Are we comparing apples with apples when reading biblical narratives?

Considering the basic communication model (see Communicating the Message), we see that the Author wants to communicate a message to his reader(s) by means of a text. In or through the text a “new world” is created. This world need to be distinguished from the real world as it is only a representation of the real world. According to Tate (2008, p. 106), “The real world is the actual world in which the author lived when the text was written” whereas “the story world is the world found only in the text”. The story world is one created by the author and is limited to what is represented in the text.

If we look at the picture at our right, we will agree that what we see is an apple on top of two books. The reality is that, although they might look real, they aren't. The apple might look so real that it might even stimulate my senses. If I’m very hungry, my saliva glands might start to work overtime. The fact is, what I see is not real but only a representation of that which is real. Although the picture is real, I cannot pick up the apple and eat it or take the one of books and page through it. Furthermore, I’m limited to what the photographer ‘shows’ me in the photo. Thus, what I see is only a representation of that which is real and I can only see it from the perspective that the photographer granted me to see.

Coming back to our distinction between story and narrative in my previous blog, we may equate the real apple and books of which the photo was taken, with ‘story’ (event) and the photo of the apple and books with ‘narrative’ (representation of events). The story is that which really took place, whereas the narrative is an artful representation of those events. In the same way I'm limited by the photographers perspective, I'm limited to what the author of the narrative decides to reveal in the narrative.

Tate (2008, p. 104) differentiates between historical narrative and mimetic narrative. The major difference would be that fact that historical narrative “endeavours to present an account of real historical events, persons, and places in their chronological order” in an objective factual manner, whereas mimetic narrative is an artful representation of either fictional or real events. Thus, the narrator employs all sorts of literary devices to communicate his/her message. What is important though, is to recognise that “mimetic narrative transcends history.” In other words, it communicates more than the sum of the events – it guides “the reader into the discovery of some universal truth” (Tate, 2008, p. 105). Although a narrative is limited in the sense that we can only see what the author shows us, it is also more, in that it communicates more than just the events it represents. 

Thus, what we can say in regards with biblical narratives are, that although they are only a representation of what really happened, they were written to communicate more than just what had happened - they were written to communicate theological meaning. Biblical narratives invite us into the world of God's journey with his people. It wants to show us who and how God is through his dealings with his people. It does it with the purpose to help us come to a better understanding of the character of God. However, to understand the character (of) God, we need to enter this world and experience it as if we are part of it.

See also "The Bible, stories and fiction"

Tate, W. R. (2008). Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Hendrickson Pub.

Should we distinguish between Story and Narrative?

Up to now, I have used the terms narrative and story interchangeably. It will, however, soon become clear that these terms refer to two different things or worlds. According to Du Plesis and Greyling  (2004, p. 33) a story refers to that which actually happened (it may be fictional or real). A narrative on the other hand, refers to the artistic representation of what had happened. A distinction is thus made between what happened (in the past) and the way it is represented.

A similar distinction may be made between history and historiography. History refers to the events that have taken place in the past while historiography refers to the writing about those events (Dillard & Longman III, 1995, p. 21). Although Long (1999, p. 84) find this distinction useful, he reckons, from a practical point of view, that these definitions are seldom maintained. For him, history refers to both “significant past events and interpretive accounts or representations, of significant past events” (italics Long’s).  

Long’s view may also apply to our differentiation between story and narrative. For the purpose of this study I will, however, maintain the differentiation between story and narrative.

For believers, one of the major obstacles when talking about story and narrative is the idea that stories are necessarily fictional (Ryken, 1990, p. 7) (see my blog on Stories and Fiction).  Here it is important to keep die above differentiations between story and narrative, and history and historiography in mind. What we have in front of us when reading narrative or historiography is the result of an author’s representation of a story or history. As we have made clear, stories may either be real (history) or fictional. As believers, we believe that what is presented to us in Scripture is based in what really happened. Thus, story and history, in terms of the Bible refer to the same thing – significant past events. If I may borrow from the New Testament, we should, however, also recognise that some stories in the Bible might be fictional. Jesus’ parables, for example, were not necessarily based on real events.

The difference between historiography and narrative then is the way these significant past events are presented. We are not presented with cold, hard facts about the past in the Bible (at least in the modern sense of historiography) but rather with a literary piece of art. Tate (2008, p. 105) refers to “’storicized’ history”. In terms of our distinction, we might call it ‘narratised’ history (just to make it a bit more complicated). In other words, when reading Genesis to Esther (and some other parts) we are presented with an artistic representation of significant past events (stories) in the literary form (genre) known as narrative.

See also: The Bible, Stories and Faith, The Bible, Stories and History

Brink, A. P. (1987). Vertelkunde:  ’n inleiding tot die lees van verhalende tekste. Academica.

Dillard, R. & Longman III, T. (1995). An Introduction to the Old Testament. Apollos.

Long, V. P. (1999). Old Testament History: A Hermeneutical Perspective, in: VanGemeren, W. A. (Ed.), A guide to Old Testament theology and exegesis: an introductory articles from the New International dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, (pp. 83–99). Grand Rapids  Mich.: Zondervan.

du Plessis, H. & Greyling, F. (2004). Skryfkuns, Studiegids Vir SKRS 111A. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys.

Ryken, L. (1990). Part 1: “Words of Delight”: The Bible as Literature. BSac, 147(585), 3–16.

Tate, W. R. (2008). Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Hendrickson Pub.

