Appendix 3: On the questions raised by different and mutually exclusive analyses of the literary structures of biblical narratives

Many literary structures have been proposed for Luke by different scholars.⁴⁹ The suggestions of these scholars are naturally supported by detailed literary analysis and argument, and it would obviously be impossible to offer a fair critique of the work of even one of them in the minute space available to the present writer here. What he proposes to do therefore is simply to state briefly his own attitude to literary structures and what he expects of them and then to give one small example of the kind of question he would wish to ask about any suggested structure.

The primary concern of the present work has been to detect meaning and thought-flow rather than to establish symmetrical structures. Even that more limited concern can, it is freely admitted, involve a great deal of subjective interpretation, witness the suggestions of the ancient Jewish 'juxtaposition-exegetes' and their attempts to trace the thought-flow between one paragraph and another in the Torah (see Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth, 216 and for an example, the comments in the Midrash Rabbah on Num 20:14–29). The present writer, therefore, would look to literary structure to control his exposition in two ways. First, if the author has placed two stories one opposite the other in a symmetrical structure, it forces the expositor to consider the similarities and differences between the two stories and so to consider features in the stories that he otherwise might miss or pass by as insignificant. Secondly, any ^{[p 388]} suggested exposition of a story can be tested by asking whether it makes sense within the structure in which the author has placed it.

On the other hand while the present writer would look to literary structure to facilitate and to control exposition, he would not regard it as a strait-jacket. In the body of this work for instance he has indicated that symmetrical structure demands that the two stories of the woman in Simon's house and the woman subject to bleeding should be interpreted each in the light of the other. To miss their similarities and contrasts would be to miss something that Luke intended us to think about. But that said, the present writer would certainly not wish to claim that it was illegitimate to take, for example, the story of the woman in Simon's house and to compare and contrast, say, her use of ointment on the Lord with the ill-advised intention of the women in Luke 24:1–9 to honour the Lord's dead body with spices. It may well be that it was not in Luke's mind that his readers should compare these two stories, but since his work is a record of historical events it is open to his readers to compare and contrast any two or more of his stories as they please.

Moreover the present writer does not claim that the structures which he has proposed are the only ones that can rightly be detected in Luke. An intricate artistic design will often present one symmetry when viewed from one angle or starting point, and a different symmetry from another. The present writer has himself pointed out that depending on what theme or themes one is following through Matthew's Gospel, for instance, one can make out a strong case for the existence of two or three major patterns running through the book.⁵⁰

Now, here is a part of a symmetrical structure proposed by Professor C. H. Talbert⁵¹ for part of Luke's Gospel: ^{[p 389]}

Table 13 Extract from C. H. Talbert's symmetrical structure of Luke

Let it be said again quite clearly that we are not offering here a full-scale critique of Professor Talbert's work supported as it is by very detailed and scholarly analysis. We are simply citing this small part of his work to provide an example of the kind of questions the pres­ent writer would wish to put to many of the literary structures proposed by various scholars.

First, can we really think that the original composition was meant to be symmetrical, if to obtain the symmetry the order of Luke's narrative has to be rearranged drastically as in the right-hand column? Secondly, can a proposed structure really be thought ^{[p 390]} to be symmetrical if it has to omit passages like the healing of the leper (see Luke 5:12–16) and the healing of the man with a withered hand (see Luke 6:6–11) as well as others? But more important than these two queries would be the two questions: What is the point of the symmetry as a whole? and How does the structure help us to see the significance of its individual components?

Take for instance the proposed correspondence between Luke 5:1–11 and Luke 8:22–25. Granted that both passages record a nature miracle, how does the lesson which is taught by the second miracle help us to understand more fully the lesson taught by the first miracle? The detail of the first story is very full and concerns Peter's obedience to the Lord's command, his conviction of hitherto unrealized sin and his commissioning for his apostolic ministry. How does the detail of the second story cast further light on or further emphasis on the detail of the first story?

Finally, how does the existence of this proposed structure help us to see how the story at Luke 5:1–11 is related to its immediate context? Verses 1–11, as we have recalled, come to their climax with Peter's confession of sin. In that respect it has more in common with the two stories Luke 5:17–26 and Luke 7:36–50 than it has with the story at Luke 8:22–25. But how does the structure help us to see the connection of thought that made Luke place the story of the leper (see Luke 5:12–16) immediately after Luke 5:1–11?

In other words the present writer would regard literary structure as simply a practical (and very subordinate) device aimed at helping the reader to grasp more fully the detailed meaning and thought-flow of the narrative. As soon as it has fulfilled that function it is best forgotten; and if it does not fulfil that function, it is of little use.

Notes

⁴⁹A very useful account of them is to be found in Talbert, Literary Patterns and in Bailey, Poet and Peasant.

⁵⁰See Gooding, 'Structure littéraire', 236–8.

⁵¹Literary Patterns, 40. ^{[p 391]}