Modern Genre Theory with Rev. Dr. Andrew Judd (Podcast)

3 responses to “Modern Genre Theory with Rev. Dr. Andrew Judd (Podcast)”

1. 

   Tom Peters

   August 21, 2024

   Dr. Judd, I listened to the podcast and the discussion was so interesting that I just ordered your book, which I look forward to reading. I recently finished reading Dr. Jeannine Brown’s new book on genre, Embedded Genres in the New Testament: Understanding Their Impact for Interpretation (Baker), and I wondered if and how the theories explored in Dr. Brown’s book might color our reading of some of the themes advanced in your book.

   My other point is that I’d like your opinion on a recent post I made to this blog where I analyzed 2 Cor. 5:10 (Judgment Seat of Christ) as a divinely embedded genre, in this case the genre of a riddle. Is there, do you think, such a thing as a divinely embedded riddle genre in scripture, and how should such a thing be approached in analyzing the text at issue? It would seem that many of the purely “human” factors, such as social setting and ancient oral traditions, generally involved in genre analysis might not be in play here, or are they? You can find my post, dated July 15, under Biblical Studies.

   Thanks again for all your wonderful scholarship.

   Tom

   Reply
   1. Andy Judd

      August 25, 2024

      Thanks for listening! Jeannine Brown’s book is excellent – we wrote our books separately and then realised at ETS last year that we were doing similar work on genre which is lovely. She is a very attentive reader of Scripture and (unlike me) an expert on the Gospels. Highly recommended.

      I had a read of your post regarding 2 Cor and I think the idea of a riddle is fascinating. I don’t know enough about it to comment whether it’s likely a human or divine embedded genre.

      Thanks again!

      Reply
2. 

   Tom Peters

   August 25, 2024

   I have just finished reading Andrew Judd’s excellent book, Modern Genre Theory, An Introduction for Biblical Studies (Zondervan Academic). I do not pretend to understand it all, but I appreciate the book’s congenial, accessible style. Even for laypeople like me, there is much to be gained from Andrew’s treatment of genre. He plays with it much like a virtuoso violinist engaging in various musical styles from jazz to punk to rock to so-called classical music, the latter of which in its popular designation no doubt bears some vague resemblance to genre form theory, of which the good Professor is no fan. In any event, I have a few comments.

   First, some Bible verses.

   For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

   The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. John 6:63

   Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68

   Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Ephesians 6:17

   When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ‘“Lord, he said, ‘my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Shall I come and heal him?’ The centurion replied, Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just SAY THE WORD and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it. When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, ‘Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.’ Matthew 8:5-10

   It seems to me, therefore, that Biblical language, that is, Scripture (and here I state my belief that the Bible is God’s word, which is assumed throughout my comments below), is essentially spiritual, that is, it is “the Spirit of God … hovering over the waters.” Genesis 1:2. We are told in Hebrews 4:12 that this spiritual word is able to “penetrate” into the human heart. An analogy here would be to water. Think of the human heart or psyche as this maze of odd, interconnected compartments and corridors and nooks and crannies with all their sharp, angular edges and contorted geometric shapes. Then imagine water being poured into this maze. The water will be able to navigate all these barriers and obstacles and fill up every otherwise empty space.

   Now, let us look at human language. The first indication of human language, as opposed to God’s creative Word, appears in Genesis 2:20: “So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.” We can assume that this human language, like all of God’s creation, was “good.” What has happened to it since the Fall, however? It is difficult to imagine any human atrocity, be it war, hatred, racism, cruelty of all kinds, wickedness in places high and low, occurring without the constant aid and assistance of human language. What is more, let us return to the analogy of the human heart representing a maze of obstacles and hidden nooks and crannies, but instead of letting water pour into it, instead we toss words inside. Words, however, not only come in all shapes and sizes, but they tend to be chunky and hard as well, certainly not as free-flowing as water. In other “words,” no matter how much language we throw at the human heart, there are bound to be spaces where those words cannot penetrate. They simply get hung up somewhere along the sharp edges of our souls.

   What are we then to make of all this, and what does it have to do with genre? Remember that the Word of God is a penetrating spirit. Here is my uneducated theory. Human language after the Fall is a failed effort by humanity to duplicate the Spirit of God. Think of all the books in all possible genres that have been written attempting to explain this or that aspect of human existence, or to describe the physical and emotional and every other possible environment in which we live out our physical existence. In a sense, therefore, human language is the most rank form of idolatry. It is our effort to substitute ourselves for God and His Spirit through the medium of language. No wonder it has been so unsuccessful. Indeed, every time we use language apart from God, whether as a reader, writer, speaker, or listener, we sin, by definition, since we are “acting” outside of God’s spirit. As Professor Judd notes in his book on page 124: “No one if faithful…everyone lies (Ps 12:1-2), “there is no one who does good (14:1), “from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies” (58:3).”

   So, what is to be done? Are we all to take a vow of silence like the Trappist monks? For some of us, that might not be a bad idea, but such a vow even if diligently and honestly practiced would not keep us from sinning. See Isaiah 64:6: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” Perhaps, and here is where genre in a broad sense comes in, we are to take up the Bible’s offer and live in the Spirit, and not only live in the Spirit, but read scripture in the Spirit, which will in turn point us to the correct genre, correct for each of us that is.

