122

TRIN ITY JOUR NAL

sions, let us offer ourselves and our gifts to God" (p. 204).
Ronal d F. Rosen au
North ern Baptis t Theological Semin ary
Lomb ard, Illinois
. Alan
Anato my of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, by R
Culpe pper. Philad elphia : Fortre ss, 1983. 266 pp. $19.95.
the
This book is extrao rdinar ily impor tant. It belongs to a rare breed,
first to
breed that break s new groun d in biblical studie s. Culpe pper is the
ri"rheto
or
sm"
apply the insights and metho ds of the new "litera ry critici
cal critici sm" in a full length mono graph to the Gospel of John.
an
Culpe pper's prima ry indebt ednes s is perha ps to Seym our Chatm
a,
(Story and discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film [Ithac
DisNY: Corne ll University Press, 1978] and Gerar d Genet te (Narrative
ll
Corne
NY:
,
course: An Essay in Metho d [trans . Jane E. Lewin; Ithaca
literar y
Unive rsity Press, 1980]; but he has read widely in the area of
to anacriticism, especially the literar y criticism of the novel. His aim is
the
using
lyze the fourth gospe l as a whole , as a compl ete literar y work,
has been
categories of such criticism. Mains tream johan nine schola rship
in the
aid
to
ies
interested in lookin g for tensions, aporia s, inconsistenc
attem pt
separa tion of levels of traditi on. Such analysis is followed by the
tory of
to serialize the traditi ons thus discovered in order to isolate a trajec
pper
Culpe
theolo gical develo pment in the johan nine comm unity. But
finished,
avoids all such questi ons and exami nes the Gospel of John as a
"Mea n.
drawn
is
literar y produ ct, a narrat ive world into which the reader
make,
ing is produ ced in the menta l moves the text calls for its reader to
4). In
quite apart from questi ons conce rning its source s and origin " (p.
ns of
eratio
successive chapte rs, then, Culpe pper takes us throug h consid
acters ,"
"Narr ator and Point of View," "Narr ative Time, " "Plot, " "Char
nts are
eleme
These
r."
"Impl icit Comm entary ," and "The Implied Reade
an's
tied togeth er in a compr ehens ive diagra m (a slight revision of Chatm
work) .
by
How these topics are developed by Culpe pper can best be conveyed
Point of
a coupl e of examp les. In the second chapte r, "Narr ator and
refers to
r
autho
real
The
View," he begins by distin guishi ng three terms.
implie d
the person or person s who actual ly wrote the fourth gospel. The
d by a
autho r "is alway s distin ct from the real autho r and is alway s evoke
by
simply
r
narrat ive. The Gospel of John, theref ore, has an implied autho
ideal or
virtue of its being a narrat ive" (p. 15). The implie d autho r is an
conthat
s
choice
the
of
literar y figure who may be inferr ed from the sum
and
r,
stitute the narrat ive. He or she is a create d versio n of the real autho
, the
somet imes a subset of the real. The narrator is a rhetor ical device
as a
tized
voice that actual ly tells the story. The narrat or may be drama
ed, in
chara cter in the story; altern atively , the narrat or may be undra matiz
es
becom
r
autho
d
which case the line between the narrat or and the implie
the
tells
thin, thoug h never entirely oblite rated . The narrat or actual ly
short, is
s-in
aside
natory
expla
to
story, addre sses the reader and resort s

BO OK RE VIE WS

intrusive in the nar rati ve.

