God said, Let there be light ) 2:18 The LORD God said, It is not good for the man to be alone 3:22 And the LORD God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil 6:3 Then the LORD said, My Spirit will on contend with man forever, for he is mortal 6:7 So the LORD said, I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: Never again 1
will I curse the ground because of man 11:6 The LORD said, If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this Literature Review Narrative criticism as a discipline within Biblical studies is a collage of efforts from many sources, certainly not the product of smooth, linear development. It has grown out of secular literary criticism, standing on the shoulders of that discipline, freely borrowing and applying various theories and methods to biblical texts. 1 Before surveying the literary-critical approaches to biblical narrative, a sketch of the major players in the larger world of narrative criticism sets the context. A.J. Greimas was one pioneer of Structuralism, positing that any narrative can be analyzed according to an underlying structure occupied by six interacting roles called actants. 2 Gerard Genette, in his foundational work Narrative Discourse, asserted that narratives could be studied according to the three elements of recit (plot on the page), historie (the actual sequence of events) and narration (the act of telling the story), 3 and developed the concept of focalization ( who sees? as opposed to the narrator who speaks? ). 4 Booth 5 delineated and later Chatman 6 refined, the categories of real author/real reader; implied 1 T.K Beal, K.A. Keefer, and T. Linafelt, Literary Theory, Literary Criticism, and the Bible, in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. by John H, Hayes (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 79. 2 W. Randolph Tate, Interpreting the Bible: A Handbook of Terms and Methods (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 235. 3 Ibid. 4 Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 2d ed., (New York: Routledge, 2002), 72. 5 Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 2d ed., (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983). 6 Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978). 2
author/implied reader, and narrator/narratee. 7 Rimmon-Kenan has dealt thoroughly with the types of speech presentation found in Narrative fiction. 8 Iser in Germany and Fish in North America have been major voices in Reader-Response criticism, arguing that the reader is the creator of meaning not the author or the text. 9 J. Muilenburg s 1968 SBL address Form Criticism and Beyond 10 was the landmark introduction of Rhetorical Criticism to biblical studies. Muilenburg called for study of the intentionality of the text in its present literary form, an approach that would build upon and go beyond studying the text s historical origin. 11 Closely related is New Criticism with it focus on studying the text itself as a self-contained unit, with no need to go beyond to historical context. This had unique appeal in biblical studies, in which questions of a text s origins have necessarily been based on conjecture. 12 Also in 1968, Meir Sternberg began publishing influential writings, although his influence in North America was most felt with his 1985 publication of The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Sternberg has developed the concept of the omniscient narrator 13 in ways that have created discussion among scholars. He equates God s omniscience with the narrator s omniscience, and within his modernist assumptions, removes the reader from the role of meaning producer as in Marxist, deconstructionist, and feminist readings. 14 His concept of the Bible s foolproof composition, firmly placing the 7 Beal, Keefer, and Linafelt, Literary Theory, 83. See also Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 87-106. 8 Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 107-117. 9 Beal, Keefer, and Linafelt, Literary Theory, 83. 10 Muilenburg, J, Form Criticism and Beyond, Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969). 11 Beal, Keefer, and Linafelt, Literary Theory, 80. 12 Ibid. 13 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985), 84-99. 14 David M. Gunn, Narrative Criticism in To Each its Own Meaning Rev. Ed., ed. by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 206. See also Burke 3
omniscient narrator s message within the text, has been sharply criticized by Fewell and Gunn. 15 Moreover, Sternberg s stance on God as a static character, both omniscient and unchanging, has been criticized by those who see literary criticism as offering the reader far more freedom of interpretation. 16 Despite his controversial views, however, Sternberg painstakingly describes and demonstrates theory and method pertaining to viewpoint, 17 the narrator, 18 gaps and ambiguity, 19 and repetition. 20 He is a major voice to be interacted with in any study of biblical narrative. Concepts specifically related to YHWH s interior monologues are: his extensive discussion of the role of the omniscient narrator and the unique subservient relationship of omniscient narrator to the omniscient and omnipotent God, the unique role of God as both character and author, characterization through monologue, not to mention the ideological views that he brings to the text. A generally chronological survey of the literature of biblical narrative criticism should now include two scholarly journals. Semeia was founded by Robert Funk in 1974 for the Society of Biblical Literature. The Journal for the Study of the Old Testament was founded by David Gunn, David Clines and Philip Davies in 1976. Both journals have been forums for the literary-critical conversation among Bible scholars. Semeia as a journal discontinued in 2002, but continues as a book series. O. Long, The New Biblical Poetics of Alter and Sternberg, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51 (1991): 79. 15 Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Tipping the Balance: Sternberg s Reader and the Rape of Dinah, Journal of Biblical Literature 10:2 (1991): 193-211. 16 Long, The New Biblical Poetics, 81-2. 17 Sternberg, Poetics, 129-43. 18 Ibid., 84-128, 153-163. 19 Ibid., 186-229. 20 Ibid., 365-440. 4