Analysing narratives, why bother?

Analysing (exegeting) biblical texts asks many hours of intense hard work. Getting to the bottom of what a text communicates does not always come easy – and, as we have said before, because of all the issues to be considered and the role of one’s own presuppositions, one can never really sit back and say, “I’ve nailed it”. The question is, “Why bother?”

For a start, focusing on narratives, more than a third of the Old Testament consists of stories, or narratives. According to Bar-Efrat (2004) the biblical narratives “are of the highest artistic quality, ranking among the foremost literary treasures of the world”. From a pure literary perspective, it make sense to make a study of the Old Testament narratives for its “beauty, craftsmanship, and technique” (Ryken, 1992, p. 16). For me, as a Christian, this means that we are not dealing with a dull book or message communicated in a dull manner. The artistic nature of Scripture calls for enjoyment, not only for what is communicated, but also the manner in which its message is communicated (Ryken, 1992, p. 22).

For Christians and Jews alike, there is more to the study of Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) than for its aesthetic value. The Bible is a faith book. The biblical narratives displays people’s lack of faith, the rich dimensions of people’s faith in God and how God initiates faith in people (Human, 2011, p. 54). In these stories, we discover something about who we are before God – with our little or much faith. As we read about God’s journey with his people, we often stumble on reflections of ourselves and what we are like – see ourselves in the story and its characters. Exactly because narratives invite us to enter its world and identify with its characters, we many times find ourselves confronted with our own reflection in it. Thus, we do not only find comfort in how God deals with those of little faith, but we are also challenged to put our trust in God alone.

In the third instance, the biblical narratives are about God’s journey with his people. Through these stories, God reveals himself to us – who he is and what he is like. Ryken (1990, p. 134) is correct in stating that God is the protagonist of the biblical story and that “The characterization of God is the main concern of the Bible, and it is pursued from beginning to end”. Through these stories, we see how God deals with his people (and those who are not his people). By studying and understanding biblical narratives, we come to know the character of God better. After all, it is all about him.

Lastly, whatever ministry God calls us to, we are in the first and the last place, Ministers of the Word of God. Whether one is a pastor, a youth worker, a chaplain, a counsellor, or a witness in the workplace, the pivot of your ministry is the Bible. As Ministers of the Word of God, we want to deal with his Word in a responsible and accountable manner. This means that we will take this major genre of his word serious – that we want to know how it works and how we may understand it better. We also want to be able to give good account of what we believe Scripture communicates based on a good understanding of the text itself.

According to Mangina (2004, p. 4), Karl Barth’s departing advice to his students when he was banned from Germany was, “exegesis, exegesis and yet more exegesis! Keep to the Word, to the Scripture that has been given to us”.

Bar-Efrat, S. (2004). Narrative Art in the Bible. London, New York: T & T Clark International.

Human, D. J. (2011). Die Uitdagings Van Bybellees, in: Vos, C. and Human, D. J. (Eds.), Vaste rots op wie ek bou, (pp. 53–78). Kaapstad: Lux Verbi.BM.

Mangina, J. L. (2004). Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness. Westminster John Knox Press.

Ryken, L. (1990). Part 2: “And It Came to Pass”: The Bible as God’s Storybook. BSac, 147(586), 132–143.

Ryken, L. (1992). Words of Delight: a Literary Introduction to the Bible, in: (p. 540 p.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

The Bible and the location of meaning (2)

Considering the location of meaning from an exegetical point of view, scholars divide the study of biblical texts along the same lines as the diagram in our previous discussion. Biblical interpretation is thus generally divided into three major fields of study; Historical Criticism (what the author intended), Literary Criticism (what the text itself says), and Ideological Criticism (the text’s effect on society) (Walsh, 2009, p. 5).

One of the major obstacles for many Christians is the use of the term “criticism” for the respective fields of study. This is due to two reasons. Firstly, in English this term have a very negative connotation – especially when applied to the Bible. Secondly, for many Christians the idea of studying the Bible ‘critically’ is not only strange but also ludicrous. How can we study God’s Word critically?

In terms of the first issue, it is important to ask for the meaning of a term within the context it is used. In theological and biblical studies it refers to the “Analysis and evaluation (of something)” (Deist, 1984, p. 61). Historical Criticism, for example, refers to the “analytical inquiry into the history of biblical literature with a view to reconstructing the growth of each book prior to its canonization” (Deist, 1984, p. 115). Thus, within the context we use the term, ‘criticism’, we refer to the scientific research of the biblical text.

That brings us to the other issue, “Should we study the Bible in this way?” Who are we to analyse and evaluate God’s Word critically? We do not have much of a choice. We need to use the best tools to our avail to understand the text, exactly because we want to understand God and his Word better (see The Bible, stories and method). Furthermore, we are dealing with a complicated communication process with a multitude of distortion between the original author and us. The reality is that we are not only dealing with the text in our analysis but we are also busy with critical self-analyses. Interpreting the Bible involves both the text and the interpreter (VanGemeren, 1997, p. 7). Because the danger always exist that we read into the text what the text do not communicate but what we want to hear (or brought up to hear), means that we need to ask critical questions to the text (Human, 2003, p. 270). The purpose of a critical analysis of the text is thus more to critically question and evaluate what I ‘belief’ or ‘think’ the Bible says, than ‘criticising’ the text itself. It is only when we critically engage with Scripture that we can put our own presuppositions under the spotlight. That provides the opportunity, in the light of God’s Word, to make ‘corrections’ to what we belief the Bible is communication.

