LITERARY THEORY, PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY AND EXEGESIS X YONE FAMILIAR with the present state of biblical studies is aware that there is a significant shift on the part of many ,scholars away from the historical critical method as it was practiced earlier toward methods that are based upon various theories of literature. 1 Criteria for judging the aptitude of either the historical or literary method are often established on the ·basis of their practical effectiveness in " yielding a meaning," particularly one that seems to serve the believing community. The difficulty with such an approach is that the philosophical principles latent in and undedying the various methods are not examined directly and are thus left to function unquestioned while the debate centers on results. The purpose of this study is modest. It is to reflect critically on a concrete work of exegesis in order to see how exegesis actually proceeds or might proceed. I a1so wish to question some of the unexpressed epistemological principles that often operate in whrut biblical scholars do. Taking rus a model those historians who have reflected philosophically on what it means to do history, I wish in a similar manner to reflect on what it means to do exegesis·. Such an undertaking, it is hoped, will advance the dialogue between systematic theology and exegesis and indicate further avenues to be explored. We have arrived at a moment when it is in the interest of both disciplines to have a clearer notion of how to assess the results of biblical study. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the central issue in biblical studies is not method as such, though discussion of of more profound aspects of this shift, see: J. P. 1 For a description Martin, "Toward a Post-Critical Paradigm," New Testament Studies 33 ( 1987) 370-385. 575 576 FRANCIS MARTIN what is called the historical critical method, the literary method, etc. will always have its place. The core problem is that of developing a theology of human communication. This will be a theology that learns from the philosophy of language and literature and yet derives its primary lessons from the unique communication that each theologian experiences in his or her personal contact with the biblical text. The work done by Paul Ricoeur in the field of the philosophy of l anguage and literature can provide a, point of departure in the elaboration of such a theology of communication. In addition to reflecting philosophically on many aspects of human communication, Ricoeur has expressed himself from time to time on the relation of his philosophy to biblica,l issues. Thus, in his essay, " Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation," 2 Ricoeur speaks of biblical hermeneutic as being " one regional hermeneutic within a general hermeneutic and a unique hermeneutic that is joined to philosophy as its organon." 3 In discussing the expression of dependence without heteronomy, at the conclusion his essay, Ricoeur goes on to say: 1 ... the experience of testimony can only provide the horizon for a specifically religious and biblical experience of revelation, without our ever being able to derive that experience from the philosophical categories of truth as manifestation and reflection as testi- mony.4 These statements, as we can easily recognize, touch upon a key dimension of the problem facing us as we attempt to locate the human communication of the scriptures in the context of revelation. The question is that of the presence of the unique existing within the common. It is the fact that the particular and irreducible nature of the biblical witness is necessarily made in language common to alL Scripture directs itself, not 1 2Now found in L. Mudge (ed.), Essays iAi Bibliaal Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), pp. 73-118. See in addition, "Naming God," Union Seminary Quarterly Review 34 ( 1979) 215-227. 3" Toward a Hermeneutic," p. 104. 4Jbid., p. 117. LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 577 to a remote and privileged sphere of " religion," but rather to the marketplace where human thoughts about existence jostle one another in a desire to be heard: Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the open squares she raises her voice. Down the crowded ways she calls out, at the city gates she utters her words: "How long, you simple ones, will you love inanity, how long will you turn away at my reproof? Lo! I will pour out to you my spirit, I will acquaint you with my words." (Prov l: 20-23.) Revelation, to use the expression of Walter Kasper, is a "prophetic interpretation of reality/' 5 The testimony of the Scriptures makes not only meaning claims, but truth claims. It professes to portray the true perspective on reality, and this in a way that is binding on aU and not merely meaningful to some. Such a witness gives a strong affirmative answer to the question posed by Jean Nabert: "Do we have the right to invest one moment of history with an absolute characteristic?" 6 It is to Paul Ricoeur's credit that he takes this answer seriously. He seeks to find a way between the pretensions of a philosophy that would arrogate to itself a false autonomy, and the pretensions of the " auxiliary language " of second order faith statements to have exhausted the content of the "referential language" of the scriptures. 7 Gary Comstock, in a recent study, compared this aspect of Ricoeur's contribution to that of Hans Frei, 8 I think it is true to say that more work has been done in philosophy and philosophical theology than in exegesis in the Kasper, The God of Jesus Ghrist (New York: Crossroad, 1984), p. 68. J. Nabert, Essai sur le nial (Paris: Presses Un. de France, 1955), p. 148. Cited in "Toward a Hermeneutic," p. 109. 