Robert Alter published The Art of Biblical Narrative in 1981, 21 certainly among the most quoted and respected works in the field, considered foundational in the literary study of biblical narrative. While he has received some criticism for dismissing theories such as deconstruction and feminism, 22 he is widely respected as a pioneer in the literary study of the Bible. He represents the discipline as a whole, with his description of the Bible as historicized prose fiction. 23 His contributions to the topic of YHWH s interior monologues include reflections on the role of the omniscient narrator (the narrator s Godlike knowledge 24 yet unobtrusiveness, 25 selectivity 26 and freedom to invent interior monologue, 27 as well as the levels of certainty in 3 rd person narration, 28 ) and the place of speech in the biblical narrative (the priority of direct speech over narration, 29 the relation of character speech to action, 30 speech as rendered thought, 31 words as the biblical way of depicting reality 32 and speech as characterization. 33 ) Along with Sternberg and Alter, the 1980 s saw other major works on the literary study of biblical narrative. Northrup Frye s The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (1982), 34 a study in archetypal criticism, seems to have had a negligible voice in the conversation. Adele Berlin, on the other hand, is continually referenced in works 21 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1981). 22 Long, The New Biblical Poetics, 79. 23 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 24. 24 Ibid., 157. 25 Ibid., 183. 26 Ibid., 158. 27 Ibid., 35. 28 Ibid., 116-17. 29 Ibid., 65. 30 Ibid., 66. 31 Ibid., 67. 32 Ibid., 69. 33 Ibid., 70. 34 Northrup Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Toronto: Academic, 1982). 5
subsequent to her 1983 publication of Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. 35 Her twofold focus is relevant to YHWH s interior monologues: three character types, 36 combining speech and action to give a vivid portrait, 37 applying Chatman s interest point of view to the Bible, 38 her rationale for the Bible s use of direct discourse in characterization, 39 the use of point of view to engender reader sympathy for a character. 40 Another foundational work of the 1980 s was Shimon Bar-Efrat s Narrative Art in the Bible. 41 It is notable for its clarity and practicality, with chapters on narrator, characters, plot. time and space, and style. It does not take new positions or seek to advance the conversation substantially, but is very helpful in bringing clarity and relevance. Bar-Efrat reflects on the significance of the narrator (how narrator s point of view influences the reader to adopt the same, 42 narrator s relative invisibility when direct speech is used, 43 his use of characters to convey values and norms 44 ) and has revealing insights about characterization (the validity of all characterization voiced by God, 45 action as the implementation of character, 46 characterization by speech and action must be depicted dynamically as the narrative unfolds. 47 ) 1983). 35 Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 36 Ibid., 32. 37 Ibid., 39. 38 Ibid., 48. 39 Ibid., 64. 40 Ibid., 70. 41 Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1989). Hebrew version was publishes in 1979. 42 Ibid., 16. 43 Ibid., 41. 44 Ibid., 47. 45 Ibid., 54. 46 Ibid., 77. 47 Ibid., 89. 6
In 1993 Gunn and Fewell wrote Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, 48 in which they describe the basic elements of narrative and provide examples after the manner of Sternberg, Alter, Berlin and Bar-Efrat, but unlike these earlier works, Gunn and Fewell write from the perspective of reader-response criticism. They hold the position that the reader creates the meaning, saying No amount of learning to read biblical narrative correctly will lead inexorably through the given poetics of the text to the correct interpretation. 49 This significance of their contribution is that it serves as the necessary counterpoint to Sternberg and Alter, both of whom have been criticized for their lack of openness to variant readings from other perspectives. J.P. Fokkelman has written two books, Narrative Art in Genesis (1991) 50 and Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide (1999), 51 the second of which contributes to the topic of YHWH s interior monologues in a way philosophically similar to Gunn and Fewell. 52 A helpful contribution to my topic is his discussion of the distinction between narrator and character. They communicate on different levels; 53 there is an identifiable difference between narrator s text and (embedded within it) character text. 54 As well (typical of a literary approach but contra Sternberg) the narrator is in a position of superiority over God, who is a character; i.e. a creation of the narrator and writer. 55 48 David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993). 49 Ibid., xi. 50 J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, 2d ed. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 51 J.P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999). 52 Ibid., 21. 53 Ibid., 61-63. 54 Ibid., 67. 55 Ibid., 58. 7