This process sometimes unleash a deep conflict within ourselves as we weigh up what we always thought the Bible communicates and what our interpretation of the text brings to light. This conflict takes us out of our comfort zone into one of uncertainty. It certainly makes us humble before God and his Word. This struggle need not be a negative experience because in this process, we come to know God and ourselves better. It is when we pose these critical questions about God and the Bible that spiritual growth takes place (Human, 2011, p. 57).

Do we value all three approaches we started of with equally? Probably not. As I already indicated, my preference lies with the text itself. That does not mean, however, that I could not and should not consider the results of the other disciplines. To the contrary, without Text Criticism I would not have a proper text to work with. Without Feminist Criticism, that I do not agree with, I would probably not have re-considered what (I thought) the Bible says about the place and role of women in the church. Thus, although my personal emphasis lies with the study of the text itself, I need to consider and use the results of the other disciplines in order to understand God’s Word better.

 Taken and adapted from Walsh (2009)

Deist, F. E. (1984). A Concise Dictionary of Theological and Related Terms. J L van Schaik Uitgewers / Publishers.

Human, D. J. (2003). Teologie Kroniek: Skrifverstaan En Die Nuwe Hervorming. Verbum et Ecclesia, 24(1), 260–275.

Human, D. J. (2011). Die Uitdagings Van Bybellees, in: Vos, C. and Human, D. J. (Eds.), Vaste rots op wie ek bou, (pp. 53–78). Kaapstad: Lux Verbi.BM.

VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0633/96015006-d.html

Walsh, J. T. (2009). Old Testament Narrative: a Guide to Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.

The Bible and the location of meaning (1)

When we look at narrative texts, the communication structure is similar to the Basic Communication Model. The sender (author) wants to communicate a message (story) to someone else (reader/audience). He does that by telling or writing down his message.

The question now is, “Where will we find the meaning of the message?” Does the meaning of the story lie with the author (what he/she intended), in the text itself or with the reader? (See diagram below) My vote is with the author; he is after all the one who have the message and knows what he wants to communicate. Furthermore, in terms of the Bible, he is the ‘inspired’ author of God’s message. If I want to study God as a character in a story, my purpose would be to come to an understanding of how the author intended the reader to understand who God is and what he is like. Unfortunately, we do not have the author with us to verify whether we understand what he meant when he wrote his story neither do we have a commentary (written by the author) to explain exactly what he meant.

Another way to go is to ask, “What did the original readers of the text understood the message to be?” After all, besides the author, they would have understood the story best as the message was intended for them. They best understood the code the author used to communicate his message with and shared a common frame of reference (context) with the author. Unfortunately, once again, we do not have the readers of the text with us to explain what they would have understood the message to be. Furthermore, we do not have any guarantee that they understood perfectly what the author intended.

Although we do want to understand what the author intended with his writing and it would be great to understand what the original receivers understood the message to be, the only ‘thing’ we have is the text. The problem with the text is that, because we are so distanced from its origins (few can read it in its original language and most have nothing more than a vague, if any, understanding of the ancient world), we can easily misunderstand the message and the author’s intention. In addition, it is too easy for us to hear from the text the message that we would like to hear. As Long (1999, p. 88) observes, “In this day and age, it would be the height of hermeneutical naïveté to deny or ignore the fact that one’s background beliefs have a significant impact on how one processes and assesses data.”

Still, that is what we are left with, the text – God’s Word – and, should we want to understand its (his) message to us, we need to go about it in a responsible manner. “What we must do is identify elements in the text that plausibly ground our interpretations” (Walsh, 2009, p. 5) [author’s emphasis]. Thus, we need to make every effort to understand the text for what it is and what it wants to communicate. 

Long, V. P. (1999). Old Testament History: A Hermeneutical Perspective, in: VanGemeren, W. A. (Ed.), A guide to Old Testament theology and exegesis: an introductory articles from the New International dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, (pp. 83–99). Grand Rapids  Mich.: Zondervan.

Walsh, J. T. (2009). Old Testament Narrative: a Guide to Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.

Communicating the Message

We have defined ‘story’ earlier as, something that happened to someone, somewhere, sometime. From this definition and concluded that a story consists of a plot or intrigue (something happened), character(s) (someone), space or setting (somewhere) and time (sometime). We expanded Brink’s (1987) definition by adding the importance of the author and the audience. As we have concluded, all these elements play an integral and integrated part to make a good story.

To understand how this will help us understand stories we might have to start with asking ourselves how communication works. Put very simply, communication happens when a Sender wants to communicate a Message to a Receiver. In terms of a written text, we may distinguish between the Author, the Text and the Reader. For the Receiver to understand the Message, the Sender needs to encode the text in a code that the Receiver is able to decode. The code of the Old Testament would be Hebrew and Aramaic and the letters of the text would be the medium the Sender uses to encode the text – more specifically the Hebrew alphabet. For effective communication to take place, the Sender and Receiver should also have a shared context or frame of reference.