7 The use of the terms "auxiliary " and "referential" language refers to the way these terms are used in the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Bible et Ghristologie # 1.2.2/3. Text, in French and Latin, is published by Cerf, 1984. s G. Comstock, "Truth or Meaning: Ricoeur versus Frei on Biblical Narrative," Journal of Religion (1986) 117-140. 5 W. 6 578 FRANCIS MARTIN attempt to see exactly how the uniqueness of the biblical witness actuailly communicates in and through common language. This situation dictates the approach I wish to take here. I will begin with the exegesis of :a specific and important passage of the New Testament, the text of Mark which presents Jesus' moment of decision before his Passion (Mk 14: 32-42). I wish then to reflect on how the exegesis undertaken is clarified by and in turn modifies some of Ricoeur's proposals. In the light of this reflection, I will consider how this narrated event is revelation. An Exegesis of Mark 14:32-42 This is the text of Mark in a literal translation: 32a And they came to a small estate whose name was Gethsemane, 32b and he said to his disciples: 32c " Sit here while I pray." 33a And he took along Peter and James and John with him, 33b and he began to be overawed and distressed; 34a and he said to them: 34b " My soul is sorrowful, enough to die; 34c wait here and keep awake." 35a And going on a little, he fell on the ground, 35b and he kept praying 9 that if it were possible the hour might pass from him. 36a And he was saying: 36b "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; 36c take this cup away from me; 36d but not what I want, but what you." 37a And he came and found them sleeping, 37b and he said to Peter: 37c "Simon, are you sleeping? 37d Could you not keep awake one hour? 38a All of you, keep awake and pray that you do not come into temptation; 38b the spirit is eager, but the flesh is weak." 39 And again going off, he prayed, saying the same thing. 9 Phrases such as "kept praying" accent the use of the imperfect in the Markan text. Given the inconsistency with which Mk uses the imperfect as an historical tense, such translations are necessarily interpretations of the author's intention. LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 579 40a And again coming, he found them sleeping, 40b for their eyes were heavy; 40c and they did not know how they might answer him. 41a And he came a third time, 41b and he said to them: 41c "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? 4ld It is satisfied. 4le The hour has come. 4lf Look, the Son of Man is being given over into the hands of smners. 42a Rise up, let us go. 42b Look, the one who gives me over has come near!' Historical Critique 10 Most commentators are agreed that the threefold synoptic narrative (Mt 26: 36-46/Mk 14: 32-42/Lk 22: 39-46), the use of the same basic material in John (Jn 12:27-29 [+ 14:31; 18: 11]), and the a:llusion in Hebrews (Heb 5: 7-10) refer to a moment of crisis in the Me of Jesus shortly before his arrest in which he, amid great fear, embraced the will of the Father. We are dealing something "really happened." We can reduce to two the reasons for asserting that an historical event is the basis for what our sources refer to: (1) the multiplicity of the NT witness, and (2) the unlikelihood that the early community would have created such a scene. It is also plausible that the synoptic location of this event is correct, both geographically, on a ,small estate 11 on the Mount of Olives, and chronologically, just before Jesus' arrest. John, on the other hand, places the words of Jesus' prayer of decision right after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem at an unspecified place in the city. This is ,a theological choice. The accent of the arrest scene in the Fourth Gospel is on the sovereign power 10 There is abundant bibliographical material a:vailable on this incident. Most of it is collected or alluded to in: R. Pesch, Das Markiisevangelium (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1984), II, p. 396. To this add: A Feuiliet, L' Agonie de Geths{;mani (Paris: Gabalda, 1977) ; J. W. Holleran, The Synoptia Gethsemane. A Critical Study (Analecta Gregoriana, 191; Rome: Un. Gregoriana, 1973). 11 John calls the spot a "garden" (kepos), while locating Jesus' prayer elsewhere. 580 FRANCIS MARTIN of Jesus. In addition, the latter part of chapter 12 in Jn is a hinge, concluding the first part of the Gospel and joining this to the Passion Narrative. A logical place for John to present this moment of decision is in this chapter 12, soon after Jesus announces that "the hour has come." (Jn 12: 23.) The account in Hebrews is not a narrative, but a descriptive report that prescinds from any definite location in either time or space. We may note that all the accounts seem to reflect a" canonical" way of narrating the heart of the event. They allude to psalms which serve to portray Jesus as the suffering just man who is "sorrowful" (Mt 26: 38/Mk 14: 34) or" troubled" (Jn 12: 27) . These two terms are found as parallel expressions in LXX Ps 41: 6,12; 43: 5. (See also Ps 6: 3-7.) He prays with a "loud cry and tears" (Heb 5: 7; see LXX Ps 37: 10; 6: 3-7, etc.) . In addition, all the ,accounts stress the fact that this prayer is an expression of the filial relation Jesus has with the Father. In the four Gospel narratives, Jesus explicitly aiddresses his prayer to the Father (Mt 26: 19/Mk 14: 36/Lk 22: 42/Jn 12: 27), while in Heb 5: 8, Jesus is called "Son." The Gospels frame the actual expression of submission in terms meant to evoke the" Our Father:" Mt 26: 39/Mk 14: 36/Lk 22: 42 (also Mt 26: 44) reflect Mt 6: 10 (despite the fact that this petition is not in the Lukan vcersionof the "Our Father") , while Jn 12: 28 echoes Mt 6: 9. This same prayer provides the theme of" temptation" found in the synoptics (Mt 26: 41/Mk 14: 38; Lk 22: 40,46; see Heb 4: 15). In addition, the Gospel tradition concurs in calling this moment "the hour." This is particularly striking in Mk (14:35b [see Jn 12:27]; 37d; 4lc [=Jn 12:23]), although it also figures in Mt 26: 40,45 (see Lk 22: 53) . This well-established recourse to common soul'ces and vocabulary is part of what I will call, using Ricoeur's terminology, a traditional interpretive" configuration." 