1.  What is Literary Criticism?

The primary focus of literary criticism, whether applied to secular or to sacred literature, is the attempt to understand what the author wants the reader to believe as a result of reading the literature. As Hayes and Holloday observe, the isolation of the rhetorical impact of the text is accomplished through various approaches (Hayes & Holladay, p. 73):

1. 1.  through the examination of the compositional structure and character of a text
   2.  through the examination of the applied stylistic techniques
   3.  through the examination of how images and symbols are employed within the text
   4.  through the examination of the aesthetic and dramatic effects within a work

2.  Seeing the Trees for the Forest

One very useful way to employ literary criticism  is to isolate the role that a passage plays within the greater setting of the text itself. The logic here is that we can understand more fully the meaning of the part if we understand more fully the meaning of the whole. Literary criticism recognizes that passages within texts have unique meanings. Understanding how the greater meaning is achieved by means of the literary components will allow the reader to gain insight into the over-arching structure of the text. Note that the meaning of the part is not predicated of the whole; nor is the meaning of the whole predicated of the part. Such reasoning is fallacious. The argument here is that we can understand the individual pieces more fully and by so doing we then increase our understanding of the whole.

What sort of questions can we ask in order to "see the trees for the forest?" What follows are some sample literary critical questions from page 77 of the Hayes and Holladay:

1.  How does the particular passage function with respect to its immediate and larger context?
2.  Is it transitional, that is, does it serve as a literary bridge from one section to another?
3.  Is it climatic, that is, does it serve as the culmination of material preceding it?
4.  Is it illustrative, that is, does it function to illustrate an earlier assertation?
5.  Is it extrinisic to the larger literary unit, that is, does it not fit at all into the literary context?

3.  Structural Concerns

By asking questions like those given above, the exegete will begin to understand the relatedness of the parts to the whole and of the whole to the parts. At this point, the structure becomes more than a sequential outline of passages. Structures can be employed by the author in order to stress different items (remember the point of literary criticism is to isolate the rhetorical impact of the literature). Through the stressing of different items, the rhetorical impact can be shaped. More simply, the notion around which the information is organized is often stressed because of the literal organization or structure. Here are some sample structural concerns (Hayes and Holladay, p. 76):

1.  thematic interests, e.g. ecclesiology, soteriology, christology, etc
2.  chronological schemes, e.g. most historical books
3.  plot or plot motifs
4.  particular apolgetic or defense argumentation
5.  patterns dictated by use in rituals

4. Literary Devices

Understanding the relation of the part to the whole and of the whole to the part is but one element of structure. We can also examine specific techniques or methods of construction that the writier may have used in order to "get the point across."

One such device is known as the "chiasmus." The Hayes and Holladay text defines a "chiasmus" as "a principle of arranging material in a symmetrical pattern where certain components would correspond to other components. In a four-part arrangment, the chiastic structure might follow an a-b-b-a pattern, where the first and fourth items corresponded to each other while the second and third items did so as well." (Hayes and Holladay, p. 79) The symmetrical pattern of the "chiasmus" tends to emphasize the passage/notion within the middle of symmetry. I will employ the structure of Amos 5:1 - 17 to illustrate the chiasmus device more fully:

The chiastic structure of Amos 5 stresses the notion of God as the Creator of the cosmos. God, as Creator, is the center of righteousness and justice. Accordingly we ought to acknowledge the greatness of God and worship God. The structure helps the author(s) render the point intended.

Another common literary device is the "inclusio." If you have ever taken a marketing or public speaking course you are probably familiar with the idea of the "inclusio." Basically, the "inclusio" restates the main idea at the end or near the conclusion of the work in order to reinforce the major idea. Most public speaking courses will instruct the speaker to summarize and reiterate the major points of a speech at the conclusion in order to ensure that the listener does understand the speaker's points. Some consider the Gospel of Mark to be an "inclusio:"

Note that the first passage marks the beginning of Jesus' earthly career while the second passage marks the end of Jesus' earthly career. Exactly what the "inclusio" is stressing is a matter of debate but one possible  interpretation (which is commonsurate with the Markan motif of Jesus as Suffering Servant) is the stressing of God's entrance into our history, i.e. the tearing of the heavens is actually a proleptic event, the beginning of salvation history for those outside of God's original convenant. I claim this is commonsurate with the Markan motif of Jesus as Suffering Servant as this interpretation forces the reader to ackonwledge the soteriological significance of Jesus' life and death.