sheridan r.- john's gospel and modern genre theory. the farewell discourse (john 13-17) as a test...

7/28/2019 Sheridan R.- John's Gospel and Modern Genre Theory. the Farewell Discourse (John 13-17) as a Test Case - ITQ 75

1/14

http://itq.sagepub.com/

Quarterly

Irish Theological

http://itq.sagepub.com/content/75/3/287The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0021140010368513

2010 75: 287Irish Theological Quarterly

Ruth Sheridan17) as a Test Case

John's Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Pontifical University, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

can be found at:Irish Theological QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010itq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/content/75/3/287http://itq.sagepub.com/content/75/3/287http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.maynoothcollege.ie/http://www.maynoothcollege.ie/http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.maynoothcollege.ie/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/content/75/3/287http://itq.sagepub.com/


2/14

Article

Corresponding author:

Ruth Sheridan, PO Box 340, Pennant Hills NSW 1715, Australia.

[email: [email protected]]

Irish Theological Quarterly

75(3) 287299 The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0021140010368513

http://itq.sagepub.com

Johns Gospel and ModernGenre Theory: The FarewellDiscourse (John 1317) as aTest Case

Ruth SheridanBroken Bay Institute, University of Newcastle, Sydney

AbstractRecently a sub-field in Johns Gospel has emerged that examines the play on various ancient

genres in the Gospel. Previously, form critics held a tight taxonomic approach to the Gospel such

that if John diverged too greatly from a known form, a more suitable generic fit was in order.

The recent works examining Johns play on various genres, however, herald a kind of paradigm

shift in understanding genre in John. This article seeks to contribute to this emerging discussion

by assessing the theoretical conditions of possibility for Johns play onand eventual up-turningofexisting genres, with specific attention to the role of the Paraclete (John 14:1618, 2526;

15:26; 16:711, 1315). To this end, the article engages with modern genre theory in general and

Bakhtinian genre theory in particular in order to understand how and why the Gospel lends itself

to be read on different generic levels.

KeywordsBakhtin, farewell discourse, genre, gospel, John

Genre in Johns Gospel and in the JohannineFarewell Discourse

In recent years a number of studies have emerged that attend specifically to the waythe author of the Fourth Gospel plays on a variety of ancient literary forms in commu-nicating his version of the Christian kerygma.1 In his 2002 article cleverly entitled

1 Most recently, Kasper Bro Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the

Gospel of John BINS 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), who looks at the Greco-Roman anagnorisis

http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/


3/14

288 Irish Theological Quarterly 75(3)

Genre-Bending in the Fourth Gospel, Harold Attridge systematically discussed the kinds

of ancient literary genres ostensibly present in Johns Gospel. These genres originated in

both the Hellenistic and Jewish cultural milieus and included: the hermetic quest-dia-

logue which is thought to have informed Jesus discussion with Nicodemus in 3:121

2

;the Jewish betrothal type-scene, which lies behind Jesus conversation with the Samaritan

woman at the well (4:142); the midrash in the homiletic or rabbinic tradition, which

colours the so-called Bread of Life discourse delivered by Jesus in Galilee (6:2271);

the Hebrew mashalor parable used to expound Jesus identity as the Good Shepherd

(10:118) and, significantly, the testamentary genre, which influences Jesus final (or

farewell) discourse to his disciples at the Last Supper (13:117:26).3 Attridges conten-

tion is that these well-known forms are bent out of shape when they appear in the

Gospel context: something peculiar about the Johannine theology skews the generic

forms, but not beyond the point of recognizability.4 This generic transformation is not

due to Johannine redaction but is part of Johns literary design.5

It is the farewell discourse of Jesus (John 1317), however, that has received the

most sustained focus in this respect. This sub-genre alone is said to contain within itself

a myriad of other micro-genres, and to play upon a generic field broad enough to call

into question the validity of categorizing these chapters in terms of a single, over-arching

genre. Commentators generally refer to chapters 1316 (17) of the fourth Gospel as the

farewell discourse of Jesus based on the number and kind of formal, thematic and

rhetorical motifs shared by John 1317 and certain other ancient farewell discourses.6

Some Johannine scholars argue that Johns farewell discourse is modeled on the biblical

scene across the Gospel. Larsen engages briefly with modern genre theory (1819) but without

sustained focus of application to the text of the Gospel itself. See also George L. Parsenios,

No Longer in the World (John 17:11): The Transformation of the Tragic in the Fourth

Gospel,Harvard Theological Review 98 (2005): 125; Idem., Departure and Consolation:

The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovT Supp 117

(Leiden: Brill, 2005); Paul Holloway, Left Behind: Jesus Consolation of his Disciples in

John 13:3117:26, Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der

lteren Kirche 96 (2005): 134; Jerome H. Neyrey, Worship in the Fourth Gospel: A Cultural

Interpretation of John 1417,Biblical Theology Bulletin 36 (2006): 107117; Fernando F.