12 As the event 12 For a discussion of this term, see: P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, tr. K. McLaughlin and D. Pellauer, Vol. I (University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 64-70. LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 581 was reflected upon and transmitted in the tradition, a particu1ar way of shaping the material, embodying the themes mentioned above, was esta:blished. There was a widespread consensus that the best way to penetrate and present the inner meaning of this event was to givce it a particular literary shaipe which indicated the relation between Jesus' definitive act of submission to the Father and the present situation of the Church. Literary Critique From our resume of the results of historical criticism, we may conclude that we are dealing here with a real event in the life of Jesus, one which occurred close to the time of his arrest. The shaping or configuring of the event, however, was done according to norms and theological judgments that were widespread and preexisted the manifold tradition we find in the NT. I wish now to institute a brief literary study of the text of Mark. Though a consideration of the· resemblances to the other narratives and to the material in Hebrews is very useful, it will be kept to 'a minimum here. According to what I will call the principle of responsibility, an author must be considered responsible for what he puts in his text. No matter what pre-existing material he is using or upon which he is modeling himself, it is part of his communication. This means that once we are aware that Mk shares and exploits a widespread tradition and, in this instance, is particularly close to Mt, we may still read the Markan text as his particular configuration of the event we are considering. 1) The Structure of Mk 14:32-42 There is general consensus that Mk 14: 32-42 is a pericope, that is, a relatively free-standing, self-enclosed literary presentation of an event. 13 Whether or not Mk has inserted it into a 13 For a treatment of the distinction between pericope, episode, and incident in NT literature, I refer the reader to my book, Narrative Parallels to the New Testament (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). One may also consult a 582 FRANCIS M.A.RTIN pre-Marlmn Passion Story need not concern us here. There is a unity of action: Jesus arrives with his disciples at Gethsemane, urges them to pray, prays himself, exhorts them, and finally announces the coming of the hour aibout which he prayed and the imminent arrival of the paradidous, the one who will set the whole process of the Passion in movement. This unity of action is, of course, the work of the author, imposing his point of view upon the complex of activities in order to compose the event. There are four distinct movements to the action clearly indicated in the text. The first movement, vv. 32a-36d, presents the setting, the conflict, and its resolution. The conflict and resolution of this movement is the common heritage of the whole tradition. The second, thil'd, and fourth movements, vv. 87a-39b, vv. 40a-c, and vv. 4la-42b, are introduced by the notice that Jesus came to the disciples. The second and third movements are introduced hy " came," "found," and " them sleeping." This explicitly alludes to the themes of Mk 13: 36. The fourth movement continues the allusion. We can see that Mk clearly intends this means of dividing the text by the fact that no notice that Jesus went away precedes the repetition of the theme in v. 4la. 2) A Discusmon of the Four Movernents of the Text I wish in this section to discuss the poetic function of the l\1arkan text, that is, the manner in which the verbal texture " makes " o:r configures the various movements of the action by establishing links between this event and other themes and events within the Gospel and the tradition contiguous to it. In the next section, we will consider more explicitly how the text is appropriated or, to use Ricoeur's term, "refigured" by the audience. The identification of the small estate as Gethsemane begins the narrative with a signal that Mark wishes to re-tell someshorter study, Encounter Stories: A Oharacteristio (Washington: Word Among Us Press, 1979). Gospel Narrative Form LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 583 thing already known in a traidition that has reached further than his immediate audience. This is true no matter how one views the question of Markan priority. The address in 32c may be an allusion to Abraham's words to his servants as he and Isaac depart for the sacrifice (Gen 22: 5). If so, then we can see how the use of an expression which is already part of sacred narrative allows us to understand what is happening within the broader context of God's plan. The notice in 33a links this incident with the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5: 37) , the Transfiguration (Mk 9: 2) , and probably as well the eschatological discourse (Mk 13: 3-the same three and Andrew) . That is, we are in a situation of private and important revelation. In v. 33b, we have a vivid