The above can be diagrammed as follows:

Basic Communication Model

(Deist, 1986, p. 17)

I will use the following example to explain the above. If I write a letter to a friend I will take the place of the sender and the friend the receiver. The letter will contain the message I want to communicate to my friend. If the friend speaks Afrikaans (my native language), I might start the letter with, “Goeie dag. Hoe gaan dit met jou en die familie”. What I did was to encode my message into a code that both my friend and I understand, Afrikaans. Because it is a letter, I used letters as a medium to encode the text.  Although most of you might be able to identify the letters (which is different in Hebrew and Aramaic) I used, you will probably not be able to decode the text because you do not understand Afrikaans. What is already clear is that communication cannot take place if you do not understand the code – language. English readers might be able to identify two words from this sentence, “die” and “familie”. So, I communicated something about a family who died. Although “familie” contains the same meaning than “family”, “die” got nothing to do with death. “Die” is actually the definite article (the) in Afrikaans.

Say I translate the sentence, “Good day. How are you and the family”, it will immediately be clear what I said or will it? The question is still whether you understand what I communicated to my friend. You might think it is clear-cut; he just started his letter in a cordial manner as is expected. But say my friend is involved in a family feud; he will understand it very different from just a cordial greeting. Alternatively, if the letter were directed to a friend with whose family I have a very close relationship, the content of what I communicate would be altogether different again. Each instance speaks of a different context that gives meaning to the content of a very simple sentence. Because my friend and I have a share frame of reference or context, it will be (in most instances) clear to him what I mean by my greeting.

As you can see, for effective communication to take place, we need to understand the world of the Sender and the reader. We also need to be able to understand the language and know the medium the sender used. Furthermore, we need to their contexts and the context under which the text were written. This is just the beginning of the complex act of communication. This very simple model does not even consider more complex issues like, nuance, word choice, idioms, things that distort communication and so on.

Deist, F. E. (1986). The Writer, His Text and His Audience, in: Deist, F. E. and Vorster, W. S. (Eds.), Words from afar, (pp. 17–38). The literature of the Old Testament. Cape Town: Tafelberg Publishers.

The Bible, stories and method

If stories invite and engage us, sometimes even unconsciously, do we really need to go through a whole process of interpreting the text? Can’t one just read the story and get to the message? Do we really need a method to understand biblical stories?

Maybe I should start by saying that there is no one method to interpret stories but multiple methods. For the beginner it might be best to come to grips with a (good) method to interpret a text. Once one is familiar with that method one can take on others and start to integrate different methods. We should also keep in mind that method is not the purpose but a means to a purpose – a tool to be used in order to understand a text.

Good methodology helps us to consider different aspects of a text and help us look at the text from different angles. Good methodology, well applied and used, safeguard the text and the reader from the honest reader’s presuppositions. By an honest reader, I mean a reader who knows and acknowledges his/her presuppositions and are willing to submit it to the text. An honest reader will allow the biblical text to change his/her presuppositions in the light of the text and not the other way round. An honest reader fine-tunes his ears to the message of the text. He/she will consider as many aspects of a text as necessary in order to let the text speak, putting aside, as far as possible, his/her own ideas of or about the text.

This becomes part of a process more than a method. Waltke (2001, p. 33) puts it well:

The task of the Bible student is to discern the rules employed in a biblical text as evidenced by that text. This task necessarily involves a heuristic spiral. One approaches the text with ideas about its techniques and principals, which the text then proves or disproves. Thus begins the dialogue with the text that leads the careful listener to learn how the text communicates.

Methods are the systemised way of understanding how things work and/or can be done. Literary methods, develop by scholars who studies literature in order to understand how it works, helps the reader to understand the rules by which different texts functions – how they work. Understanding how stories work and systematically working through different aspects of a story, enables the reader to come to a better understanding of the story at hand. By working through a story methodologically, we consider different aspects of what the story is about and how the author wanted to communicate his message.

As Walkte shows, it is not about methodologism but about a dialogue with a particular text. Different text functions differently. The student needs to establish which of the verity of tools in his toolbox would work best to understand a text. By carefully applying first this than that tool, knowing how to use each, he/she learn how to let the text speak and what the text wants to say – coming to know God’s voice and heart behind that of the author.

Waltke, B. K. (2001). Genesis: a Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.

The Bible, stories and faith

If large parts of the Bible consist of stories, can we still believe the Bible. Or rather, what would the relationship between these stories and our faith be? Can we have faith, not in only in the stories, but especially in God? How do stories help us believe?

Stories are a strange phenomenon. They play of in front of you, objectively at a distance. They want to “show” you something and you "view" it as an observer. However, stories also want to engage with its audience and draw them into its world. A good story will do this without the audience realising it. It happens subconsciously. You might listen, read or watch a story and suddenly you feel part of it, you take sides with a character, you wonder how things are going to work out for this or that character. You become tense when things go wrong and are relieved when things work out. In an open-ended story, you are left with an empty feeling wondering how it worked out for the characters at the end. Suddenly you view and experience yourself, others and the world differently.

Bible stories want to do the same thing. It wants to engage you in the life and the story of its characters. It takes you on a journey, God’s journey with his people and Israel’s (the church's in the NT) journey with God. It woos you into its world and makes you part of its story. Once you engaged with this story your view about the world, yourself and God changes – it cannot stay the same. As Vanhoozer (1999, p. 36) states, “Stories…provide an indispensable interpretative framework through which we view the world, ourselves, and God.”

In these stories, we meet different kind of characters. Good characters but mostly, not so good. Even the characters that we expect to be people of faith sometimes turn out to be doing really stupid (and bad) things. It makes one wonder how it is possible for them to act is such a way and end up in “the Good Book”. But, we also meet another character – sometimes he seems to be a bit on the background – God and we see how he deals with the reality he is faced with. How he deals with his people in the light of their (lack of) faith and actions. Then, suddenly, you see yourself with your (little or much) faith, your sin, your failures, in the story and you wonder how God will deal with you.