Segovia, The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress,

1991). These and other scholars are engaged with below.

2 Wayne A. Meeks, following Bultmann, calls this scene a revelation discourse in his highly

influential article, The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism, Journal of Biblical

Literature 91 (1972): 4472.

3 Harold W. Attridge, Genre-Bending in the Fourth Gospel,Journal of Biblical Literature 121

(2002): 321, especially 1011.

4 Ibid., 11.

5 Ibid., 12.

6 Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. B. Murray (Oxford:

Blackwell, 1971), 522; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, AB29 Vol. 2

(Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1970), 581; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John,

2nd edn (London: SPCK, 1978), 449; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John,

Vol. 3,trans. D. Smith and G. A. Kon(New York: Crossroad, 1982), 89; Thomas L. Brodie,

The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, (Oxford: Oxford

http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/


4/14

Sheridan 289

examples of the farewell speech of father-to-sons (cf. Jacob in Gen 49) or on the extra-

biblical literature, notably the pseudepigraphical Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

(T12P).7 Other scholars are inclined to argue that Johns literary dependence may have

plausibly extended to various examples of farewell speeches in Greco-Roman literatureas well.8 As these latter examples of farewell speeches could be found in a vast variety of

Greco-Roman genres (such as the symposium, Platos Phaedo andApologia, and even

various consolation literature9), the issue of the generic diversity reflected in John 1317

is made increasingly complex. Recently Jerome H. Neyrey has claimed that the farewell

discourse genre alone cannot account for a full understanding of John 1317 because

Johns version of the farewell discourse exhausts those generic conventions.10 Neyreys

answer, however, is to trace in John 1317 yet anotherthematic motif for what it might

add to the discourses already overloaded genre mosaic, namely, the motif of worship.11

All of these recent advances in the interpretation of the Johannine farewell discourse

and by extension, of Johns Gospel as a wholeare important for what they suggest

about the relationship between genre and interpretation. As Attridge puts it, the Gospel

seems to delight in [its generic] diversity.12 John plays upon various genres as a matter

of coursea polyphony of genres obtains in the Johannine farewell discourse so that it

gives voice to not one genre, or even to two, but to many.13 The insights of Attridge move

away from those expressed in previous studieslargely form-critical but not exclusively

sothat assume that Johns excessive divergence from a known genre must suggest that

another generic fit should be made. This is what could be called a taxonomic approach

to genre in John, as it operates on the essentialist principle that genres are prior to texts

and exist as unchanging, predetermined textual conventions.14 In order to investigate thisclaim in more detail it is worth asking how Johns Gospel diverges from expected generic

University, 1993), 427; Francis J. Moloney, John SP4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998),

370; Segovia, The Farewell of the Word, 220.

7 Brown, John 2:597598; Moloney, John, 370371; Udo Schnelle, Die Abschiedsreden in

Johanesevangelium,Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der

lteren Kirche 80 (1989): 6479; William S. Kurz,Farewell Addresses in the New Testament

(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990); Ernst Bammell, The Farewell Discourse of the

Evangelist John and Its Jewish Heritage, Tyndale Bullentin 44 (1993): 103116.

8 Holloway, Left Behind, 24; Parsenios, No Longer in the World, 15.

9 Particularly Holloway, Left Behind, 134; see also William S. Kurz, Luke 22:1438 and

Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses,Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985):

251268.

10 Neyrey, Worship in the Fourth Gospel, 107108.

11 The term genre mosaic is borrowed from Larsen,Recognizing the Stranger, 3.

12 Attridge, Genre-Bending, 10.

13 Attridge, Genre-Bending, 1011; Parsenios, Transformation, 13; Holloway, Left Behind,

14. Again, other scholars have noted thematic overtones or currents in the discourse that are

characteristic of quite different genres (see Aelred Lacomara, Deuteronomy and the Farewell

Discourse (Jn 13:3116:33), Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 6566; Rekha M.

Chennattu,Johannine Discipleship as a Covenant Relationship (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,

2006), 5087.

14 To be developed below.

http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/


5/14


conventions and to what extent. It will then be possible to evaluate one particular taxo-

nomic approach to this question.

Divergence from Expected Generic Conventions in John 1317: The Paraclete

Keeping with the Johannine farewell discourse, there are a number of significant points

of divergence between John 1317 and (Jewish) testamentary literature, despite a broad

conformity between these texts.15 I note three main points. First, Jesus is not presented

as ill or on his death-bed, as are the heroes of the Jewish testaments (cf. Gen 48:2; cf.