description of Jesus' state, using two words. The first word, ekthambesthai, is unique to Mark and he uses it to describe an awed reaction to the result of a special divine manifestation: the crowd as Jesus comes down the mount of the Transfiguration (Mk 9: 15) , and the women at the empty tomb (Mk 16: 5,6) . The second word, denoting a strong state of distress and disorientation, is also used by Mt (26: 27; see Phil 2: 26) . As I have already indicated, v. 34b serves to portray Jesus as the suffering and praying just man of the psalms. We find this theme thmughout the Passion Narrative (e.g., Ps 22 in Mk 15: 24,29,34; Ps 69 in Mk 15: 23,36). With the instruction in v. 34c, we enter upon a more pointed and decisive use of vocabulary .. The term translated here, "keep awake" (gregorein), occurs only in this pericope and in the exhortations and parable which conclude the eschatological discourse (Mk 13: 32-37) , where it occurs three times along with two other terms denoting vigilance. We wiU return to this shortly. After the description in v. 35a of Jesus' distress and p:rostrate prayer, Mk gives a resume of the prayer (v. 35b) in indirect discourse using the term "hour." Besides the remarkaible resemblances to Johannine usage I mentioned above, we should note the phrase in Mk 13: 32, " Concerning that day 1 1 584 FRANCIS MARTIN and the hour, no one knows .... " In v. 36b, we have the prayer in direct discourse addressed to "Abba, Father." This Aramaic/Greek expression is found only here in the Gospels, although it occurs twice in the Pauline letters (Gal 4: 6; Rom 8: 15) to describe the Spirit-inspired prayer of Christians. The use of the phrase at this point has three effects: (1) it indicates that the obedience 0:£ Jesus is that 0£ a Son (see Mk 1: 1,11; 9: 7; 15: 39; compare Heb 5: 8); (2) it forms an explicit link between the prayer of Jesus and that of his followers; and (3) it introduces as background the prayer recorded in Mt 6: 9-13/Lk 11: 2-4, though not in Mk. Jesus addresses the Father uniquely in Mk with: " all things are possible to you " (see Mk 9: 23). He is the one who "can save him from death" (Heb 5: 7). This time, common with the synoptic tradition and Jn (18: 11), the impending suffering is described as a "cup." This establishes Jesus as the one who vicariously drinks the cup of God's wrath (see 10: 39) .14 The decisive movement of the action ends in v. 36c. Jesus does what he taught his disciples to prays embraces the will of the Father. From this point, Jesus will no longer engage in decision-making, although Mk alludes to his prayer in v. 39b. The rest of the action has another direction and other concerns. As we noted above, there are still three further movements in this event. In each of these, Jesus is the only one to speak, and his words provide a unique resolution to the aporia of time as well as instruction concerning what is immediately to follow. The second movement opens in v. 37a with a fulfillment of the warning given in 13: 36, " ... lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping." In v. 37b-d, we have the demotion of "Peter" to " Simon," a question about his torpor, and an allusion to the theme of "hour." This is followed by a solemn rhythmical 14 For a discussion of the background of this image and bibliography, see: F. Martin, "Le bapteme clans l'Esprit. Tradition du Nuoveau Tetament et vie de l'Eglise," Nouvelle Revue Tlufologique 108 (1984) 23-58, esp. 32-33. LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 585 phrase addressed in the plural (v. 38a-b), not only to the inept disciples, but also to the whole Church. I propose that this phrase derives from the prophetic activity that characterized early Christian community gatherings. 15 The noun peirasmos, a word well-represented in the NT tradition, occurs only here in Mk. It reiterates a theme from Mk 1: 13, echoed in 8: 11; 10: 2; 12: 15 as well as in 8: 33, and alludes to the sixth petition of the" Our Father" (Mt 6: 13 = Lk 11: 4). The injunction to keep awake repeats the allusion to Mk 13: 32-37 already established. It is also 'a common NT theme (lThes 5: 6, lCor 16: 13; Rev 16: 15, etc.), joined here, as is often the case, to the notion of prayer (Col 4: 2; lPet 5: 8). The addition of the theme of " temptation " serves to accentuate the atmosphere of the eschaton, the ultimate moment of trial (see Rev 3: 10; 2: 10). The most striking new element is that of a theological anthropology using terms not found in this sense in the whole of Mk. The concepts of " spirit " and " flesh " indicate not static constituents of the human frame, but rather dynamic and contrary components whose ultimate resolution will determine a person's eternal future. This thinking is broadly-based in the tradition of the NT and finds expression, as is well known, in the writings of Paul, in lPet (3: 18; 4: I), and in the founth gospel (Jn 6: 63) . The closest antecedent to this view is to be found at Qumran. 16 15 For a consideration of the role of Christian prophets in the wording of some NT logia, see: J. D. G. Dunn, "Prophetic 'I' Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances Within Early Christianity," New Testament Studies 24 ( 1977/78) 175-198. The suggestion that Mk 14: 38a-b derives in some way from the life of the community is not new. R. Bultmann, Die Gesohiohte der Synoptischen Tradition, 4th ed. ( GQttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), p. 288, speaks of it as "christliohe Erbaungsprache." He also considers the pericope to have a "thoroughgoing legendary character." Even granting his particular notion of "legend," this is not, in my opinion, correct. For a resume of other shades of opinion regarding the community source of this exhortation, see: Holleran, The Synoptic Gethsemane, p. 128. 