ASBURY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
THE IMPACT OF ALTER’S AND STERNBERG’S WORKS ON THE STUDY OF
OLD TESTAMENT NARRATIVE
SUBMITTED TO BILL T. ARNOLD, PH.D
RESEARCH METHODS IN OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, OT 820
BY
M. SASHI JAMIR
WILMORE, KENTUCKY
OCTOBER 29, 2009
1
Introduction
One of the dominant genres of Old Testament (OT) is narrative. One-third of it is
written in narrative fashion. Genesis to 2 Kings is known as the primary narrative,
Chronicles is a historical narrative, and the book of Esther, Ruth, and Job are articulated
in narrative form. Narrative genre can also be found in the prophetic literature such as
Jonah, part of Jeremiah, Hosea and so on. The reason for this pervasiveness of narrative
genre might be because Israel’s culture and theology were deeply imbedded in the oral
tradition. In other words, if Israelite sons and daughters were to inquire about their
culture and identity, the parents were instructed to answer them by narrating their
salvation history (Deut. 6: 4 & 20; Josh. 24).
Though predominantly narrative in its shape, OT scholarship for a long time has
not given due consideration on the narrative form of the OT. However, with the
publication of Alter’s book, The Art of Biblical Narrative1 in 1981 the landscape of OT
scholarship has taken a turn and for good. Since then, a plethora of books and articles
have been published on this subject matter.2 It might not be an exaggeration to assert that
narrative criticism is the most applied and effective tool in the field of biblical studies.
Gunn opines, “so striking is the change, it has led me on more than one occasion to
1
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). It should be noted that by
late 1960’s the call to look at the narrative structure or rhetoric was taking its wings especially with J.
Muilenburg SBL presidential speech which was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, “Form
Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1-18. However, it is right to acknowledge that Alter was the one
who invigorated and popularized the study of OT narrative.
2
Just to cite the earliest and most notable books on this subject. Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of
Biblical Narrative, BSL 9 (Sheffield: Almond, 1983); S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, BSL 17
(Sheffield: Almond, 1989); Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and
the Drama of Reading, ILBS (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985); David M. Gunn and Danna
Nolan Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
2
suggest that ‘literary criticism’ was becoming, has become perhaps, the new orthodoxy in
biblical studies.”3
The intention of this paper is to look at two pioneering works of narrative
criticism by Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative and Meir Sternberg, The Poetic of
Biblical Narrative (see footnote number 2) and selectively4 observe their contributions to
the study of Old Testament narratives. The paper will be divided into three parts: First, I
will look at the background of narrative criticism. Secondly, I will selectively analyze the
works of the two scholars (Alter and Sternberg) and finally, conclude with some remarks
of my analysis.
Background to the Narrative Criticism
The nomenclature “literary criticism” is nothing new. Biblical studies from the
time of European Enlightenment have been engaged in literary studies (Literarkritik) of
the bible. However, the literary criticism of the nineteenth-century operated within the
framework of historical-critical method—a method that was driven by the motive of
reconstructing the history of the biblical literature. It should be noted that historicalcritical method worked within the evolutionary concept where a crude document over a
time becomes a sophisticated material; where an archaic superstition in the course of time
evolves into a highly ethical norm.5 Source criticism is the prime example of the literary
criticism of the nineteenth-century. Scholars involved in the study of the source criticism
of the bible were primarily trying to scrutinize the formation of the final form of a given
David M. Gunn, “New Directions in the Study of Biblical Hebrew Narrative,” in Beyond Form Criticism:
Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (ed. Paul R. House; vol. 2 of Sources for Biblical and
Theological Study; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 412.
4
My observation will be mostly on the theoretical framework of their understanding of OT narrative.
5
Walter Bruggemann, An Introduction of the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination
(Louisville: John Knox, 2003), 1-13.
