The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Roland Meynet, emeritus professor of biblical theology at the Gregorian University of Rome, is a leading voice in the International Society for the Study of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric. He enthusiastically embraces the purpose of this organization, which is to insist [End Page 530] on the centrality of Hebrew or, more broadly, Semitic rhetoric (which he calls "biblical rhetoric") for the study of the Bible (and early Muslim literature) over against the prevailing tendency among contemporary scholars to emphasize Greco-Roman rhetoric. Specifically, M. argues that the key to understanding the Synoptic Gospels and their relationship to one another ("le fait synoptique") is to concentrate on the composition of the final form of the text, interpreted in the light of biblical rhetorical practices and features; such study will not only unlock the specific meaning of Synoptic passages but also effectively address the Synoptic Problem. M. adopts this synchronic strategy over against the diachronic approach of the historical-critical method, which he considers to be hopelessly speculative, wrongly focused on isolated details rather than whole blocks of text, and based on the faulty assumption that doublets and apparent inconsistencies in the text are indications of the awkward conjoining of earlier traditions. M. insists, on the contrary, that what modern occidental readers take to be breaks in logic or inconsistencies are actually elegantly constructed compositions that will yield their profound sense to those who approach them from the perspective of biblical rhetoric.

Meynet deliberately avoids setting forth methodological foundations or even a methodological framework for his approach. He insists that the validity of his approach will be established by its results; a convincing and existentially gripping interpretation will justify his exegetical procedure (pp. 41, 148, 367). To this end, M. explores the healing of the blind man (men) (Matt 20:29-34; Mark 10:46b-52; Luke 18:35-43) and the rich young man (Matt 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23) as test cases.

In chap. 1, M. engages in a close reading of these stories as they appear in each of the three Synoptics. Under "Composition" he carefully analyzes their structure, giving almost exclusive attention to parallelism and especially to chiasm (which he dubs "concentric structure"). He asserts, without giving evidence, that in concentric structure the central element is always emphasized (a common claim that may be disputed, since in many instances of chiasm it appears that the first and last elements are emphasized, as in Matt 1:1-17), and that the central element in concentric structure is always an enigmatic statement, or a question, or a parable. Under "Biblical Context" M. relates the passage to other biblical passages. Here M. includes both passages within the book itself and those found elsewhere throughout the canon.

While M. is to be commended for attending to the canonical context, his failure to distinguish between the literary context of the biblical book and canonical context is puzzling and raises methodological questions M. does not attempt to answer. For example, is the reader not justified in taking each Gospel to be a discrete narrative that privileges to some significant extent the world of that particular Gospel? Does not the very notion of canon as a multibook assemblage imply some diversity among the various biblical books that resists uncritically collapsing the meaning of passages from one book into that of another book as M. does? M. also fails to provide sufficient warrant for the selection of the specific canonical passage(s) he chooses. Under "Interpretation" M. offers his construal of the passage itself based on his earlier close reading and contextual analysis. His interpretations are usually insightful and original, demonstrating the value of an approach that, contrary to the atomism of much higher-critical work, takes seriously the organization of whole passages in the final form. Yet his interpretations are sometimes a stretch, as, for example, when his linking of the story of the rich young man with Job 29:16 and 30:24...