16 For a good study of this, see K. G. Kuhn, " Light on Temptation, Sin and F'lesh in the New Testament," in K. Stenclahl, (eel.), The Scrolls and 586 FRANCIS MARTIN We are certainly entitled to see in this passage a Markan use of source material, some of ,which he most likely derived from the liturgical life of the community. More specifically, ,we are dealing with a prophetic exhortation which has been incorporated into the configuration of an event in the life of Jesus. Two things are apparent here which I will discuss shortly: (I) Mk has 1a very particular concept of time involved in his superimposition of one dimension oi the life of Christ upon another, and this involves (2) the claim of the whole Gospel that Jesus is still alive. The third movement of the action (v. 40 a-c) seems to have but one function in the text. By using again the terminology of Mk 13: 36, and combining it with a word for word repetition of Mk 9: 6 (v. 40c), Mk forges another link with the Transfiguration which he, in turn, brings into connection with the eschatological moment. Mark intends the remark itself, along ,with the notice in v. 40b that" their eyes were heavy," to show once again the inept nature of the disciples' response in the face of the suffering and glory of the Son of Man. 17 This ineptitude is not merely of human origin but has its cause in the work of Satan. 18 The fourth and final movement (vv. 4la-42b), still using the theme of Jesus' coming and the disciples' s,leeping, is for the most part a series of statements (vv. 4Id-42h) that serve to give proper perspective tn ,what has just occurred and what will occur shortly. The first of these statements, unique ito Mk, remains for us unintelligible and thus provides a good illustration of the continued need for historical and philological rethe New TestU1Tnent (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), pp. 94-113. This line from the Hymns Scroll is particularly striking: " The walk of man is not constant except by the spirit God has created in him." (lQH 4, 31.) Mk also uses pneuma in a less technical anthropological sense: Mk 2: 8, 8: 12. 11 For a study of this point, see: Q. Quesnell, The Mind of Mark (.An. Bib., 38) (Rome: Pont. Bib. Inst., 1969). 18 J.M. Robinson, in The Problem of History in Mark (SBT, 11) (London: SCM, 1957), pointed this out in general without specific reference to the text. LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 587 search. 19 The announcement in v. 4le that "the hour has come" refers immediately to the subject of Jesus' prayer in v. 85b, and behind that to the decisive moment in the life of Jesus and the history of the world which God has determined. Verse 41£, introduced by idou, indicates the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Son of Man in 8: 81; 9: 81; 10: 88, borrowing some elements from each and using the key word, paradidonai, which probably reflects NT use of LXX Is 58: 6,12 and which refers to the whole process of the P:assion. (See Mk 8: 19; 14: 10,11,18,21; 15: 1,10. See as well such texts as Rom 4: 25.) Inv. 42a, ·We have what must have been a traditional way of expressing Jesus' sense of determination as his Passion approaches: we find the identical phrase, not surprisingly, in Mt 26: 46, but also in Jn 14: 31. The last phrase, once again introduced by idou, describes Judas as o paradidous, an epithet repeated in v. 44, and announces his imminent arrival ·with the same term as Mk uses for the Kingdom of God in Mk 1: 15. We may compare the Johannine expression in Jn 14: 30: "the Prince of this world is coming." This immediately precedes the exhortation I referred to just above (Jn 14: 81): "Rise, let us go from here." An Interpretation of the Narrative What we have accomplished so far, utilizing the methods of historical and literary criticism, may he termed "commentary." This is a description or a report of whait the text says. There is, however, another step necessary in a total reading of the text. We may term this " interpretation": it attempts to understand what the text is talking about. When there is question of a propositional text, even a text thait employs symbolic language, as do the P:auline letters, Hebrews, etc., we express our effort to understand the reality that the text discusses in a transposed set of propositions. This set of proposi19 A discussion of the possible meanings of a,peahei can be found in the commentaries, e.g., Pesch, Markus II, pp. 393-394. 588 FRANCIS MARTIN tions is framed in "auxiliary language," which is always subordinate to the more aibundant " referential lm1guage" of the Scriptures. 20 In a text such as Mk 14: 82-42, we are dealing with narrative. An understanding or re-understanding of a narrative may be expressed in another narrative. This is often the procedure of the ,ancients, as I. Heinemann pointed out, 21 and we can see the procedure at work in the diverse narratives of the same Gethsemane event we are considering here. The other manner of interpreting a narrative is similar to that of interpreting propositional texts: the configured rea.Iity is described in a series of propositions. This is a discursive resume of what results from the interaction of the reader with the text. In Ricoeur's terminology, an interpretation is an explicitation of our "refiguring" of the narrative. There is a difference, however. Ricoeur himself has attempted an analysis of the theologico-literary procedures at work in Mk 14: 82-42. His work, in my opinion, is a refiguring that does not deal sufficiently with the historical referent of the narrative: 22 This is due to a lack of attention to what an historical critical approach can and