Yairah Amit of TelAviv University and a former student of Meir Sternberg, wrote Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible in 2001. 56 It is a clear, concise, and practical treatment of the basics of narrative criticism. Amit uses the results of diachronic (historical and textual) studies, making her treatment something of a maturing of the discipline. 57 She has significant things to say about the characterization of God (he can be agent, a type, or a full character; 58 the inverse relationship between God s overt action and the human characterization 59 ); significance of the story beginning and ending; 60 the author-reader contract; 61 authority of God and narrator; 62 differentiating between inherent and added significance (because while a story can have several meanings, not all are faithful to the way the story was fashioned). 63 A final important contribution is Amit s view that while any story will have a place in the larger story contexts, it will also have a self-contained meaning which should be determined first. 64 Thus far I have described the major book-length treatments of narrative criticism of the Bible, specifically mentioning the aspects pertinent to the topic of YHWH s interior monologues. In addition to issues related to speech and direct discourse, I have identified issues related to the omniscient narrator and characterization. Both narration and characterization are essential to a proper study of character speech. Their relevance is obvious when one realizes that only an omniscient narrator is able to quote YHWH s interior monologues, and in turn, it is YHWH s speech that is one of the narrator s 56 Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001). 57 Ibid., 25ff. 58 Ibid., 73. 59 Ibid., 84. 60 Ibid., 38. 61 Ibid., 38ff. 62 Ibid., 101. 63 Ibid., 137. 64 Ibid., 127-8. 8
methods of defining YHWH s character. Therefore, scholarly articles on such topics are essential to a study of YHWH s interior monologue. Kenneth M. Craig Jr. offers a detailed study of God s speech as characterization in The Character(ization) of God in 2 Samuel 7:1-7. 65 It applies Rimmon-Kenan s two character indicators ( direct definition and indirect presentation ) to a study of the narrator s characterization of God in this passage on the Davidic Covenant. His approach can serve as a model for studying the characterization of God in my passages. David McCracken s article Character in the Boundary: Bakhtin s Interdividuality in Biblical Narratives 66 argues that character is best seen in Biblical narrative when the character is in dialogue. Although my topic is YHWH s private monologues, McCracken s ideas may prove interesting, as I deal with the question of who God is referring to when he says the man has now become like one of us (Gen 3:22). Moreover, McCracken asserts that the significance of the character as interdividual extends to the character s contact with reader and author. Two articles in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly dealt as closely to my topic as anything I ve found. R.A.F. MacKenzie wrote on The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis in 1955, 67 dealing with my target passages with the exception of the creation speeches of Genesis 1, and with the inclusion of one passage beyond the primeval narrative, Genesis 18:20. MacKenzie suggested that there is a regular two-part form to these soliloquies: (a) motivation (description of a situation calling for action) and (b) proposition (a 65 Kenneth M. Craig, Jr., The Character(ization) of God in 2 Samuel 7:1-17, Semeia 63 (1993): 159-176. 66 David McCracken, Character in the Boundary: Bakhtin s Interdividuality in Biblical Narratives, Semeia 63 (1993): 29-42. 67 R.A.F. MacKenzie, The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 277-286. 9
command, request or suggestion for action). He found this literary form in passages beginning a narrative unit, in which a human character says such a two-fold statement in order to initiate an action. His prime example is Abraham suggesting the sister deception to Sarah. 68 He then goes through his target passages, asking the question what would be missing if the soliloquy were omitted? In each case he arrives at a simple theological statement about the character of YHWH (he knew, he cared, he safeguarded, etc). Roger Lapointe studied God s inner speech in the prophets, in his article the Divine Monologue as a Channel of Revelation (1970). 69 He suggests that monologues can have up to three elements: (1) reason a fact weighing objectively on a decision, (2) motive a feeling subjectively influencing a decision, and (3) decision. 70 LaPointe s theological interpretation of divine monologue as a literary device for purposes of divine revelation is four-fold. First, divine monologues are intended to assure the reader of the truthfulness of the words. Second, they convey God s immanence, presenting him as a person. Third, in that soliloquies can have the effect of isolating and separating, they also convey God s transcendence. Fourth, they are indeed only literary devices, dependent on a human author and so only pretend to give us an immediate look into Yahweh s mind. 71 In 1992 M Niehoff of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote Do Biblical Characters Talk to Themselves? Narrative Modes of Representing Inner Speech in Early 68 Ibid., 280. 69 Roger Lapointe, The Divine Monologue as a Channel of Revelation, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 161-181. 70 Ibid., 170. 71 Ibid., 179-80. 10