Testament of Reuben 1:24; Testament of Simeon 1:2; Testament of Joseph 1:1). Jesus

life does not come to a natural end; his death is the consequence of a protracted

confrontation with the dark forces of the world (cf. 15:20b25) and the prince of the

world (cf. 14:31). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is depicted as on the way to death

(cf. 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1). This relates to the second point, namely the

presentation of Jesus in the farewell discourse and the Gospel as a whole. Jesus is more

than simply a holy man of God like Moses or Jacob; he is more than simply the embodi-

ment of a given virtue like the twelve patriarchs. Jesus is the sent One of the Father

(cf. 3:34); he is one with God (cf. 10:30); he is the Word made Flesh (1:14). As such,

Jesus is able to enter human history, to depart to his Fathers house (14:23) and to

return again (cf. 14:18; 28; 16:22). Jesus, then, is presented as a decidedly unique

hero in Johns Gospel.

The third point to discuss is Jesus correspondingly unique relationship to his

successorthat is, the one appointed to take his place in Jesus absence. This is a standardmotif in the farewell discourse literature (cf. Deut 34:9; 2 Kg 2:112; 1Q22:5; T.

Mos. 10:11; T. Jud. 21:1; T. Sim. 7:1; T. Iss. 5:78; T. Jos. 19:11; T. Dan 5:10;

T. Gad8:1; T. Benj. 4:2, 9:5; Phaedo 78A, 271273; Ad.Ux., 611B; Aen. 4, 327330;

Alc. 348). Jesus successor in John 1317 is the Paraclete (14:1618, 2527; 15:26;

16:715), while the hero-successor relationship in the testamentary literature is more

often than not one of kinship, usually father-to-son (Joseph succeeds Jacob in Gen

49; Solomon succeeds David in 1 Kg 2:19, 1 Chr 2829; and Tobias succeeds Tobit

in 14:3). Apart from the T12P, the presupposition in these texts is that the appointed

successor will die and in turn appoint another member of kin as successor. The

15 This conformity is noted by Attridge (Genre-Bending) on page 17. To his remarks could be

added the following: chapter 13 of the Gospel provides the narrative framework for Jesus

discoursea final meal with his own (13:2b) which is touched with poignant moments, such

as the demonstration of Jesus love for his disciples (13:411) and the allusions to his immi-

nent departure (13:1, 3). Like the patriarchs and biblical heroes Jesus concludes his discourse

with a prayer (17:126) and his death and burial are later described (19:16b42). Jesus also

announces his departure (13:33), the grief of his disciples is mentioned (cf. 13:37), and Jesus

often consoles them (cf. 14:13). Thematically, Jesus farewell discourse contains elements of

paraenesis: his supreme commandment is that his disciples display mutual love just as Jesus

loved them (cf. 13:34; 15:1213). Often Jesus prophesises the calamities his disciples will

suffer without him (cf. 16:23) as well as predicting the judgment the world will face for its

refusal to believe in him (cf. 16:811). Finally, Jesus provides his disciples with a successor,

the Paraclete (cf. 14:1617), their ultimate consolation.



6/14

Sheridan 291

Paraclete, on the other hand, will remain forever (14:16), being spirit (cf. 14:17). As

successor to Jesus, the Paraclete replaces Jesus as leader, ensuring that the living mem-

ory of Jesus is held dear (cf. 14:26); he expounds Jesus teachings (14:26) and he

guides the disciples (16:13). However, the Paraclete does more than this: he mediatesJesus ongoing presence, effecting Jesus return to his own (cf. 14:1618).16 As suc-

cessor to Jesus and mediator of his presence, the Paraclete makes the Johannine fare-

well discourse distinctive: Jesus farewell is in effect provisional, whereas the

expected generic conventions of the testamentary literature are that the heros depar-

ture through death will bepermanent. This third point therefore demonstrates just how

bent or skewed the testament genre has become in Johns Gospel. Form and content

stand in decided tension. The Paracletes mediation of Jesus presence upsets the cen-

tralthematic motif of the farewell discourse.

Can one feasibly categorize John 1317 as a farewell discourse with these points in

mind? This is the sort of question asked by (what I have termed) taxonomic approaches

to Johns genre mosaic. John Ashton, for example, takes this approach. Ashton recog-

nizes that the presence of Jesus is discernible through the Paraclete and that as such,

Jesus farewell to his disciples is somewhat compromised.17 Consequently, Ashton

argues that chapter 14 of Johns Gospeloften thought to be the first of the Johannine

farewell discourses from a source- and redaction-critical perspectiveis better under-

stood generically as a combination of the Old Testament commission form (cf. Jos

1:19; 2 Sam 13:28; 1Kg 2:19; Hag 2:45) and the Jewish testament form. Ashton

contends that these two forms are often contiguous with each other in the OT and so are

often confused; both forms are concerned with exhorting the hearers in the text to somecourse of action.

