What do you think?
Rate this book
The Art of Biblical Narrative
In what is both a radical approach to the Bible, and a fundamental return to its narrative prose, Robert Alter reads the Old Testament with new eyes—the eyes of a literary critic. Alter takes the old yet simple step of reading the Bible as a literary creation.
207 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
330 people are currently reading
3249 people want to read
About the author
Robert Alter
113 books303 followersRobert Bernard Alter is an American professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1967, and has published many acclaimed works on the Bible, literary modernism, and contemporary Hebrew literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 220 reviews
February 20, 2013
In this short but dense work, Alter presents his case for the Bible, particularly the Old Testament (OT), as a piece of literature that can and should be examined with literary techniques. We found this book both very helpful and incredibly frustrating at times. It is helpful because Alter lays out useful techniques that help one examine the Bible as a piece of literature by paying attention to words, actions, dialogue, and narration. It is, however, frustrating because Alter is apparently unaware of how his so-called higher-critical assumptions flatly contradict his goal to show the literary themes and connections that weave throughout the OT. This should become clear as we look at the first two chapters of this work.
In chapter one, Alter lays the groundwork for approaching the Bible as a literary work. He states at the beginning of this chapter that the literary art shaping the Biblical narrative is “finely modulated from moment to moment, determining in most cases the minute choice of words and reported details, the pace of narration, the small movements of dialogue, and a whole network of ramified interconnections in the text.” He, however, does little in this chapter to actually prove his assertion that the Bible should be treated as a literary work. He cites examples in Scripture and other scholarly opinion that is moving his direction, but he does not actually argue that it is literature. Furthermore, he flatly states that the conservative view of the Bible as the “unitary source of divinely revealed truth” is one “obvious reason” that scholars did not look at the Bible as literature sooner. He, again, does not argue this point but assumes that it is axiomatic. It is not at all obvious to us that this is the case, especially considering as far back as Augustine the Bible has been viewed by many Christians as a literary work. In this chapter, his contradictory assumptions are evident. He holds to the higher-critical assumption that the OT is a “patchwork” text put together by redactors and that one cannot assume the redactors are “consummate literary artists,” but, at the same time, he argues for a unity of words, themes, repetitions, and type-scenes through large portions of the OT, like the Torah! One cannot say, on the one hand, that the Torah is a “patchwork” with seams showing evidence of JEDP sources and redactors and, on the other hand, that it shows great literary unity. If it is shows literary unity, then where is the evidence for the four sources of the Torah and redactors? If there are sources and redactors that are not “consummate literary artists,” then how can one assume unifying literary aspects?
In chapter two, Alter addresses the question of what the narrative of the Bible is. Is it history? Is it prose fiction? He boldly asserts that Bible does not characterize its narrative as history and that treating it as such will rule out the ability to use the tools of literary analysis. He basically argues that since the OT shows literary artistry and since the writers would not have had any documentation for the stories they recorded, then it must not be history. However, he neither gives a cogent argument, evidence for this assertion, nor does he tell the reader why literary artistry and history should be seen as mutually exclusive. He then classifies the Bible as “historicized fiction,” which he does not really define but it appears that he believes there to be some kernel of historical fact or folklore behind most of the stories but all details and dialogue are completely “imagined” by the writers. He gives the reader examples of what he believes to be straight fiction and what he believes might have some historical basis. Again, he gives no evidence for why he gives a small amount of historical status to some and none to others. He just says that it is “obvious” and makes a few pejorative remarks about any who disagree with him. He concludes that, since “all fiction, including the Bible, is in some sense a form of play,” then while the Bible may have been written primarily to inform and instruct, rather than delight and entertain, it accomplishes this through a literary medium of story.
If one can get through the higher-critical assumptions that contradict his entire thesis, his de jure statements about the fictional character of the OT, and the various subtle insults leveled at anyone who would hold an orthodox view of Scripture, then from chapter three on (with the exception of chapter seven) he gives some valuable insights into biblical interpretation. Contrary to Alter’s assumptions, one does not need to adopt his presuppositions in order to use his literary techniques. The Bible as history and a piece of literary masterpiece are not mutually exclusive qualities.
In chapter three, Alter gives his first literary category for interpreting large sections of Scripture—the biblical “type-scene.” To his credit, he does not accept all of the higher-critical assumptions, as shown here by his rejection of the conclusion that repetitious stories are recreations of a single, initial story (though this is hardly helpful since he believes they are mostly imagined anyway). The type-scene is one in a “series of recurrent narrative episodes attached to the descriptions of biblical heroes… that… are dependent on the manipulation of a fixed constellation of predetermined motifs.” They occur at crucial junctures in the lives of heroes. He then goes on to list the type-scenes he sees in the OT and give an example of how to track one through the OT and use it as an interpretive tool. His example, “the betrothal,” contradicts, again, his view of a “patchwork” OT because it is a thread that runs from Genesis through the historical books. If the redactors were not “consummate literary artists,” how can he explain the presence of these threaded “type-scenes”? Contradiction aside, the technique is valid and fits nicely into a conservative, orthodox view of Scripture.
In chapter four, Alter discusses the relationship between biblical narrative and dialogue. He shows that dialogue is the most important segment for communication because narrative is generally only a bridge between blocks of dialogue (though narrative sometimes gives helpful “omniscient” information). Character traits, thought, plot, etc. are all almost always rendered as direct speech, which is something unique to Hebrew narrative in its time. He uses a number of examples to show the variety of literary purposes for dialogue and what dialogue can express—importance (generally more important events are rendered with dialogue), critical junctures in the story, delineation of character qualities, contrast between characters, moral stance, social stance, political stance, plot, etc.
In chapter five, Alter takes on the subject of repetition. In this chapter, like in three, Alter does not accept the higher-critical assumption that repetition is excessive. It looks most “primitive” to the modern reader but is actually “quite purposeful.” He believes it to be a literary technique: “In biblical prose, the reiteration… formalized into a prominent convention that is made to play a much more central role in the development of thematic argument than does the repetition of such key words in other narrative traditions.” He categorizes several types of repetition that authors used to make connections and theological points: leitwort, motif, theme, sequence of actions, and type-scene. Then he gives a number of examples of how to follow repetition and use it as another literary tool.
In chapter six, Alter examines the topic of characterization. The key to a good story that draws readers in emotionally is characterization. One might think that giving as much description as possible would be ideal, but Alter argues that the key to good characterization is often the wise use of ambiguity with a character that leaves a reader seeking to know more about the person. Here, as in other chapters, his view of the Bible as “historicized fiction” comes out and can be a little frustrating to one who holds an orthodox view of Scripture, but his characterization techniques fit well within orthodox presuppositions. As with the other chapters, most of his teaching regarding characterize is by using examples.