Human (2011, pp. 54-55) puts it well, “Met die boek vol beskrywings van mense se geloofservarings kan ons vandag met ons baie of min geloof in gesprek tree. Hierin le ‘n diep troos.” (In this book, filled with descriptions of people’s faith experiences, we are able to engage in dialogue with our abundant or our little faith. Herein lays a deep comfort.) [Translation mine]. This comfort is to be found in how the character, God, deals with people with abundant or little faith.

In the Bible's stories we see ourselves, God and the world in a different light. It calls us to faith in the One who stays true to his promises and commitments in the face of the lack thereof in the participating characters. Faith in the One whom it is all about. And we are left with a new hope because of Him.

Human, D. J. (2011). Die Uitdagings Van Bybellees, in: Vos, C. and Human, D. J. (Eds.), Vaste rots op wie ek bou, (pp. 53–78). Kaapstad: Lux Verbi.BM.

Vanhoozer, K. J. (1999). Language, Literature, Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology: What’s Theological About a Theological Dictionary?, in: VanGemeren, W. A. (Ed.), A guide to Old Testament theology and exegesis: an introductory articles from the New International dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, (pp. 11–47). Grand Rapids  Mich.: Zondervan.

The Bible, stories and history

Another problem that comes to mind when we talk about stories and the Bible, is the relationship between story and history. We already dealt with the fact that story does not equal fiction. Aren’t we weakening the historicity of the Bible by referring to those parts that have traditionally being viewed as historical truth by referring to it as story? Can story and history go together especially if we believe that our faith is grounded in historical truth?

Henry (1987, p. 19) warns that:

The narrative approach therefore seems not fully befitting the historic Christian faith. . . . One discerns here an enchantment with the affective, a flight from history to the perspectival that enjoins no universal truth-claims, a reflection of the revolt against reason, a reliance on ‘symbolic truth’ and imagination, and an interest in earthly theatre more than revealed theology.

For him the fact that narratives appeals to the emotive and imaginative goes against the fact that we are dealing with revelation. Revelation is based on historical truth (as we see it from a modernistic worldview) and therefore the whole idea that parts of Scripture may be called ‘story’ or categorised as ‘narratives’ is actually devaluating our faith.

For Merrill (1999, p. 68), however:

The history of the OT is overwhelmingly narrative in expression. From beginning to end the dealings of God with humankind, their response to him, and their interrelationships at both individual and corporate levels appear in story form. [Emphasis Merrill's]

Thus, there need not be a chasm between story and history. Story may be just that, story (as in fiction) but it is also possible to communicate real events by means of a story. Truth told in narrative form does not diminish its factualness. If I tell you my ‘life story’, it is the history of my life in the form of a story. Using literary devises in order to make the story more interesting and to engage others in my story will not take anything away from the truth I’m telling. Tate (2008, p. 105) refer to it as “storicized history”.

Acknowledging that huge parts of both the Old and New Testament are written in story form does not take anything away from its historicity. Interpreting these text from a literary point of view does not take away anything of the truth it communicates. 

Henry, C. F. H. (1987). Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal. Trinity Journal, 8(1), 3–19.

Tate, W. R. (2008). Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Hendrickson Pub.

Merrill, E. H. (1999). Old Testament History: A Theological perspective. In, VanGemeren, W. A. (Ed.). Old Testament History: A Theological Perspective, in: A guide to Old Testament theology and exegesis: an introductory articles from the New International dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis. Grand Rapids  Mich.: Zondervan.

The Bible, stories and inspiration

Another issue that came up in class (see my previous blog) is that of inspiration. How can we refer to stories in the Bible and use methods from secular sciences and at the same time hold to the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Or, are we not devaluating the Bible as Word of God by simply referring to large chunks of it as stories? What are the implication of the above for or view of the Bible as ‘inspired’?

We do not have the time and space to discuss inspiration theology here. What we should say is that the Bible did not fall out of heaven ready to go to print. It developed over thousands of years and many authors have been involved in its writing. In faith, we believe it to be the inspired word of God.

The interesting fact is, agreeing that the Bible is inspired by God, that God did not choose to communicate to us by means of a ‘flat’ abstract historical thesis. When one reads the Bible, it soon becomes obvious that the text, that we believe to be the inspired Word of God, is a multidimensional document. It uses narrative, poetry, parables and a range of other literary types (genres) to communicate to us.

We all know that one cannot read fiction, poetry, history or the newspaper in the same way. We need to understand the type of literature we are dealing with and interpret it according to that literature type’s rules. Not doing so, we might end up with a total wrong idea of what the text wants to communicate.

If God then, communicate to us by means of different genres, shouldn’t we take the trouble to understand his communication accordingly? If the inspired authors of the Bible used narratives to communicate God’s message, then we should take that serious and interpret it as such. Otherwise, we might end up with a totally wrong understanding of what God wants to communicate to us.

As Ryken (1990:9) correctly observes: “To view the Bible as literature does not require one to regard it as fictional or to compromise one’s view of its special religious authority.”

If God inspired the authors of the Bible to write huge parts of Scripture in story form, who are we to think that it is not fitting to read and interpret it as such?