123

Th e nar rat or of the fou rth gos

pel , Cu lpe ppe r arg ues , ado pts
om nis cie nce as his psy cho log ica l poi
nt of view. In lite rar y crit icis m,
this
doe s
not me an tha t the nar rat or is,
like Go d, lite rall y om nis cie nt, but
tha t he
ado pts a sta nce tha t ena ble s him
to pro vid e ins ide inf orm atio n and
views
on wh at the cha rac ters are thin
kin g, feeling, inte ndi ng, bel iev ing
and
so
for th. Cu lpe ppe r find s suc h evi
den ce in pas sag es like this: "Bu
t Jes us,
kno win g in him sel f tha t his dis cip
les mu rm ure d at it ... " (6:61); "N
o one
at the tab le kne w wh y he said
this to him " (13 :28); "W hen Pil
ate
hea rd
the se wo rds , he was the mo re afr
aid " (19:8); and mu ch mo re of the
sam e.
Sim ilar ly, the re is a kin d of "om
nip res enc e" to the nar rat or: he
is "pr esent " in som e sense as an uns een
obs erv er at the inte rvie w bet we
en the
Sam ari tan wo ma n and Jes us, bec
aus e he is abl e to rec ord wh at we
nt on,
to tell "w hat no his tor ica l per
son cou ld kno w" (p. 26). Mo reo
ver
, this
nar rat or cle arly wri tes retr osp ect
ive ly (e.g., 2:20-21; 7:39).
Bas ed on this ana lys is, Cu lpe ppe
r pro cee ds to exa min e rela tion
shi ps
bet we en the nar rat or and Jes us
(e.g ., he find s bot h "om nis cie nt,"
and,
not es how the nar rat or so det erm
ine s the lan gua ge and idio m tha
t bot h
per son s spe ak wit h exa ctly the sam
e voi ce) , and bet we en the nar rat
or and
the imp lied aut hor (he re Cu lpe ppe
r em bar ks on a rath er imp ort ant
stu dy
of 21 :24-25).
Sub seq uen t cha pte rs are no less
sig nifi can t, and cum ula tive ly pro
ve
ext rem ely tho ugh t-p rov oki ng; but
I mu st now tur n to som e pre lim
ina ry
ass ess me nt and crit iqu e.
My first res erv atio n con cer ns
the unq ual ifie d tran sfe r of cat
ego ries
dev elo ped in the poe tics of the
nov el to Go spe l lite ratu re. Cu lpe
ppe r is
not ent irel y ins ens itiv e to the
pro ble m, of cou rse ; but in my
view his
def ens e of his me tho ds is not ver
y con vin cin g. Th e hea rt of his ans
we r is
ess ent iall y two fol d. Fir st, alth oug
h he con ced es tha t "[th e] dan ger
of dis tor tio n mu st be fac ed con sta ntl y
wh en tec hni que s dev elo ped for the
stu dy
of one gen re are app lied to ano
the r," nev erth ele ss he ins ists tha
t "in pri ncip le the que stio n of wh eth er the
re can be a sep ara te set of her me
neu tica l
prin cip les for the stu dy of Scr iptu
re sho uld hav e bee n sett led as lon
g ago
as Sch leie rm ach er" (pp . 9-10). In
one sen se, this is ent irel y cor rec
t; but in
no sense is it rele van t to the pro
ble m pos ed. Th e que stio n at sta
ke is not
wh eth er or not we mu st exa min
e the lite rar y con ven tion s of Scr
iptu re in
the ligh t of the lite rar y con ven
tion s of oth er lite ratu re, but wh
eth
er the
mo der n nov el is the bes t par alle
l to firs t cen tur y gos pel s . Tru e,
as Cu lpep per poi nts out , the re are ind
eed par alle ls bet we en the Go spe
l 9f Joh n
and "no vel isti c, rea list ic and nar
rati ve" ; but Cu lpe ppe r ma kes no
atte mp t
wh ate ver to iso late the dis con tinu
itie s. To tak e one eas y exa mp le,
Cu lpep per sub sum es dis cus sio n of
the eye wit nes s the me s in Joh n
und
er
the
nar rati ve cat ego ries of narrator
and imp lied author, wit hou t ser
iou sly
con sid erin g tha t if the wit nes s the
me s are giv en force wit hin som e
nar rative fra me wo rk oth er tha n the
nov el, the sha pe of the dis cus sio
n inevitably swings to som e con sid era tion
of the kin d and qua lity of the
history
pur por ted ly bei ng told , and the ref
ore to tru th cla im s-a nd not jus
t
to the
sha pe of the sto ry bei ng nar rate d
.
Cu lpe ppe r's sec ond line of def ens
e is the arg um ent of Ha ns Fre i
in his