must establish. I will return to this point later. I propose a descriptive interpretation of Mk 14: 82-42, touching upon only some of its features and based upon the preceding historical and Jiterary commentary. There was a moment when Jesus Christ made a decision to embrace what he clearly perceived to be the will of God, his Father, for him. This moment came shortly before his arrest in Gethsemane. It was a moment of human decision. Within the confines of humanity, someone made an act of submission .20 For an indication of the source of this terminology, see note 6 above. Heinemann, in his study of rabbinic exegesis, distinguished between "creative history" and "creative philology." By the former, he intended to describe the process of retelling an event; by the latter, the process by which a meaning is drawn out by "etymology." I. Heinemann, Darke ha A.ggadah, 3rd ed. (Jerusalem: Masada, 1970). 22 P. Ricoeur, "Le Recit Interpretatif," Recherches de Science Religieuse 73 ( 1985) 17 -38, esp. 32-33. 21 I. LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 589 to God in which the Absolute is revealed in a contingent act. In the words of Maximus the Confessor, we a:re saved by the human decision of a divine Person. 23 Without that decision, the rest of the Passion would have been fruitless. Because he has realized in a uniquely profound way the mystery of suffering and submission, Jesus sums up within himself a transcendent manner the characteristics of that righteous and 1;1ufferingman who has been crying out to God in his thirst for justice since the beginning of the world. What is more, his obedience reveals something of the selflessness of the relation between the Father and the Son. 24 This one punctiliar movement in the life of Jesus is itself the summing up of the temptation and the obedience that characterized his whole earthly existence. It does, however, raise them to a unique significance. This is the hour. It is the moment in time when Jesus takes upon himself the ultimate consequences of belonging to "the present evil age." (Gal 1: 4). It is therefore the moment of conflict between the Son of God and Satan. We are not spectators to this conflict; we are called to share in it. In the first place, the death and resurrection which ineluctably follow from this decision are the reasons why we too are " delivered from this present evil age." Secondly, those things aibout to happen to Jesus had already been predicted as part of the future of the disciples: to be given over to tribunals, beaten, and made to stand before governors and kings. We are not to worry; what we are to say will be given us in that hour (Mk 13: 9-11). Yet, as the hour approaches, we see two different reactions. 2s This phrase of Maximus, made in the light of the Gethsemane scene, is the object of a study by F. M. Lethel, Theofogie de l'agonie du Ghrist: la liberte humaine du Fils de Dieu et son interpretation soteriologique mise en lumiere par Saint M axime le Confesseur ( Theologie Historique, 52) (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979). 24 This is developed in the study by J. Moltmann, The Cruoified God: The Gross of Ghrist as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, tr. R. A. Wilson and J. Bowden (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), pp. 235249. See the valuable remarks on this outlook by W. Hill, "The Doctrine of God after Vatican II," The Thomist 51 (1987) 395-418, esp. 405ff. 590 FRANCIS MARTIN Jesus is at prayer, resisting temptation, and submitting to the plan of the Father. The disciples, in flagrant disobedience to the reiterated command to keep awake, are asleep, unable to watch one hour. It is at this point that a solemn warning rings out once again: " Keep awake and pray that you do not come into temptation; the spirit is eager, but the flesh is weak." These words are not the last admonition of a dead master. They are the command of the risen Lord. They are not the record of what Jesus said one night. They are the words he is speaking now to this harassed community in danger of being deceived by the forces of darkness, and of being overpowered by persecution and disappointment. This church is running the risk of totally misunderstanding t'he moment of revelation, of not knowing how to respond to what God is doing. If we understand the relationship between the eschatological warning in chapter 13 and its repetition here, we see that there are two dimensions of time being conveyed. As we have said, the hour is the ultimate moment. It is characterized by being the point in human history during which Jesus overturns the forces which we can sum up under the name of Sin and which ruled over history. (See Heh 14.) It is therefore a moment of conflict between Jesus and Satan. This is the first dimension of time. Wherever and whenever the components of the Gethsemane event are present, that point in human history may also he called "the hour." Such predication is founded on a true analogy. Not any moment of Christian decision can be called " the hour," but only those moments which realize, in varying degrees, the conflict between Jesus and Satan. This is a true eschatological moment, understanding eschaton not as final but as ultimate. Such a moment participates not only notionally, but also in the order of being in that moment when the Son of God overcomes the power of darkness. The historically contingent manifestation of the Absolute takes place on the cross and is still present to succeeding generations because its protagonist is alive. This is the second di- LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 591 mension of time conveyed by the narrative. Strictly speaking, the text is not history in the sense that it is an attempt to recover the past. The NT is rather a proclamation that this historically oontingent event is still present because Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. How does this apply to the action narrated in Mk 14: We have here the moment of human decision, a moment without which the rest of the Passion process would have been nothing but a tragic miscarriage of human justice. Mark narrates for us the event which provides access to the "interior" of the event of the cross. 