Introduction

Various approaches to the biblical text share a common concern; to determine the process
of transmission of the traditions about Jesus from the oral stage to the finished products: the
canonical Gospels. These approaches together constitute the historical – critical methods (form,
source, and redaction criticism), which has dominated biblical studies for over the century. 1
While New Testament Scholarship continues to benefit from historical-critical process, Gospel
studies have decidedly turned from historical process by which the gospel arose, to their present
unity as literary works.2 These approaches, though diverse, may be categorized as literary
criticism. It emphasizes more on the gospels as literature. In this paper the attempt has been
made to explain the new literary tools such as narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, canon
criticism, structuralism, Reader Response Criticism, feminist and liberationist approaches in
studying the synoptic Gospels.

Synoptic problem and new literary tools

The term, Synoptic, comes from the Greek word, synoptikos, which means having a
common view of seeing the whole together. We call the first gospels “Synoptic Gospels”
because they present a common outline about the life and ministry of Jesus. However, the
content and arrangement of the synoptic raise various issues and we, now, turn to the discussion
of Synoptic Problem. The problem is based on two issues a) Similarities and b) Differences.3

Mark. L Strauss defines that, literary criticism refers to methods of studying the Gospels
as unified literary works, rather than dissecting them into hypothetical sources and oral
traditions.4 Similarly, Dr. Brian Wintle observes as follows: The New Literary Criticism
interpreted the gospels as finished wholes, and individual units or sections are understood in
terms of their contribution to the narrative as whole.5 It emphasizes the unity of the text as a
whole. Powell observes that the goal of the literary critic is to interpret the text in its finished
form.6 This new literary criticism is based heavily on the communication model of “Speech-Act
Theory” proposed by Roman Jakobson that every act of communication involves a sender, a
message, and a receiver which may stand for author, text and reader respectively in literary
field.7 The new literary critics, like other critics, believe that the Bible is to be analyzed and
understood by the same methods which are used for other literature.

Sender Message Receiver

Author Text Reader8

1
Brian Wintle, Synoptic Studies-A Primer (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1998), 49.
2
Mark. L Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels, 2006 3.
3
B Vargese, Synopyic Gospels (Manakala: El-Shalom Publishers, 2014), 53.
4
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
5
M Stephen, Hermeneutics and Bible (Kottayam: Oikos Publication, 2003), 108.
6
Wintle, Synoptic Studies-A Primer, 49.
7
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions, n.d.
8
Wintle, Synoptic Studies-A Primer, 50.
 Historical and literary criticism has been compared to looking through a window and a
mirror. In historical criticism the text is viewed like a window. By studying the text, the reader
seeks to understand to learn about another time and place. In literary criticism, on the other hand,
the text is like a mirror. The reader looks at the text, not through it, and anything he learns is
from the encounter with the text itself.9

Narrative Criticism

Narrative Criticism emphasizes on the narrative style of a text and the impact it can make
on the reader.10 During 1970s scholars of the bible created this new method of biblical criticism
an invented the phrase narrative criticism. It analyzes the complex ways in which stories are told
in biblical books written in a narrative form.11 While redaction criticism also focuses on the final
form of the gospel, its concern is with the text, examining how the Evangelists edited their
sources to pursue certain theological goals. Narrative Criticism is interested not in this editorial
process but in the literary nature of the text itself, how it functions to produce the desired effect
on the reader.12

Narrative critics have taken from modern literary criticism, especially from novel, and
applied them to the biblical text. According to Gerald Bray, the new literary criticism was
developed in 1920s by I. A. Richrds and T. S. Elliot in the field of Literature. 13 The term
“Narrative criticism” was first used by David Rhoads in an article “narrative criticism and the
gospel of Mark” in 1982.14 Scholars like William Beardslee, Hans Frei, and Norman R. Peterson
were made a call for this new literary approach.15 Grounds breaking narrative – critical works on
the gospels were produced by David Rhoads and Donald Miche (Mark), R. Alan Culpepper
(John), Jack Dean Kingsbury (Mathew), and Robert Tannehill (Luke-Acts).16

Concept of Implied author and Reader

The narrative critics use the concept of an implied author and implied reader in their
interpretation of the text. The real author is the one actually composes the story while implied
author is the image of the author which the text progressively creates in the course of reading.
Real reader is the one who has access to the text, but the implied reader is the one which the text
creates, the one who is capable of entering into the narrative world of the text and responding to
it in the way envisaged by the real author through the instrumentality of the implies author. 17 So
the real author, implied author, real reader and implied reader are all important for narrative
critics.

