Irish Theological Quarterly

http://itq.sagepub.com/ John's Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 13 17) as a Test Case
Ruth Sheridan Irish Theological Quarterly 2010 75: 287 DOI: 10.1177/0021140010368513

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

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

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

Additional services and information for Irish Theological Quarterly can be found at: Email Alerts: http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Article

Johns Gospel and Modern Genre Theory: The Farewell Discourse (John 1317) as a Test Case
Ruth Sheridan
Abstract

Irish Theological Quarterly 75(3) 287299 The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0021140010368513 http://itq.sagepub.com

Broken Bay Institute, University of Newcastle, Sydney

Recently 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-turning ofexisting 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.

Keywords
Bakhtin, farewell discourse, genre, gospel, John

Genre in Johns Gospel and in the Johannine Farewell Discourse

n recent years a number of studies have emerged that attend specifically to the way the author of the Fourth Gospel plays on a variety of ancient literary forms in communicating 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

Corresponding author: Ruth Sheridan, PO Box 340, Pennant Hills NSW 1715, Australia. [email: Sheridan_ruth@yahoo.com]

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

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-dialogue which is thought to have informed Jesus discussion with Nicodemus in 3:1212; 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 mashal or 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 contention 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. 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. Harold W. Attridge, Genre-Bending in the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 321, especially 1011. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 12. 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

3 4 5 6

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

Sheridan

289

examples of the farewell speech of father-to-sons (cf. Jacob in Gen 49) or on the extrabiblical 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 literature as 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 and Apologia, 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 another thematic 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 this claim 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. 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. Holloway, Left Behind, 24; Parsenios, No Longer in the World, 15. 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. Neyrey, Worship in the Fourth Gospel, 107108. The term genre mosaic is borrowed from Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger, 3. Attridge, Genre-Bending, 10. 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. To be developed below.

8 9

10 11 12 13

14

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

290

Irish Theological Quarterly 75(3)

conventions and to what extent. It will then be possible to evaluate one particular taxonomic 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 embodiment 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 standard motif 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. Gad 8:1; 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 imminent 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.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

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 memory 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 mediates Jesus ongoing presence, effecting Jesus return to his own (cf. 14:1618).16 As successor to Jesus and mediator of his presence, the Paraclete makes the Johannine farewell discourse distinctive: Jesus farewell is in effect provisional, whereas the expected generic conventions of the testamentary literature are that the heros departure through death will be permanent. 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 central thematic 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 recognizes 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 understood 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 some course 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 significantly interests Ashtonnamely that of the promise 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 combination 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 usually 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.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

292

Irish Theological Quarterly 75(3)

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 antecedent 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 attention to the recent claims made by Attridge, Parsenios, Holloway, Neyrey and other scholars 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 claiming 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 purpose of this article is to posit the theoretical conditions of possibility for Johns deliberate skewing of generic conventions, using the JesusParaclete relationship of 1317 as 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 of appreciating Johns employment of the farewell 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 one and 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 overlooked 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).

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

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 discuss relevant aspects of modern genre theory in the context of a brief overview of the historical 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 antithetical 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 categories 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 a more 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 called a 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 his Poetics; see David Duff, Introduction, in Modern 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.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

294

Irish Theological Quarterly 75(3)

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 interdependence 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, modern genre theory moves away from understanding texts as belonging to genres to understanding 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 concepts imply 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 understanding 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 (Cervantes Don 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.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

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 generic framework other primary genres or texts. Primary genres (e.g. riddles, minutes, etc.) usually have a non-existent capacity for such incorporation. Secondary genres are multivocal, 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 totally sui generis, else it would not be recognizable or interpretable, yet secondary genres gain their particularityor 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 actually productive 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 generates 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 of creative elaboration rather than of derivation.34 All of this together illustrates the elasticity 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 the ways 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.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

296

Irish Theological Quarterly 75(3)

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 be evoked 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 conceptualizing 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 eventually 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 Unlike the 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 appreciates the unstable relationship between text and genre. This allows for the possibility of the 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.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

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 intertextuality. 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 theory 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 prominence 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 in the 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 genrebending 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 between the 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. 43 See Frow, Genre, 101102. 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.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

298

Irish Theological Quarterly 75(3)

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 to return to his disciples at the Parousia to take them to their own home (monai\, 14:2) with him. It also enables him to say to them make your home in me (mei/nate e0n e0moi/) as I in you (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 expectations 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 previously, 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 when John created his performance of it. While the scope of this article has not permitted an in-depth discussion on the generic character of the Gospel itself, it is worth mentioning at this point that however the Gospel is defined generically, it functions as the framework of the farewell discourse, the secondary 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 functioning as 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 contemporaneous genres of antiquity; yet those very conventions gave him the grounding to produce 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 articulating 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. 46 See Frow, Genre, 28.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010

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 overview of recent scholarly literature relating to Johns deployment of various genres, especially 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 discourse, 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 teaches at the Broken Bay Institute in Sydney.

Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010