Fontes Press recently sent me a review copy of Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings edited by Scacewater, and a review is forthcoming, once I can blaze a trail through this mammoth volume. (Thanks to Robert Hatfield for tipping me off to this intriguing text!) But I recently hit a priceless quote worthy of your reflection.
Structural analysis is a glaring weakness of NT studies. The absence of any structural consensus for most NT texts is frequently admitted … The failure to resolve this issue can be attributed to one of two opposite extremes: a dismissive attitude that mistakenly minimizes the significance of structural analysis, or a reliance upon complex terminology and intricate diagrams that obscures the analytical impotence and fundamental flaws of the underlying linguistic paradigm. Both extremes are roadblocks to exegetical clarity. Since how an author shapes a message is often as critical for interpretation as what the author’s explicit message is, one should wonder why this state of affairs is tolerated regarding such a foundational issue.
Michael Rudolph, Discourse Analysis, ed. Scacewater, 127.
In the contributors’ bios at the front of the book, Michael Rudolph is described as “a Theological Educator with World Venture in Kyiv, Ukraine.” This introductory paragraph, which I have now quoted for you, to his essay on the structure of John’s Gospel nearly makes me want to relocate my family to Kyiv, Ukraine so we can sit under more such theological education. In the rest of his essay, Rudolph’s insights into the structure of John’s Gospel are worth their weight in vibranium, inviting me to observe, as I have never observed before, the structural breadcrumbs dropped throughout the text, in black and white, to help us grasp the author’s message.
But my goal in this post is not to discuss the structure of John’s Gospel but to serve as something of a wifi extender to Rudolph’s presenting problem. Why is the following state of affairs tolerated in biblical studies?
- Scholars often appear unwilling to engage with or resolve the lack of consensus on the structure of New Testament books.
- The reason given by some is that structural analysis is not all that important anyway (structural agnosticism).
- The reason given by others boils down to outlines and jargon so impenetrable or complex that nobody recognizes how flawed the presenter’s assumptions are to begin with (structural ignorance).
Rudolph’s not exercising a vague hand-waving, either, in order to pull his own structural rabbit from his own touch-not-able, high-priestly hat. He goes and names names in his extensive footnotes. On point number 3, he cites the example of Mlakuzhyil (never heard of him). On point number 2, he cites well-knowns such as Kostenberger, Carson, and Keener. Hear Keener:
Any modern outline of the Fourth Gospel is somewhat arbitrary … But given the expectation that a commentary will divide sections, we have offered a division as likely as any.
Quoted in Discourse Analysis, 127-8
Regarding the attempts to hide ignorance behind impenetrable scholastic lingo, I can’t help but think of my favorite giggle-inducing quote from sociologist Rodney Stark:
I have tried to write everything else in plain English. I do not concede that this in any way compromises sophistication. What it does do is prevent me from hiding incomprehension behind a screen of academic jargon.
From the Preface to Discovering God, viii
On this blog, I have argued that structure provides the very shape of the author’s intended meaning. In other words, structure is not irrelevant for meaning; it is one of the most important expressions of it. Therefore, it is worth our time and effort to learn how to observe it so it can help us to avoid errors or pointless excursions in interpretation or application.
In addition, structure provides us with the very raw materials we require to follow the logic of an author’s argument. It gives us the nuts and bolts of the context, which always matters. Without a grasp of the structure, we might be right about a text, or we might be wrong about it; perhaps we’ve excluded from our study the divinely inspired tools to render a confident judgment either way.
So what do you think? Why is structural ignorance or agnosticism tolerated so widely? And how can we further improve that state of affairs for the next generation? And not just in the academy or publishing houses, but also in our pulpits, Sunday schools, and small groups?
Amazonian digital connective interfaces found within the present writer’s subtext, compiled and rendered for premium convenience on behalf of anonymous inquisitive participants, render no judgment on the value of one’s economic interactions but remain copacetic to the originating body. Let’s see if you can verstehe that prior sentential communicative event sans compromising your bid for respectable sophistication.
