The problem of Genre

I have written at length about the problem of Genre in the study of apocalyptic texts. Gregory L. Linton now adds more fuel to the fire in his article, "Reading the Apocalypse as Apocalypse: The Limits of Genre" (cite below) Linton begins by unmasking the quest for genre which has without doubt dominated work in the twentieth century on apocalyptic. The SBL working group on Apocalyptic texts was determined to start with genre and definition. As I have pointed out, the results of that was to exclude those texts with the most relevance to the Christian church, in effect insulating New Testament studies and Christianity in general from the fearful images of apocalyptic.

Linton goes on to make a similar argument. His article establishes quite clearly that the nature of genre definition in general is a peculiarly limiting interpretive move.

By constructing a generic category, interpreters place boundaries around a group of works to set them off from others. By including an individual work within one of these categories, they place boundaries around it to set it off from some works and alongside others.(16)

In creating a genre and then defining a text as having a position within that genre, the critic makes an interpretive move that is often hidden from view. The inclusion of a text within a genre presages particular forms of interpretation and then excludes others.

But Linton is not content to merely to challenge the notion of genre because certainly to some extent the kind of categorical definition that genre provides is part of the academic endeavor. Rather his position is more about a forcing a particular genre on a text that seems inhospitable to such singular definition. To that end he wants to label Revelation as a "hybrid text."(31) The problem for scholars is that such a definition inevitable subverts the whole point of genre identification. Instead of limiting interpretive possibilities, the designation of "hybrid" or "mixed" creates an expansive array of possible interpretations. I would argue it loses its insulating function and now the text mixes with, and interprets as it is interpreted by, other texts that are not so carefully segregated outside the canon.

Linton goes on to argue that the identification of Revelation as an apocalypse is not original even though the text begins with the term "The Revelation (apocalypse) of Jesus Christ"(Rev 1:1) . Yet as Linton points out,

"Apocalypse" is an example of a genre that did not exist until it was constructed and defined in critical discourse. Since the genre of apocalypse was not yet formulated, the writers of apocalypses themselves did not realize they were writing apocalypses. Apparently, many, if not all, of them thought they were writing prophecies. Certainly, John himself thought he was writing prophecy, since he says so six times (1:3, 19:10, 22:7, 10, 18, 19).(33)

The quote emphasizes two important things. First, the notion that apocalypse was not a category that ancients used in composing their texts. Second, that even Revelation itself makes a claim to being a "prophecy" rather than an "apocalypse." Linton then suggests that the straitjacket of genre identification be thrown off and instead the text be taken on its own merit which will frustrate critics but provide "pleasure to the reader."(41)

I would make a couple of comments here. First, while I generally agree with Linton's overall argument that genre functions as a limiting and interpretive notion, I am not sure I would dispense with genre altogether as Linton seems to do. I think that genre may have a useful function as all academic categories do. The Weberian notion of the ideal type is precisely the kind of interpretive tool that functions to highlight certain features of a text. The point however of the ideal type is that it is not in any sense real -- it is by design an admitted scholarly construction, nor is unitary, there may always be variety of ideal types against which to compare a phenomenon against. Thus genre as a form of ideal type is certainly important and the creation of "apocalypse" as a genre is certainly permissible and helpful in looking at a text. Likewise, as Linton points out the genre of "prophecy" also might help, as would a variety of others like "myth" or "martyrdom narratives" to name a couple.

Where the problem with genre arises, as with any ideal type, is when it functions not as interpretive tool, one among many, but becomes the controlling feature of understanding the text. Linton rightly points out that Leonard Thomson's rejection of Walter Schmitals analysis based on an '"odd twist' in generic classification"(34) is certainly an example of this problem.
More importantly, from my perspective, is to ask the question of what the result is of such exclusionary use of genre. I would argue that such use often has a subtly apologetic result if not purpose and it is that result that needs to be interrogated.

Linton, Gregory L. 2006. Reading the Apocalypse as Apocalypse: The Limits of Genre. In The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation, Ed. David Barr, Vol. 39 of Symposium Series, 9-41, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.