3
3
text by inquiring what happened? When was the text written? Consequently, for instance,
in the study of Pentateuch by the mid 1880’s documentary hypothesis was fully
developed and embraced in the scholarly world. Source criticism helped one to
understand clearly that the bible is not just a document that dropped down from heaven
ready made but that the final form is an outcome of an extended complex traditioning
process.6 Yet, no matter what the contributions of the nineteenth century historicism are,
the fact remains that because of the nature of its study it made biblical studies an elite
enterprise deprive of normative value for the church.7 It is this background we need to
understand in order to appreciate the development of narrative criticism as a branch of
“new literary criticism.”
It is “new” because unlike the literarkritik of the nineteenth-century, the new
literary criticism attempts to look at the final form of the text and analyze the nature of
the literature and the theological application of the text.8 Now the question arises: Is it a
counter part of the historical critical method (source criticism)? The answer to this
question is both yes and no: Yes, in the sense the new literary criticism operates in the
opposite direction of the literary criticism of the nineteenth-century. The latter
investigates the “behind-the-text” matter whereas the former concentrates on the “text.”
No, in the sense even proponents of narrative criticism agree to the diachronic process of
6
Ibid.,
As such from the time of Karl Barth’s commentary on Romans in 1914 there has been an urgency to
bridge the gap of the descriptive nature of the OT studies to the normative level. Brevard Child’s canonical
approach is one such attempt. Cf. Walter Brueggemann, The Book that Breathes New Life: Scriptural
Authority and Biblical Theology (ed. Patrick D. Miller; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 49-59.
8
Clines and Exum have articulated that the new literary criticism includes quite a range of different
criticism such as rhetorical criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, reader-response criticism, deconstruction,
feminist criticism and so on. I would also like to include narrative criticism as one of the new literary
criticism because it is definitely a shift from the literarkritik of the nineteenth century. Cf. J Cheryl Exum
and David J.A. Clines, “The New Literary Criticism,” JSOT Supplement Series 143 (1993): 11-25.
7
4
the text however, the only difference is that narrative criticism does not dissect the text
but adapts a synchronic approach to look at the meaning of the final redaction.9 At the
end the difference amount to the emphasis they both render. Keeping this background in
mind I will try to analyze selectively the works of Alter and Sternberg.
Analyzing Alter and Sternberg
Alter
1. It is within this aforementioned context of biblical scholarship that we should
appreciate the work of Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative). One of the highlights
of his work is the argument of composite artistry (chapter 7 and also chapter 1). He
agrees with the historical scholarship that the biblical narrative has gone through a
development process until finally, the final redactor gave shape to the ultimate form of
the text. However, his contention is that the final redactor in editing and compiling the
smaller documents did not arbitrary and haphazardly organized them. For instance, he
critics E.A. Speiser who in his Genesis commentary avers that Gen. 38—the story of
Judah and Tamar—is a complete independent section, without any connection
whatsoever with the story of Joseph (Gen. 37 & 39-50).10 Alter in contrast to Speiser
goes on to demonstrate intelligently and persuasively using his literary insights that Gen.
38 is very much a part of the whole story of Joseph. He does this by picking the verb
Haker (recognition) which is intricately woven into the whole story of Joseph—In Gen
37:32 Jacob was asked by his sons to recognize whether the torn clothe was his son’s or
not? In the following verse v. 33, Jacob recognized it and said, “It is my son’s robe…”
9
Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 131-154.
E.A Speiser, Genesis: The Anchor Bible (New York: 1964), 299.
10
5
Then in Gen. 38 when Tamar was meted out with injustice from Judah, she could
vindicate herself by using the same verb Haker. In Gen. 38:25, we see Tamar expressing,
“by the man to whom these belong, I am pregnant.” And she continued, “Please
recognize this.” The use of this verb does not end here but we continue to see in Chapter
42 when Joseph’s brother did not recognize him.
The theme of guilt, forgiveness and reconciliation seems to be the underlying
commonality between the story of Joseph and the story of Judah and Tamar—Judah was
guilty of his mistake and consequently, reconciliation happens; the same is true when
Joseph’s brothers admit their mistake, it opens the way for reconciliation. Another
common feature of these chapters (37 & 38) is that a kid plays a role in both deceptions.