124

TRIN ITY JOUR NAL

that the
impor tant work, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. Frei argues
narraEnligh tenme nt drove western thoug ht to assess the truthf ulness of
ive,"
narrat
ical
tives in exclusively historical terms. This "crisis of histor
to quesFrei argues , led the Germ ans to develop highe r criticism and thus
h to
Englis
the
led
it
tion the truthfulness of the gospel narrat ives; but
qua
truth
invent the novel, which conveys its own kind of "trut h"-no t
, conhistorical facts or chronicle, but some deep insight into reality
way
the
fore
There
struct ed in historically more or less specific contex ts.
"canforwa rd, Culpe pper argues, in an age when many thoug htful people
Jesus
of
ation
cteriz
chara
l's]
not accep t as historically plausible [the gospe
knowl
as a miracle worke r with full recollection of his pre-existence and
ical
edge of his life after death " (p. 236), is not to restrict truth to histor
ize
recogn
to
but
l,
truth and theref ore reject the truth claims of the gospe
the
that
the peculi ar nature of narrative truth. Culpe pper is not saying
to
wants
he
,
rather
y;
histor
fourth gospel's narratives convey nothin g of
the
of
life
the
preserve some sort of blend. "The future of the gospel in
history
churc h will depen d on the churc h's ability to relate both story and
one
and
truth
to
claim
to truth in such a way that neithe r has an exclusive
examis not incom patibl e with the other" (p. 236). Yet not only does his
d the
(Coul
ence
confid
e
inspir
to
ple of miracles in the life of Jesus fail
but
not?),
why
resurr ection be throw n into the list of negotiables? If not,
His
he gives no criteri a at all to guide us, as if the division is imma terial.
of
l
Gospe
the
want
not
favorite analog y is more uncon trolled yet. He does
us
ng
John to be thoug ht of as a window on the ministry of Jesus, enabli
which
to see through the text to that life and minis try, but as a mirro r in
somelies
that
we see not only ourselves but also the meani ng of the text
mean
where between the text and ourselves, "and belief in the gospel can
with
and
life,
with
it,
with
openn ess to the ways it calls readers to intera ct
reliaonly
their own world. It can mean believing that the narrat ive is not
the
ble but right and that Jesus' life and our response mean for us what
"
"right
and
ble"
"relia
story has led us to believe they mean " (p. 237). But
our
to
in what sense? If in some histor ical sense, we have been return ed
Jesus'
about
things
some
us
wind ow-i. e., the narrat or "relia bly" tells
we
st,
noveli
ministry; but if purely in the sense of the "relia bility" of the
and set
ha ve sacrificed the gospel's claims to certai n historical specificity,
ng
meani
the
case
that
sail on a shoreless sea of existe ntial sUbjectivity. In
on
may be in the story, the story that we perceive, the story that stands
the
our side of the text; but it tells us nothin g of the minis try of Jesus on
ated
associ
y
other side. I am not of course arguin g for the view of histor
arguwith von Ranke ("wie es eigentlich gewesen ist"); but I am certai nly
lappea
by
ome
overc
be
t
ing that "the eclipse of biblical narrat ive" canno
what
ing to the novel. Indeed, if this view prevailed in its strong est form,
all; for
would be comm unicat ed to the reader would not be the gospel at
predem
and
re
the gospel is irretrievably bound up with God's self-disclosu
uum
tive sacrifice in the person of his Son within the space- time contin
is
ys
conve
novel
a
that
that consti tutes history. The "narra tive truth"
n
huma
judge d in terms of its universality (e.g., the depict ion of universal
age
foibles, tensions, fears, loves, hates, relationships, etc. found in every
estabure
literat
and society); and the historically specific contex ts of such