In chapter seven, Alter returns to his higher-critical assumptions and attempts to give an explanation for the contradiction of viewing the Bible as “patchwork” and as a literary unity. Since it would be “naive” to think the Bible is not a “patchwork” of sources, he has to attempt to give an explanation for his presupposition that the Bible has literary unity. His explanation is what he calls “composite artistry.” Basically, he posits that the writers and redactors had certain notions of unity that are different from ours which led “them at times to violate what a later age and culture would be disposed to think of as canons of unity and logical coherence,” so we cannot force our notions on them. While I agree that they may not have had the same notions of unity that we have, this is hardly a solution. If it is true, he is trying to argue for unity from diversity that makes his evidence for diversity moot. If they did have notions of unity as distinct from ours as his examples try to present, then why are the seams between sources even considered seams? On this assumption, the texts could just have easily been written that way as redacted to that form. It is our opinion that he still has not satisfactorily resolved his contradictions. Perhaps if one accepted his higher-criticism presuppositions this would seem reasonable, but we do not and see it as contradicting them.
In chapter eight, Alter turns to the subject of the narrator. Since he acknowledges the theological purpose of the writers, he points out that in narrative the only way to write good dialogue and give the reader theological insights is to have the narrator be omniscient and able to give insight where necessary. This narrator omniscience is the forerunner of third-person omniscience in Western literature. He, of course, sees revelation as impossible de jure, so the narrator omniscience is his own imagination and opinion. Despite this, he gives some good examples of how to use attention to the details of the narrator’s omniscience to gain further insights into the story. We would, however, say that the narrator's omniscience comes from the revelation given by God's omniscient perspective.
In the final chapter, Alter boils his points of literary study down to four things the Bible reader must pay attention to: words, actions, dialogue, and narration. By noticing continuity and discontinuities in these areas the reader can get deeper insight into the stories. This chapter is a good summary of the techniques he puts forward and is actually the best part of the book. We would recommend the reader read chapter nine first, then move back to one and forward. This will help the reader, at least readers that do not agree with his presuppositions, get a grasp on what he is trying to do without being bogged down by his higher-critical banter and assumptions.
In the final analysis, we believe this book can be very helpful to the biblical exegete. Despite disagreeing with his presuppositions in many areas and his contradictory assumptions, we believe his general thesis that the Bible can be studied through literary techniques is correct and his techniques are helpful. As stated above, it is difficult for someone with an orthodox view of Scripture to get past the higher-critical presuppositions and the derogatory remarks he makes about those who disagree with what is “obvious” from them. It is only “obvious” because he has first ruled out revelation de jure and then attempted to interpret the Bible. However, if one can get past those frustrations, one can gain several helpful techniques and insights that will give him literary tools to use in biblical interpretation. We would not recommend this book to a reader who is not at least familiar with higher-criticism, documentary hypothesis, and their failings, otherwise Alter’s view of the orthodox view of Scripture as “naïve” may damage their confidence in God’s Word. If, however, one is set firmly in the authority of Scripture and can mentally debate Alter’s critical presuppositions, then one can gain insight into biblical interpretation from this book.
In chapter one, Alter lays the groundwork for approaching the Bible as a literary work. He states at the beginning of this chapter that the literary art shaping the Biblical narrative is “finely modulated from moment to moment, determining in most cases the minute choice of words and reported details, the pace of narration, the small movements of dialogue, and a whole network of ramified interconnections in the text.” He, however, does little in this chapter to actually prove his assertion that the Bible should be treated as a literary work. He cites examples in Scripture and other scholarly opinion that is moving his direction, but he does not actually argue that it is literature. Furthermore, he flatly states that the conservative view of the Bible as the “unitary source of divinely revealed truth” is one “obvious reason” that scholars did not look at the Bible as literature sooner. He, again, does not argue this point but assumes that it is axiomatic. It is not at all obvious to us that this is the case, especially considering as far back as Augustine the Bible has been viewed by many Christians as a literary work. In this chapter, his contradictory assumptions are evident. He holds to the higher-critical assumption that the OT is a “patchwork” text put together by redactors and that one cannot assume the redactors are “consummate literary artists,” but, at the same time, he argues for a unity of words, themes, repetitions, and type-scenes through large portions of the OT, like the Torah! One cannot say, on the one hand, that the Torah is a “patchwork” with seams showing evidence of JEDP sources and redactors and, on the other hand, that it shows great literary unity. If it is shows literary unity, then where is the evidence for the four sources of the Torah and redactors? If there are sources and redactors that are not “consummate literary artists,” then how can one assume unifying literary aspects?
In chapter two, Alter addresses the question of what the narrative of the Bible is. Is it history? Is it prose fiction? He boldly asserts that Bible does not characterize its narrative as history and that treating it as such will rule out the ability to use the tools of literary analysis. He basically argues that since the OT shows literary artistry and since the writers would not have had any documentation for the stories they recorded, then it must not be history. However, he neither gives a cogent argument, evidence for this assertion, nor does he tell the reader why literary artistry and history should be seen as mutually exclusive. He then classifies the Bible as “historicized fiction,” which he does not really define but it appears that he believes there to be some kernel of historical fact or folklore behind most of the stories but all details and dialogue are completely “imagined” by the writers. He gives the reader examples of what he believes to be straight fiction and what he believes might have some historical basis. Again, he gives no evidence for why he gives a small amount of historical status to some and none to others. He just says that it is “obvious” and makes a few pejorative remarks about any who disagree with him. He concludes that, since “all fiction, including the Bible, is in some sense a form of play,” then while the Bible may have been written primarily to inform and instruct, rather than delight and entertain, it accomplishes this through a literary medium of story.
If one can get through the higher-critical assumptions that contradict his entire thesis, his de jure statements about the fictional character of the OT, and the various subtle insults leveled at anyone who would hold an orthodox view of Scripture, then from chapter three on (with the exception of chapter seven) he gives some valuable insights into biblical interpretation. Contrary to Alter’s assumptions, one does not need to adopt his presuppositions in order to use his literary techniques. The Bible as history and a piece of literary masterpiece are not mutually exclusive qualities.
In chapter three, Alter gives his first literary category for interpreting large sections of Scripture—the biblical “type-scene.” To his credit, he does not accept all of the higher-critical assumptions, as shown here by his rejection of the conclusion that repetitious stories are recreations of a single, initial story (though this is hardly helpful since he believes they are mostly imagined anyway). The type-scene is one in a “series of recurrent narrative episodes attached to the descriptions of biblical heroes… that… are dependent on the manipulation of a fixed constellation of predetermined motifs.” They occur at crucial junctures in the lives of heroes. He then goes on to list the type-scenes he sees in the OT and give an example of how to track one through the OT and use it as an interpretive tool. His example, “the betrothal,” contradicts, again, his view of a “patchwork” OT because it is a thread that runs from Genesis through the historical books. If the redactors were not “consummate literary artists,” how can he explain the presence of these threaded “type-scenes”? Contradiction aside, the technique is valid and fits nicely into a conservative, orthodox view of Scripture.