The Bible, stories and fiction

For many people ‘story’ equals fiction. During a recent lecture on the interpretation of Genesis, I experience a lot of resistance to the approach I was putting forward. It was only towards the end of the class that I realised that students thought of stories as fiction. Thus, my references to the ‘stories’ in Genesis resulted in all sorts of questions. Is the lecturer implying that the Bible is fictious? Does he then believe the Bible not to be true but made up stories? What does he believe in regards with the inspiration of the Bible? Etc.

The first question we need to ask is whether ‘story’ necessarily equals fiction. Can stories also be true? Tate (2008:102) agrees that the idea the parts of the Bible may be read as literature seems to be foreign to many readers. Taking it a step further and study God as a character among other characters would be, for many Christians, inconceivable. To view and study God as “a character in a novel” (Clines 1995:190) stops short of profanity.

According to Ryken (1990a:7):

Fictionality, though common in literature, is not an essential ingredient of literature. The properties that make a text literary are unaffected by the historicity or fictionality of the material. A literary approach depends on a writer’s selectivity and molding of the material, regardless of whether the details actually happened or are made up.

It seems important that we distinguish between fiction and non-fiction when we talk about stories. Although a biography for example, is written in the form of a story, it is still a true representation of what happened in a person's life. The author may use of all the literary devices available to him to give 'colour' to the story and make it more interesting, it does not, however, take away anything of the fact that what is portrayed really happened.

Modern history on the other hand, endeavours to be “scientifically objective as possible” – “writing history for histories sake” and will not utilise formal narrative strategies as you would find in narratives (Tate 2008:104).

The Bible is, according to Tate (2008:105), “storicized history”. In other words, history written in the form of a story – history writing that makes use of all the literary devices available. Being “storicized history”, the Bible is also more than just history. “Storicized history” is more than just a representation of history. It reaches beyond the cold hard facts of history to “guide the reader into the discovery of some universal truth” (Tate 2008:105). The biblical narratives is about more than the stories itself. It wants to show us a God who really cares for his creation and a reality beyond the one we live in.

Thus, although the same principals are used to interpret fictious and non-fictious narrative, story (narrative) does not necessarily equals fiction. Even though we might refer to a passage in Scripture as a story, it does not necessarily imply fictionality. It is thus, not only, possible, but also vital, to read the biblical “stories according to their own rules and conventions”, without giving up on the high regard we hold towards Scripture.

God - as the author intended

If we want to understand a biblical story, we must first take seriously the effort to learn how stories are told, specifically how biblical stories are told (Berlin 2005:21).

Maybe we should start by asking, “What is a story?” Brink (1987) defines a story as, something that happened to someone, somewhere, sometime. From this definition, we may conclude that a story consists of a plot or intrigue (something happened), character(s) (someone), space or setting (somewhere) and time (sometime). We may add to this definition, “as told by someone (author) to someone else (audience)”. These are the basic elements to be considered in order to interpret a story. All these elements play an integral and integrated part to make a good story.

Should we want to come to a better understanding of whom and how God is, we will do a character study of the character, God. Because the author uses all the different elements of the story to shape his characters (and the characters, to shape the story), we will need to follow a holistic approach, considering the role of each element in shaping a character.

What is important is to establish how the author wanted his audience to perceive the character we want to study. For example, how did the author of Genesis sketch God to his audience so that they understood God in the way he wanted them to? It is of no use if we understand the story or the purpose of the story different from what the author intended. Neither will it serve any purpose to come to view God differently than the picture the author drew. As Bright (1991, pp.42&43) puts it:

We have… the task of exegesis – of reading from the text the meaning the author intended to convey. We are not permitted the luxury of eisegesis – of reading our own ideas into the text or finding there meanings which its author did not have in mind”.

Thus, we analyse and interpret stories with the purpose to understand what the original author intended his audience to understand. By applying this to the character, God, we might come to a better and deeper understanding of who and what kind of God he is. And, we agree with Gunn and Fewell (1993:89) that it is one of the Bibles great challenges to come to some understanding of the character of God.

Understanding stories - understanding God

We all (well I guess, most of us) like a good story. Even better, a good story told by a good storyteller. A good storyteller will use different strategies to draw you into the story’s world. They will endeavour to communicate the story in such a way that you would somehow see it play of in your mind's eye and sometimes even feel part of it - inviting you into the world of the story. Good stories well told also involve the listeners emotion. Thus, a joke told well will make you cry with laughter. A good love story will produce all sorts of emotions - empathy, sadness, happiness, excitement etc. Storytellers and writers employ different strategies to achieve this goal in order to communicate their message more effectively.

This is no different for the stories we find in Scripture. The original storytellers of the biblical stories were masters of their trade. They also wished to involve their audiences in their stories on different levels. They also used different literary strategies to communicate the all important message of God’s journey with his people. Bible stories are not cold hard facts told in a dull fashion. They were told around the family fire in such a way that the stories would not only be remember but also in a fashion that would make the children sit up and listen, knowing that these are stories about their ancestor’s journey with God – knowing that the stories will continue in and through them.

Now, these stories became part of our canon – God’s Word to us.

If God wished to communicate his message to us by means of different genres, shouldn’t we take the way narratives function serious as well – not only as stories that played of long long ago, but to understand them for how they are told and what they want to achieve? In other words, for us to understand God’s message better, we should take the means by which this message is communicated serious. By not doing it, we might only get half the message or even the wrong message.

I think that Long (1994:43) was right when he said that

an increased appreciation of the literary mechanisms of a text—how a story is told—often becomes the avenue of greater insight into the theological, religious and even historical significance of the text—what the story means.