   I’ll give you an example of what I mean by reading Scripture in the Spirit. In Matthew 19: 2-12, after the Pharisees try to trick Jesus by asking him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”, Jesus responds with a view of marriage even stricter than the Mosaic Law: “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Then the disciples chime in with the point of tension in this brief passage: “The disciples said to him, ‘If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry’.” Jesus then replies by pointing to eunuchs, which here is another way of saying celibacy: “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

   So, what are we to make of this exchange? What is the genre or genres, since as Dr. Judd notes time and again, genre is promiscuous? The Pharisees’ question to Jesus is a clear example of the genre, for want of a better word, of treachery. They are trying to tempt him. If Jesus says that men should never divorce their wives, he is violating Moses’ pronouncement. If Jesus says that they should be able to divorce their wives for any reason, he is being rather cruel with respect to the status of women, and isn’t Jesus supposed to be “a nice guy.” Of course, Jesus responds in a didactic genre by doing neither. He trumps the Mosaic Law by saying that it was not always so, and that God envisioned marriage as the permanent uniting of a man and a woman into one flesh. He then made the requirements of the Law even tougher by telling the Pharisees that, with the exception of infidelity, any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.

   Now comes the really interesting part. The disciples basically say that if these are the ground rules for marriage, then you’d be crazy to marry in the first place. Here we have the genre of conflict, or more aptly, the genre of disagreement within dialogue. Jesus responds by noting that some folks are just not cut out for marriage, but that this is probably a rather limited class of people, or eunuchs he calls them, which by the way can also refer broadly to women. We thus return to a more didactic genre.

   I want to posit that three people are reading this passage, since ultimately, as Dr. Judd notes repeatedly, which genre we choose for any particular text is in the reader’s court. The first person is a man who married his high school sweetheart. At first, they were rather poor but happy. He worked hard and was smart and perceptive and ended up making a lot of money and becoming quite well respected in his community. As a result, he noticed that he was receiving much more attention from women than he used to, certainly more than he had when he married his wife. While his marriage remains a happy one, with say three or four healthy kids, he begins to think that maybe he is entitled to fool around a little on the side. After all, he has worked so hard for so long, and his wife doesn’t need to find out so long as he is discreet about it. Now what would this person reading the passage in the Spirit take away from it, or what genre would he read it in? Here, we hope, he would read it in the didactic genre and realize that if he plays around on the side, he is asking for big trouble down the road, both personal and financial, and as a result he comes to his senses and returns joyfully to his happy marriage.

   The second person is a lovely young lady who is constantly pursued by suitors and yet seems to have no interest in marriage. The whole notion of getting married and having kids just doesn’t appeal to her. What she would prefer doing with her life is going on a far-flung mission tour in some remote area of the globe, and she feels that having the baggage of marriage would just get in the way. How would she read this passage? She would also probably read it as didactic, but in a different way from our successful businessman above. She would take away that despite the Christian community’s current obsession with “family values,” being single and having no desire to marry is just fine with Jesus, and might even be a spiritual gift of sorts.

   Now, we arrive at our third person, who may or may not be married. He or she focuses on the disciples’ response and Jesus’s answer and thinks something like this: “You know, I don’t think Jesus really answered their question. The disciples weren’t interested in whether celibacy per se was for them or not on some spiritual or intellectual level. The disciples (probably with Matthew 5:28 in mind: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”) are no doubt thinking that no one can obey Christ’s rule. I mean, are you really expecting us, Jesus, to be loyal both in body and mind to one woman for the rest of our lives? Who can do that? Certainly not us. Therefore, to avoid violating the Law, we’ll just pass on getting married, thank you.

   Now this third reader, once he or she thinks about it for a while, might call this exchange the genre of disagreement or conflict, but what is the point of that disagreement? After more thoughtful consideration, he or she might come up with the conclusion that this exchange really has nothing to do with marriage at all. Rather, it is Jesus, through the use of a parable, or perhaps an embedded riddle, indicating to the disciples and to the rest of us, that our efforts to save or justify ourselves through our own merits by behaving in a righteous manner in God’s eyes are doomed from the start. The requirements are just too tough. We need to look to a savior, and that savior is Christ.

   Thus, we have three different genres depending on the situation and circumstance of the reader, and each of the genres is equally valid. The key is that each reader approaches the passage from the standpoint of trying to figure out what God is saying to them individually. In other words, they are in the Spirit. As an aside, what this passage might mean to someone considering the whole modern (or ancient for that matter since the ancients also played with gender) notion of gender identity and LGBTQ+ rights in general, and what is the appropriate genre in which to read it, I will leave to others.

   In summary, we have two basic genres: God’s Word, that is, Scripture, and purely human language. If we attempt to read the Bible through the prism of human language, I am afraid we won’t get very far, at least so far as trying to figure out what God is trying to tell us, although we might write a best-selling book. If we approach it from the aspect of what the Spirit inside us is trying to tell us, we can confidently read it in any genre or subgenre we choose and thereby profit from it in some way. Thus, what the “Bible genre” is trying to “do”, as Professor Judd repeatedly asks of all genres under modern genre theory, is that it is trying to save us, cleanse us, and generally help us to a much richer and fulfilling existence in this life, and also to prepare us for eternity. In that “spirit,” it would be hard not to profit from reading Scripture with an eye to genre.

   Whether anyone besides me finds these insights helpful, I don’t know, but I can say with all certainty that I would never have had any of these thoughts had I not read Dr. Judd’s book. That is why you should read it, too, and perhaps come up with your own insights. Thank you, Andrew for writing this book in such a thoughtful and engaging way.

   Reply