9
Wintle, Synoptic Studies-A Primer, 50.
10
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions.
11
Jesus in Synoptic Gospels, n.d.
12
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
13
Stephen, Hermeneutics and Bible, 32.
14
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions.
15
Jesus in Synoptic Gospels.
16
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
17
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions.
Components

Narrative has two aspects: Story and Discourse. Story refers to what of the narrative, its
content. Discourse refers to how the story is told. A story consists of such elements as events,
characters, various settings and plot.18

1. The story

It refers to the content of the narrative. It has several elements such as

 Events19
 Characters (Round Characters and Flat Characters, Dynamic and Static Characters) –
Protagonist and Antagonist
 Settings (Local, Temporal and Social)
 Plot – the progress of the Narrative (Causation & Conflict).20
2. Discourses

A discourse in narrative criticism refers to the rhetoric, that is, how the story is told to
create certain effects on the readers. It is also called “Point of View” it signifies the way the story
is told. In understanding narrative point of view, the reader discovers the norms, values, beliefs
and general worldview that the narrator of the story wants the reader to adopt or reject. The
implied author also uses a narrator to act as the voice through which the reader is guided.

Narrative Criticism and Synoptic Gospels

Narrative criticism is vigorously applied in the study of the gospels and Acts of the
Apostles. Among synoptic the narrative criticism was first applied on Mark.21 Analyzing the plot
of Mathew, Powell argues that the main plot of Mathew’s Gospel concerns the divine plan by
which God’s people will be saved from sin. It progressively revealed through narrative. Again
Powell analyses one of the characters, namely, the religious leaders in the synoptic Gospels.
(Mark’s Gospel – serves as foils, Mathew – not wants reader to feel sympathy, Luke – Implied
leader is persuaded to feel Sympathy). Rhoads and Michie, in their narrative analyses of Mark’s
Gospel, argue that the direction of the whole story puts great stress on the ending, the climax in
Jerusalem even with the characters.22 Further, Powell sees that the abrupt ending of the Mark
(Mk. 16: 8) is a classic example or unresolved conflict in literature.

Merits and Demerits

Some of the Merits of the Narrative Criticism are:-

 It focuses on the text

 It gives some insights into NT texts for which historical background is uncertain.

18
Wintle, Synoptic Studies-A Primer, 49-51.
19
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions.
20
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
21
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions.
22
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions.
  It tends to bring scholars and non-professional Bible readers close together.
 It offers fresh interpretations of the NT Materials
 It unleashes the power of NT stories for personal and social transformation.

Some of the demerits follow:-

 It treats the gospels as coherent narratives when they are actually collections of disparate
materials
 It imposes on ancient literature concepts drawn from the study of modern literature. Also
it seeks to interpret the gospels through methods that were devised for study of fiction.
 It lacks objective criteria for analysis of texts and it rejects or ignores historical witness of
the gospels.

Structuralist Criticism

This method is language based and developed by linguistics. Joseph Putti observes that it
focuses on the text and it is concerned of the structure of the text.23This concentrates on the
structure of the language used without taking into the account its author.24 It is fundamentally
formalist and text centered. The application of structuralism to biblical studies has been
particularly championed by Daniel Patte and his colleagues at Vanderbilt University. 25

Structuralists claim that literature, like language, functions in conventional patterns. Just
as there are rules of grammar which govern the way we speak, so there is a “grammar” of
literature which determines the way stories operate. Each story may have different plot, setting
and characters below this surface structure is a “deep structure” which follows certain
stereotypical patterns. Certain plot movements, character types, and kinds of action are common
to all stories. By identifying and categorizing these structures, stories can be objectively
analyzed.26

Challenges or limitations

While structuralism holds promise of a more objective analysis of a narrative, it has not
made deep inroads into gospel studies and is not widely practiced today. This is probably
because its technical vocabulary and complex methods are difficult to master and seldom seem to
provide greater than a straightforward reading of the text.

Canon Criticism

This method concerned with the place of each book within the accepted canon of
scripture and the role it performs in the canonical collection.27 It refers to variety of methods

23
Stephen, Hermeneutics and Bible, 30.
24
Sebastin Kizhakkleyil and Kurian Ammanathukunnel, Guide to Biblical Studies (Ruhalaya Publications: Ujjain,
2003), 259.
25
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
26
Strauss.
27
Richard E. A Rodgers, The New Testament: Introduction, vol. I (Noida: ISPCK, 2018), 81.
which focus on the relationship of the books of the bible to one another and the role they play in
the life of the church. The goal of this method is to study the biblical text as the church’s
scripture, not merely as historical writings. Key pioneers of this criticism are Brevard Chills and
James A. Sanders. Canon critics go beyond narrative and rhetoric criticism to the broader
question of how these texts were collected, preserved and interpreted in faith communities. Some
critics focus on the history of interpretation, others on the interplay of the textual meaning
between testaments and in the later church, still others on the hermeneutics of canon, that is, how
it functions as authoritative scripture.28