Knowing how stories work, what they wish to achieve and how they wish to achieve it, might bring us to a better understanding of who and how God is.

Stories - God's medium for self-revelation

Fokkelman (1999:19), a specialist in the analysis of biblical narratives, notes that, “What we have to learn is to read these stories according to their own rules and conventions, in an attitude of respect, and maintaining an open mind as long as possible". A number of issues comes to light from his observation. It is all about how we need to approach Scripture.

In the first place, we need to consider the type of literature (genre) we are reading. If we are dealing with narratives, we need to read them as narratives. We need to establish the rules they are written by. You cannot understand (analyse) Rugby if you do not understand Rugby rules or by applying Soccer rules. The text should thus determine how we read it.

Another, very important issue, has to do with the attitude we approach the text with. We are dealing, after all, with God’s Word. Even if one does not share this believe it should still be dealt with honourably. Respect is also shown when one respect the rules and convention that governs the part of the Bible we are dealing with, allowing it to communicate its message. In other words, we should be careful that we do not read our ideas into the text. By not considering the genre and its rules and conventions, this can easily happen.

Lastly, contrary to common thinking, we need to approach the Bible with an open mind. If we truly respect the Bible as God’s Word, we cannot allow our preconceived ideas (or presuppositions) to override what the text wants to communicate. Sometimes the text communicates, as I have shown earlier, a different message than what we think is true. The question then is whether we will ‘override’ the text or whether we will let the text change our ideas. We all approach the Bible with our own presuppositions (we cannot escape it), but will we allow Scripture to question those ideas and make amendments when and where necessary?

It is interesting, though, that Fokkelman qualifies or limits the idea of an open mind. Having an open mind does not mean we accept everything or just go with the flow. No, we maintain an open mind as long as possible – as far as the Bible allows us.

The question, in terms of my thesis, is therefore, whether we have an option other than to deal with the text as literature. This means that when we get to the biblical narratives that we need to also deal with God in a literary way. Coming to think of it, about two thirds of the Bible consists of stories and God plays a huge part in most, if not all, of them. It then seems stories are God’s medium of choice to reveal himself to us. Maybe we should take them more serious for what they are and how they function.

God in Stories

As I noted in my previous article, we do not read the front page of the newspaper in the same way we read the cartoons or sport pages. We also do not read a scientific book in the same manner than a storybook. The first wants to convey ‘objective’ facts whereas the second wants to involve and draw the reader in to a world created by the author of the narrative.

So, when we read any part of the Bible, we first have to ask ourselves what type of literature (genre) we are dealing with. Each genre should be read according to its own rules and conventions. Human (2003:271) emphasises the fact that the Bible consists of numerous literary genres and “Each [genre] expresses the truth in a different way. These genres are not interpreted in the same way. Cognizance is therefore expected from the reader to read literary types in a differentiated manner” [my translation]. The interpreter should thus not only be able to identify a passage’s genre but also know which ‘keys’ unlocks the particular genre (Human 2011:70).

When we read a Psalm we should understand how poetry works in order appreciate what the psalmist wanted to communicate. When we read narratives, we need to understand how stories work in order to comprehend what the author’s purpose was in telling the story. In the end, we want to know what the message of a particular passage is because we believe it to be God’s Word. If we read a narrative passage as if it is systematic theology we might end up missing the message (God’s) altogether. Priority should be given to what the text wants to communicate with due consideration to the rules and conventions of the genre one is dealing with (Gorman 2009:84).

Should we agree with this, does it then mean that we can / should read the first number of books of the bible (and the New Testament) as we would read any other story? Is it then possible to come to a better understanding of who and how God is by accepting that he is pretty much portrayed as a character in a story?

God and Stories

When we think about the God of the Bible, we are confronted with at least two major issues (see my previous blogs): the one being the perceived contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. The other would be the conflict between the narrator’s portrayal of God and readers’ theology. These issues are not to be taken lightly, as the way God is perceived to be (the kind of God we believe in) not only have a huge influence on believers’ faith and practise, but believers might end up believing in an altogether different God than the one we meet in the Bible.

The reality is that the text of the Old Testament, at least, does not deal with God, or theology, in a systematic manner. The fact is that most of the Old Testament consists of narratives – stories. What we know about God and his actions (who and how he is), we derive from these stories. And, as Wenham (1987:144) says, “…theological systematization is hardly the concern of the biblical narrators”. The authors of the Old Testament narratives did not intend to write theology. They wrote down the stories about God’s journey with his people that were passed down from generation to generation.

When we read the paper, we read the front page in a different way than the cartoons or sport pages. When we read the Bible, we need to distinguish the different types of literature. We cannot read narratives in the same way we read the Psalms or Paul’s letters. Different genres have different rules by which they are written and by which they should be interpreted.

As Fokkelman (1999:19) says, “What we have to learn is to read these stories according to their own rules and conventions, in an attitude of respect, and maintaining an open mind as long as possible."

'High' view of God (5) - Divine accommodation

One way one may try to deal with the ‘conflict’ between theology and text is to harmonise, or align, the text with one’s theology. That means that we are subjecting the Bible to our theology, giving a higher priority to our theology that is supposed to be based on Scripture.