Furthermore, Alter provides another feature that connects Gen 38 with the rest of the
story in Genesis is the reversal of primogeniture.
Alter argues that in some places of the narrative the author seems to be pulling
different sources and just dumping together without much sense, for instance, the creation
accounts. Historical critical scholarship has attributed the first creation story, Gen. 1-2:4a
to P source and the second creation story, Gen. 2:2b-3:24 to J source. Formerly, the
reason for such divisions in the creation story was because, perhaps, the redactor wanted
not to eliminate one tradition and stick with another tradition. However, Alter asserts that
the redactor by inserting both the sources was trying to portray the fuller spectrum of the
creation narrative from different angles and perspectives. Therefore, though they might
appear contradictory yet they are complimenting one another. This is deliberate literary
style of the redactor and Alter attributes this to the ancient Hebrew’s world view that this
6
world is constantly shaped by the contradicting dialectical process of the imperfect
creature as opposed to divine perfection.
2. Another exciting contribution of Alter is his concept of “Historicized prose fiction”
(chapter 2). This term is borrowed from Herbert Schneidau who opines that the ancient
Hebrew writers of Genesis and parts of the story of David were involved in giving “birth
to a new kind of historicized fiction, moving steadily away from the motives and habits
of the world of legend and myth.”11 Picking this, Alter argues that ancient Hebrew
writers tried to connect their legends and myth directly to history unlike the surrounding
pagan world-view which was infinitely metaphysical in description.12 Alter continues that
the Hebrew writers could achieve this by employing the prose fiction genre as opposed to
the existing epic genre.13 By choosing the prose fiction genre, the Hebrew writers were
distancing themselves from pagan world view, polytheistic notions and metaphorical
language to that of linear world view, monotheistic notion and metonymic language.
The genre prose fiction is an intriguing term. According to Alter, “fiction was the
principal means which the biblical authors had at their disposal for realizing history.”14 It
is clear that Alter is bias towards the fictional element of the biblical narrative. He
expresses that there is just a fine line of difference between history and fiction; and
though he argues that biblical narratives are based on general historical information and
facts (for instance, modern study has shown that there was a David who had dispute with
the house of Saul, later conquered Jerusalem, established a small empire and was
succeeded by his son Solomon) yet they remain to be mere skeleton needing flesh and
11
See Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 25
Ibid, 25.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid, 32
12
7
blood. This need is fulfilled by fiction (for instance, knowing the details of the
narrative—when, how, what, why and so on). Alter concludes, “Nevertheless, these
stories are not, strictly speaking, historiography, but rather the imaginative reenactment
of history by a gifted writer.”15 Alter by using the word fiction has definitely added
confusion to the understanding of ancient Hebrew historiography. I feel comfortable at
the way he explains about “the imaginative reenactment of history by a gifted writer”
except for the word “fiction.” Because fiction is an entirely different genre as history is,
where the former has no restraint whatsoever in narrating a story whereas, the latter is
controlled by the facts and events. V. Philips Long offers a corrective explanation by
neatly arguing that instead of fiction that enables the narrative to come alive, it should be
attributed to the writer’s artistic skills.16
Alter’s attachment towards fiction is so strong that he injects a lot of freedom to
the writers of the biblical narrative who presumably can modify any tradition or compiled
documents for the sake of inventing the story whether it is theologically motivated or
not.17 This certainly is a worry point for me because it encourages ahistorical and readerresponse approaches toward reading the scripture.
3. Finally, I want to briefly comment on the techniques of repetition (chapter 5) because
repetition constitutes an important component of biblical narrative. For modern readers
repetition of certain words or phrases becomes dull and redundant reading. However, it is
not the case for biblical narrative. The writer repeats the words or phrases because those
are important in understanding the meaning of the narrative. Alter opines that the reasons
15
Ibid, 35
V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History, (Leicester: Apollos, 1994), 70-71.