While the redaction critics might analyze the process by which Mathew edited Mark, and
narrative critics the narrative strategy of the implied author, a canon critic is more interested in
how the gospels have been read and interpreted in church settings. Though each gospel arose
under unique circumstances, the church has traditionally viewed them as inspired collection. This
canonical approach is evident in the writings of a church father like Iranaeus, who insisted on the
divine necessity of four gospels and compared them to the four winds, the four points of the
compass, the four covenants(Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ), and the four living creatures of
Revelation 4: 7 and Ezekiel 1: 10 (man, lion, ox, eagle).29

It can be seen as a positive contribution in that it focuses on the unity of the Gospels and
their role as inspired Scripture. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the writing also guided the
church’s collection, preservation, and the interpretation of the gospels. On the other hand, there
is a danger in shifting the locus of meaning from authors and texts to the reading communities.30

Rhetorical Criticism

Rhetoric is oratory. Rhetoric refers to the skillful use of language to produce a desired
effect in an audience. It is understood as the art of composition by which language is made
descriptive, interpretive or persuasive.31 It is an ancient art which became the foundation of the
educational system of the Greco Roman world.32 It was first introduced by James Muilenburg
(Old Testament) in his 1968 presidential address to the society of Biblical Literature, entitled
“Form Criticism and Beyond”.33 Along with him Amos Wilder and George A. Kennedy are the
pioneers of Rhetoric Criticism in New Testament. It has proven especially useful in analyzing
discourses found in narrative and the speeches in the sermon of Jesus.

Aristotle distinguished three modes of rhetoric – judicial, epideictic (display to the

audience) and deliberative (discussion or debate – with a purpose). Three modes of persuasion
were emphasized as logos, ethos and pathos. The five parts of rhetoric are invention,

28
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
29
Strauss.
30
Strauss.
31
Ruth Majercik and Benjamin Fiore, “Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (Newyork:
Double day, 1992), 710.
32
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
33
Stephen, Hermeneutics and Bible, 32.
arrangement, style, memory and delivery.34 In Rome this judicial rhetoric was emphasized. This
was given as training in every stage of education – from the speech lessons of child hood to the
later mastery of grammar, diction, composition and enunciation. There are probably four or six
elements in ancient speech. They are exordium (Introduction), narratio (proposition statement),
partitio (explanation), probatio (presentation of arguments), refutatio (refutation of opponents)
and peroratio (conclusion). For example, applying this to synoptic, Kennedy observes that, the
sermon on the plain (Lk 6: 17-49) can be analyzed as follows: Vr. 20-26 is exordium; vr27-31 is
propositio; Vr. 32-45 is probatio and Vr. 46-49 is peroratio.35 This helps to understand how
things are said and what do these mean are important here. Similarly George Kennedy likens
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) to deliberative rhetoric and Jesus’ speech in John 13-17
as epideictic rhetoric.36

Strength and Weakness

One strength of this tool is that it uses ancient categories to analyze ancient literature.
Even though the gospel writers were not had a formal training, they might have been familiar
with the patterns of speech and methods of argumentation used by the philosophers and teachers
of their day. While helpful for analyzing letters and individual speeches, rhetorical criticism is
less effective when studying the gospel narratives as whole.37 As an interdisciplinary and
synchronic approach, rhetorical criticism remains simply at the level of description, coupled with
conflicting results; it will fail to produce much fruit. And a question will be always asked
whether it is justifiable to analyses biblical texts on the basis of sophisticated rhetorical
categories which were developed for the study of high classical secular literature.38

Post – Structuralist methodologies

The next three methodologies may be called post- structuralist, since they represent
reactions against the claims of objective analysis found in structuralism. Recently the focus is
shifted from the author to the text (Semiotic theory) and also reader as the locus of meaning.

Reader response criticism

As the term suggests it is a reader-centered reading of the Bible. Here the reader creates
and determines the meaning of the text. Critics argue that the way reader receives and perceives
the text is more important than how the text has been written/originated or how it is arranged.
According to Mark Alan Powell, Reader Response criticism seeks to study the dynamics of the
reading process so as to discover how the reader perceives literature and on what basis he/she
produce or create meaning for or from the text.39

34
Majercik and Fiore, “Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism.” 710.
35
Stephen, Hermeneutics and Bible, 34.
36
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions, 41.
37
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
38
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions, 41.
39
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions, 41.
 Critics often say that once the text is given to the readers, the author dies, keeping the
meaning of the text at the domain of the readers. The text has life only when the reader
encounters it and giving meaning to it. Reader Response critic Randolph Tate says, meaning is
produced through the interaction between a text and a reader. Until a reader picks up a text and
begins reading it, a literary work does not exist. The reader comes to the text with different life
experiences and with different questions. As readers encounter the text they derive different
meanings from the text which reader response critics argue are meanings of the text. Applied to
Biblical studies, Bible does not determine its own meaning but the readers decide the meaning. It
also brings the text and the readers to the forefront subsuming the author to the backseat.
Reading the gospels by the present day readers through the intended meaning of the author often
obscures the meaning to them.40