25 He endows this moment with the characteristics of the last hour because it is the ultimate moment whose full consequences will be realized in human history at that last hour when the Son of Man comes again. In the meanwhile, every generation of Christians faces the same invitation: to share in their measure the messianic suffering of Jesus, that is, to die to sin and live to God (Rom 6: 10-11) and, thus, to perpetuate and make known the human presence of the unique in history. MaTk adumbrates this in the description of the lot of the disciples which includes being "given over" as was Jesus (Mk 13: and he makes it explicit in Jesus' final words of his teaching concerning that day and the hour: " What I say to you, I say to all, keep awake!" (Mk 13: 37) .) Thus, the moments of conflict with darkness occur over and over again in the ongoing life of the community. The Gospel of Mark conveys an understanding of the components of that struggle: the decision to follow Jesus "on the way" (see Mk 8: 3; 10: 32,42, etc.), the temptation to be scandalized by the suffering of the Son of Man (Mk 8: 32) , the activity of Satan who finds in the flesh an ally in maintaining the disciples in a situation of non-understanding and inability to respond, and finally the presence of Jesus ex25 The manner in which the Gospels are a revelation of the interior of the events in the life of Christ receives an initial development in the study by I. de la Potterie, "Fondement Biblique de la Theologie du Coeur du Christ," in Le Ooeiw de Jesus. Ooeur du JJf.onde (Paris: FAC, 1982), pp. 103-140. FRANCIS MARTIN horting and teaching his brethren generation after generation through the words of the written text and the words of prophecy that he delivers. Reflections Deriving Frmn Recent Work in the Philosophy of Literature and History At this point, I would like to undertake a reflection on the methods invnlved in the steps of commentary and interpretation that we have just accomplished. My starting point is the work of Paul Ricoeur because he has published a good deal in the field of the philosophies of literature and history, and because many of his insights are helpful and congenial to the work of such reflection. However, I think there are several weak points in his presentations, in which what exegetes actually do, or should do, diverges from Ricoeur's theoretical reflections. 1) Methodological and Epistemological Considerations Paul Ricoeur has always been the champion of respect for the text. He has opposed all attempts to " get behind the text" and interpret it in terms of the investigator's preoccupations rather than in terms of intersubjective communication. He has opposed the "hermeneutics of suspicion" which originated in its various with Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx. He has also opposed "historicism" which he defines as: .. " the epistemological presupposition that the content of literary works and in general of cultural documents receives its intelligibility from its connection to the social conditions of the community that produced it or to which it was destined. 26 On the other hand, Ricoeur has not gone to the obher extreme of those who seek the meaning of a text solely in terms of its intra-textual relationships. In contrast, then, to finding meaning " behind " the text or " within " the text, Ricoeur speaks of what is "in front of the text." 26 Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Hurpius Worth: Texas Christian Un. Press, 1916), pp. 89-90. of Meaning (Fort LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 593 It must be acknowledged that much work done in biblical exegesis under the aegis of what is called the historical critical method shares, usually unconsciously, the epistemological presuppositions of historicism. The text is treated as an object which will automatically yield its meaning when one applies the proper method to it. On the other hand, in reaction to this type of historicism, other exegetes have sought the text's meaning in the application of structuralist or semiotic methods. Both approaches, historical and intra-textual, are usually tempered, however, by the interpreter's desire to listen to the text. It has been Riooeur's contribution to elaborate a theory of approaching the text that accounts for the" tempering" activity that exegetes usually exercise more on the level of common sense or instinct. This theory comes at a propitious time since the excesses of both approaches need the corrective of what I called earlier a theology of human communication. However, as I already mentioned, there does not seem to be much room in Riooeur's theory for the kind of activity undertaken above under the rubric, "historical critique." There is a difference between getting behind a text in order to use it as a source for the history of early Christianity and as a norm for judging the meaning of a text (historical criticism), and the historical and philological study that facilitates the communicative effort of the text itself. The first makes the text a servant of extraneous preoccupations, the second seeks to serve the text. This second type of activity makes possible a deeper participation in what Ricoeur felicitously calls " the direction of thought opened up by the text." 27 It does so, however, by overcoming some of the "strangeness " and " distance " of the text. 28 The very nature of revelation means that the judgment regarding the historical nature of what is being conveyed in the 27 Interpretation Theory, p. 92. 