17
Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 46.
16
8
for the repetition are: because of oral tradition, the form of folklore, the transmission of
the text might also have affected repetition, and finally repetition defines the authority of
the creator who created the universe through language and human’s limitation to
completely adhere to his words. Though interesting as Alter might sound one wonders,
what does an almighty God has to do with a literary device to suggest his power and
directives. Perhaps, Alter is reading too much into the worldview of the ancient Hebrews.
Sternberg
Sternberg in his book, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, tries to articulate the
theoretical framework of the biblical narrative.18 I would briefly like to comment on his
discussion of historiography (chapter 1) and foolproof composition (chapter 7).
1. Sternberg’s arguments are quite forceful and dogmatic. His understanding of OT
historiography stems from his conviction to counter act the ahistorical bias of the New
Criticism.19 He critics Alter’s emphasis on fiction by arguing that biblical narrative
writers were writing history and to discount that to any other genre is inappropriate. He
does this by distinguishing between truth value and truth claim. For Sternberg, truth value
of the biblical narrative may be or may not be accurate but if the author is committed to
the truth value then the writer’s claims are true. In other words, it is the truth claim that
matters “for history-writing is not a record of fact—of what ‘really happened’—but a
discourse that claims to be a record of fact.”20 Therefore, bad historiography is still
historiography but never a fiction. Halpern makes a similar point. He maintains that the
Dr. Bill Arnold’s comment in the class discussion of Old Testament Research and
Methodology (Date: 10/08/09).
19
Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 7-8. See also Adele Berlin’s Review on,” The Poetics of
Biblical Narrative,” ProofTexts Vol. 6 Issue 3 ( 1986), P 273, 12p.
20
Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 25.
18
9
authors of historical works in the bible “had authentic antiquarian intentions. They meant
to furnish fair and accurate representations of Israelite activity.”21 I agree that whether
bad historiography or good historiography they are still history in terms of genre. And
though this might not be the contention of Sternberg here, still I want to post the
question: what kind of history will it be if the truth value/facts are with serious errors?
Sternberg argues that Hebrew’s narrative writing is a fusion of ideology,
historiographic and aesthetic.22 In other words, the biblical narratives are written to
convey certain ideological message (in this case, Yahwistic theology) using historical
information and facts aided by the persuasive aesthetic and rhetorical skills of the writer.
This certainly clarifies the complexity of the Hebrew writings. Historiography is just a
part of Hebrew narrative writing. To look at the narratives from a modern understanding
of history writing would completely jeopardize the meaning and value of the biblical
narrative.
Closely related to the issues of Hebrew’s historiography and narrative writing is
the role of the inspiration. Sternberg has an interesting view of the inspiration of the
writer.23 For him the writer’s omniscience of the story is not because of the artistic skill
of the author (Alter) but because the writer is inspired or claims to be inspired. However,
the twist of his understanding of inspiration is that the scripture may be inspired or may
not be inspired (depending on one’s stance) but one has to suppose it in order to interpret
21
B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1996) , 3.
22
Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical narrative, 41
23
Sternberg, 33-34, 58-59
10
the scripture because that is what the writer claims. Simply put, he reduces inspiration to
a mere level of “communication between writer and reader.”24
2. One significant feature of Sternberg’s book is the articulation of foolproof composition
(chapter 7). He avers that a reader of the biblical narrative is never misled or misdirected
by the writer. Misinterpretation of the narrative happens only if the reader deliberately
wishes for. The reason is because God is in control of the story.25 The function of
foolproof composition is made interesting by the element of gap and ambiguity found
within the narrative. For instance, why did Uriah insist not to see his wife? “Was Uriah
then an idealistic soldier or a stubborn husband? Or Joseph [in his dealing with his
brothers] a tormentor or a redeemer?”26 This element—gap and ambiguity—certainly
makes the narrative come alive to a close reader of a text simply because one’s
imagination is triggered. However, this does not mean that any wild imagination can be
injected to our reading just because our imagination has been triggered. Perhaps, in order
to protect from this arbitrary reading Sternberg argues that gap and ambiguity function
within the parameter of truth and the whole truth. He opines, “the narrator may play
games with the whole truth for the pleasure and benefit of the cunning few, but he must
communicate the truth in a fashion accessible to all.”27 As a result of this the
interpretation of the text depends on the different levels of readers. The least competent
reader will be exposed to just simple plain moral sense of the narrative whereas, the
highly sophisticated close reader will be exposed to the full richness of the meaning of
24
Ibid.