According to Ashton, the commission form explains those elements of the

Johannine farewell discourse that cannot be satisfactorily explained in terms of the

testament genre alone. Of the three major motifs of the commission form, one signifi-

cantly interests Ashtonnamely that of thepromise of divine assistance.18 Hag 2:45

expands upon this motif by promising divine assistance by means of the enduring

presence of Gods spirit. Ashton finds it conceivable that John may have adapted this

reworked motif in his presentation of the Spirit-Paraclete as the abiding presence of

Jesus. Johns generic combination of the commission form and the testament form,however, enabled him to give two roles to the Paraclete: one as a guarantor of the

abiding presence of Jesus (so, the commission form) and the other as Jesus successor

(so, the farewell discourse form).19 According to Ashton, only this generic combina-

tion accounts for Johns juxtaposition of two seemingly different portraits of the Spirit

in chapter 14, and so helps to explain how Johns farewell discourse diverges so

16 Ruth Sheridan, The Paraclete and Jesus in the Johannine Farewell Discourse,Pacifica 20/2

(2007): 125141.

17 John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel(Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 446, 469.

18 The others are the act of exhortation/commissioning and the giving of encouragement usu-

ally voiced in the imperative to fear not (cf. Deut 31:1415; 1 Kg 2:6; cf. John 14:13). The

promise of divine assistance substantiates these.

19 Ashton, Understanding, 469.



7/14


dramatically from its central thematic convention. In short, it provides a better generic

fit for the content of chapter 14 than the testament form alone.

Problematically, Ashtons argument, based on a form-critical approach, only takes

into consideration chapter 14 of the Gospel. In claiming a more correct literary anteced-ent for John 14 than the traditional testament form, Ashton appears to be proceeding

from a taxonomic understanding of genre. That is, if John 1317 (14) diverges too greatly

from the conventions of a given genre then it must belong to another, more appropriate

one. Using Ashtons argument as an example, at this point I wish to call into question the

adequacy of such a taxonomic theorization of genre to assist in our understanding of the

legitimacy of Johns divergence from generic conventions.20 I have already drawn atten-

tion to the recent claims made by Attridge, Parsenios, Holloway, Neyrey and other schol-

ars that Johns farewell discourse betrays a polyphony of genres, and in many ways,

this speaks of a paradigm shift in the way genre is beginning to be understood in the

Gospel. No longer are scholars trying to find an exact generic fit for the content of the

Gospel; they recognize the play on genres at work therein. Nevertheless, merely claim-

ing the polyphony of genres that is no doubt evident in John 1317 does not necessarily

assist the reader in better appreciating the tension between the form and content of the

Johannine farewell discourse; it only demonstrates how John 1317 evades precise

generic categorization.

The question as to why John 1317 (and other aspects of the Gospel) evades precise

generic categorization must now be asked. As mentioned in the introduction, the pur-

pose of this article is to posit the theoretical conditions of possibility for Johns deliber-

ate skewing of generic conventions, using the JesusParaclete relationship of 1317as a test case. I argue that it is not so much a matter of resolving the tension between

the form and content of John 1317 by searching the ancient literary environment for

a more appropriate genre. It is a matter ofappreciatingJohns employment of the fare-

well discourse genre for his own unique purposes by understanding how genre itself

works and how the theorization of genre affects the interpretation of John 1317 as a

farewell discourse. In other words, while scholars have attended to Johns play on

genresand by implication, have hinted at the fluidity of genre itselfthis article

considers the theoretical justification(s) for this generic play. This is an important

contribution because it adds another layer to the discussionalbeit a theoretical oneand it thus grounds our interpretation of one of the major sections of the Gospel (John

1317) in literary theory, specifically modern genre theory. This has been largely over-

looked in the recent proliferation of works dealing with the variety of literary forms/

genres present in the fourth Gospel.21

20 On the other hand, it must be granted that Ashton has allowed for a mixing of Old Testament

forms in his generic assignment of John 14. This in itself is intrinsic to how genre functions,

and is discussed below.

21 Recently scholarship is moving in this direction regarding the bible generally. See Roland Boer

(ed.)Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature,

2007).