Reader Response criticism and Gospel Interpretation

Resseguie, employing Iser’s model of phenomenological criticism, underlines the role of

the reader’s involvement and the reader’s part in filling gaps in the text in his/her own way. He
explores the narrative of “the Rich Man” who come eagerly to Jesus but hearing the words went
away sorrowful, for he had great possession (Mark 10: 22). Here, emphasizing the role of the
reader, Resseguie calls attention to the part played by wealth for the reader and by his/ her won
axioms about wealth to establish the meaning of the text.41

Reader Response criticism is a close ally of feminist theology and Liberation theology
because they follow the Reader Response criticism as the only creative way of reading the Bible.
It is also close to redaction criticism.42 One of the drawbacks of reader response criticism of the
gospels is that it is purely subjective. Since the reader determines what the text means without
any relation to the author or the original life setting of the biblical books. What word is by the
author in which life situation of the readers and what was the intended message the author
wanted to convey to his original readers are not taken into account. One can use this method
when he/she is aware of such limitations.43

Liberationist and Feminist approaches

This may be viewed as subcategories of reader response criticism, since they read from
the text from a particular view point, whether from the view of women, ethnic minorities, the
poor, or the politically oppressed.44 The strength and weakness of these approaches are similar to
reader response methods. Our understanding of Scripture is enriched as we seek to read it
through the eyes of others. On the other hand, forcing liberationist concerns onto the text risks
losing both its historical meaning and its Spirit-inspired significance today.45

40
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions, 42.
41
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions, 42.
42
Sebastin Kizhakkleyil and Kurian Ammanathukunnel, Guide to Biblical Studies (Ruhalaya Publications: Ujjain,
2003), 259-260.
43
Understanding the Jesus Movement in Gospel Traditions, 42.
44
Strauss, Four Potraits, One Jesus-An Introduction to Jesus and Gospels.
45
Strauss.
 Feminist thinkers understand Jesus as someone promoting new ideas about elations
between sexes, essentially as a feminist. E. S. Fiorenza, a notable feminist scholar, interprets
Jesus in a different way. She sees Jesus as s prophet of Sophia, the wisdom of God which is
personified as female. She penetrates the whole world. For Fiorenza, Jesus is an egalitarian and
relevant spiritual teacher. In Mathew, five women references in genealogy, eyewitness of Jesus,
in Mark, Positive presentation of women, and in Luke the presentation of women on par with
men are few examples of reading synoptic in this approach.46 Similarly, Dhyanchand Carr
comments that portrayal of Jesus is a paradigm of Dalit theology. Moreover, the references like
Jesus as Carpenter son, his refuge, Galilean Ministry, rejection, Mockery, Suffering and death
add strength to Matthean presentation of Dalit theology. Mark’s gospel had numerous references
to socially concerned people. In the same way the Gospel of Luke is known as “Social Gospel”
or the “Gospel of the Underdog”. Nazareth manifesto is the cradle of many liberation
theologies.47

Deconstruction

This may be treated as extreme form of Reader Response Criticism, but in fact it is pale
since it views all literature as having no inherent meaning. Initially developed in the works of
Jacques Derrida, Deconstruction began as a reaction against Structuralism, claiming that the key
to language is not structure but lack of structure and meaning. It begins with the premise that
language is inherently unstable and imprecise, since word can mean many different things.

On the positive side deconstructionists have correctly pointed out that all
communication has measure of imprecision and ambiguity. This should be encouraged humility
and caution in all biblical interpretation. But what they fail to acknowledge is that while any
sentence can be deconstructed to show its ambiguities, incomplete knowledge does not mean
zero knowledge. Something can be true without being 100 percent verifiable. While this method
is treated with great seriousness in philosophical and literary circles, it has little value for any
meaningful interpretation of gospels.

Postcolonial Criticism

Postcolonial Biblical Criticism began towards the end of the second century in North
America. One of the founders of this thought was Edward Said Who, in his book Orientalism. It
focuses on the relationship between literature, literary canon and imperialism. A basic
assumption of Postcolonial Criticism is that the dominating culture wrote the literature and
decided what literature was canonized. This literature, even the very language that was used,
affected the society by propagating the differentiation and ensuing oppression of the colonized.

R. S. Sugirtharajah sets out the following as aims of Postcolonial Biblical Criticism:

46
Vargese, Synopyic Gospels, 172-173.
47
Vargese, Synopyic Gospels, 170-173.