In chapter four, Alter discusses the relationship between biblical narrative and dialogue. He shows that dialogue is the most important segment for communication because narrative is generally only a bridge between blocks of dialogue (though narrative sometimes gives helpful “omniscient” information). Character traits, thought, plot, etc. are all almost always rendered as direct speech, which is something unique to Hebrew narrative in its time. He uses a number of examples to show the variety of literary purposes for dialogue and what dialogue can express—importance (generally more important events are rendered with dialogue), critical junctures in the story, delineation of character qualities, contrast between characters, moral stance, social stance, political stance, plot, etc.
In chapter five, Alter takes on the subject of repetition. In this chapter, like in three, Alter does not accept the higher-critical assumption that repetition is excessive. It looks most “primitive” to the modern reader but is actually “quite purposeful.” He believes it to be a literary technique: “In biblical prose, the reiteration… formalized into a prominent convention that is made to play a much more central role in the development of thematic argument than does the repetition of such key words in other narrative traditions.” He categorizes several types of repetition that authors used to make connections and theological points: leitwort, motif, theme, sequence of actions, and type-scene. Then he gives a number of examples of how to follow repetition and use it as another literary tool.
In chapter six, Alter examines the topic of characterization. The key to a good story that draws readers in emotionally is characterization. One might think that giving as much description as possible would be ideal, but Alter argues that the key to good characterization is often the wise use of ambiguity with a character that leaves a reader seeking to know more about the person. Here, as in other chapters, his view of the Bible as “historicized fiction” comes out and can be a little frustrating to one who holds an orthodox view of Scripture, but his characterization techniques fit well within orthodox presuppositions. As with the other chapters, most of his teaching regarding characterize is by using examples.
In chapter seven, Alter returns to his higher-critical assumptions and attempts to give an explanation for the contradiction of viewing the Bible as “patchwork” and as a literary unity. Since it would be “naive” to think the Bible is not a “patchwork” of sources, he has to attempt to give an explanation for his presupposition that the Bible has literary unity. His explanation is what he calls “composite artistry.” Basically, he posits that the writers and redactors had certain notions of unity that are different from ours which led “them at times to violate what a later age and culture would be disposed to think of as canons of unity and logical coherence,” so we cannot force our notions on them. While I agree that they may not have had the same notions of unity that we have, this is hardly a solution. If it is true, he is trying to argue for unity from diversity that makes his evidence for diversity moot. If they did have notions of unity as distinct from ours as his examples try to present, then why are the seams between sources even considered seams? On this assumption, the texts could just have easily been written that way as redacted to that form. It is our opinion that he still has not satisfactorily resolved his contradictions. Perhaps if one accepted his higher-criticism presuppositions this would seem reasonable, but we do not and see it as contradicting them.
In chapter eight, Alter turns to the subject of the narrator. Since he acknowledges the theological purpose of the writers, he points out that in narrative the only way to write good dialogue and give the reader theological insights is to have the narrator be omniscient and able to give insight where necessary. This narrator omniscience is the forerunner of third-person omniscience in Western literature. He, of course, sees revelation as impossible de jure, so the narrator omniscience is his own imagination and opinion. Despite this, he gives some good examples of how to use attention to the details of the narrator’s omniscience to gain further insights into the story. We would, however, say that the narrator's omniscience comes from the revelation given by God's omniscient perspective.
In the final chapter, Alter boils his points of literary study down to four things the Bible reader must pay attention to: words, actions, dialogue, and narration. By noticing continuity and discontinuities in these areas the reader can get deeper insight into the stories. This chapter is a good summary of the techniques he puts forward and is actually the best part of the book. We would recommend the reader read chapter nine first, then move back to one and forward. This will help the reader, at least readers that do not agree with his presuppositions, get a grasp on what he is trying to do without being bogged down by his higher-critical banter and assumptions.
In the final analysis, we believe this book can be very helpful to the biblical exegete. Despite disagreeing with his presuppositions in many areas and his contradictory assumptions, we believe his general thesis that the Bible can be studied through literary techniques is correct and his techniques are helpful. As stated above, it is difficult for someone with an orthodox view of Scripture to get past the higher-critical presuppositions and the derogatory remarks he makes about those who disagree with what is “obvious” from them. It is only “obvious” because he has first ruled out revelation de jure and then attempted to interpret the Bible. However, if one can get past those frustrations, one can gain several helpful techniques and insights that will give him literary tools to use in biblical interpretation. We would not recommend this book to a reader who is not at least familiar with higher-criticism, documentary hypothesis, and their failings, otherwise Alter’s view of the orthodox view of Scripture as “naïve” may damage their confidence in God’s Word. If, however, one is set firmly in the authority of Scripture and can mentally debate Alter’s critical presuppositions, then one can gain insight into biblical interpretation from this book.
November 20, 2012
The Art of Biblical Narrative is the best critical work I have read. It does more than just explain. It teaches. It encourages. It makes the reader want to read the [Hebrew] Bible for the pure pleasure of practicing what has been learned, to discover the literary secrets of the Bible and to enjoy anew the art of reading.
I read the Bible, not as revelation nor as history, although I suppose that there is some history there. I read the Bible as literature and as a literary source of Western culture. Robert Alter, with an obvious passion for language, literature and the Hebrew Bible, takes the reader through a number of steps to recognize the literary richness of the text(s). Impressively, he takes us through uses of convention, repetition, narrative vs dialogue, characterization and more. Each topic is superbly exemplified, often with various examples to show different ways of doing the same thing. The reader cannot help but learn how to read with greater understanding and clarity. Indeed, this is not just learning how to read the Bible. These skills will assist the reader to better understand how to read with depth and understanding.
The only weakness I found in the book was in the chapter called “Composite Artistry”. Here he attempts to explain those parts of the Bible where the same story is told twice but with different developments. Examples include: the creation of man and woman simultaneously in Genesis 1 by god simply with the power of his words while in Genesis 2 Adam is created from the soil and god blows life into him and then later creates woman from Adam’s rib. The two stories of creation are very different in many ways. Alter wants to give a literary gloss to such inconsistencies and, indeed, I would agree with him that these are not just slip ups on the part of the priestly redactors who brought the various stories together. Alter’s explanations remain weak here and he admits to it. I expect that these types of inconsistencies are more likely the result of editorial disputes that were resolved by keeping both stories. Woman was created twice (thus opening the door for Lilith); David was working as a shepherd for his father while moonlighting as court musician for the stressed out Saul who just didn't recognize David as his musician when David slew Goliath. These types of things occur with committees where some form of concession is needed to bring about agreement.