8/14

Sheridan 293

Modern Genre Theory

From the outset it must be stated that it is not my intention to provide an exhaustive

overview of various means of theorizing genre. The purpose of this section is to discussrelevant aspects of modern genre theory in the context of a brief overview of the histori-

cal development of genre theory. In this way, the contrast between the traditional, or

taxonomic theorization of genre already referred to, and its modern expression can be

brought into focus. By presenting this understanding of genre theory as a tool that enables

readers to appreciate both how and why John can exploit the generic conventions of the

farewell discourse, I seek to contribute to the developing discussion about biblical

hermeneutics and genre theory. Modern genre theory had its inception in the European

Romantic movement of the early nineteenth century and was characterized by its anti-

thetical stance to the traditional or classical conception of genre as merely a method

of classification. The focus of particular opposition was the so-called Aristotelian

method of describing literary works according to the number and type of motifs that

these works exhibited.22 As such this was a taxonomic model of genre, that is, it was

interested in the science of classifying texts as members of universal generic catego-

ries according to their particular motifs.

For the Romantic thinkers, the divergence of literary works from the genres they

were meant to exemplify became clear as a sense of historical consciousness dawned

upon the intellectual milieu of their era, and so too did the inadequacy of the taxonomic

model. No longer could a contemporary work be feasibly categorized by the generic

standards of the fourth century BCE.23 The Romantic thinkers therefore sought after amore philosophical theory of genre.24

It was the school of Russian Formalism of the early twentieth century that developed

this full-scale philosophical theory of genre. The taxonomic model of genre that the

Romantics opposed continued to be critiqued by the Formalists. The Formalists radical

new insights were centred on genre as an evolutionary phenomenon, not a static concept.

Todorov, a famous exponent of Formalist theory explained that genres have their origins

in other genres; genres were seen to evolve out of one another and new genres were

considered to be the transformation of one or more previous genres.25 This evolution

was thought possible because genres were seen to exist within what the Formalists calleda genre-system, an overarching network of genres within which each particular text of

a given era operated or functioned. Genres were thus appreciated as dynamic entities.

The genre system of the Formalists was moreover thought of as hierarchical. That is,

certain genres in any given era would be predominant, reflecting important cultural

22 The method gains its adjectival title from Aristotles division of texts into three literary types

(lyric/epic/drama) in hisPoetics; see David Duff, Introduction, inModern Genre Theory, ed.

David Duff (London: Longman, 2000), 3.

23 See ibid., 4.

24 See ibid., 12.

25 Tzvetan Todorov, The Origin of Genres in Genres in Discourse, trans. Catherine Porter

(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990), 1326; reproduced in Duff (ed.) Modern Genre

Theory, 197.



9/14


values and aspirations of the time, and other genres would be marginal for the obverse

reason. This genre-system or hierarchical ordering of genres was thus conceptualized

as being in constant flux; the hierarchy of genres could be radically altered, but so too

could genres themselves since they existed in and were shaped by a relationship of inter-dependence with other genres. Genres were therefore seen as evolutionary: genres

evolved because both adoption of and resistance to generic conventions characterized

this interdependence between genres in the genre-system.26 Rather than genres existing

strictly through adherence to typical conventions, for the Russian Formalists their survival

was perhaps possible only through alteration of existing genres.27

Despite the quasi-biological parlance of genres evolving, modern genre theory

understands genre as a fact of culture rather than nature, the latter analogy more properly

in line with the taxonomic model of genre. John Frow uses this analogy, stating that

whereas in biology the individual organism can exemplify the group only, in literature

and culture every individual text somehow modifies or changes the group (genre).28 As

facts of culture, genres are historically contingent. But this does not mean genres are

arbitrary; it simply means they are not essential, i.e. purely existent in the Aristotelian

sense. Furthermore, because genres are defined to an extent by their internal properties

(theme, rhetoric and formal components), they are not random or arbitrary.

In line with this evolutionary and historically contingent conception of genre, mod-

ern genre theory moves away from understanding texts as belonging to genres to under-

standing texts as uses of genres or performances of genres.29 Together with an

appreciation of genres as strongly shaped by their relation to other genres, modern genre

theory allows for what can be called the open-endedness of genres.30 Both conceptsimply that genres are actually very dynamic: far from being closed entities (in the sense

of being self-contained), genres affect each other, influence each other and modify each

other. I have shown that the Russian Formalists developed the theoretical basis for under-

standing genres as potentially open-ended and mutually transformative by maintaining

that genres existed in a network or a genre-system, or in other words, an economy of

genres. But the process of generic transformation is best illustrated by the complexity

and dynamics of the novel, an issue developed by a leading genre theorist of the last

century, Mikhail Bakhtin.

Bakhtin and the Novel

The ascendancy of the novel signalled for Bakhtin the obsolescence of traditional genre

theory. The novels own complexity essentially derives from the complexity of its relation

26 See Duff, Introduction, 8.

27 Todorov, Origin, 196. The transformation or modification of one genre by another through

explicit subversion of conventions is nowhere more evident than in parody, for example

(CervantesDon Quixote and the poetry of Byron).

