Gregory Goswell. <i>Text and Paratext: Book Order, Title, and Division as Keys to Biblical Interpretation</i>

In Text and Paratext, Gregory Goswell brings attention to oft-forgotten paratextual features of the Bible, namely (as indicated in the title), book order, title, and various forms of textual division, and asks what clues these features might provide “as to how early readers responded to sacred texts” (p. 6). These paratextual features provide such clues by “fossilizing and preserving for posterity alternative ways in which previous generations of readers have understood the text, and so it can also help to generate new and improved ways of reading” (p. 7). The book explores these clues and offers examples of new readings.The book is divided into three parts: (1) Canonical Structure, (2) Book Titles, and (3) Textual Divisions. After each chapter, the author gives a list of guidelines for interpreting the paratextual feature in question along with examples of interpretations. The end matter of the book includes a glossary, appendixes of tables comparing the order of biblical books from various sources, study questions for each chapter, and finally a bibliography and indexes.In part 1 (Canonical Structure), Goswell considers the structure of the Hebrew Canon (chapter 1), the Greek OT (chapter 2), and the NT (chapter 3). For finding clues in the book order, Goswell offers principles for interpreting the classification and grouping of books: size of the book, chronological setting, common authorship, story line, genre, thematic considerations, and literary linkages (this full list is not given until the Conclusion [pp. 173–74]). “These principles,” he writes, “need not be mutually exclusive, for there may be more than one possible principle reflected in a particular order” (p. 12).In chapter 1, the author compares the book orders in the MT and Babylonian Talmud tractate Baba Batra (14b), making claims along the way as to how the varying book order may affect interpretation. For example, “Part of the explanation of the order [of The Twelve] may be a desire to achieve an alternation of prophets who ministered in Israel and Judah: Hosea (Israel), Joel (Judah). . . . This geographical schema encourages a hermeneutic that reads the prophetic threats and promises in the various booklets that make up the Twelve as applying to both kingdoms and, even more widely, to God’s people generally, irrespective of time and location” (p. 22, emphasis original). Chapters 2 and 3 make similar comparisons of the differing order of Greek OT and then NT books in important codices.Part 2 looks at the titles of the biblical books. Here, Goswell employs an interpretive grid from Gérard Genette to consider possible functions of the titles. A title can (1) “identify or designate a work,” (2) “indicate its general contents or theme,” (3) “highlight it to the public,” or (4) “indicate its form or genre” (p. 80). In chapter 4, Goswell compares OT titles in Hebrew with their Greek counterparts, investigating ways that the Greek titles might throw light on early interpretation. For example, of Exodus he writes: “The Greek title is presumably an allusion to 19:1. This title throws the weight onto the first half of the book, yet the Sinai goal is perhaps even more important than the preceding rescue, with its covenant making (chs. 19–24) and provision for the ongoing worship of God (chs. 25–40)” (p. 83). Chapter 5 considers titles of NT books.Part 3 of the book investigates textual divisions. In chapter 6, Goswell focuses on the Old Testament, looking at both Masoretic segmentation as well as the chapter divisions attributed to Stephen Langton (d. 1228). Chapter 7 considers the differences in the segmentation of various MSS. For example, “The dimensions of Alexandrinus [Mt] chapter 5 contain the whole of the Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29), but it is subdivided into twenty-five chapters in Vaticanus (V23–47). As the Matthean inaugural sermon of Jesus, it forms a logical unit, but the effect of placing it all in one section and under one heading (‘Concerning the Beatitudes’) is to obscure its diverse contents and downplay the teaching content of this Gospel” (p.155).In the conclusion, Goswell summarizes the three parts of the book, and suggests that, for further study, readers put these things into practice in their own study.Goswell provides an accessible introduction to paratext that may be useful in the classroom. Its value lies not only in bringing more attention to paratextual features of the Bible but also in gathering a variety data to put in the hands of students. This is especially the case with the clear and succinct conclusion and the tables in the appendixes.However, there are some issues to note. Primarily, while the data is helpful, Goswell attempts too much with his interpretations, particularly regarding book titles. For example, “The name Mark . . . is presumably intended to refer to the youthful resident of Jerusalem who bore that name (Acts 12:12) and who was the coworker of Peter (1 Pet 5:13) and Paul (Acts 12:25). In this way, the name of Mark, once it was used in the assigned title of the Second Gospel, serves to link the letter writers Peter and Paul with the Gospel collection, so that its effect is to suggest the harmony of the different witnesses enshrined in the New Testament” (p. 108). This puts too much weight on the title of the Gospel. Or, “The titular uniformity [of the Gospels] renders it highly unlikely that [the titles] were independently formulated by the evangelists themselves” (p.105). I have no wish to argue that they were, but it seems a stretch to say that uniformity alone leads to that conclusion. Would the uniformity of titles of Greco-Roman bioi, “Life of XYZ” lead to similar conclusions?Second, an important issue that went undiscussed was the significance of the codex for the order of the canon. To what extent did the order of the OT canon matter to ancient readers/hearers when it was a collection of scrolls instead of an organized codex?Overall, however, this book does a good job investigating elements of the Bible that students probably take for granted.