The book is otherwise excellent and I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to understand with greater depth the meaning of the biblical stories or just wanting to read better. I would also recommend it to would be writers. As I have noted elsewhere in Goodreads, I see the influence of the Hebrew Bible in the works of Hemingway and McCarthy. I am certain to be seeing much more in the future. There is much to be learned here. Five big stars…and now on to reading Alter’s translation of “The Five Books of Moses” in order to try out all of these new skills.
I read the Bible, not as revelation nor as history, although I suppose that there is some history there. I read the Bible as literature and as a literary source of Western culture. Robert Alter, with an obvious passion for language, literature and the Hebrew Bible, takes the reader through a number of steps to recognize the literary richness of the text(s). Impressively, he takes us through uses of convention, repetition, narrative vs dialogue, characterization and more. Each topic is superbly exemplified, often with various examples to show different ways of doing the same thing. The reader cannot help but learn how to read with greater understanding and clarity. Indeed, this is not just learning how to read the Bible. These skills will assist the reader to better understand how to read with depth and understanding.
The only weakness I found in the book was in the chapter called “Composite Artistry”. Here he attempts to explain those parts of the Bible where the same story is told twice but with different developments. Examples include: the creation of man and woman simultaneously in Genesis 1 by god simply with the power of his words while in Genesis 2 Adam is created from the soil and god blows life into him and then later creates woman from Adam’s rib. The two stories of creation are very different in many ways. Alter wants to give a literary gloss to such inconsistencies and, indeed, I would agree with him that these are not just slip ups on the part of the priestly redactors who brought the various stories together. Alter’s explanations remain weak here and he admits to it. I expect that these types of inconsistencies are more likely the result of editorial disputes that were resolved by keeping both stories. Woman was created twice (thus opening the door for Lilith); David was working as a shepherd for his father while moonlighting as court musician for the stressed out Saul who just didn't recognize David as his musician when David slew Goliath. These types of things occur with committees where some form of concession is needed to bring about agreement.
The book is otherwise excellent and I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to understand with greater depth the meaning of the biblical stories or just wanting to read better. I would also recommend it to would be writers. As I have noted elsewhere in Goodreads, I see the influence of the Hebrew Bible in the works of Hemingway and McCarthy. I am certain to be seeing much more in the future. There is much to be learned here. Five big stars…and now on to reading Alter’s translation of “The Five Books of Moses” in order to try out all of these new skills.
September 6, 2020
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Within a few pages I knew I was in the presence of a master. Not only is Robert Alter in complete command of the Hebrew language, but he is second to none in English literature as well. Both are obvious in this work.
I am perfectly willing to grant an editorial process to the Hebrew text. I think that is common sense. That, however, does not justify the multiple sub-authorships that critical scholars have posited. And while Alter is no bible-thumping evangelical, his illustration of the remarkable textual unity and narrative in the Hebrew bible makes all older critical theories superfluous.
The Hebrew text has a unity illustrated by “small verbal signals of continuity and lexical nuances” (Alter 11). An example of this is the Judah and Tamar story of Genesis 38. At first glance it has nothing to do with the Joseph narrative; in fact, it disrupts it. What Alter demonstrates, however, is that there is a theme of “recognition” in play that factors in both the Tamar episode and in the later Joseph scene.
Dialogue: “Biblical narrative is laconic” (20). Dialogue is introduced at key junctures in the narrative.This “brings the speech-act into the foreground” (67).
Nota bene: When the Hebrew uses “hinneh” (KJV: Behold), it often marks a shift in the narrative point of view from the third person omniscient to the character’s direct perception (54).
Pace older critics, the Hebrew text cannot be read as an epic. Epic literature was locked in a pagan and cyclical worldview. Hebrew prose narration, by contrast, moves in a different direction (25ff).
Biblical type scenes: The most famous type scene is the well = betrothal/proposal. Older critics saw multiple scenes as evidence that ancient Jews were too stupid to realize a copy (incidentally, much of historical criticism was viciously anti-Semitic). What Alter shows is that it isn’t wooden plagiarism, but brilliant narratology.
In the betrothal scene the hero would go down to the girl’s land and meet the girl (Heb. na’arah). Someone then draws (daloh/dalah) water, after which the girls rush home to tell the news. A betrothal is then concluded (52). If, however, something in this template weren’t followed, the reader would immediately guess that the marriage wouldn’t be happy.
Alter explains that in “reliable third-person narratives, such as in the Bible, there is a scale of means, in ascending order of strictness and certainty, for conveying information about the motives, the attitudes, the moral nature of characters” (116). In other words, at the lower end we can only learn about the character through actions or appearance, meaning we have to infer everything else. A middle category is direct speech, to which we must “weigh claims” (117). At the highest level we have explicit statements.
Narrative and Knowledge: “We learn through fiction because we encounter in it the translucent images the writer has cunningly projected out of an intuitively grasped fund of experience not dissimilar to our own” experiences (156). Fiction is a mode of knowledge “because it is a certain way of imagining characters and events in their shifting, elusive, and revelatory interconnections but also because it possesses a certain repertoire of techniques for telling a story.”
This is a benchmark in biblical studies. Few people can read this work and hold to older, more wooden theories of higher criticism. To be sure, Alter is a Jewish scholar and makes some criticisms of “incarnational readings.” He also entertains some critical editorial notions of the text. With that said, this book deserves widest possible dissemination.
Within a few pages I knew I was in the presence of a master. Not only is Robert Alter in complete command of the Hebrew language, but he is second to none in English literature as well. Both are obvious in this work.
I am perfectly willing to grant an editorial process to the Hebrew text. I think that is common sense. That, however, does not justify the multiple sub-authorships that critical scholars have posited. And while Alter is no bible-thumping evangelical, his illustration of the remarkable textual unity and narrative in the Hebrew bible makes all older critical theories superfluous.
The Hebrew text has a unity illustrated by “small verbal signals of continuity and lexical nuances” (Alter 11). An example of this is the Judah and Tamar story of Genesis 38. At first glance it has nothing to do with the Joseph narrative; in fact, it disrupts it. What Alter demonstrates, however, is that there is a theme of “recognition” in play that factors in both the Tamar episode and in the later Joseph scene.
Dialogue: “Biblical narrative is laconic” (20). Dialogue is introduced at key junctures in the narrative.This “brings the speech-act into the foreground” (67).
Nota bene: When the Hebrew uses “hinneh” (KJV: Behold), it often marks a shift in the narrative point of view from the third person omniscient to the character’s direct perception (54).
Pace older critics, the Hebrew text cannot be read as an epic. Epic literature was locked in a pagan and cyclical worldview. Hebrew prose narration, by contrast, moves in a different direction (25ff).