28 John Frow, Genre (London: Routledge, 2006), 53.

29 See Jacques Derrida, The Law of Genre, trans. Avita Ronell, Glyph 7, 230, cited in Frow,

Genre 25; see also Frow Genre,3.

30 Frow, Genre, 3.



10/14

Sheridan 295

to other genres, seen in the potentially endless capacity it has to embed within itself other

genres, thus simultaneously transforming those genres and defining itself as a genre.

Bakhtin labelled the novel a secondary or complex genre as opposed to a primary or

simple genre. A secondary genre is able to incorporate (or embed) within its genericframework other primary genres or texts. Primary genres (e.g. riddles, minutes, etc.) usu-

ally have a non-existent capacity for such incorporation. Secondary genres are multi-

vocal, speaking in many voices whereas primary genres are univocal, they speak in

their own voice.31 The formal structures of a secondary genre such as the novel permit

this kind of complexity, this subsuming of primary genres within its own larger generic

framework. Once recontextualized in the novel, the structural dimensions of primary

genres (thematic, rhetorical and formal) are activated in new ways, gaining a new

salience. All genres are influenced by preceding genres and in turn shape future genres.

No genre can be said to be totallysui generis, else it would not be recognizable or inter-

pretable, yet secondary genres gain theirparticularityor dissimilarity from other

genresby the ways in which they incorporate primary genres.

The potentially limitless capacity for one complex (or secondary) genre to subsume

another simple genre demonstrates the power of genre to be actuallyproductive of meaning.

Genre is therefore much more than a means of categorizing literature and it is more than

a constraint on semiosis (meaning-making)though it is this too; genre actively gener-

ates meaning and knowledge.32 It does this whenever a text extends the possibilities of

the genre with which it is working.33 Such an extension of generic possibilities shapes

the way a reader continues to experience and understand the meanings of a text. The

relationship between text and genre in modern genre theory is thus envisaged as one ofcreative elaboration rather than of derivation.34 All of this together illustrates the elas-

ticity of generic frameworks, allowing genres to be bent or skewed so to speak, without

compromise to their literary integrity.

There is one further point to touch on before relating these insights from modern

genre theory to the Gospel of John. First, it is important to note that while genres can be

understood as open-ended, no text is completely without a framework that delimits the

possibilities of its interpretation. Its setting or matrix will govern the way it is read.35

It is sufficient to state that for modern literary theory, genres exist in a somewhat unstable

relationship with texts; this accounts for the dynamism outlined above. To appreciate theways in which genre actively generates expectations in the mind of the reader and to

what extent genres are open-ended, it is important to understand genre finally as a

process, a function of reading.

31 Bakhtin terms the multi-vocal nature of secondary genres polyglossia; see M. Bakhtin,

Epic and Novel: Toward a Methodology for the Study of the Novel, in Michael Holquist (ed.)

The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin:

University of Texas, 1981), 313: 1821; see also Frow, Genre, 40.

32 See Frow, Genre, 101.

33 Frow, Genre, 24.

34 Frow, Genre, 24.

35 Frow, Genre, 28.



11/14


Genre as a Function of Reading

Texts evoke different layers of background knowledge: there are certain generic patterns

that reside in the knowledge shared by author and audience.

36

This knowledge may beevoked in highly formulaic ways (such as openings and endings of texts) or it may not be

fully disclosed. Nonetheless, genre in this instance is what the reader imputes to the

text.37 The reader approaches a text with a preliminary generic conception based on the

world that the structural elements of the text evokes, on the level of theme, rhetoric or

form.38 These elements function as interpretive cues that assist the reader in conceptual-

izing the possible genre.39 This preliminary imputation (which is in fact an estimate)

may change in the process of reading, particularly if those generic conventions are even-

tually overturned. But even if this becomes the case, those conventions are still addressed

in the ironic process of being overturned.40 A text may well subvert every expectation the

reader has of it, but those expectations would still shape the way the text continues to be

read and the new knowledge it attempts to generate in the mind of the reader, persuading

the reader to develop new expectations. Genreor the modification of existing generic

conventionscan thus be in service of communicating content otherwise previously

unknown to readers.

