Literary Theory and the New Testament

Michal Beth Dinkler. Literary Theory and the New Testament. The Anchor Bible Yale Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.

Michal Beth Dinkler’s Literary Theory and the New Testament provides an updated discussion of contemporary critical scholarship on literary theory and the New Testament. It also counters a tendency among some NT scholars to ignore or even avoid the use of literary theory in biblical interpretation. Dinkler observes that there may be various reasons for this attitude: some may find it difficult to navigate the dense theoretical discussions on their own, while others may view literary theory as peripheral to NT studies and thus are unwilling to devote time to its study. Still more are distrustful of the method. In Literary Theory and the New Testament, Dinkler offers scholars both eager and hesitant to engage literary theory a perceptive discussion of critical scholarship on literary theory and the NT.

In Chapter 1, Dinkler identifies three common negative perceptions about the use of literary theory and the NT. First, literary criticism is interested in the text alone and is therefore ahistorical or antihistorical; second, NT literary critics have a synchronic approach because they value the final, unified form of the text; and third, NT literary critics are motivated by a desire to defend the literary sophistication of the NT. Dinkler attributes these misconceptions to an underlying tendency to view literary criticism as monolithic rather than recognizing its diversity, which leads to its rejection wholesale. Dinkler counters these misconceptions at various points throughout the book by drawing out the diversity of approaches within literary theory and showing how these criticisms cannot be applied to literary theory as a single entity.

Dinkler turns to Critical Theory more broadly to highlight two ways it contributes to the study of literary theory. While the term ‘Critical Theory’ originally referred to a form philosophy developed by the Frankfurt School in the early twentieth century, Dinkler observes that it has since evolved to encompass a mixture of theoretical discussions and intellectual movements. She therefore uses it to refer to the “conglomeration of interconnected boundary-crossing intellectual discussions that developed throughout the twentieth century” (3). First, it encourages scholars to recognize the ‘power of normativity,’ which Dinkler defines as the claim that one’s own interpretation is definitive and therefore the norm against which others should be judged. Second, Critical Theory shows the necessity of ‘critical reflexivity,’ understood as the willingness to recognize that no one possesses absolute neutrality or objectivity. Therefore, no interpretation of the NT should be considered definitive, and each scholar bears the ethical obligation to take a critical look at their own work as well as that of others. As Dinkler observes, “Theory challenges us to recognize, interrogate, alter, and justify our own claims to knowledge and truth with the same critical rigor we bring to the ancient literature we read” (35).

In the following chapters, Dinkler addresses three particularly important literary paradigm shifts: formalism, structuralism, and poststructuralism. Though she treats each paradigm in turn, she emphasizes that these shifts should not be understood as linear developments. Rather, each paradigm interacts with earlier paradigms, not just challenging them but incorporating some aspects.

Chapter 2 covers literary formalism, an approach that focuses on the final form of the text. Dinkler observes that formalist approaches have fallen out of favor among NT scholars largely due to two misguided perceptions. The first is a tendency to confuse distinct strands of formalism. Dinkler addresses this error by drawing out the distinctions between Russian formalism and New Criticism. For instance, Russian formalists espoused a scientific approach to literary study and so sought to identify and describe universal literary devices. They were not concerned with the meaning of individual texts and thus de-emphasized close readings. By contrast, New Criticism viewed the ability to understand the meaning of individual texts as the goal of all critical reading, and close reading as the best way to understand meaning. The second misguided perception is a false dichotomy between formalism and historicism. Dinkler corrects this by demonstrating that historical-critical NT scholars, first-wave NT literary critics, and literary formalists share key assumptions: they all view literary forms as evolving and developing in response to the Sitz im Leben of a text; all three see a work of art as existing autonomously as an object of knowledge, and aesthetic sophistication is defined by textual unity; and all three take a critical approach to texts to make objective, scientific value judgments about their literariness.

After this overview of formalism, Dinkler pivots to literary structuralism. This orientation to texts relies on the assumption that universal principles structure human communication. Narratology, genre theory, Marxism, psychanalysis, and early feminism all fall under the umbrella of literary structuralism because they all share the hermeneutical assumption that meaning is produced by deep underlying systems of signification. Such an analytical orientation may lead to claims that are stable across time, space and culture. Dinkler notes that some of these approaches (like narratology and genre theory) are criticized for being too universal and thus ahistorical, while others (like Marxism and early feminism) are said to be ideological and thus not sufficiently concerned with universal claims. Dinkler argues that these critiques reflect the prevalence of the normative vs. descriptive binary within NT scholarship. This false distinction casts normative approaches as biased, subjective, and unscholarly work while valuing descriptive approaches as disinterested, neutral, and scholarly. Dinkler emphasizes that the dismissal of certain approaches as normative or ideological reinforces the need for critical reflexivity since dismissing other interpretations as “normative” implies that one’s own interpretation is unbiased and correct.

In contrast to these strands of literary theory, proponents of poststructuralism assert that meaning is so strongly tied to particularities by social and linguistic context that a text’s meaning cannot be finalized or fixed. Dinkler is explicit about her intention for this chapter: she aims to encourage NT interpreters to explore the benefits of poststructuralism, particularly those scholars who it leads to relativistic, anachronistic, or otherwise problematic readings. She responds to concerns by noting that poststructuralist approaches do not necessarily deny absolute truths or destroy meaning entirely, nor is that their goal. Rather, they can be beneficial by expanding interpretive opportunities. For example, the attention to context enables reader-response criticism to explore ways that the reader participates in meaning-making, how this is influenced by context, and what the implications are for interpretation. Poststructuralism can also expand questions of how to place value on a text beyond textual unity or aesthetic quality towards ethical or political concerns. Furthermore, poststructuralists often want their work to improve society in some way, an aim shared by many NT interpreters who identify and challenge legacies of violence and oppression within biblical scholarship.

In final two chapters, Dinkler applies recent literary approaches to NT texts to demonstrate how they can offer new interpretations. She proposes that New Historicism and New Formalism can be used together as a quest for “the literary Jesus” This quest can lead to consideration of how Jesus’s characterization is constructed and limited by narrative forms and the real-world audience, thereby helping to bridge the gap between purely historical or literary readings of Jesus. Finally, she turns to affect theory and ecocriticism to propose a new reading of the Corinthian epistles. While earlier chapters concentrate on expounding various aspects of literary theories, the book ends with two effective models of how literary theory can enliven interpretation of familiar texts. Further demonstrations of how newer approaches in literary theory can lead to expanded interpretive possibilities would promote Dinkler’s goal of encouraging greater use of literary theory in NT studies more broadly.

Throughout Literary Theory and the New Testament, Dinkler builds a persuasive case for the contributions literary theory continues to make to the field of New Testament studies. Her impressive command of literary theory, its attendant scholarship, and its application to biblical literature enable her to identify trends that are not immediately obvious to someone without her breadth of knowledge. Her insights make this work an essential learning tool and entry point into the topic. Someone interested in the use of literary theory in the NT will come away from this book with a better understanding of how to proceed, and someone skeptical of this approach may come away with a greater appreciation for how it can move the field forward.

Angela Zautcke is a PhD candidate at the University of Notre Dame. She is studying Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity with an emphasis on the New Testament. Her current research takes a combined narratological and rhetorical approach to Gospels.