Biblical type scenes: The most famous type scene is the well = betrothal/proposal. Older critics saw multiple scenes as evidence that ancient Jews were too stupid to realize a copy (incidentally, much of historical criticism was viciously anti-Semitic). What Alter shows is that it isn’t wooden plagiarism, but brilliant narratology.
In the betrothal scene the hero would go down to the girl’s land and meet the girl (Heb. na’arah). Someone then draws (daloh/dalah) water, after which the girls rush home to tell the news. A betrothal is then concluded (52). If, however, something in this template weren’t followed, the reader would immediately guess that the marriage wouldn’t be happy.
Alter explains that in “reliable third-person narratives, such as in the Bible, there is a scale of means, in ascending order of strictness and certainty, for conveying information about the motives, the attitudes, the moral nature of characters” (116). In other words, at the lower end we can only learn about the character through actions or appearance, meaning we have to infer everything else. A middle category is direct speech, to which we must “weigh claims” (117). At the highest level we have explicit statements.
Narrative and Knowledge: “We learn through fiction because we encounter in it the translucent images the writer has cunningly projected out of an intuitively grasped fund of experience not dissimilar to our own” experiences (156). Fiction is a mode of knowledge “because it is a certain way of imagining characters and events in their shifting, elusive, and revelatory interconnections but also because it possesses a certain repertoire of techniques for telling a story.”
This is a benchmark in biblical studies. Few people can read this work and hold to older, more wooden theories of higher criticism. To be sure, Alter is a Jewish scholar and makes some criticisms of “incarnational readings.” He also entertains some critical editorial notions of the text. With that said, this book deserves widest possible dissemination.
September 1, 2022
I will often talk in my reviews about a book's "accessibility." By this I am usually thinking about how wide of an audience will truly be able to engage the book, understand it, and enjoy it. This book would not rate high on accessibility. It's a very heady read that required work for me to stay fully engaged in and follow what was being said. Alter is brilliant and technical, and that comes through in his writing.
With that disclaimer, this book was fantastic. Each chapter dove into a different, deep aspect of the Bible as literature. It has already had a profound impact on the things I consider as I engage with the Text. Things like the relationship between narration and dialogue have come to life in new ways for me.
He routinely used examples from the stories of Saul and David, as well as the narratives of Genesis (particularly Joseph). Even these examples have broadened my awareness of that section in the biblical library.
But beyond all of this, what I loved the most about this book was the way Alter would behave like a textual critic, analyzing and engaging language on a very technical level — but the whole time showing how the typical community of literary criticism simply writes off the Text with short assumptions about construction. Alter argues that there is brilliant intention from the biblical authors and redactors behind these details, showing the depth and the complexity of what they're doing.
Alter maintained his academic composure in the most respectable of ways throughout the study, never diving into fundamentalist language about "inspiration" and the like, but his treatment of the Text was so refreshing in how it honored and argued for a deeper respect and better assumptions for what's taking place in the Bible.
With that disclaimer, this book was fantastic. Each chapter dove into a different, deep aspect of the Bible as literature. It has already had a profound impact on the things I consider as I engage with the Text. Things like the relationship between narration and dialogue have come to life in new ways for me.
He routinely used examples from the stories of Saul and David, as well as the narratives of Genesis (particularly Joseph). Even these examples have broadened my awareness of that section in the biblical library.
But beyond all of this, what I loved the most about this book was the way Alter would behave like a textual critic, analyzing and engaging language on a very technical level — but the whole time showing how the typical community of literary criticism simply writes off the Text with short assumptions about construction. Alter argues that there is brilliant intention from the biblical authors and redactors behind these details, showing the depth and the complexity of what they're doing.
Alter maintained his academic composure in the most respectable of ways throughout the study, never diving into fundamentalist language about "inspiration" and the like, but his treatment of the Text was so refreshing in how it honored and argued for a deeper respect and better assumptions for what's taking place in the Bible.
February 16, 2025
One of the best books about reading the Hebrew Bible I’ve read since finishing Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes. Lovely. I’m a big fan of Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible and his commentary on his translations are worth the price of admission by themselves.
January 20, 2018
The author is a professor of Hebrew and comparative literature, not a theologian or “biblical scholar.” This is the basis for a perspective on the Old Testament to which most Christian readers do not have access. Consider, for example, the talking snake of Genesis 3; fictionalized prose or historically accurate? Most conservative Christians don’t want to go there. Might there be something to be gained by doing so?
February 20, 2019
I was a bit torn on how to rate this book. It dragged on a bit for me, but it was very rich with insights into Scripture. I love getting a Jewish perspective on Old Testament passages, because even if I don’t agree with the final outcome, it still makes me see things from a different perspective. I frequently had to stop reading this book and open my Bible to make notes and look at things for myself. That’s always a good thing. I can’t wait to dip into his second volume, The Art of Biblical Poetry.
July 10, 2025
You don’t have to agree with all the critical and theological conclusions to recognize the brilliance and importance of this landmark work. For anyone that takes literary study of the Bible seriously, this is a must-read.
February 27, 2023
Alter's impressive sense for literary detail is immensely helpful for dense readers like myself. I picked this book up in the hopes of gaining some insights that would help me to write an exegetical paper on a narrative passage, and I wasn't disappointed. While I can't agree with every conclusion at which he arrived, this book has equipped me with a framework that will assist me in finding meaning in Old Testament narrative.
---
Upon my second read-through, I'm further convinced that this ought to be required reading for anybody who intends to work with the biblical text. As a bonus, Alter is a brilliant writer himself. What could easily be a dry textbook is an engaging work full of interesting analogies and illuminating illustrations. I only wish he would have used the word "supple" a bit less frequently.
---
Upon my second read-through, I'm further convinced that this ought to be required reading for anybody who intends to work with the biblical text. As a bonus, Alter is a brilliant writer himself. What could easily be a dry textbook is an engaging work full of interesting analogies and illuminating illustrations. I only wish he would have used the word "supple" a bit less frequently.
October 16, 2014
Alter's description of the intricate details of OT narratives that usually escape modern readers is fantastic. His defence of the literary integrity of the OT narratives against the claims of source criticism is refreshing. He's ambivalent about the historicity of the events of the OT narratives. Alter writes from a Jewish viewpoint.
September 10, 2024
A must read for anyone interested in understanding the Bible from a literary perspective.
Although Alter doesn’t share all of my theological and religious convictions, I recommend his work on the Hebrew Bible. He wonderfully illustrates how to approach these Hebrew texts by cultivating an attentiveness to words, type-scenes, dialogue, repetition, characterization, and narration. All of these critical tools can be used on the texts to see better how the authors artfully composed these works.
Alter’s strength is of course his command of literature as an art. He is familiar with a comprehensive lists of classic works worldwide and has a special knack for languages, especially Hebrew.