2s Ricoeur has a penetrating study on the positive aspects of distanciation: "The hermeneutical function of distanciation," now in J. B. Thompson (ed.), Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (Cambridge Un. Press, 1981), pp. 131-144. 594 FRANCIS MARTIN text is an important one. The problem of ascertaining in our text, or in any Gospel text, whether or not there is a real event being configured is not a negligible one. It affects the nature of the testimony being given to an historically contingent moment. We must ask if this is a theological notion woven into a basic narrative about Jesus, or the configuration of an event that " really happened." What are the criteria for making such a judgment? More work is needed in order to enable us to understand the kind of literature with which we are dealing. The Gospels do not fit into any category of literature with which we modern Westerners are familiar. 29 I find it interesting that Ricoeur, in discussing the mutual borrowing that takes place between history and fiction, uses the term "interweaving." Origen, in his commentary on John, uses the same term (prosyphainein) when discussing the manner in which the four evangelists "have woven into their writing, with the help of expressions used to describe sensible things, realities evident to them in a purely spiritual [noetos] manner." 30 This insight deserves further study. The point I wish to make here is simply that, as far as I can tell, Ricoeur, in concentrating on withstanding the pressures of various forms of getting behind the text, has not sufficiently taken into account the legitimate role of historical investigation in determining the nature of "the direction of thought opened up by the text." This is an important, if difficult, task in NT exegesis. I propose in this regard there is a twofold hermeneutical spiral at work in historical investigation. The first spiral is the application of the historical and philological disciplines in 29 I say this despite the considerable amount of recent research into this question. For a more extended discussion, I refer the reader to my Narrative Parallels to the New Testament mentioned previously in note 13. 30 The term is found in P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, Vol. I, p. 82. For Origen, see Commentary on John, 10, 5 ( 18), Sources Chretiennes, 157, p. 394. I was first made aware of this view of Origen by the study of R. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), p. 65 et passim. LITERARY THEORY, HISTORY AND EXEGESIS 595 striving to understand the utterance of the text. This is characterized, as is well known, by an oscillation between intuition and verification on successively deeper and more inclusive levels. This may be called the spiral of "explanation,'' and it corresponds to what we termed above as commentary. The second spiral is" understarrding" and is marked by the oscillation between what is being achieved on the level of explanation and what is understood on the level of faith. In this process, the understanding of faith, while it has a directivce role, must always be modified by what the text is stating and be ·ruble to verify its position by what is present in the text. The positing of two :hermeneutical spirals merely makes explicit the fact that all historical work takes place under the aegis of some higher and broader preoccupation. In this case, faith functions not merely as a norm, a set of traditional documents against which an interpretation is to be evaluated, although this is important; it also functions as a light, as a directive principle within the mind. This, I take it, is what .the medieval theologians mean by " the light of faith " when discussing how theology is a science. It is the level at which what I have called interpretaition takes place. My second reflection has to do with history and poetry. We read in Volume I of Time and Narrative this very he1pful distinction: It is for this reason that historians are not simply narrators: they give reasons why they consider a particular factor rather than some other to be the sufficient cause of a given course of events. Poets also create plots that are held together by causal skeletons, But these latter are not the subj-ect of a process of argumentation. Poets restrict themselves to producing the story and explaining by narrating. 81 Using the terminology of .the rubove quote, we must say that most biblical narrative is poetic rather than historical. There are ·discursive explanations given for events, as when the Deuteronomical redactor says of the fall of the northern kingdom: " This came aibout because the Isrruelites sinned s1 Time and Narrative, I, p. 186. 596 FRANCIS MARTIN against the Lord their God .... " (2Kgs 17: 7ff.) The death of Jesus is due to" the set purpose and plan of God " (Acts 2: 23) and is destined "for us" (Eph 5:1-2; lTim 2:6; Gal 2:20, etc.), "for our sins" (Gal. 1: 4; lCor 15: 3, etc.), and "to destroy the devil's works" (lJn 3: 8) . But, as we can observe, the chain of causality ,asserted in these cases pertains to what J. Lacroix calls the "vertical dimension" of history. 32 There is an interiority to events. When these events are revelations of God, this interiority can only he correctly perceived th11ough the gift of prophecy and transmitted through testimony. Let me give an example. Let us suppose that someone were to tell us that Smith entered a room,