BOOK REVI EWS

125

lish frame works of more or less verisimilitude but do not consti

tute the
"univ ersal" eleme nt for which the writing is praised. By contra st,
the ,gospels are universally applicable to men, not because they portra y a
centra l
figure who is just like the rest of us, but precisely the reverse: they
depict a
uniqu e figure who alone can save us, and who scand alousl y
invades
huma nity's existe nce at a specific point in the space-time contin
uum.
Doub tless he is contin uous with us in many ways; but to say only
this is
to say too little. To have faith in the gospel message is not the same
thing
as respon ding positively to the story of Super man, who is also
said to
invad e the space-time contin uum from beyond. Altho ugh biblic
al faith
has a major "subje ctive" or "perso nal" or "exist ential " comp onent
, it
depends also on its objec t-on the other side of the "window. " Biblical Christ
ianity
canno t outlive the "scan dal of histor ical partic ularity ." By contra
st, the
novel thrives on the universals of huma n existence.
The domin ant influence of the poetics of the novel on Culpe
pper's
thinki ng and the conse quent cloud ing of his exegetical judgm ent
can be
traced at scores of points . For instan ce, the treatm ent of the so-cal
led
"omni scienc e" of the writer is slante d to fit the patter ns genera ted
by fiction writers; but on the face of it, any responsible observ er could
draw
reason able conclu sions about what Jesus knew, or his disciples did
not, or
what Pilate feared, from the action s they took and/ or the words
they
said. I read many mode rn biogra phies that do not hesitate, on respon
sible
groun ds, to tell us what their subjects feared, thoug ht, loved, suppo
sed.
And if the narrat or of the fourth gospel was not historically privy
to the
conve rsatio n between Jesus and the Sama ritan woma n, this
scarcely
means he should be classed an an "omn iprese nt" narrat or in a
fiction
story; for after all, there are other ways of learning about a conve
rsatio n
betwe en two people besides being there -the more so in this case
where
we are specifically told how freely the woma n talked about the
entire
episode (cf. 4:29,39,42). Certai nly the fourth evangelist is far more
reserved
in these matte rs than, say a ninete enth centur y Victorian novelist,
most of
whom were given to the most minut e probin g of their subject's psyche
. Or
again, althou gh Culpe pper says some very insightful things about
John
21 :24-25, some of his judgm ents spring from his adopt ion of
fiction
poetic s as a Procr ustean bed in which every scrap of evidence
must be
forced to lie. Maint aining the distin ction between the real autho
r (the
evangelist) and the implied autho r (who is the "supe rior versio n"
of the
real autho r), Culpe pper takes 21 :24 to mean that the evangelist (the
real
autho r) also identifies this superi or self (the implied autho r) with
,the
beloved disciple. "Whe n the narrat or drama tically puns tne curtai n
c)n'the
implied autho r in the closing verses of the gospel, the reader recogn
izes
that the Beloved Disciple fits the image the gospel projects of the
implied
autho r as one who knows Jesus intimately ... " (p. 47). Note how
this sort
of analysis forgets that distin ctions amon g "real autho r," "implied
autho r"
and "narra tor" are to some extent artifices to enable us to perfor m
certai n
types of closer analysis; now, however, the three are almos t hypos
tatized .
More impor tant, if the Gospel of John is not a priori conde mned
to the
poetics of fiction, the same evidence and argum ents might be
used to
forge the conclusion that the evangelist actually was the beloved discip
le.

126

TRINITY JOURNAL

All this seems to me to be a further painful reminder of the epistemological impasse into which a substantial proportion of modern critical
biblical scholarship has got itself. There is everywhere a deep desire to
preserve some sort of genuinely pious attachment to Christianity, while
working on historical-criticallevels with such powerful post-Enlightenment
impulses that no epistemologically responsible grounding for the piety is
possible . The result is two-tier thinking-epistemological bankruptcy.
But there is an unforeseen benefit that flows from Culpepper's work.
Any approach, like his, that treats the text as a finished literary product
and analyzes it on that basis calls in question the legitimacy of the claims
that layers of tradition can be peeled off the gospel in order to lay bare
the history of the community. If aporias, say, can be integrated into the
source-critical approach of R. T. Fortna, they can also be integrated into
the literary unity of R. A. Culpepper. If aporias may be literary devices ,
they are no necessary evidence of seams. In other words, Fortna and Culpepper in one sense represent divergent streams of contemporary biblical
scholarship-so divergent, in fact , that a debate has begun about which
approach to the text should take precedence. Culpepper has no doubts:
"Once the effort has been made to understand the narrative character of
the gospels, .some reapproachment with the traditional, historical issues
will be necessary" (p. 11). But the problem is deeper than mere precedence. If the material can be responsibly integrated into the unity Culpepper envisages, or something like it, what right do we have to say the
same evidence testifies to disunity, seams, disparate sources and the like?
Conversely, if the latter are justified, should we not conclude Culpepper's
discovery of unity must be artifically imposed? The unforeseen benefit
from this debate, then, is that it may free up the rather rigid critical
orthodoxy of the day and open up possibilities that have illegitimately
been ruled out of court.
In short, this is an important book, not because it has all the answers,
but because it will set much of the agenda for years to come.
D . A. Carson
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, lllinois

John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, edited by W . Stanford

Reid . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. 415 pp. $10.95, paper.
"Attempting to trace the influence of Calvin and Calvinism in any
country is a complex task made even more difficult by the necessary
brevity with which each author of such a work as this must approach his
geographic area." So states Professor Richard Gamble in his article
"Switzerland: Triumph and Decline," one of sixteen essays which comprise __
this recent Festschrift for Paul Woolley, long-time Professor of Church
History at Westminster Theological Seminary.
If an analysis of Calvin's influence in a given country is a complex task,
then an assessment of the impact of the Swiss Reformer's religious
thought on the Occident is surely ambitious . The book opens with two
generic treatments of the subject, and then proceeds to assess Calvin's