One weakness of Alter’s work may be his appeal again and again to source criticism which is subject to speculation At times, he seems to revert back to a final form hermeneutic which is qualitatively more helpful.
The book is readable for the most part, but may prove difficult to read to some because of his use of German and Hebrew. Also, his language is a bit more dense than what some may be used to, though not entirely dense.
My reaction to his book is one of gratitude for resources like his that provide a literary perspective on the Hebrew Bible. My undergraduate degree in the Bible didn’t offer many courses in the study of literature. Those classes were mostly contained in the English department. It seems only right that a degree on the Bible should require literature and English courses; for a Christian circle that so often stresses authorial intent, where are the literature courses, but I digress.
I find these kind of books refreshing because get at some of the root of biblical interpretation which for a modern reader such as myself often seems so allusive. Now having tools to better get at the intentions of the author I feel more confident to approach some of these texts.
Although Alter doesn’t share all of my theological and religious convictions, I recommend his work on the Hebrew Bible. He wonderfully illustrates how to approach these Hebrew texts by cultivating an attentiveness to words, type-scenes, dialogue, repetition, characterization, and narration. All of these critical tools can be used on the texts to see better how the authors artfully composed these works.
Alter’s strength is of course his command of literature as an art. He is familiar with a comprehensive lists of classic works worldwide and has a special knack for languages, especially Hebrew.
One weakness of Alter’s work may be his appeal again and again to source criticism which is subject to speculation At times, he seems to revert back to a final form hermeneutic which is qualitatively more helpful.
The book is readable for the most part, but may prove difficult to read to some because of his use of German and Hebrew. Also, his language is a bit more dense than what some may be used to, though not entirely dense.
My reaction to his book is one of gratitude for resources like his that provide a literary perspective on the Hebrew Bible. My undergraduate degree in the Bible didn’t offer many courses in the study of literature. Those classes were mostly contained in the English department. It seems only right that a degree on the Bible should require literature and English courses; for a Christian circle that so often stresses authorial intent, where are the literature courses, but I digress.
I find these kind of books refreshing because get at some of the root of biblical interpretation which for a modern reader such as myself often seems so allusive. Now having tools to better get at the intentions of the author I feel more confident to approach some of these texts.
March 15, 2025
Such a helpful book for reading Old Testament (and probably New Testament) narrative. Didn’t love the lack of headings but I think that is far outweighed by its wealth of engaging examples and readability. I don’t think agree with everything but nevertheless I’m so glad I got to read this!
September 5, 2011
So why are there two separate creation myths in Genesis? The story of God creating Adam and Eve simultaneously and the story of God creating Eve out of Adam’s rib? Source criticism would have us believe that the redactor was simply stitching together stories from two distinct oral traditions. Robert Alter would have us look at the Bible through the lens of literary criticism, to recognize and consider how and why the author (s) employed such literary devices as narration, dialogue, characterization, dialogue, etc. What a paradigm shift for me. I can no longer be so dismissive of the Old Testament. Whereas once I saw only a haphazard assembly of stories, I now see the artistry of an intricately woven tapestry. About the those two creation myths, this is what Alter says, “If, however, we can escape the modern provincialism of assuming that ancient writers must be simple because they are ancient, it may be possible to see that the Genesis author chose to combine these two versions of creation precisely because he understood that his subject was essentially contradictory, essentially resistant to consistent linear formulation, and that this was his way of giving it the most adequate literary expression.” The Art of Biblical Narrative is resplendent with this kind of insight.
October 18, 2021
Excellent and jargon-filled series of essays, not for the casual reader. Alter is arguing against the approach of academic Bible critics concerned with the historical accuracy of the text instead of its literary beauty and skill, its worth as a whole. If you're not familiar with the J-document and P-document author theories, might be tough going. But his analysis of "type-scenes" and in particular the Joseph story is spectacular.
Both the academic and the open-minded devout can find great inspiration in his writing.
Both the academic and the open-minded devout can find great inspiration in his writing.
October 26, 2011
Definitely a mixed bag, but Alter makes his point well: the Bible is not a poorly written, sketchy book. It is, in fact, the most carefully written, well-thought out, systematic book you will ever read.
July 28, 2022
A classic work on biblical narrative, which is still a relevant and important study today. Robert Alter examines the Bible’s stories from a literary perspective, paying attention to characterization, keywords, type-scenes, dialogue, and narration—in order to better understand biblical narrative in all of its beauty and uniqueness. Some readers may feel uncomfortable with Alter comparing biblical stories with prose fiction (and treating biblical narrative as though it were fiction), and yet, Alter’s work is still a helpful resource. Alter closes his book by reminding us, once again, of the importance of paying attention to the literary qualities of biblical narrative: “[B]y learning to enjoy the biblical stories more fully as stories, we shall also come to see more clearly what they mean to tell us about God, man, and the perilously momentous realm of history” (189).
August 30, 2020
Que leitura agradável! E quanta coisa perdermos de vista ao ignorarmos as sutilezas literárias da narrativa bíblica, inclusive elementos teológicos importantes apresentados pelo texto. Para os interessados na metodologia de Alter, a conclusão oferece uma bela síntese, que traz à memória a construção bem urdida do argumento a partir da análise de episódios concretos de vários ciclos e de várias histórias na Bíblia Hebraica. Um dos melhores do ano, e certamente um dos melhores que já li! Recomendadíssimo!
January 23, 2023
Robert Alter is the GOAT. As insightful as he is I can't give this book 5 stars because 1) he doesn't wrestle with his acceptance of the documentary hypothesis/source criticism while also implicitly challenging a lot of it 2) it was still a nonfiction book so a little hard to get through
May 14, 2022
I know this book won't appeal to a lot of people, but I thought it was superb. I learned so much about literary criticism and the Bible. Alter chooses specific Bible stories to show the brilliance of the Biblical writers and highlight the different techniques they use to teach and present their radical new monotheistic worldview.
February 19, 2022
I kind of loved this. If you want to know what it might mean to take the Bible seriously as art, this is the book to read.
October 2, 2022
Introduction
The Art of Biblical Narrative was written by Robert Alter in 1981. I understand his thesis to be that the Bible is a composition of literary art which produces an imaginative reenactment of historical events that convey God’s design in history—prose fiction. Alter unpacks how the Bible does this through consistent commentary on the literary components of Scriptural narratives.
Affirmation
I found this book to be challenging because I was already convinced of half of his thesis before reading the book. To begin with, I was recently convinced by my reading of the Pentateuch, and confirmed by Wenham, that the Bible progressively repeats itself in narrative. Thus, narratives are meant to be read side by side and to be compared with one another. This corresponds with chapter 5 in Alters book where he emphasizes repetition (though I am talking more narrowly about the repetition of narrative and themes).