Cf. R. Christopher Heard, “Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scripture: A Review and
Assessment” RQ Vol. 38/1 (1996): 29-43
26
Strernberg, 233.
27
Ibid., 235
25
11
the text. There is certain truth in his expression but it also indicates an imperialistic
attitude towards reading the scripture.28
Conclusion
No doubt the works of Alter and Sternberg have truly provided a vibrant perspective and
tools to work with the genre of biblical narrative which happily consist more than half of
the OT books. Through their work one generally is taught to approach the scripture with a
careful mind, knowing that the narratives are not just mere arbitrary construction of the
redactor(s) but that they are deliberate, in fact, an artistic work of the redactor/writer. An
abrupt flow in the story or irritable repetition of certain words or phrase should not depict
the unintelligent work of the writer but rather, as Alter and Sternberg have shown, one
should pay extra attention to such incidents in the passage because there an interpreter
will see the motif and perspectives of the writer. Though Alter seems to be confused with
the genre of fiction to that of the writer’s artistic skills, Sternberg has rightfully argued
about the nature of historiography in general and Hebrew’s narrative writing in particular.
Philip long avers, “Without historicity of the central events of the biblical story truly
biblical faith cannot survive.”29 It is imperative on the part of the Christian interpreter to
understand the importance of history while interpreting the text. Finally, a narrative
interpretation of a text should not end in mere reading of the text employing the literary
techniques but rather the end should be to theologize and make the reading relevant for
the congregation.30
See also Burke O. Long, “The ‘New’ Biblical Poetics of Alter and Sternberg,” JSOT
51(1991): 71-84
29
V. Philip Long, The Art of Biblical History, 98.
30
Cf. Daniel J. Hayes, “An Evangelical Approach to Old Testament Narrative Criticism,” BS 166 no 661
(2009): 3-18
28
12
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Bar-Efrat, S. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond, 1989.
Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond,
1983.
____________. “The Poetics of Biblical Narrative,” ProofTexts Vol. 6 Issue 3 (1986).
Bruggemann, Walter. An Introduction of the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian
Imagination. Louisville: John Knox, 2003.
_________________. The Book that Breathes New Life: Scriptural Authority and
Biblical Theology. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Exum, J. Cheryl., and David J.A. Clines, “The New Literary Criticism,” Journal Studies
of Old Testament, Supplement Series 143 (1993): 11-25.
Gunn, David M. “New Directions in the Study of Biblical Hebrew Narrative,” Pages 41222 in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Edited by
Paul R. House; vol. 2 of Sources for Biblical and Theological Study. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Gunn, David M., and Danna Nolan Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Halpern, B. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996.
Hayes, Daniel J. “An Evangelical Approach to Old Testament Narrative Criticism,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 166 no 661 (2009): 3-18
Heard, R. Christopher. “Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scripture: A Review and
Assessment” Restoration Quarterly Vol. 38/1 (1996): 29-43
Long, Burke O. “The ‘New’ Biblical Poetics of Alter and Sternberg,” Journal Studies Of
Old Testament 51(1991): 71-84.
Long, V. Philips. The Art of Biblical History. Leicester: Apollos, 1994.
Muilenburg, J. “Form Criticism and Beyond,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969):
1-18.
Speiser, E.A. Genesis: The Anchor Bible. New York: 1964.
13
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the
Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.
14