In summary, I have shown that modern genre theory concentrates on what can be

called the morphology of genre, that is, the formal aspect of genre highlighted by the

structuralism of the Russian Formalists. As the above paragraph has show, modern genre

theory also focuses on what can be called the sociology of genre, that is, the way genre

functions rhetorically, the way genres are received and understood by readers.41 Unlikethe taxonomic model of genre theory, modern genre theory insists that genre is not a

transcendental class having causal priority over texts, but is something dynamic. The

elasticity and the interdependence of genres in the economy of genres are two aspects

emphasized in modern genre theory. These concepts provide an adequate theoretical

basis for appreciating why and how one text may skew or stretch a genre for any given

purpose. Whereas the taxonomic theorization of genre assumes a total dichotomy

between the general (genre) and the particular (text) so that if the fit between them is

not exact, the generic assignment is considered inaccurate, modern genre theory appreci-

ates the unstable relationship between text and genre. This allows for the possibility ofthe overturning of generic conventions even until the content of the text sits in decided

tension with the genre being performed. Johns Gospel is a case in point.

36 Peter Seitel, Theorising GenresInterpreting Works, New Literary History, 34 (2003),

275297, at 290.

37 Frow, Genre, 102.

38 For the concept of the preliminary generic conception, see E. D. Hirsch, Validity in

Interpretation (New Haven , CT: Yale University, 1967), 7476, cited in Frow, Genre, 101; for

the notion of the world the text projects see Seitel, Theorising Genres, 279285.

39 Frow, Genre, 104.

40 See Seitel, Theorising Genres, 290.

41 See Duff, Introduction, 14, on this distinction.



12/14

Sheridan 297

Applying Modern Genre Theory to Johns Farewell Discourse

While it is arguably erroneous to attribute to John a refined consciousness of genre in the

modern sense, there is little doubt that Johns Gospel is a complex text, rich in intertex-tuality. Johns Gospel is clearly not a novel but it can reasonably be called a secondary

genre by Bakhtins standard, insofar as it incorporates within itself a myriad of other

genres which were commonplace in antiquity.42 This article has focused particularly on

the multivocality of the Johannine farewell discourse. So what should one make of such

a multiplicity of interpretations of John 1317, or more correctly, its wide-ranging

generic affinities? First of all, it is perfectly understandable in light of the reader-oriented

perspective of genre presented above whereby genre is seen to exist in the relationship

between text and reader. The genre imputed to a text by a reader according to this the-

ory is notand cannot bededuced from the authors intention as the corollary of this

would be a normative or correct interpretation. If genre is construed in the process of

reading, it is inevitable that a multiplicity of interpretations eventuates43 and to an extent

each interpretation is valid. However, certain heuristic devices (or textual cues) act as

delimiters in the interpretive task so that subjectivism is not the outcome of reading genre

in John 1317for whatever John 1317 is, it is not a Gothic romance or a comedy.

Secondly, the rich intertextuality of the Johannine farewell discourse alerts the reader

to the possible hierarchy of genres obtaining in antiquity. Those genres that held promi-

nence of place in antiquity reflected the socio-cultural aspirations and values of the

Mediterranean world; the variety of farewell discourses attests to the significance of this

genres themes. Death, grief, separation and consolation were central issues dealt with inthe farewell discourse genre. It is important to remember that genres (and the hierarchy

of genres) are historically and socially defined. Second generation Christians not only

lived in a time where cultural influences freely mixed, but they lived in a time of great

transition, the greatest of which was from their adherence to Judaism and paganism to a

united community held together by the guidance of the Paraclete. As such, a bit of genre-

bending was to be expected.44 Another significant transition for Jesus disciples was

from that of living in the presence of the fleshly Jesus to living in a new, post-resurrection

era characterized by the presence of the risen Christ in the Spirit-Paraclete. Given this, it

is not surprising that such an enormous mystery reflects itself in the tension betweenthe form and content of the Johannine farewell discourse.

42 See Paul N. Anderson, Bakhtins Dialogism and the Corrective Rhetoric of the Johannine

Misunderstanding Dialogue: Exposing Seven Crises in the Johannine Situation, in Bakhtin

and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies, ed. Roland Boer (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical

Literature, 2007), 133160 at 134, 135136, where he defends a similar position. Incidentally,

Andersons essay does not touch on theoretical issues, but explores the hypothetical Johannine

community history.


44 See Tahir Wood, Cognitive Processes in Text Interpretation: Rereading Bakhtin,Journal of

Literary Studies 33 (2004): 2540 at 35: A study of Bakhtin shows how the emergence of new

major chronotypes (and new genres) occurs at times of large-scale historical change, which

tends to situate the theory of literary genres within a broader theory of ideological change.



13/14


Jesus death in Johns Gospel is not simply a journey to another world, but a return

from a mission (cf. 17:11b); he does not merely join his fathers (cf. T12P), but returns

to his Father. The aesthetics of valediction45 in Johns farewell discourse takes on a

powerful new focus as that of Jesus homecoming to his Father, which enables him toreturn to his disciples at the Parousia to take them to their own home ( monai\, 14:2) withhim. It also enables him to say to them make your home in me (mei/nate e0n e0moi/) as I inyou (15:4) and of course to send the Paraclete to be with them forever (cf. 14:1617).

