337 - Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge

Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge
By Stephen D. Moore
New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989. 226 pp. $25.00

This book is the first major study of the new developments in Gospel criticism arising from the application of literary theory to biblical texts. Moore offers a sympathetic yet critical account of the movement's

338 - Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge

accomplishments. Excluding structuralism from consideration, Moore focuses on narrative criticism, reader-response criticism, and issues related to deconstruction. Methodological questions dominate throughout. The value of the book is twofold: it introduces, more clearly than any other work, an important new development in Gospel studies to those only vaguely acquainted with it; it challenges scholars who have participated in this development to face unsolved problems.

Stephen Moore is Irish in background, but he has been participating in American seminars on literary criticism and the Gospels for some years. This participation and his broad knowledge of recent developments in literary theory make him well-qualified for the review and assessment that he here undertakes.

The first part of the book concerns "Gospel Criticism as Narrative Criticism." Moore establishes the border between composition criticism-an extension of redaction criticism in a holistic direction-and narrative criticism by noting that the latter has made the shift from seeking the theology of an evangelist to a focus on a Gospel story, to be considered as a whole. This shift does not mean turning away from important issues and concentrating on "fluff," as some skeptics might believe. Gospel theology, for instance, is "well within narrative critical territory." Narrative critics believe that their methods make them more fully aware of the subtle ways in which narratives express the values and judgments that make up a distinctive point of view.

Under the influence of the New Criticism (which is now old in the history of modern literary criticism), narrative critics have sought maximum coherence within a gospel. This tendency must now face Moore's forceful critique. Narrative criticism is out of step with developments in the larger world of literary theory, where critics now delight in displaying the incoherence of literary works. Deconstruction has influenced literary scholarship, and Moore is saying that narrative critics must take this development more seriously in the future. The search for unity in gospel narratives is accompanied by the presumptions that the authors had a high degree of control over their materials and that it is possible to recover clear authorial intentions from the work. All three assumptions-narrative unity, authorial control, and recoverable authorial intentions-are challenged by Moore.

Moore's criticism bears directly on me, for I have written a work entitled The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, a work that Moore discusses at some length in making his critical points. In brief response, I would point out that Luke-Acts, in my view, is wrestling with a problem that cannot finally be solved; hence there is a major incoherence. The issues raised by Moore could be debated at much greater length, but this is impossible in a short review. He also speaks of my work with considerable appreciation, for which I am grateful.

Moore's argument is not to be lightly dismissed. We do tend to find what we seek, overlooking all else. His work has made me more aware of the probability of unresolved conflict in narrative.

340 - Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge

Moore has a lively writing style and is often able to summarize a method in a succinct and striking phrase. For instance, he speaks of reader-response criticism, which he distinguishes from narrative criticism, as the production of "stories of reading." The last two chapters continue the theme of reading but challenge the assumption that there is a stable text that exists independently of a chosen reading method. Here Moore beckons us in the direction of deconstruction, while warning us that this unfathomable sea provides no solid ground for standing. Although he makes us aware of the relativity and limits of all of our methods, some of his remarks make me wonder whether his reflections greatly affect the work of the practicing critic. Nevertheless, these chapters inform us about movements that are currently influential, and there is much in them that deserves pondering.

I hope that this book is widely read. It is both informative and stimulating. At present there is no comparable resource on literary criticism and the gospels.

Robert C. Tannehill
Methodist Theological School in Ohio
Delaware, Ohio