Biblical Fiction. 72 He argues that the narrator of Genesis primarily presents monologue as either free indirect discourse (which keeps third person reference while rendering a character s thought in his own idiom 73 e.g. she had to go as opposed to direct speech: I have to go, she said 74 ) or collective monologue (the speaker addresses others but expresses him/herself in a way that the others cannot understand him/her e.g. Reuben returned to his brothers and said: The child is gone! Now, what am I to do? ). 75 He concludes that these are both methods of depicting a character s inner debates. 76 In his 2006 book Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel, Michael Cerasik examining verbal thought, says that thought as a general category is frequently represented in Hebrew by speech. 77 Amar say often can and does refer to thought. He raises the question regarding the Bible s first use of amar in Gen 1:3 God said, Let there be light and then asks the question Was it speech or thought? He proposes four clues to help with the decision: (1) absence of an interlocutor, (2) speech within speech citing words already spoken, (3) introductory particles and (4) context. 78 His careful study of Hebrew word usage as well as his interpretations on the issue of thought versus speech, are aspects of the scholarly conversation of which my thesis will be a part. 72 M. Niehoff, Do Biblical Characters Talk to Themselves? Narrative Modes of Representing Inner Speech in Early Biblical Fiction, Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 577-595. 73 D. Cohn, Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness in Fiction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978): 100; referenced in M. Niehoff, Do Biblical Characters Talk, 581. 74 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 201. 75 Niehoff, Do Biblical Characters Talk, 581-2. 76 Ibid., 595. 77 Michael Cerasik, Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel (New York: Peter Lang, 2006), 98. 78 Ibid., 100. 11
Methodology and Procedures The research methodology will be descriptive, that is, the collection of facts for reflection, analysis and interpretation. I will do thorough foundational reading in Narrative and Literary Criticism, studying the significance of character speech in general and interior monologue in particular. As I have said, intimately related to interior monologue is (1) the omniscient narrator and (2) characterization. Only an omniscient narrator can report a character s private words and, we might add, especially when that character is God. The narrator provides the character s interior monologue, and interior monologue in turn provides characterization. The reader learns about the character through (among other things) the character s words. I will need to gain a clear understanding of the range of possible roles that these elements of narrative can play in the narrative s message. This may require the compilation of a list of analytical questions to apply to these three narrative elements. Through my literature review, it has become apparent that all the elements of a narrative are inter-related. Therefore in a cursory way, I will need to note other major characteristics of a narrative unit. Aspects such as the beginning and ending of a unit, the plot structure of the unit and the role of other characters will interact significantly with my three primary foci. Therefore I will need a working knowledge of all narrative elements, and will need to do a brief overview narrative study of each of my target narrative units. As I study each target passage, I will apply the acquired knowledge of interior monologue, omniscient narrator and characterization in order to determine the unique 12
contribution of YHWH s interior monologue. I will also search commentaries to see how scholars address these topics in my target passages, and interact with relevant comments. In order to put the primeval narrative s cluster of YHWH s interior monologues in perspective, I will do a computer search for instances of YHWH s interior monologue in Genesis as a whole. Regardless of the uniqueness, however, the accepted concensus that Genesis 1-11 is indeed a definable section of text, along with the concentration of occurrences in that section, should make this a manageable and fascinating study. Results I expect the result of my research to be an answer to my research question What does the omniscient narrator s reporting of YHWH s interior monologues add to the message of the primeval narrative? I expect that answer to include (1) a statement of the theological significance of YHWH s interior monologue for each target passage, (2) a summary statement of the general theological significance of YHWH s interior monologues, and (3) a summary statement about the literary (narratological) significance of interior monologue (probably a statement regarding the way that my passages interact with literary-critical views of interior monologue). Discussion, Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations The concept of an omniscient narrator is of special interest to evangelicals who cherish the Bible s truth and authority. Evangelicals, however, have seen biblical truth and authority primarily in terms of historicity the accurate reporting of historical events. The realization that biblical authors shaped narratives in order to proclaim theological 13
messages (even if done alongside accurate historical reporting) is enlightening. The insights go beyond the doctrinal assertion that an inspired author had insight into God s private words. The insights of literary criticism reveal sophisticated writing and rich theology. My thesis will provide a case in point. 14