Another way theologians tried to deal with this difficult issue is to ascribe the difference between text and theology to “Divine Accommodation”. Faced with the idea of the omniscient and immutable God ‘repenting’ (again Genesis 6:6), Calvin wrote that, “repentance cannot take place in God…. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains for ever like himself in his celestial and happy repose…”. The only way to explain this apparent ‘oxymoron’, is to conclude that the incomprehensible God have to ‘speak our language’ (accommodate us) in order to be understood. Calvin continues by stating:

For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sake, he should, in a certain sense, transform himself…yet, because it cannot otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. [my emphasis]

Following Calvin line of reasoning, Matthew Henry (1994) explains the issue we are faced with in Genesis 6 as follows:

These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon the honour of God’s immutability or felicity. This language does not imply any passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners, against sin as odious to his holiness and against sinners as obnoxious to his justice.

These explanations sound credible. However, we believe that God revealed himself to us through Scripture. Why would Scripture then reveal God in a way that he is not and how are we to decide whether this revelation renders a true image of who and how God is or is not?

As I mentioned before, this theology is based on a “Greek philosophical god-concept” by which “certain requirements or characteristics of ‘the divine’ gradually became general in the early church” (König 1978:73). The most prominent of these were “the dignum deo that was appropriated to God”. The idea of the dignum deo could not accommodate any form of anthropomorphism of God. Any idea of God having a body, being emotional or being able to change, was outright rejected. By implication, a worldview that is essentially foreign to Scripture have been superimposed on the text and took priority over what the text itself wants to communicate. Thus, while affirming a high regard of Scripture in theory, in practice, the Bible became subject to the reader’s own preconceived ideas. While advocating a high view of God and his Word, an image of God is created that is not based on Scripture.

'High' view of God (4) - Harmonising the text

Genesis 6:6 is a good example of the problem many readers of the Old Testament experience. It eliminates the disparity between the theology (how they believe God is supposed to be / ‘high’ view of God) of many believers and how God is actually portrayed by the text.

The idea of an unchanging and omniscient God, for example, does not agree with a God who “regrets” and who is “grieved” (Gen 6:6). Translating the Hebrew terms for regret (וַיִּנָּחֶם) and grieved (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב) have been a contentious issue for both theologians and translators for centuries. This verse already caused problems for translators of the Old Testament in the 3^rd century BC. When the Jews translated the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Greek, it was theological impossible for them to translate the above terms with their Greek equivalent. To overcome this problem, they ‘harmonised’ the narrator’s intention with their theology and rendered it with the Greek terms meaning, “and he thought about it deeply” (Septuagint Gen 6:6).

Before frowning upon the Jews, we should acknowledge that it is a normal tendency. Van Selms (1984:106) is correct when he states, “Vertalingen trachen altijd de levende God in overeenstemming met hun godsbeeld te brengen” (Translations always try to bring the living God in alignment with their view of God [my translation]).

Without underestimating the difficulties faced by translators, this is a clear example where the meaning of the text, or the narrator's intend, became subject to the theology of the time. I also do not want to play down the importance of good theology. Without good theology, it is too easy to go about God’s word superficially. As my Theology lecturer once stated, “The task of Theology is to make the preaching of the Word of God as difficult as necessary”.

Theology helps us think deeper, clearer, and more nuanced about Scripture. When faced with these issues, the question is, however, which should get the higher priority – my 'high' view of God (theology) or Scripture?

'High' view of God (3)

Before we get to the issue of Genesis 6, we might have to ask where these ‘attributes’ come from. In general, we do not have a problem with these concepts. It will be very easy to back all of them up from the Bible as Systematic Theologians have done. So what is the problem then? According to König (1978:73), this theology is based upon a “Greek philosophical god-concept” by which “certain requirements or characteristics of ‘the divine’ gradually became general in the early church.” According to the Greek philosophers, gods need to fulfill certain requirements to be truly god. For example, if a god is not able to do everything at any time, he cannot really be god. Thus, when we talk about God as being almighty, we have an idea of God being able to do anything at any time. The question is whether the Bible means the same thing when it refers to God being almighty.

Already in the Middle Ages, philosophers questioned the idea of God being omnipotent with a sort of a tongue in the cheek question that became known as the omnipotent paradox. One of the questions being asked is whether an omnipotent (almighty) being can create a stone heavy enough that he cannot pick it up. You work it out.

In terms of the Bible, we should start by saying that God can and will only do what he wants. We are in no position to tell God what he can and cannot do. Secondly, there are many examples of God limiting himself in terms of what he will and will not do. See Genesis 9:8-17, for example. Thirdly, when we consider the Old Testament narrative of God’s journey with his people, it is clear that God’s plan with and for his people are many times frustrated by them – mere human beings. Surely, God could turn them into puppets to act out his will, but because he is more interested in relationship than puppets, he is willing to walk with them even though they (like us) go against his will. Therefore, when we consider the attributes of God, we will have to ask ourselves what we mean by them. Is what we understand by them filled with a philosophical or a biblical view of God? It is very easy to superimpose a worldview that is essentially foreign to Scripture and let that worldview take priority over what the Bible itself wants to communicate.

What we do know, talking about the omnipotence of God, is that in the end, God will fulfill his plan to bring everything together under Christ (Eph 1:9-10). He is on his way to fulfill his purpose with creation and in a certain sense, he already did it in Christ. Whether everything works out according to plan in the meantime is another question.

Thus, while advocating a high view of God we can easily create an image of God that is not based on Scripture. When we consider the attributes of God we need to ask ourselves whether, what we understand by them, is based on what the Bible means by them.