John is not concerned simply to reflect cultural aspirations in his farewell discourse but

to present his version of the kerygma; he does this principally in his presentation of Jesus

continuing presence with the disciples after his death through his successor-mediator, the

Paraclete. This is also the fundamental way in which John subverts the generic expecta-

tions of the farewell discourse genre in his Gospel. Thus John has skewed the generic

conventions to draw attention to his theology about the JesusParaclete relationship.

When Johns farewell discourse is read in light of modern genre theory, Johns

skewing or stretching of generic conventions is not as problematic as it would at first

seem. Texts do overturn generic expectations in the reading process, as discussed previ-

ously, and when this happens, new expectations and new knowledge can be generated for

and within the reader. John certainly extends the possibilities of the farewell discourse

genre with his version of the protagonist-successor motif, and this simply illustrates

that the relationship between text and genre is not that of direct correspondence requiring

a logical fit, but of creative elaboration. Texts are uses of or performances of genres,

but they do not belong to them. And as much as texts are shaped by genres, texts work

upon genres.46 The farewell discourse genre of antiquity was thus modified whenJohn created his performance of it.

While the scope of this article has not permitted an in-depth discussion on the generic

character of the Gospelitself, it is worth mentioning at this point that however the Gospel

is defined generically, it functions as theframeworkof the farewell discourse, the sec-

ondary text within which chapters 1317 are embedded. As such it is to be expected that

Johns farewell discourse will be atypical. In other words, certain Gospel cues already

prepare the reader to expect something different in terms of the Spirit who is to be given

upon Jesus death/glorification (cf. 7:39). The hero-successor motif of John 1317

gains a fresh salience in the Gospels contextual framework, for no other text functioningas a framework for a farewell discourse in antiquity presents the kind of theology John

does. Jesus is Word-made-flesh (1:14), Son (cf. 1:18; 3:16; 5:1927; 10:36; 11:4, 27;

17:1), and Sent One of the Father (cf. 3:34; 5:38; 6:29; 17:3). The Spirit-Paraclete is the

gratuitous fruit of Jesus departure (16:7), an eschatological gift, the mediator of Jesus

presence. Johns theology had necessarily exhausted the conventions of the contempo-

raneous genres of antiquity; yet those very conventions gave him the grounding to pro-

duce new meaning. The content John was concerned to express somehow exceeded the

literary means at his disposalthere simply was no formal or generic means of articulat-

ing the message of how his protagonist could have departed definitively in one sense and

45 See Mark W. G. Stibbe,John (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 159160, for this term in relation to the

Johannine farewell discourse and Homers Odyssey.




14/14

Sheridan 299

yet remain present in another. To an extent John created that generic means by reframing

the farewell discourse within his Gospel.

Conclusion

In this article I have attempted to do three things. The first was to present a brief over-

view of recent scholarly literature relating to Johns deployment of various genres, espe-

cially with regard to the Johannine farewell discourse (John 1317). There were two

approaches to note here. One was the traditional taxonomic approach characterized

mainly by form-criticism; to this end I engaged in some depth with John Ashtons

approach to the Paracletes twisting of generic conventions in John 14. The other

approach to note was the recent spate of works dealing with the polyphony of ancient

genres found in John 1317 (Parsenios, Attridge, Neyrey, Holloway). The second aim

attempted in this article was to contribute to this more recent discussion by introducing

a theoretical perspective with insights taken from modern genre criticism. When genre is

understood as a dynamic process rather than a set of stable principles and norms, Johns

poetic theology can be appreciated on its own terms. This leads into my third aim, which

was to relate this theoretical perspective back to Johns farewell discourse. Here I

argued that in allowing the paradox of Jesus presence-in-absence through the Paraclete

to simply speak relieves the burden of trying to resolve the texts tensions as though it

were an algebraic puzzle. There is no need to excise the Paraclete texts from the dis-

course, nor is there a need to reassign John 1317 to another generic category. One can

appreciate of the legitimacy of genre-stretching as heralded by modern genre theorists.And so, one can also appreciate that the incomprehensible mystery of the presence of

Jesus through the Paraclete in the Johannine farewell discourse is necessarily reflected

in the tension between the content and genre of chapters 1317.

Author Biography

Ruth Sheridan graduated in theological studies at the Catholic Institute of Sydney in

2007 where she majored in New Testament. She is currently pursuing research in the area

of Johns Gospel and anti-Judaism at the Australian Catholic University and she teachesat the Broken Bay Institute in Sydney.


sheridan r.- john's gospel and modern genre theory. the farewell discourse (john 13-17) as a test...

Documents