Second, I was already convinced of the artistic literary presence in Old Testament narrative. I found myself loving what Alter was doing as he unpacked the narratives even if I did not agree with all his connections. I am convinced with him that there is “a whole network of ramified interconnections in the text.” In fact, I feel like there could have been an entire chapter added on symbolism and typology to enhance his argument.
Finally, because I agree with him on this point, I found his title compelling. There is a literary art to the narratives of the OT. There is prose, poetry, repetition, and general “patterns of Hebrew, which tolerate a much higher degree of repetition than is common in Western languages.”
In conclusion, half of his thesis was compelling to me and really challenged my thinking. I had not made the jump in my thinking from the art of biblical narrative to my understanding of the history of Scripture because of embedded presuppositions of the Bible’s full historicity—and probably because it was only in the past year where I really came to read the Old Testament in a repetitious framework.
Response
I am not a scholar, so my first comments may be proud or demonstrate ignorance. First, Alter tried way too hard to sound smart. I found his rhetoric to be frustrating and unhelpful. He was not clear or articulate of his main points, and the book felt like more of a brain dump. Of course, maybe this was supposed to be for higher education, and I just am not there yet. However, I am not convinced of this which leads me to my second critique—he did not seem to have many sources at all. I doubt that even in 1981 his thesis was all that novel for him to have not backed up his arguments in a much more significant way.
Third, I found Alter’s conclusion that because the Bible was composed of literary artistry that therefore the Bible was an “imaginative reenactment of history.” He may be right, but I do not think he demonstrated it. He basically would read a narrative, comment on the literary devices, and conclude that therefore it’s imaginative. My question is why is that conclusion the most viable option? Why can an author not relate history with a near-eastern (and more importantly Spirit empowered) awareness of and eye for how the universe coheres symbolically in a beautiful way? Why couldn’t God have given literary skill to the authors of the Old Testament like he gave Bezalel and Oholiab skill to build the tabernacle? In some cases, he would just flat out make an assumption without argument. For example, in commenting on individuality in the OT he says, “Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz are fictional inventions, probably based on no more than names, if that, preserved in national memory.” No argument is presented for this point. He merely just points out that the only reason they are in the Scriptures is because the person who wrote them up gave them particularly good character traits.
In Summary, I like half of Alter’s thesis that the Bible is a piece of literary artistry. However, I disagree with the conclusion that it is prose fiction. I do not find that jump necessary and feel like the traditional understanding of the Old Testament as historical narrative is viable without dumping the artistry of the literature. In fact, it may be another beautiful piece of God being the ultimate writer of Scripture through human authors. If that is the case, I am not surprised to find that history is artistically woven and recorded for our benefit by Yahweh.
The Art of Biblical Narrative was written by Robert Alter in 1981. I understand his thesis to be that the Bible is a composition of literary art which produces an imaginative reenactment of historical events that convey God’s design in history—prose fiction. Alter unpacks how the Bible does this through consistent commentary on the literary components of Scriptural narratives.
Affirmation
I found this book to be challenging because I was already convinced of half of his thesis before reading the book. To begin with, I was recently convinced by my reading of the Pentateuch, and confirmed by Wenham, that the Bible progressively repeats itself in narrative. Thus, narratives are meant to be read side by side and to be compared with one another. This corresponds with chapter 5 in Alters book where he emphasizes repetition (though I am talking more narrowly about the repetition of narrative and themes).
Second, I was already convinced of the artistic literary presence in Old Testament narrative. I found myself loving what Alter was doing as he unpacked the narratives even if I did not agree with all his connections. I am convinced with him that there is “a whole network of ramified interconnections in the text.” In fact, I feel like there could have been an entire chapter added on symbolism and typology to enhance his argument.
Finally, because I agree with him on this point, I found his title compelling. There is a literary art to the narratives of the OT. There is prose, poetry, repetition, and general “patterns of Hebrew, which tolerate a much higher degree of repetition than is common in Western languages.”
In conclusion, half of his thesis was compelling to me and really challenged my thinking. I had not made the jump in my thinking from the art of biblical narrative to my understanding of the history of Scripture because of embedded presuppositions of the Bible’s full historicity—and probably because it was only in the past year where I really came to read the Old Testament in a repetitious framework.
Response
I am not a scholar, so my first comments may be proud or demonstrate ignorance. First, Alter tried way too hard to sound smart. I found his rhetoric to be frustrating and unhelpful. He was not clear or articulate of his main points, and the book felt like more of a brain dump. Of course, maybe this was supposed to be for higher education, and I just am not there yet. However, I am not convinced of this which leads me to my second critique—he did not seem to have many sources at all. I doubt that even in 1981 his thesis was all that novel for him to have not backed up his arguments in a much more significant way.
Third, I found Alter’s conclusion that because the Bible was composed of literary artistry that therefore the Bible was an “imaginative reenactment of history.” He may be right, but I do not think he demonstrated it. He basically would read a narrative, comment on the literary devices, and conclude that therefore it’s imaginative. My question is why is that conclusion the most viable option? Why can an author not relate history with a near-eastern (and more importantly Spirit empowered) awareness of and eye for how the universe coheres symbolically in a beautiful way? Why couldn’t God have given literary skill to the authors of the Old Testament like he gave Bezalel and Oholiab skill to build the tabernacle? In some cases, he would just flat out make an assumption without argument. For example, in commenting on individuality in the OT he says, “Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz are fictional inventions, probably based on no more than names, if that, preserved in national memory.” No argument is presented for this point. He merely just points out that the only reason they are in the Scriptures is because the person who wrote them up gave them particularly good character traits.
In Summary, I like half of Alter’s thesis that the Bible is a piece of literary artistry. However, I disagree with the conclusion that it is prose fiction. I do not find that jump necessary and feel like the traditional understanding of the Old Testament as historical narrative is viable without dumping the artistry of the literature. In fact, it may be another beautiful piece of God being the ultimate writer of Scripture through human authors. If that is the case, I am not surprised to find that history is artistically woven and recorded for our benefit by Yahweh.
October 23, 2014
This is the first major book-length treatment of the Bible as literature, and was published in the 1980s. I especially enjoyed the chapter, "Composite Artistry." In that chapter Alter showed that contradictions in the Bible were due not to sloppiness by the unsophisticated ancients, was often assumed, but the deliberate thrust of a literary genius.
Most memorable was the section on the 2 different creation accounts in Genesis. The (P) account (Gen. 1-2:4) presents an orderly narrative of the creation of the cosmos and mankind. The (J) account presents a more contingent, messy, and tragic narrative, meant to illustrate the consequences of human agency. Although Alter believes the narratives to be fictional, this book provides me with a great theodicy. As John Polkinghorne has said, it is much easier to see God in physics than in biology. Alter's analysis of Gen. 1-2 has just shown me why.
Most memorable was the section on the 2 different creation accounts in Genesis. The (P) account (Gen. 1-2:4) presents an orderly narrative of the creation of the cosmos and mankind. The (J) account presents a more contingent, messy, and tragic narrative, meant to illustrate the consequences of human agency. Although Alter believes the narratives to be fictional, this book provides me with a great theodicy. As John Polkinghorne has said, it is much easier to see God in physics than in biology. Alter's analysis of Gen. 1-2 has just shown me why.
April 13, 2013
Alter contributes some excellent insights into the techniques and patterns of the Biblical authors which are quite helpful to the modern reader in getting at the intended meaning of the text. However, Alter subscribes to views of higher criticism, even going so far as to label Biblical narratives as "prose fiction." In his view these narratives were contrived to convey true principles about God and man but can hardly be called history. While Alter's observations about techniques of repetition, thematic primacy in narrative dialogue and characterization are extremely valuable insights for a reader's proper approach to Biblical narrative, his overarching assumptions of higher source criticism and blatant lack of faith in the historical integrity of the Old Testament will be rejected by all who embrace Scripture as "God breathed," or inspired by the Holy Spirit as Peter (2 Pet. 1:21) and Paul (2 Tim. 3:16) taught.
June 5, 2020
This book is well-researched and contains many good insights into the surprising intricacies of the narratives of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Old Testament). As a Christian convinced of and committed to the fact that the entire Bible is authored by God, I found myself constantly feeling one step ahead of Alter's insights. This is not because I am smarter than him (heavens no!) or have done more research on this topic (even less so!), but because the authorship of God fully explains why so much of the text "appears" to be intentionally put together in complex ways. Don't get me wrong, Alter did a good job of treating the text fairly based on his own prior convinctions of its human origins, but I can only imagine what this book could have been if he had started from a more solid foundation. Overall, this was definitely worth the read, but for the reason explained above I didn't find it groundbreaking.
February 10, 2021
“Subsequent religious tradition has by and large encouraged us to take the Bible seriously rather than to enjoy it, but the paradoxical truth of the matter may well be that by learning to enjoy the biblical stories more fully as stories, we shall also come to see more clearly what they mean to tell us about God, man, and the perilously momentous realm of history” (235).
I thoroughly enjoyed this critical analysis of literary techniques used by biblical writers and how understanding these techniques can help us better understand the stories. I would argue that *not* critically examining a text is disrespectful to the authors, the people it came from and the text itself. It is a dismissive condensing that throws away the richness and profoundness, and substitutes infantile simplicity and one-dimensionality. If we seek to respect the Bible, we must view it as a piece of literature, examine it carefully, and appreciate the subtlety, nuance, comedy, drama and beauty the stories contain.
I thoroughly enjoyed this critical analysis of literary techniques used by biblical writers and how understanding these techniques can help us better understand the stories. I would argue that *not* critically examining a text is disrespectful to the authors, the people it came from and the text itself. It is a dismissive condensing that throws away the richness and profoundness, and substitutes infantile simplicity and one-dimensionality. If we seek to respect the Bible, we must view it as a piece of literature, examine it carefully, and appreciate the subtlety, nuance, comedy, drama and beauty the stories contain.
January 20, 2019
Good book that gives insights for interpreting biblical narratives (through repetition, narration, speechs, revelations, type-scenes etc), with a lot of examples (David's story, Joseph's). But written by (I think ?) a jewish scholar so it doesn't take Jesus and redemptive-history into account.
July 4, 2012
A pleasure to read. Demonstrates very simply how masterful (even crafty!) the Scriptures are, with many practical tips on reading between the lines in the Bible.
May 25, 2020
Not a casual read—each page weighs about twenty pounds. That being said, I loved Alter's breakdowns of biblical stories, especially his frequent reference to Joseph in Egypt.
February 9, 2022
Really excellent. Alter's analysis is now a little over 40 years old, so some aspects are inevitably dated, but his explication and close reading of what he calls the "prose fiction" of the Hebrew Bible is incisive. Alter was writing against a strong historical-critical tradition that largely ignored or downplayed the literary aspect of the texts that make up the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets in favor of trying to trace the historical origins of different strands and textual traditions.
Alter helpfully focuses on a number of unique traits of the Hebrew literary tradition, forms of composition that might seem strange to us in our modern literary contexts: the difference in "type-scenes" and expectations (e.g. struggles around primogeniture and inheritance, betrothal scenes happening around a well, a beloved but barren wife who is promised children by God, etc.), the extensive use of dialogue rather than descriptive narrative to color and trace historical events, the use of repetition - particularly of key theme-words that most often don't translate well into English - and subtle shifts in wording to give depth to characters, the use of silence and omission to convey psychological or moral complexity, and the weaving together of disparate and sometimes contrasting stories or scenes to create what Alter calls a "composite artistry," enabling the author to capture the multifaceted reality of life in our world in a way that is impossible with straightforward narration. A really solid contribution to better understanding the artistry of biblical narrative.
Alter helpfully focuses on a number of unique traits of the Hebrew literary tradition, forms of composition that might seem strange to us in our modern literary contexts: the difference in "type-scenes" and expectations (e.g. struggles around primogeniture and inheritance, betrothal scenes happening around a well, a beloved but barren wife who is promised children by God, etc.), the extensive use of dialogue rather than descriptive narrative to color and trace historical events, the use of repetition - particularly of key theme-words that most often don't translate well into English - and subtle shifts in wording to give depth to characters, the use of silence and omission to convey psychological or moral complexity, and the weaving together of disparate and sometimes contrasting stories or scenes to create what Alter calls a "composite artistry," enabling the author to capture the multifaceted reality of life in our world in a way that is impossible with straightforward narration. A really solid contribution to better understanding the artistry of biblical narrative.
November 25, 2024
I loved this book and it gave me a greater appreciation for the beauty and depth of Scripture. It wasn't an easy read (scholarly, I guess?) and required slow digestion. I also had to allow for the treatment of the Bible as fiction in terms of how it was evaluated literarily, but in the end I can't remember the last book I read that left me in awe of how Scripture is composed. One of my favorite lines of the whole book was the end of the last chapter:
"Subsequent religious tradition has by and large encouraged us to take the Bible seriously rather than to enjoy it, but the paradoxical truth of the matter may well be that by learning to enjoy the biblical stories more fully as stories, we shall also come to see more clearly what they mean to tell us about God, man, and the perilously momentous realm of history."
"Subsequent religious tradition has by and large encouraged us to take the Bible seriously rather than to enjoy it, but the paradoxical truth of the matter may well be that by learning to enjoy the biblical stories more fully as stories, we shall also come to see more clearly what they mean to tell us about God, man, and the perilously momentous realm of history."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 220 reviews